Until the present administration is gone, we will continue to have these problems. Our lives are being affected by people that want to harm us. People with no medical of psychological expertise are trying to control what we can do.
Health policy in the US is run by someone who thinks all scientific consensus is a conspiracy that he has to crack. The cracks aren't coming from emerging science, Jesse. They're coming from the brute force of a cruel government.
As soon as I read this I went to the NYT and tried to put in a comment but they were already closed. As someone with trans family members, it makes my blood boil to see this kind of misinformation out there. I would say a large number of comments are not agreeing with this opinion piece, but in any case it's not anybody's business how medical decisions get made in this country! Whatever happened to the "conservative" obsession with protecting individual rights? It angers me no end, and I am determined to do what I can to push back against these narrow minded hateful bigots. We all need to be politically active and ensure we have a huge turnout in future elections at all levels. Political power gives you the ability to set the agenda, and without it we are blowing in the wind. As flawed as this country is, giving in is not acceptable. My family's future (and that of others in this community) depends on it.
A tiny faction of plastic surgeons — elevated far beyond their actual standing in the medical community — and commentators like Jesse Singal continue to recycle the same misleading narratives about transgender healthcare while ignoring the overwhelming body of international evidence that contradicts them.
This is not a balanced scientific dispute. It is a deliberate campaign of distortion.
Major medical research from Germany, Austria, Switzerland, France, the Netherlands, the U.K., and beyond consistently affirms that gender-affirming care — including hormone therapy and surgical interventions — is evidence-based, clinically supervised, and medically necessary for many patients.
These findings are backed by decades of longitudinal studies showing improvements in mental health outcomes, reductions in depression and suicidality, and high patient satisfaction rates.
Cherry-picking outlier cases while disregarding mountains of peer-reviewed data is not science.
It is advocacy masquerading as skepticism.
Gender-affirming hormone therapy is not experimental. Surgical procedures have complication rates comparable to other mainstream reconstructive surgeries.
European and international standards of care are rigorous, continuously evaluated, and developed by multidisciplinary experts — not political pundits.
What is truly reckless is the attempt to weaponize misinformation in order to strip a vulnerable population of medically recognized treatment.
Transgender healthcare is not a cultural fad.
It is recognized by leading endocrine, psychiatric, pediatric, and surgical associations worldwide as legitimate, often lifesaving care.
The effort to portray it as dangerous or fraudulent ignores the consensus of global medicine and instead elevates fringe dissent for ideological gain.
If critics want a scientific debate, they must engage the full body of evidence — not selectively amplify doubt while dismissing decades of clinical reality.
They deserve doctors, not political crusaders. And they deserve a public discourse grounded in facts — not fear.
The constant berating of the transgender community is heartbreaking, the religious zealots and racist individuals should look in the mirror and see themselves for what they are.
Well, I perhaps overreached by saying "MAGA." I should have said "conservative." They're trying to live down their reputation as being liberal and they're doing it by kicking us performatively. This is according to people inside the NYT. For instance:
"According to former Times journalist Billie Jean Sweeney, a push for writers to challenge “every aspect of being trans”, ranging from gender-inclusive language to access to medical care, came from the top in 2022 after leadership was handed over to A. G. Sulzberger, Joe Kahn, and Carolyn Ryan; as part of an effort to win good will with the Trump campaign without incurring backlash from the general populace. "
Although, I really think the politics behind the ASPS statement should’ve been its own article since that’s something important people need to know and those who are uninformed about the topic but may be researching the ASPS statement may not think an article with a headline that claims to be a fact check of another article would have what they’re looking for and therefore won’t click on it…
Lies about science like those of Jesse Signal, enabled by the NYTimes, will cost lives, like all science misinformation does. Journalism like yours has the power we in science don't have - to make disinformation patterns clear to the public. Thanks for your work, from a trans public health scientist.
Along with the New York Times, I have been disappointed with the Atlantic and articles published by Helen Lewis. Both are publications I follow for other issues, but both seem to have lost their way on issues regarding transgender folks, and let's say it out loud -- lost their way on the truth. Lewis and Singal, by the way, have no medical background whatsoever, and no expertise to comment on trans medication care in the first place.
This is why the Fairness Doctrine needs to be reinstated immediately. There was a time when the NY Times and papers like it were the apex of journalism. But since the repeal of the FD by Reagan, the standard of journalism has gone to the very bottom of the cesspool in what used to be the epitomes of the profession.
It's sad when media sources from foreign countries that have decidedly been conservative in their views, such as Al Jazeera et al, are now a more reliable source of news than anything in America. Even media sources like HuffPost and Raw Story and The Hill are beginning to get dragged for incomplete or inconsistent reporting.
I'm sorry? You think that the Fairness Doctrine was "compelled speech"? Exactly how? That they weren't allowed to print unverifiable facts? That misinformation and disinformation was not allowed in a journalistic setting?
There was nothing about the FD that was compelled speech - if a media source wanted to post idiotic conspiracy theories they could. The National Enquirer existed for a reason. What the Fairness Doctrine did was prevent Fox News Network.
I'm somewhat appalled that someone who follows Erin would even consider the Fairness Doctrine a bad thing.
When there were only three networks, and radio stations far fewer and of frequency bound licenses (most now also stream on the internet independent of frequency) and ability to broadcast literally was a scarce resource, a superficially colorable argument could be made that it was in the public interest for all political speech "on one side" to be matched by compelled access to speak for an "equal time" by the "other side", literally the only thing it ever had anything to do with was compelling speech over the airwaves. The FD literally had nothing ever to do with preventing lies told for political purposes -- just that each side had to on each broadcast provider have the same number of minutes to tell what lies they thought they could sell!
"The National Enquirer existed for a reason." <-- And at the time the NE did not indulge in political speech or the FD would have been applied to it as much as it did any newspaper -- and of course, the FD applied chiefly to radio frequency (TV was broadcast, cable wasn't a thing) broadcasts and not print!
"I'm somewhat appalled that someone who follows Erin would even consider the Fairness Doctrine a bad thing." <-- The Fairness Doctrine applied to the Internet would force Erin to give a platform to Singal to speak as he pleased for something like a number of words in parity! I know what the First Amendment is and what the Fairness Doctrine was, and plainly you don't.
May this person encounter only people with his level of integrity for the rest of his life. Double for the NYT.
👏🏼 👏🏼 👏🏼
I wouldn’t mind if his laptop always crashes every time he tries to boot up, but I don’t wanna be greedy…
Until the present administration is gone, we will continue to have these problems. Our lives are being affected by people that want to harm us. People with no medical of psychological expertise are trying to control what we can do.
Health policy in the US is run by someone who thinks all scientific consensus is a conspiracy that he has to crack. The cracks aren't coming from emerging science, Jesse. They're coming from the brute force of a cruel government.
Cruel and insane.
'Tis a pity the worms did not eat enough!
😝
As soon as I read this I went to the NYT and tried to put in a comment but they were already closed. As someone with trans family members, it makes my blood boil to see this kind of misinformation out there. I would say a large number of comments are not agreeing with this opinion piece, but in any case it's not anybody's business how medical decisions get made in this country! Whatever happened to the "conservative" obsession with protecting individual rights? It angers me no end, and I am determined to do what I can to push back against these narrow minded hateful bigots. We all need to be politically active and ensure we have a huge turnout in future elections at all levels. Political power gives you the ability to set the agenda, and without it we are blowing in the wind. As flawed as this country is, giving in is not acceptable. My family's future (and that of others in this community) depends on it.
Thank you Erin for another incisive analysis of an anti-trans screed masquerading as scientific evidence. Brava for you and your work!!💜
A tiny faction of plastic surgeons — elevated far beyond their actual standing in the medical community — and commentators like Jesse Singal continue to recycle the same misleading narratives about transgender healthcare while ignoring the overwhelming body of international evidence that contradicts them.
This is not a balanced scientific dispute. It is a deliberate campaign of distortion.
Major medical research from Germany, Austria, Switzerland, France, the Netherlands, the U.K., and beyond consistently affirms that gender-affirming care — including hormone therapy and surgical interventions — is evidence-based, clinically supervised, and medically necessary for many patients.
These findings are backed by decades of longitudinal studies showing improvements in mental health outcomes, reductions in depression and suicidality, and high patient satisfaction rates.
Cherry-picking outlier cases while disregarding mountains of peer-reviewed data is not science.
It is advocacy masquerading as skepticism.
Gender-affirming hormone therapy is not experimental. Surgical procedures have complication rates comparable to other mainstream reconstructive surgeries.
European and international standards of care are rigorous, continuously evaluated, and developed by multidisciplinary experts — not political pundits.
What is truly reckless is the attempt to weaponize misinformation in order to strip a vulnerable population of medically recognized treatment.
Transgender healthcare is not a cultural fad.
It is recognized by leading endocrine, psychiatric, pediatric, and surgical associations worldwide as legitimate, often lifesaving care.
The effort to portray it as dangerous or fraudulent ignores the consensus of global medicine and instead elevates fringe dissent for ideological gain.
If critics want a scientific debate, they must engage the full body of evidence — not selectively amplify doubt while dismissing decades of clinical reality.
Transgender patients deserve evidence-based medicine.
They deserve doctors, not political crusaders. And they deserve a public discourse grounded in facts — not fear.
The constant berating of the transgender community is heartbreaking, the religious zealots and racist individuals should look in the mirror and see themselves for what they are.
Morally corrupt with no redeeming quintiles
Thanks for this thoughtful comment.
Nytimes never fails to disappoint with who they choose to discuss important topics regarding trans lives😒😡🖕🏼😤
Is someone important at the Times like Elon -- pissed off about a child who questioned the gender assigned at birth?
Nah, they're just trying to establish their MAGA bona fides by kicking trans children.
"they're just trying to establish their MAGA bona fides"
I honestly doubt that, but I've never heard any explanation for why they've been doing this since before MAGA was a thing!
Well, I perhaps overreached by saying "MAGA." I should have said "conservative." They're trying to live down their reputation as being liberal and they're doing it by kicking us performatively. This is according to people inside the NYT. For instance:
"According to former Times journalist Billie Jean Sweeney, a push for writers to challenge “every aspect of being trans”, ranging from gender-inclusive language to access to medical care, came from the top in 2022 after leadership was handed over to A. G. Sulzberger, Joe Kahn, and Carolyn Ryan; as part of an effort to win good will with the Trump campaign without incurring backlash from the general populace. "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_York_Times
They aren't even conservative -- they are Social Conservative, a very different thing. Classically Liberal is conservative.
" without incurring backlash from the general populace" <-- I don't believe they thought that through.
Thank you so much for this! 🙏
Although, I really think the politics behind the ASPS statement should’ve been its own article since that’s something important people need to know and those who are uninformed about the topic but may be researching the ASPS statement may not think an article with a headline that claims to be a fact check of another article would have what they’re looking for and therefore won’t click on it…
"I really think the politics behind the ASPS statement should’ve been its own article"
Indeed!
Lies about science like those of Jesse Signal, enabled by the NYTimes, will cost lives, like all science misinformation does. Journalism like yours has the power we in science don't have - to make disinformation patterns clear to the public. Thanks for your work, from a trans public health scientist.
Erin, would you consider a letter to the editor regarding Singal’s piece? More people should know about his falsehoods. Thank you for what you do!
Thank you for this. Would you consider writing a response letter to NYT (not that they'll necessarily publish it)?
We could hope!
Along with the New York Times, I have been disappointed with the Atlantic and articles published by Helen Lewis. Both are publications I follow for other issues, but both seem to have lost their way on issues regarding transgender folks, and let's say it out loud -- lost their way on the truth. Lewis and Singal, by the way, have no medical background whatsoever, and no expertise to comment on trans medication care in the first place.
If they NYT expects me ever to subscribe again, they're going to have to fire everyone responsible for this stuff.
Understandable response, but--sadly--they couldn't care less. They are handsomely paid, and not by us--subscribers or, like me, former subscribers.
This is why the Fairness Doctrine needs to be reinstated immediately. There was a time when the NY Times and papers like it were the apex of journalism. But since the repeal of the FD by Reagan, the standard of journalism has gone to the very bottom of the cesspool in what used to be the epitomes of the profession.
It's sad when media sources from foreign countries that have decidedly been conservative in their views, such as Al Jazeera et al, are now a more reliable source of news than anything in America. Even media sources like HuffPost and Raw Story and The Hill are beginning to get dragged for incomplete or inconsistent reporting.
America has become the outhouse of journalism.
"This is why the Fairness Doctrine needs to be reinstated immediately. "
No, it was nothing other than compelled speech.
I'm sorry? You think that the Fairness Doctrine was "compelled speech"? Exactly how? That they weren't allowed to print unverifiable facts? That misinformation and disinformation was not allowed in a journalistic setting?
There was nothing about the FD that was compelled speech - if a media source wanted to post idiotic conspiracy theories they could. The National Enquirer existed for a reason. What the Fairness Doctrine did was prevent Fox News Network.
I'm somewhat appalled that someone who follows Erin would even consider the Fairness Doctrine a bad thing.
When there were only three networks, and radio stations far fewer and of frequency bound licenses (most now also stream on the internet independent of frequency) and ability to broadcast literally was a scarce resource, a superficially colorable argument could be made that it was in the public interest for all political speech "on one side" to be matched by compelled access to speak for an "equal time" by the "other side", literally the only thing it ever had anything to do with was compelling speech over the airwaves. The FD literally had nothing ever to do with preventing lies told for political purposes -- just that each side had to on each broadcast provider have the same number of minutes to tell what lies they thought they could sell!
"The National Enquirer existed for a reason." <-- And at the time the NE did not indulge in political speech or the FD would have been applied to it as much as it did any newspaper -- and of course, the FD applied chiefly to radio frequency (TV was broadcast, cable wasn't a thing) broadcasts and not print!
"I'm somewhat appalled that someone who follows Erin would even consider the Fairness Doctrine a bad thing." <-- The Fairness Doctrine applied to the Internet would force Erin to give a platform to Singal to speak as he pleased for something like a number of words in parity! I know what the First Amendment is and what the Fairness Doctrine was, and plainly you don't.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_doctrine
[EDIT, BTW as applied to candidates the equal time rule is still in effect.]
"Singal does not mention it. One wonders why."
No. We really don't.