The activist doctor behind a taxpayer-funded study about the use of puberty blockers on children is choosing to delay publishing the results, blaming the heated political environment around the issue of gender identity.
Dr. Johanna Olson-Kennedy has been a longtime proponent of the use of puberty-blocking drugs on adolescents, even testifying in defense of these experimental “gender transition” efforts in court cases challenging their use on minors.
So if the results had confirmed the doctor’s point of view, why wouldn’t she release the findings to the public and help put the political debate to rest?
The likely answer is that—consistent with a widening body of research—the study’s findings will reveal the truth that activists like Olson-Kennedy don’t like: science isn’t on their side.
What we know about the study
Olson-Kennedy, who runs the largest youth gender clinic in the country, began the study nearly a decade ago. Sponsored by the National Institutes of Health, the study enlisted 95 minors in order to research the effects of puberty blockers—which stunt natural developmental processes—on the mental health of children struggling with gender dysphoria. The average age of the children studied was just 11 years old at the start of the study.
By Olson-Kennedy’s own admission in a New York Times interview, the study didn’t find any evidence of mental health improvement in adolescents who took puberty blockers.
She alleges that this is because patients were “in really good shape” both before they took these drugs and afterward.
But that claim directly contradicts Olson-Kennedy’s previous comments that about a quarter of the children studied were depressed or suicidal before taking the puberty blockers.
It also goes against the testimonies from an increasing number of de-transitioners who note the lasting physical and mental struggles they experience as a result of drugs and surgeries used for their “gender transition.”
And importantly, Olson-Kennedy’s suggestion that puberty blockers do not harm children ignores a growing body of scientific research that says otherwise.
What does the other research say?
In the 2010s, two studies conducted by Dutch clinicians paved the way for the widespread normalization and international adoption of experimental gender transition efforts, including the prescription of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones and the performance of body-altering surgeries on minors.
The conclusions of the so-called “Dutch protocol” has since proved dubious at best. At worst, the protocol enabled large-scale medical malpractice on children around the globe.
Subsequent research continues to reveal that puberty blockers and other medical attempts at gender transition are unnecessary and dangerous—and pose risks of irreversible, lifelong harm to children:
- Dr. Hilary Cass, in a report commissioned by the National Health Service in England, found “remarkably weak” evidence that gender transition efforts offer any benefits—and ultimately concluded that these kids “deserve very much better.”
- Dr. Stephen Levine detailed similar findings in an expert report, and, in agreement with other studies, noted that many children diagnosed with gender dysphoria eventually “desist”—meaning they become comfortable in their own skin.
- Like his peers, Dr. James Cantor also concluded in his research that “stopping a healthy child’s natural onset of puberty imposes multiple substantial harms, risks, or opportunity costs.”
They’re not alone. More and more experts—some of whom, such as Finnish doctor Riittakerttu Kaltiala, once pioneered the use of puberty blockers on children—are sounding the alarm on the faulty science and flawed ideology behind so-called “gender-affirming care.”
And, much to her chagrin, it seems Olson-Kennedy’s findings may very well be in line with the recent scientific research too.
Science—and common sense—are against Olson-Kennedy
For the many of us who hear about the potentially lifelong sterilization of children and are (rightly) horrified, these findings don’t come as a surprise.
It shouldn’t be controversial—in fact, it sounds quite sensible—to call for caution when we’re talking about using life-altering drugs and performing experimental procedures on children, many of whom already have existing mental health struggles and challenges.
Our concern isn’t about politics, as Olson-Kennedy suggests. It’s about truth. And, more than anything, it’s about protecting vulnerable children.
