The “Science” Behind Trump’s Anti-Trans War Is Incredibly Weak

[Jessica_Rose]

The "Science" Behind Trump's Anti-Trans War Is Incredibly Weak

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/the-science-behind-trump-s-anti-trans-war-is-incredibly-weak/ar-AA1GlM0a?ocid=hpmsn&cvid=de72f286353d47378a2b3c3570e4ee51&ei=15

Opinion by Jaeyoon Park (9 June 2025)

On May 1, the Trump administration unveiled a 409-page US Health and Human Services report, which argues that gender-affirming care for minors should no longer be offered...

This finding has been presented as a purely scientific conclusion. The report, we are assured, is "evidence-based" in its approach, and its authors—who remain anonymous—"were chosen for their commitment to scientific principles."

In fact, the report's case against gender-affirming care is far from scientific. It is ultimately based not on objective evidence, but on subjective values. Quite literally, it is a morally based argument.

Here is the authors' own admission. In many cases, "the probabilities are known with a high degree of certainty." But "as for the nature of medical benefits and harms and their relative weights, the Review's working assumptions cohere with common moral intuition, standard medical judgment as revealed in medical diagnostic criteria, and the outcomes of interest to clinicians and researchers, as well as the law." So in deciding whether any given outcome counts as a benefit or a harm ("nature"), and in estimating the magnitude of each outcome ("relative weight"), the report relies not on evidence but on assumptions. And these assumptions are drawn not from science but from "common moral intuition," what the authors think is "standard" or "of interest" for clinicians, and current law.