Crimes Against Humanity: The Medical Malpractice of Gender-Affirming Care
It's time to put the so-called transgender "experts" on trial for crimes against humanity.
A recent investigation by The New York Times has revealed that Dr. Johanna Olson-Kennedy, a prominent figure in gender-affirming care, withheld crucial data from a taxpayer-funded study. Why? Because the data showed that chemical castration via hormone blockers and irreversible surgeries had no positive impact on children’s mental health. Wow! Who would have thought? Despite this damning evidence, Olson-Kennedy hid the findings, claiming the "charged political environment" might "weaponize" the results.
The same people who demand we "Trust the Science" are the ones concealing it. The refusal to publish these findings exposes their real priority: safeguarding ideology, not children. J.K. Rowling wittily exposed the insanity:
This is how politics becomes a vessel for evil. It’s not mere negligence—it’s a deliberate choice to sacrifice children to maintain political power. Depression, irreversible bone damage, infertility—none of it matters to them as long as they can parade their 'progress' for social clout. We’re past the point of debate. There are no honest disagreements to be had here.
Being right is like hitting a target with an arrow—there's one correct direction, but countless wrong ones. We can and should sympathize with those who miss despite trying, but there's no forgiveness for those who intentionally turn away from the target and shoot at an innocent child. It's not that these people were just wrong—they were wrong in a way that reveals their hostility to the truth itself.
For many, this will be a wake-up call. After years of transgender activists insisting that refusing to transition children would lead to self-harm, the opposite has proven true. What these "experts" have done is the equivalent of walking up to a struggling child teetering at the edge of a cliff, giving them a push, and then turning around to claim they taught the child how to fly–while expecting to be showered in moral praise.
Let’s not pretend they are just now discovering these practices are harmful. The knowledge has been there for decades. When America and Canada began implementing this approach, they pointed to Europe, where "gender-affirming" care was supposedly the gold standard. But now, even those countries have reversed course, acknowledging they were causing more harm than good. Yet Canada and America plow ahead, doubling down on the same destructive path.
Take the UK’s Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS) as an example. The clinic collapsed due to widespread malpractice. Journalist Hannah Barnes uncovered the full extent of the failure. And make no mistake: this information has been available for years. The activists and "experts" didn’t just ignore it—they actively tried to destroy the lives–often successfully–of anyone who dared to speak out, myself included (though that's a story for another time).
A Legacy Built on Flawed Foundations
The current state of "gender-affirming care" is built on a shaky foundation, flawed from the start. The Dutch team's original protocol, meant for treating young people with gender distress, has now become the template for clinics across the globe. But the truth behind that initial study is alarming—limited data, selective interpretations, and critical blind spots.
Led by Annelou de Vries and Thomas Steensma, the Dutch researchers developed a treatment pathway that included puberty blockers as early as age twelve, followed by cross-sex hormones and gender reassignment surgery. Despite being hailed as the "gold standard," the evidence base behind this protocol was anything but robust. The study used only 70 participants, far too few to draw any definitive conclusions about safety or efficacy. By the time of the study’s second follow-up, only 55 participants remained, with complete data available for just 40. Less than 60% of the original cohort could be analyzed, casting serious doubt on the reliability of the findings.
These gaps aren’t mere oversights—they are critical failures. For instance, the study noted that one participant died following complications from surgery. This tragic outcome was glossed over, buried in a single sentence within the methodology without any mention in the conclusions. A mortality rate of one in 70 is not something to ignore, but it was treated like a footnote.
Even the researchers have acknowledged the limitations of their work. Annelou de Vries admitted in 2020 that more data is needed for transgender adolescents to enable individualized care, and Thomas Steensma echoed these doubts, noting that they “do not know whether studies from the past are still applicable today,” especially with the recent surge of adolescent girls seeking treatment—a demographic not well-represented in their original research.
Despite these significant caveats, this protocol was adopted globally without question. Clinics didn't bother with their own rigorous studies; they just followed the Dutch model. The UK's Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS) even admitted that their young patients didn’t fit the profile of those studied by the Dutch. Dr. Bernadette Wren confessed in 2015 that "We are not having what you might see as the ones who are in the highly regarded Dutch study—the ones with lifelong gender dysphoria, supportive families, and few associated difficulties. That profile is a very small proportion of our young people."
This paints a stark picture: a treatment designed for a specific and small group was indiscriminately applied to an increasingly diverse population. The evidence used to justify these interventions was never comprehensive enough for widespread adoption, but caution was thrown aside in favor of ideological adherence.
The Troubling Growth of GIDS
The rapid expansion of GIDS in the UK mirrors the same flawed adoption. Initially a small service, GIDS saw referrals skyrocket by over 400% by 2015, with most of these cases diverging significantly from the typical profiles studied by the Dutch team.
Unlike the Dutch study, which focused on young people with lifelong, consistent gender dysphoria, GIDS saw a different group—65% of their referrals by 2019 were adolescent girls, many of whom had experienced sudden-onset dysphoria during puberty. These girls often had other significant challenges: depression, anxiety, trauma, and even autism. In fact, 35% of those referred exhibited moderate to severe autistic traits, compared to less than 2% of the general population.
GIDS clinicians were alarmed. Anna Hutchinson, a senior clinical psychologist, described the cases as "incredibly complex," yet they were being rushed into medical pathways. She admitted, “I didn’t always know why we were referring so quickly, but I just assumed I didn’t know enough yet.” The prevailing attitude was that if a young person met the diagnostic criteria for gender dysphoria, they were given blockers—no thorough exploration of underlying issues required.
This wasn’t what GIDS was meant to be. Domenico Di Ceglie, the founder of GIDS, envisioned a service for psychological support and careful consideration of each patient’s unique circumstances. But societal pressures and advocacy groups forced GIDS to shift gears. Dr. Crouch admitted the focus became "assessing whether young people should be put on the list for hormone blockers" rather than offering meaningful therapeutic work.
The Illusion of Reversibility and the Dangers of Medical Pathways
The current approach to treating gender dysphoria in young people downplays the inherent dangers of medical pathways, often presenting them as straightforward solutions. Puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgeries are portrayed as benign and fully reversible. However, the reality is far more complex, with significant risks and long-term consequences that are frequently minimized. This leaves vulnerable young people facing irreversible decisions without fully understanding what’s at stake.
One of the most pervasive myths is that puberty blockers function as a "pause button." Paul Jenkins, CEO of the Tavistock Trust, claimed on BBC Radio 4 that puberty blockers are "fully reversible." Yet, even GIDS’s own website acknowledges that the long-term effects on bone health and cardiovascular risks remain unknown. The Dutch researchers behind the model promoted blockers as a temporary measure to allow "time to think," but follow-up studies have painted a starkly different picture. Adolescents on blockers experienced static bone density during a critical period for growth, and Dutch researchers admitted uncertainty about whether these individuals would ever achieve normal peak bone density. Furthermore, none of the young people who began puberty blockers opted to stop and resume natural puberty, effectively locking them into further medicalization.
Despite claims that puberty blockers help alleviate distress, data from GIDS tells a different story. Dr. Polly Carmichael acknowledged in 2016 that while many young people reported satisfaction, clinical measures such as anxiety, depression, and gender dysphoria either stagnated or worsened. Anna Hutchinson was similarly disturbed by findings from an Early Intervention Study that showed no psychological improvement for those on blockers. The belief that these interventions are reversible is unfounded and misleading; the data suggests blockers are a one-way ticket to irreversible treatments.
The dangers extend beyond puberty blockers. The Dutch researchers admitted that combining blockers with cross-sex hormones leads to infertility, a consequence often under-communicated to young people and their families. Cross-sex hormones also introduce health risks, including cardiovascular disease and blood clots. Surgeries on minors have increased despite a lack of long-term data on outcomes. For natal males who have been on blockers, surgical interventions can become especially complicated due to underdeveloped genital tissue, leading to more invasive procedures.
These medical pathways are especially concerning given that many young people referred for gender-affirming care have complex mental health needs that remain unaddressed. Instead of providing support for underlying issues like trauma, self-harm, eating disorders, or autism, they are often fast-tracked into medical interventions, causing harm instead of real help.
Ignoring the dangers of these medical pathways is not just negligence—it’s reckless. The current model prioritizes ideology over young people's well-being, pushing them towards irreversible treatments without regard for their overall health. It’s time to acknowledge the real risks and prioritize long-term well-being over a misguided rush to medicalize.
Detransitioning: A Reality Ignored
Detransitioning—the process of ceasing to identify as transgender and attempting to reverse medical interventions—has been largely ignored or downplayed. The narrative suggests detransitioning is exceedingly rare, often citing a rate below 1%, but the studies behind these figures are deeply flawed. Most focus only on those still in contact with gender identity clinics, missing those who left the system entirely.
Recent studies have found that less than a quarter of those who detransition even informed their clinicians. In an exploratory study by a detransitioned individual, 45% of respondents felt they were inadequately informed about treatments before starting them. The most common reason for detransition was realizing their dysphoria was related to other issues, not being transgender.
Anna Hutchinson described how complex histories—mainly abuse and mental health struggles—were overlooked in favor of quick referrals to medical pathways. The Dutch researchers themselves admitted that some young people may grow out of gender dysphoria. However, such insights were buried beneath ideological pressures from advocacy groups and patients internalizing the idea that transition was their only option.
The medical community’s refusal to address detransitioning has caused untold harm. These individuals were promised a solution, only to find themselves betrayed and forever changed by those they trusted.
Misreading Gender Nonconformity and Ignoring Sexuality
Another critical flaw in the gender-affirming care model is its tendency to misinterpret gender nonconformity as an indication of being transgender while ignoring the role of sexuality. Many young people referred to clinics like GIDS exhibit behaviors that do not align with traditional gender norms—behaviors that, in previous generations, would have simply been seen as typical of gender-nonconforming individuals, often same-sex attracted. Instead, these behaviors are now treated as evidence of an underlying transgender identity in need of medical affirmation.
Matt Bristow, a clinician at GIDS, highlighted that many heterosexual staff members simply didn’t understand that the behaviors observed in gender-nonconforming children were common among those who would grow up to be gay or lesbian. Cross-dressing, feeling different, or having friends of the opposite sex are common experiences for LGB adults. Yet these signs were increasingly interpreted as indicative of transgender identity, leading many young people who might have otherwise grown up to be gay or lesbian to be placed on a medical pathway aimed at "correcting" their perceived gender incongruence.
The overrepresentation of same-sex attracted young people in gender clinics is striking. GIDS data revealed that over 90% of natal females and 80% of natal males referred to the service were same-sex attracted or bisexual. In the Dutch cohort, the numbers were similarly high, with all natal females and 94% of natal males identifying as same-sex attracted or bisexual. These statistics suggest that many of the young people receiving gender-affirming care are, in fact, gay or bisexual individuals whose experiences are being misunderstood.
Clinicians like Matt Bristow felt that GIDS had devolved into "conversion therapy for gay kids," considering many young people referred to GIDS were same-sex attracted. Instead of exploring sexual orientation, these young people were affirmed as transgender and placed on a medical pathway. A dark joke among GIDS staff went: "There’d be no gay people left at the rate GIDS was going."
Anna Hutchinson, expressed concern about this misinterpretation. She noted that many young people were being pushed onto a medical pathway that ultimately erased their sexual orientation. "Were people deliberately going into this field to convert gay people? Absolutely not," Hutchinson said. "But the fact is the outcome might be the same." Other clinicians echoed her concerns, feeling that GIDS was practicing a form of conversion therapy for gay youth.
Neglecting sexuality and rushing to affirm gender nonconformity has had devastating consequences for many young people. Instead of being supported in exploring their sexuality, they were placed on a medical pathway involving irreversible interventions. This approach not only fails to address the underlying issues they face but also risks causing irreversible harm. As Matt Bristow put it, "Some things that are fairly normal for many LGB adults were read as being indicative of a trans experience." The result has been a tragic misunderstanding of these young people's needs, leading to a failure to provide them with appropriate care and support.
Financial Incentives and Conflicts of Interest
Another often-overlooked factor behind the surge in medical interventions for young people with gender dysphoria is the role of financial incentives and conflicts of interest. The Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS), run by the Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust, became a major revenue stream for the Trust as the demand for gender-related healthcare skyrocketed. By 2018/19, GIDS accounted for 13.5% of the Trust's total income, and nearly 22% when including adult gender services.
This financial dependence created an inherent conflict of interest. Dr. David Bell, a whistleblower from the Tavistock, noted that the loss of GIDS's income would have had "huge implications for the continuation of the Tavistock as we know it." This raises serious ethical questions—was the push for affirming care driven by patient needs, or the financial needs of the Trust?
Pharmaceutical companies also had a hand in this. The Dutch researchers who pioneered puberty blockers for gender dysphoria presented their findings at a conference sponsored by Ferring Pharmaceuticals, the maker of triptorelin, a commonly used puberty blocker. This sponsorship casts doubt on the impartiality of the research and whether financial interests influenced the promotion of puberty blockers.
These financial entanglements have had devastating consequences. Instead of allowing young people time and support to explore their feelings, they were rushed into medical interventions that generate significant revenue. This system, driven by profit rather than patient care, fails to prioritize the well-being of those it’s meant to help, causing irreversible harm to many young people.
Pressure, Ideology, and the Role of Activist Influence in Gender-Affirming Care
One of the key drivers behind the rush to medically affirm young people's gender identities has been the intense pressure placed on clinicians—from activist groups, parents, and even the young people themselves. Activist groups like Mermaids and Stonewall have significantly shaped the landscape of gender-affirming care, promoting immediate affirmation and medical intervention while framing hesitation as transphobic. This pressure created an environment where clinicians and researchers were reluctant to voice concerns. Dr. Polly Carmichael, director of the UK's Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS), admitted that the service faced an "escalating risk" from growing referrals and increasingly complex cases, compounded by pressure from activist groups accusing clinicians of harming children if they didn’t provide immediate medical interventions.
This cultural shift toward unquestioned affirmation had severe consequences within the clinic. Many GIDS clinicians described feeling pressured to act as "gatekeepers" rather than providing objective, individualized assessments. Dr. Crouch recalled that GIDS shifted from meaningful therapeutic work to focusing primarily on determining whether a young person should be placed on the list for puberty blockers—a process driven in part by activist lobbying. Some clinicians handled caseloads of up to 90 young people, making it impossible to provide the care needed to fully understand each patient’s unique circumstances, especially when pressure to affirm quickly took precedence over exploring other possible mental health or social factors.
The prevailing belief that affirming a young person's gender identity was the only way to prevent self-harm created a culture where questioning medical interventions was stigmatized as transphobic. Clinicians like Anna Hutchinson and Kirsty Entwistle, who raised concerns about the lack of evidence supporting puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones, were often dismissed or ostracized. Lies spread by activist groups compounded these issues, as claims that puberty blockers are "fully reversible" were repeatedly echoed despite evidence showing potential long-term effects on bone density and fertility. This environment of ideological conformity silenced dissenting voices and led to a one-size-fits-all approach that undermined individualized care.
The role of grooming and ideological influence in shaping young people’s experiences further complicates this landscape. Online communities, activist organizations, and even healthcare providers have contributed to an environment that steers vulnerable young people toward medical interventions without adequate exploration of underlying factors. For example, Alex, a patient of GIDS, was influenced by an older user on Tumblr who assured him that all of his problems would go away after surgeries. Vulnerable young people seeking validation are being preyed upon and pushed toward irreversible medical interventions as a quick-fix solution, often without the necessary support to navigate complex mental health or identity issues.
This mix of ideological pressure, activist influence, and lack of dissent has created a system where young people are often funneled into medical pathways without fully understanding the risks. It is essential to recognize these influences and ensure that young people receive care based on individual needs, free from ideological bias or coercion.
Time for Debate is Over
It’s time to confront the harsh reality of gender-affirming care as it exists today. The medical establishment, activist groups, and even clinicians have allowed ideology and external pressure to dictate care, sacrificing the health and well-being of vulnerable young people. This conveyor belt of medical interventions—puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgeries—is not only dangerous but unethical.
This is not just medical malpractice—it’s a crime against humanity. The deliberate withholding of information, the silencing of dissent, and the ideological pressure to push young people into irreversible treatments are symptoms of a system that has lost its way. The well-being of children should always be the highest priority, yet it has been sacrificed on the altar of ideology and political power.
We must demand a public trial, where clinicians who have put ideological conformity above the health of young people are put behind bars. And we must stand up for the young people who have been misled, harmed, and betrayed by a system that was supposed to protect and help them.
The time for polite debate is over. This is a scandal of monumental proportions. Those responsible must be held accountable, and the dangerous, irreversible medical pathways must be stopped—before countless more young lives are needlessly put at risk.
All data and quotes are from Hannah Barnes, “Time to Think.”