‘Egregious Misinformation’

The opinion section at USA Today published an article titled “I’m the parent of a trans daughter. There’s nothing conservative about blocking her care.” The author, Sean Madden, claims “I was a registered Republican for decades” and is now a director of GRACE (Gender Research Advisory Council & Education), a non-profit organization that aims to “advocate for and empower the transgender community.” Madden begins, “I write . . . to provide some insight into our family’s experience with gender-affirming care and hopefully to correct some of the most egregious misinformation about it.” As an attempt to refute critics, Madden argues:

“For adolescents approaching the onset of puberty, puberty-blocking medicines may be appropriate for delaying the development of secondary sex characteristics not matching their gender identity, an intervention that is fully reversible.”

Yet the article linked as the source does not actually confirm the claim. Here is what the link says:

“Researchers say the results bolster the evidence that short-term use of puberty blockers does not cause permanent damage to the ovaries and uterus. However, they noted that because the study was conducted in rats, additional research would be needed to confirm the findings in humans.”

The study in question is a Ph.D. dissertation submitted to the University of Northern Colorado. The student gave gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists (colloquially called “puberty blockers”) to young female rats for four weeks, or saline to the control group. The study concluded that, weeks after stopping the administration of the hormone agonists, the female rats’ reproductive organs showed normal (albeit delayed) development. 

There are a few things worth noting about the study. First, the rats received the puberty-blocking drugs for only four weeks, whereas children prescribed such medications in the course of “gender-affirming care” take them for much longer. The Mayo Clinic states, “Many people take the medicine for a few years,” and teens may stop taking the drugs “after delaying puberty for several years.” The U.K. NHS notes, “It can take several months for hormone therapy to be effective.” Admittedly, I haven’t found a reliable source or study for the average time children take puberty blockers when pursuing gender-related treatments, but all available information suggests that, in most cases, they do so for longer than one month. 

Second, although the female rats’ reproductive organs recovered after they stopped receiving the puberty blockers, there were still consequences on their fertility; they had significantly smaller litters. The study notes that one rat on puberty blockers did not achieve pregnancy, which “suggests some individual variation in fertility after GnRHa withdrawal” and “an increased sample size may have detected a significant impact of the puberty blocker on future fertility,” and this “raises some fertility concerns that should be considered by transgender individuals.” Aside from fertility, the rats who received puberty blockers showed reduced voluntary running on a wheel and increased body mass. 

Third, the study offers no data on the effects of such drugs on males — rats, human, or otherwise. It might be possible to construe the study as evidence supporting “gender-affirming care” administered to female patients. Yet the study itself is rather cautious and does not frame its results as strong evidence for prescribing puberty blockers to humans, stating:

“The recovery of reproductive morphology and function after GnRHa withdrawal in the majority of young female rats indicate there is a low risk to future fertility. The effect of puberty blocking treatment on reducing physical activity and increasing body mass is a greater concern. These studies need to be translated to humans to further understand the influence of GnRHa treatment on transgender health.”

So, to summarize, USA Today’s opinion article correcting “egregious misinformation” argues administering “puberty-blocking medicines” is “an intervention that is fully reversible,” yet the source provided for that claim states such finding is unconfirmed for humans. I worked as a fact-checker at the USA Today opinion section for a year, and I’m tempted to conclude the responsibilities of the role have changed.