Informed Consent or Scare Tactics? A Response to Levine et al.'s "Reconsidering Informed Consent for Trans-Identified...

This responds to "Reconsidering Informed Consent for Trans-Identified Children, Adolescents, and Young Adults" by Levine et al., part of a small but growing, critical response to contemporary treatments of gender dysphoric/incongruent (GD/GI) children and adolescents. This author, while disagreeing with Levine et al. and other critics, hopes that with dialogue, research and engagement with the wider world, needs of all children, adolescents and young adults-those who have GD/GI and those who may not-will be best served. Critics of gender affirming treatments cite growing numbers of cases, "low level of evidence" supporting treatment, irreversible side effects and expressing regrets as reasons to oppose gender affirmative treatments. Although sharing similar concerns, the author does not conclude treatments should not be offered when appropriate. The critics' alternative reads as "just talk to the young people and find out what is really bothering them." Lacking empirical evidence for that approach does not appear to trouble them.Levine et al.'s caricature of informed consent, which this author parodies, would dissuade anyone from treatment. Their approach does not appear to be written for purposes of engaging frontline clinicians with the aim of improving treatment. Instead, they read as appeals to third parties unfamiliar with the clinical presentations of these children-parents, caretakers courts, legislatures, state health departments and national health care systems-to discourage treatments from proceeding. This impression is further buttressed by a declaration of financial support from The Society for Empirical-Based Gender Medicine, a small group of outliers from mainstream clinicians treating minors with GD/GI who present as "truth-speaking" experts regarding "facts" being ignored, elided over or perhaps even covered up by the mainstream.The author concludes by noting that clinicians who advocate for delaying treatment to GD/GI minors who need and may benefit from it to "protect" those who "aren't really" transgender is an ethically troubling issue. In other words, "first, do no harm" is a sword that cuts two ways.