Beyond the Byline: Unmasking the Web of Deception in Transgender Healthcare Reporting

A critical examination of Pamela Paul’s follow-up article in The New York Times once again sheds light on the newspaper's lapse in fact-checking and source scrutiny, this time in the endorsement of her citation of the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine (SEGM) as a nonpartisan scientific organization.

In her latest column, Paul sidesteps addressing the deliberate misinterpretation of gender science in her initial piece and instead doubles down on her critique of transgender healthcare, this time relying heavily on SEGM as a purportedly unbiased and reliable source. Not only does this raise significant concerns for those of us who work in gender-affirming care, but it dilutes confidence in the editorial oversight and fact-checking standards of The New York Times.

There is no doubt that SEGM has presented itself as a champion of nonpartisan scientific inquiry. This is how they have successfully gained recognition from legislative bodies and influenced care bans across the country. However, their claims of objectivity are as suspicious as their research. A brief investigation of their members and tactics uncovers a pattern of deception, connections with anti-LGBTQ hate groups, and collaboration with anti-trans lobbies.

Despite boasting over "100 clinicians and researchers" on their website, a Yale School of Medicine investigation suggests that only a select few "clinical and academic advisors" actively participate in SEGM's initiatives. These advisors have been linked to the dissemination of misinformation from retracted studies associated with anti-trans movements, casting doubt on the credibility of both SEGM and Paul's citation of the organization.

The origins of SEGM, exposed through leaked emails in March 2023, reveal its ties to a coalition of anti-LGBTQ religious and political organizers. Michelle Cretela, Executive Director of the American College of Pediatricians (ACPeds), played a key role in SEGM's formation. ACPeds, labeled by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a "fringe anti-LGBTQ hate group," collaborated with the Alliance Defending Freedom, a known SPLC Hate Group, to support the establishment of SEGM in an effort to add substance to legal arguments. This strategic move, and the presence of SEGM affiliates on the Florida Board of Medicine, ultimately led to an alternative standard of care in 2022, and a ban on gender-affirming care for youth (temporarily blocked) in 2023.

Furthermore, SEGM's ties to a coalition of anti-LGBTQ religious and political organizers, as revealed through leaked emails in March 2023, highlight a disturbing trend of using confusing names to manipulate public perception. This tactic, seen in the case of the American College of Pediatricians posing as the American Academy of Pediatrics, is a right-wing strategy aimed at sowing confusion and misinformation. The deliberate use of names that sound reputable and scientific, like the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine, is a calculated effort to deceive the public and legitimize biased viewpoints.

As the NY Times grapples with the fallout of this oversight, it becomes imperative to address not only the credibility of SEGM but also the potential harm caused by disseminating misleading information to families navigating the complexities of transgender healthcare. The public deserves accurate and unbiased reporting, particularly in matters that impact the well-being of vulnerable communities.

The spread of misinformation, especially related to gender-affirming care, has broad consequences. The impact reaches far beyond the theoretical realm, and in an environment already marked by anxiety, can turn the most affirming parent into a reluctant participant in their child’s care. Even in progressive states like my own, support structures falter as misinformation is posted on Facebook, shared through family group texts, and/or used at school board meetings to justify a rollback of rights. 

Healthcare providers like myself who specialize in gender-affirming care also face increased scrutiny, as organizations like SEGM perpetuate misconceptions about the safety and efficacy of evidence-based treatments. The unwarranted skepticism fueled by misinformation jeopardizes the trust between providers and patients, hindering the delivery of effective, patient-centered care. At best, it leads to a need for repetitive conversations and reassurances with families, and at worst it leads to a child losing access to life saving care.

Access to effective care is further compounded as therapists and care providers, concerned about the potential legal ramifications of continued practice, may become more cautious in offering gender-affirming services. Fears of licensing challenges or legal repercussions have prompted some professionals to limit or even discontinue their provision of critical mental health support to transgender youth. This reduction in available services exacerbates existing disparities in mental health access and compounds the challenges faced by individuals seeking affirming care.

As misinformation continues to circulate, journalists like Erin Reed and Evan Urquhart work tirelessly to demystify the science, weeding through the strategic proliferation of papers and amicus briefs by organizations like SEGM, columnists like Paul, and news outlets who fail to meet the standard of factual journalism, in this case, The New York Times.