The Gender Research We Really Need

Further research into puberty blockers and cross sex hormones helps no one.

Photo by Karla Hernandez on Unsplash

For over a decade, adolescents with self-declared transgender identities have been unwitting subjects in a global, unregulated medical experiment, undergoing treatments that can permanently damage their fertility, sexual function, and overall health. These interventions have been administered without a clear diagnosis, the foundational studies supporting the entire experiment have been discredited, and activist-researchers have tried to bury the negative results of subsequent research. There are already numerous malpractice lawsuits underway, launched by young people who have suffered irreparable harm at the hands of gender-affirming care providers. This is, without question, one of the greatest scandals in modern medicine.

Yet, as damning revelations continue to emerge at a staggering pace, the response from key figures outside the activist world of gender-affirming care has been puzzling. Instead of demanding swift action to halt the entire misguided experiment in order to protect vulnerable youth, there has been a surprisingly widespread call for "more research."

Dubious Diplomacy

Dr. Hilary Cass spent four long years investigating the scandal, noting the remarkably weak evidence to support puberty suppression, the powerful effect social transition has on a young person’s developmental trajectory, the instability of adolescent identities, and the high levels of neurodiversity and mental health issues in trans-identified youth. After all that, her report concluded that more research is needed to determine whether these medical interventions are safe and beneficial. In response, the NHS moved forward with the proposed clinical trial for puberty blockers.

Similarly, Dr. Gordon Guyatt, often regarded as the "godfather" of evidence-based medicine, told the BBC that stronger evidence is needed to prevent politics from driving the conversation. In the New York Times, journalist Jesse Singal, known for his unparalleled coverage of the shoddy science underpinning pediatric gender medicine, argued that cutting back on research into puberty blockers and hormones for minors would be a “tragic error.”

The major flaw in this diplomatic approach is that the absolute last thing we need is more research into this medical treatment. We don’t need a deeper understanding of whether blocking the puberty of adolescents swept up in a powerful cultural movement is safe or appropriate. We already know it’s not. We don’t need more studies to determine whether puberty suppression gives these young people more time to think about their supposed gender identities. We already know it doesn’t.

It’s time to stop fixating on gathering data about the effects of this deeply ill-advised medical treatment and focus on what we do know with absolute certainty. First, that not a single one of these young people has the cognitive maturity to fully grasp the long-term consequences of these interventions. Second, that adolescence is a crucial time for identity development, characterized by experimentation and great change, making it fundamentally unethical for doctors to permanently alter the healthy bodies of young people based on transient identities. The fact that this was ever considered ethical medical care is beyond belief. The fact that, in 2025, people are still calling for more research is nothing short of astounding.

There’s a saying that is particularly apt to help determine what research we actually need at this late stage of the medical scandal: If it’s not worth doing, it’s not worth doing well.

Rooting Research in Reality

First let’s look at the research that is not worth doing. It’s not worth researching the most effective way to medicalize the identities of adolescents caught up in the internet-fuelled, culture-bound epidemic of gender dysphoria. To be sure, the existing research in this area is exceptionally poor, but because the fundamental premise is so deeply flawed, it is not worth attempting to do it well. In fact, to do so would mean harming more innocent young people.

It is also not worth conducting studies that begin with the assumption that trans kids, trans adolescents, or gender identities exist, as these concepts are rooted in ideological beliefs rather than scientific evidence.

Now for the research that is worth doing, and worth doing well.

We desperately need research into mass social-media induced illness, with a focus on adolescent transgender identities. In 2019, when adolescent girls in Germany suddenly began presenting with Tourette-like symptoms, researchers swiftly leapt into action and determined that the vector was the social media platform TikTok. It has been over a decade since the sudden surge in adolescent girls identifying as transgender made its appearance, and seven years since Dr. Lisa Littman called attention to the role of social media in this epidemic, and to this day, no such research has been conducted. Now is the time to do so.

To help the young people caught up in this culture-bound syndrome, we must direct our research efforts towards understanding what in our culture has destabilized an entire generation, leading so many to believe that their lives will be improved by becoming lifelong medical patients. We must examine the impact of schools teaching gender identity ideology to children as if it were scientific fact. Additionally, we need to study the influence of celebrating public figures who come out as transgender and the effect of television shows like I Am Jazz.

We should be conducting research into the most effective and appropriate psychotherapeutic methods to reconcile body and mind. It is time to reject the notion that attempts to avert the need for lifelong medical intervention is akin to conversion therapy and conduct research that upholds the basic ethical principle to first, do no harm.

The concept of a transgender person must be removed from all research efforts, as it is a political construct rather than a scientific classification. Instead, all research must be divided into subgroups that recognize the underlying life challenges, psychiatric comorbidities, or paraphilic desires that have led a person to adopt a transgender identity. An adolescent girl who has begun identifying as a boy after a sexual assault does not belong in the same research cohort as a middle-aged man who identifies as a woman due to erotic urges. Removing the oversimplification of transgender from the scientific framework will also allow researchers to examine how symptoms of depression, anxiety, borderline personality disorder, autism, and body dysmorphic disorder are being misinterpreted as gender dysphoria in this era saturated with the messaging of trans activism.

Most importantly, future research must start from the correct premise: that among all the youth who have embraced the political identity of transgender, none possess the cognitive or sexual maturity required to make life-altering decisions with profound consequences for their adult lives. Put simply, researchers must remember and apply everything once known about adolescent development to this group of patients.

No More Harm

At this point, it’s clear that the practice of inducing endocrine disorders in healthy adolescents and needlessly removing their body parts is destined to take its place alongside lobotomies as one of modern medicine’s most egregious crimes. Yet, when the harm of lobotomies became too obvious to ignore in the late 1950s, no one called for more studies to investigate which was more beneficial—the drilling holes into the skull technique, the icepick through the eye socket technique, or no lobotomy at all. Psychiatry faced up to its calamitous mistake, leaving only Walter Freeman to cling to his invention.

Of course, there will be plenty of Walter Freemans in the aftermath of today’s scandal—gender-affirming zealots who will go to their graves without ever acknowledging the devastation they’ve caused. That makes it all the more urgent for those who see the truth to demand an immediate end to this experiment.

At this stage, calling for “more research” feels like a cop-out. Only those blinded by ideology can still deny the catastrophic harm of medicalizing adolescent identities. To be sure, “we need more research” is much easier to say than “we’ve made a terrible mistake.” Yet, as challenging as that admission may be, it is one that is long past due.

Mia Hughes is the author of The WPATH Files, and director of Genspect Canada.

---