Misinformation about gender-affirming care is increasingly being used to justify policies that restrict access to medically necessary treatment. Much of this misinformation relies on what experts often call “junk science”—claims that appear scientific but lack credible evidence, are taken out of context, or misrepresent established research.
Understanding the difference between junk science and evidence-based care is critical to ensuring that patients, families, and policymakers are making informed decisions.
What Is “Junk Science”?
“Junk science” refers to claims that are presented as scientific but do not meet basic standards of research or medical evidence. These claims often:
- Rely on small, unrepresentative, or biased samples
- Ignore or misinterpret broader, well-established research
- Cherry-pick findings while dismissing contradictory evidence
- Lack peer review or consensus from the medical community
- Are promoted for political or ideological purposes rather than patient care
In the context of gender-affirming care, junk science is often used to create doubt about treatments that are widely accepted in mainstream medicine. The Cass Review and the report released by the Department of Health Humans Services in 2025 are two examples.
American Academy of Pediatrics Statement on HHS Report Treatment for Pediatric Gender Dysphoria
What the Medical Evidence Actually Shows
Gender-affirming care is supported by decades of clinical research and is recognized as appropriate, evidence-based treatment by major medical organizations. Care is:
- Individualized: Treatment plans are tailored to each patient
- Carefully evaluated: Providers follow established clinical guidelines
- Age-appropriate: Different standards apply for adults and minors
- Collaborative: Involving patients, families (for youth), and multidisciplinary teams
Research consistently shows that access to appropriate care is associated with improved mental health outcomes and overall well-being:
- Prevalence in Adolescents (2025): A JAMA Pediatrics study (Jan 2025) found that gender-affirming medications (blockers/hormones) are “rarely prescribed” to transgender and gender-diverse (TGD) adolescents, with higher usage among those assigned female at birth [2, JAMA].
- Mental Health Outcomes (2023–2024): A study published in the New England Journal of Medicine (2023) showed that 2 years of hormone therapy resulted in improved psychosocial functioning and reduced depression/anxiety in transgender youth.
- Surgical Trends (2024): A JAMA Network Open study found that gender-affirming surgery is extremely rare among minors, with 2019 data showing 0 procedures for those 12 or younger.
- Social Transition & Mental Health (2025): Research published in PMC indicates that supportive social transition (name/pronoun changes) for prepubescent TGD youth results in rates of depression and anxiety similar to their cisgender peers.
- Systemic Barriers (2024): A Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health study found that TGD adults face major barriers to care, including discrimination, lack of affordability, and limited provider availability.
Common Examples of Junk Science
Misleading or Outlier Studies
Some frequently cited studies like the Cass Review rely on flawed methods, extremely small sample sizes, or conclusions that have been widely disputed. These studies are often amplified despite not reflecting the broader body of research.
Misuse of “Debate”
It is sometimes claimed that the medical community is deeply divided. In reality, there is broad consensus among major medical organizations about the importance and validity of gender-affirming care, even as research continues to evolve.
Confusion About Standards of Care
Opponents often mischaracterize how care is provided—suggesting that treatments are rushed or unregulated. In reality, care follows established clinical guidelines and involves careful assessment, especially for young people.
Selective Use of International Policies
Policies from other countries are sometimes cited without context. These references often ignore key differences in healthcare systems, ongoing research, and the fact that access to care has not been eliminated but, in some cases, refined.
Why Junk Science Matters
Junk science is not just misleading—it has real consequences.
When inaccurate information drives policy:
- Patients are denied medically necessary care
- Families face confusion and fear
- Providers are restricted from following best practices
- Health disparities worsen, not improve
Good policy depends on good information. When decisions are based on misinformation, people are harmed.
What Evidence-Based Policy Looks Like
Sound policymaking relies on:
- Peer-reviewed research and established clinical guidelines
- Expertise from qualified medical professionals
- Input from affected communities
- A commitment to patient safety and well-being
In healthcare, the standard should always be clear: decisions should be guided by evidence, not ideology.
Moving Forward
Ensuring access to accurate information is essential to protecting the health and dignity of all patients. Policymakers, providers, and communities all have a role to play in rejecting junk science and supporting evidence-based care.
At its core, this is about trust—trusting qualified medical professionals, trusting patients and families, and trusting the body of research that guides modern medicine.