We support our Publishers and Content Creators. You can view this story on their website by CLICKING HERE.

In a significant shift away from reflexive support for minors undergoing “gender transition” procedures, The Washington Post editorial board published an op-ed on Sunday that called for more robust scientific research to be conducted to determine the health outcomes of puberty blockers and hormones on children.

The Post, considered among the most preeminent outlets of the legacy media, has for years consistently landed on the side of transgender activist groups and pro-transgender medical associations, such as the American Medical Association, in the hotly contested debate over whether minors should be allowed to receive puberty-blocking drugs, opposite sex hormones, and undergo surgeries that mutilate healthy sexual organs. But an op-ed written by Post owner Jeff Bezos in October signaled that “changes” would be coming to the paper in order to win back the public’s trust as an “independent voice.” Sunday’s board op-ed may be part of that strategy.

In Sunday’s column, the board acknowledged that European health officials in the U.K., Norway, and Sweden have pointed out the lack of sufficient evidence showing the health benefits of gender transition procedures, with Britain banning the use of puberty blockers for minors last week. The board bemoaned “scientists’ failure to study these treatments slowly and systematically as they developed them.” It went on to observe that “clinical practice outraced the research, especially as treatment protocols rapidly evolved.”

As the board detailed, the slow-walking of the publication of research that did not show benefits of transgender procedures occurred in the U.K. as well as in the U.S., noting that the World Professional Association for Transgender Health “tried to interfere with a review commissioned from a team of researchers at Johns Hopkins University.” In addition, it cited the instance of Dr. Johanna Olson-Kennedy refusing to publish the results of a National Institutes of Health-funded study that took place over nine years, to the tune of $9.7 million in taxpayer money.

The Post’s editorial board concludes by arguing that the federal government should fund studies that rule out the possibility of special interest groups “massaging” the results. “Congress should … fund new research of maximum possible rigor, overseen by scientists who are not gender medicine practitioners,” they contend. “Those studies should set timetables and specify the outcomes to be studied in advance to avoid the risk that researchers will pick and choose what to show the public. Children with gender dysphoria deserve clearer answers.”

Doctors such as Quentin Van Meter expressed pleasant surprise in reaction to the board’s editorial.

“I didn’t believe it was The Washington Post,” he remarked during Monday’s “Washington Watch.” “I thought I was reading some reasonable publication that sort of spoke the truth and didn’t have an agenda behind it, so it was very welcome. … It comes out of, I think, a realization that the rest of the world is going in a correct direction in protecting these kids who are suffering emotionally with this concept in their head, trying to live the life of happiness but not finding it in their current situation and grasping at straws for some place to go to be happy without realizing that the issue is deep inside of them. And that’s depression, and it’s anxiety, and it’s founded in a number of things which had been previously glossed over by those advocates who wish to intervene and essentially create a new persona, somebody who appears to be the opposite sex from their biological sex. And so, it’s like a big breath of fresh air.”

Van Meter, who formerly served as president of the American College of Pediatricians, went on to note that Europe’s extensive experimentation on children happened earlier, which has led a number of countries to back off transition procedures as the data came in. 

“Those progressive countries in Europe in particular, who are 10 years ahead of us in this experimentation on children, found out with their evaluations that there was no reason to continue blocking puberty and giving cross-sex hormones and then eventually doing surgical interventions which forever scar the body,” he explained. “I think Europe has always been focused on some semblance of science. They have a bureaucracy which reviews and allows medications to be used within the European Union … it’s essentially the equivalent of the FDA.”

Van Meter continued, “The U.K. health system was embroiled in a lawsuit about three or four years ago from a patient at the Tavistock Clinic who sued. … I think that woke them up to say, ‘Well, wait a minute. If there is a lawsuit, we’d better be on the right side of that case.’ And they started looking at the data from the Tavistock Clinic in the U.K. and said, ‘Oh my gosh, look what we found.’ And then we started having some defections from the U.K. system. The people who quit said this was not going in the right direction … possibly hurting [kids] instead of benefiting them. [This caused] the governmental agencies that run these health care systems in these socialized medicine countries to say, ‘Wait a minute, are we on the right side of the issue here? Perhaps we should go look deeply.’”

Van Meter further emphasized that in America, the tide began to turn during the 2024 election season. “If you look at the statistics during this past election where they said 70% of the American population is not in favor of interventions that try to create a change [in] somebody’s appearance and make-believe they are the opposite sex—that came from communication that broke through on the political trail,” he pointed out. “The political ads of the two candidates for president were night and day different, and I think that resonated with the American people saying, ‘I’m sure there’s some science about that. But at the core level, at just the gut level, [this] doesn’t feel right.’”

The pediatrician concluded by expressing optimism that a more robust public debate will take place over the issue going forward.

“We have had the science on our side since square one, and we have just been shut out by the major press,” he observed. “We’ve been shut out by the academic publications, we’ve been shut out at conferences where we are not allowed to speak or be invited. … Now, hopefully, this will begin to thaw, and we will be able to talk to each other. I would really greatly desire a dialogue in front of an audience of my peers to say, ‘Look, this is what we believe and this is why we believe science, and let the advocates for these interventions come back with their answers.’… So, I’m optimistic. … We’re getting to a good place.”

Originally published by the Washington Stand.