In May, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) led by Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. published a rapid review report on medical literature focused on various gender-related treatments for minors. Biased news sources then skewed the report to fit their preferred narrative on transgender issues.
What the Report Said
The report concluded that “the overall quality of evidence concerning the effects” of any gender transition treatments “on psychological outcomes, quality of life, regret, or long-term health, is very low.”
SPONSORED
Every day, data brokers are trying to sell your personal info. And who’s buying it? Best case: companies target you with ads. Worst case: scammers and identity thieves.
Keep your info off the Dark Web with Incogni. It scrubs your personal data from the web better than any other service, confronting the world’s data brokers on your behalf. If they can’t find you, they can’t scam you.
The report also included that “these interventions carry risk of significant harms including infertility/sterility, sexual dysfunction, impaired bone density accrual, adverse cognitive impacts, cardiovascular disease and metabolic disorders, psychiatric disorders, surgical complications, and regret. Meanwhile, systematic reviews of the evidence have revealed deep uncertainty about the purported benefits of these interventions.” On November 19, the report was re-released with peer reviews, responses, and author names.
Here is how mainstream media across the political spectrum covered the HHS report:
From the Right
Outlets on the right tended to emphasize that the report found little evidence supporting the positive outcomes of “gender-affirming care” for patients under the age of 18. Outlets on the right also highlighted the fact that medical practitioners in favor of “gender-affirming” care had the chance to review the report and either opted not to or did not find flaws.
Fox News (Right bias) called the report a “ gold standard study” and claimed the study found “serious long-term dangers” to providing gender-related treatments for children.
National Review (Right) wrote, “‘Gender-Affirming Care’ Proponents Had a Chance to Pick Apart a Critical HHS Report. They Didn’t Have Much to Say.” In the article, National Review noted that the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychiatric Association (APA), and the Endocrine Society were all invited to participate in the peer-review of the report, but only the APA chose to do so.
Lisa Selin Davis (Lean Right) for Unherd (Center) wrote that “Many proponents of gender-affirming care ignored the report’s important takeaways about science and medical ethics, and criticised it for the anonymity and lack of peer review.” It went on to question the standard of peer-reviewed studies in general, writing that the “peer review process has essentially shut the door on dissent and questioning within the medical field” when it comes to the topic of gender-related treatments. Davis ultimately claimed the report exposed “moral failures in gender medicine.”
From the Left
Sources from the left generally framed the report as harmful for transgender youth and questioned the methodology of its findings and the trustworthiness of its authors.
Scientific American (Lean Left) claimed HHS released a report “Attacking Medical Care for Trans Children.” It went on to say that the report’s findings that gender-related treatments are harmful is in “contrast with widespread medical consensus.”
Truthout (Left) wrote that the HHS “Packed Anti-Trans Activists Into Report Undermining Gender-Affirming Care.” It claimed that several authors on the report “are noted anti-LGBTQ voices and critics of gender-affirming care” and that many of them have “little experience when it comes to providing medical care to transgender youth.”
ABC News (Lean Left) took a more balanced approach with the headline, “HHS finalizes report on gender-affirming care for youth, medical groups push back,” though the terminology of “gender-affirming care” skews left. However, the article focused on the potential conflicts of interest from authors on the HHS report, noting that “at least six of the nine authors have financial interests or have spoken out extensively opposing gender affirming care.”
From the Center
Stat News (Center) also highlighted doubts about the qualifications and bias of the researchers on the HHS report. It mentioned that some of the authors “have been paid to speak, consult, or testify as expert witnesses” against gender-related treatments for minors” and that a “minority of them hold a medical degree.”
MedScape (Center) called attention to HHS’s choice of the terminology “sex-rejecting procedures,” writing that the organization “appears to have adopted the language of the Ethics & Public Policy Center, a conservative think tank in Washington, D.C.”
Outlets on the right, left, and center slanted headlines, highlighted and omitted viewpoints, and chose language loaded with political implications when writing about the HHS report on gender-related treatments for minors.
The splits in perspectives and coverage serve as a reminder that in order to gain a deep understanding of an issue, it is important to read information from all sides of the political spectrum.
Emily Allen is a News Editor & Bias Analyst for AllSides. She has a Left bias. This piece was also reviewed by Clare Ashcraft (Center) and Julie Mastrine (Lean Right).
