HHS Report Condemns Transgender Procedures for ‘Vulnerable’ Minors
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) released a report Thursday condemning medical procedures commonly used to treat minors with gender dysphoria, stating they lack scientific evidence and ethical justification.
The report focused on so-called “gender-affirming” care, which includes puberty blockers, hormone treatments, and surgeries, arguing that the benefits for minors remain “very uncertain” while the potential harms are substantial.
“The evidence for benefit of pediatric medical transition is very uncertain, while the evidence for harm is less uncertain,” the report stated.
HHS acknowledged the risk of “significant harms” associated with these physical interventions, including infertility, sexual dysfunction, impaired bone development, cognitive effects, cardiovascular and metabolic disorders, psychiatric issues, surgical complications, and long-term regret.
“The ‘gender-affirming’ model of care includes irreversible endocrine and surgical interventions on minors with no physical pathology,” the report said. “Meanwhile, systematic reviews of the evidence have revealed deep uncertainty about the purported benefits of these interventions.”
The report emphasized that medical professionals and associations may not intend harm but warned that, in practice, “this is precisely what has occurred.”
It also criticized major medical organizations such as the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH), accusing them of establishing unreliable medical standards rooted in political ideology rather than science. HHS cited research used in the 2024 Cass Review from NHS England, which found WPATH’s Standards of Care to be based on poor scientific methodology and contained “serious deviations” from standard medical practices.
“The most influential sources of clinical guidance for treating pediatric [Gender Dysphoria] in the U.S. are the WPATH and [Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guidelines] and the American Academy of Pediatrics’ (AAP) guidance. The York [systematic review] assessed all three documents as very low quality and did not recommend them for implementation,” HHS’s report noted.
