Systematic reviews are emerging as the best test of gender treatment
There is an analysis of AUSPATH guidelines also by Clayton: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0092623X.2022.2070565 "Commentary on Levine et al.: A Tale of Two Informed Consent Processes" which supports what you are saying even more.
Thank you for this great summary!
In the context of this post it is interesting to reference a recent article in the ‘Clinical Advisory Network on Sex and Gender’, a publication by a group of UK and Irish based clinicians calling for greater understanding of the effects of sex and gender in healthcare.
The summary of that article (that will no doubt be seen as heresy by the affirmative advocates) is quoted herewith:
The evidence that puberty blockers have any kind of beneficial effect on mental health is equivocal. Positive results are frequently held up as evidence that young people must have access to puberty blockers, whilst more troubling results are dismissed as insignificant. Without prospective, controlled studies working to pre-specified protocols that follow up over a longer period of time, it is hard to see how more reliable evidence of safety and effectiveness, with more precision around the sizes of risks and harms, especially for any subgroups, can be gathered.
Given the current acceptance of 'gender affirmation' as best practice in the treatment of gender dysphoric children and young people, how likely is it that any ethics committee will approve a randomised trial of puberty blocker/cross sex hormone intervention protocols? If it means some randomly selected candidates will receive the interventions and others - the control group - will not, how many institutions will be willing to withstand the inevitable backlash from trans rights groups? And who will be willing to fund research when accusations of 'denying lifesaving care' will be made?
Bernard, what chance a systematic review here? I think there is probably some hope with NSW. The Victorians are gone.