In 2015, Johanna Olson-Kennedy began leading a study on the effects of puberty-blocking drugs in adolescents. The researchers received nearly $10 million in government funding and, as part of the study, followed 95 children with gender dysphoria for two years to evaluate changes in mental health.
According to a 2020 article by Olson-Kennedy and other researchers, significant portions of the children in the cohort experienced serious problems before medical treatment: “Elevated depression was endorsed by 28.6%, and nearly a quarter (23.6%) endorsed lifetime SI [suicidal ideation], with 7.9% endorsing a past attempt. Just over one-fifth of the cohort scored in the clinical range for total anxiety (22.1%); 16.8% endorsed clinical-range physiological anxiety, 21.1% endorsed clinical-range worry, and 15.8% endorsed clinical-range social anxiety.”
According to a New York Times article published today, Olson-Kennedy said the drugs did not lead to mental-health improvements. She offered the explanation that the children had been doing well before the study began, stating, “They’re in really good shape when they come in, and they’re in really good shape after two years.”
Progressives have insisted that so-called gender-affirming care for minors is medically necessary because the children with gender dysphoria will commit suicide without it. The activists deceive parents into accepting gender-related treatments for their children by asking, “Do you want a happy little girl or a dead little boy?” But now that the evidence doesn’t suggest that such drugs improve mental health, progressives claim that the children were perfectly fine before.
Certainly, the deliberate mischaracterization of research is dubious and troubling. But that isn’t the worst scandal: Nine years after receiving funding from the National Institutes of Health, the researchers have not published the data.
Why? Well, Olson claims that she plans to publish the data, but the team has been delayed due to politically motivated funding cuts. Aside from that lame excuse and immature finger-pointing, Olson-Kennedy also told the New York Times that the findings might support the legal bans on gender-related medical treatments, one of which is being evaluated by the Supreme Court this term. “I do not want our work to be weaponized,” she said, adding that “it has to be exactly on point, clear and concise. And that takes time.”
She further expressed worries that the study’s findings could be used in court to advance the argument that “we shouldn’t use blockers because it doesn’t impact them,” referring to children who consider themselves transgender. In other words, the data shouldn’t be released — at least not during this SCOTUS term — because they would show that critics of gender-related medical treatments are correct.
The data, if they ever are published entirely, would likely have political outcomes that Olson-Kennedy dislikes. But they would almost certainly have financial and professional consequences for her personally. Olson-Kennedy is the medical director of the Center for Transyouth Health and Development at the Children’s Hospital of Los Angeles, which is considered “the largest transgender youth clinic in the United States.” According to a biography, she is a “national expert” and “has been providing medical intervention for transgender youth and young adults including puberty suppression and cross sex hormones for the past 16 years.”
In a court document from 2023, she stated that “I have provided services for approximately 1,200 young people and their families” and currently had about 650 patients up to age 25. Olson-Kennedy is the president-elect of the United States Professional Association for Transgender Health. Ultimately, she had a strong personal incentive for the study to arrive at a particular result — and without that desired result, she’s withholding the data. I’m tempted to reason that the evidence must be strong and contrary to what Olson-Kennedy prefers, or else there wouldn’t be an aversion to publishing it.
Scientists, like researchers in any other field, should be committed to one particular outcome: the truth. The “scientists” who refuse to publish results with politically inconvenient outcomes abdicate their academic titles and reduce themselves to activists. Yet, in today’s culture, we’ll continue hearing the same argument: You disgusting transphobic bigots should trust the science and the experts — even when we won’t publish the data.