In a move that has stirred controversy, the Trump administration has reportedly instructed scientists at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to delve into the less-explored aspects of gender transition.
This directive, which was leaked to the media, has sparked a heated debate among researchers and members of the LGBTQ+ community.
According to Breitbart, the directive was initially leaked to Nature by two anonymous NIH staffers, who feared retaliation. The memo later found its way to NPR. Allegedly penned by acting NIH Director Matthew Memoli, the directive mandates the NIH to investigate the effects of "social transition and/or chemical and surgical mutilation" among children who transition. The White House, the memo reveals, is particularly interested in the study of 'regret' and 'detransition' among individuals who have transitioned, both children and adults.
"This is very important to the President and the Secretary," the memo asserts, referring to President Trump and Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. It further states, "They would like us to have funding announcements within the next six months to get this moving."
Michael Biggs, an associate professor of sociology at the University of Oxford, voiced his support for the research, stating, "The research on detransition is very useful, its a very important area. This is an understudied population to collect systematic data on." However, details regarding the project's scope, design, the researchers involved, and its funding remain undisclosed.
The directive has not been without its critics. Adrian Shanker, former deputy assistant secretary of health policy at HHS under President Biden, expressed his disapproval to NPR, stating, "What theyre looking for is a political answer not a scientific one. That should be an alarm for everyone who cares about the scientific integrity of the National Institutes of Health."
Harry Barbee, an assistant professor at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, criticized the directive's language, stating, "Chemical or surgical mutilation? These are deeply offensive terms. This terminology has no place in serious scientific or public health discourse. The language has been historically used to stigmatize trans people. Even the phrase[s] 'regret' and 'detransition' can be weaponized."
Lindsey Dawson, who directs LGBTQ health policy at KFF, formerly the Kaiser Family Foundation, argued that "regret rates" were "less than one percent," claiming the rate was lower than common surgeries such as hip replacements, obesity procedures, and "even tattoos."
However, some researchers argue that previous studies on trans regret and related issues have been poorly conducted and are outdated. Evgenia Abbruzzese, cofounder of the group Evidence-Based Gender Medicine, told NPR, "We are starting to see much greater numbers of young people who are seeing that they went down the wrong path for them and theyre now left with irreversible changes to their body and they no longer identify as transgender."
Abbruzzese further emphasized the importance of studying the negative impacts of transition, stating, "There are a lot of negative impacts of transition. And regret is definitely one of them. Its a very important area of medicine to study." This directive, while controversial, underscores the need for comprehensive research on the complexities of gender transition, a topic that continues to be a point of contention in the medical and scientific community.
Login