A paper published in a peer-reviewed journal which argued that “gendered” pregnancy care is too focused on helping women have healthy babies, and that a woman transitioning to a man might be able to continue taking testosterone during pregnancy, has been demolished by two bioethicists who described the claims as “quite frankly, insane.”
Evolutionary biologist Colin Wright said that Drs Jennifer Lahl and Kallie Fell have demolished a new academic paper “claiming that advising transmen to pause testosterone during pregnancy reflects a problematic desire for “ideal” and “normative bodies” for offspring.”
In a devastating critque, Drs Lahl and Fell wrote that what was being witnessed was “a direct assault on the language associated with women’s health in medicine”.
“Terms traditionally used in clinical settings, such as “mothers,” are being replaced with neutral alternatives like “birthing parents.” Similarly, the term “women” is frequently substituted with “individuals with a cervix,” even though nearly half of women don’t know what a cervix is and such language may therefore cause a significant number of women to forgo important routine cervical screenings,” they wrote.
“This trend of overlooking biological sex as a critical medical variable stems from an ideological drive to “queer” the natural world,” they said.
“According to this perspective, medicine must eschew not only biological categorization of patients, but also traditional notions of what is deemed desirable or adverse patient outcomes.”
“These ideological shifts have raised substantial concerns regarding potential harm that such denial of biological realities could inflict on patients. However, recent academic discourse has escalated these concerns to new levels. A provocative new paper in the journal Qualitative Research in Health titled “Medical uncertainty and reproduction of the ‘normal’: Decision-making around testosterone therapy in transgender pregnancy” by Pfeffer and colleagues propels us further down the road of medical malpractice.”
They pointed out that the authors of the paper were a “group of transgender sociologists and enthusiasts, and healthcare activists, with not one medical degree among them”.
The paper sought to “dramatically move the goal posts of medical ethics, choosing to completely disregard the health, safety, and well-being of the developing fetus, all in the name of “trans” inclusion. Abiding by their paper’s guidance would land us in a vacuum devoid of medical ethics and a seismic shift away from the importance of scientific research and medical evidence in favor of activist directed healthcare,” the bioethicists said.
The analysis produced by Drs Lahl and Fell said that the paper by Pfeffer et al questioned “precautionary, offspring-focused treatment approaches” – and concluded that “health care providers’ precaution-focused labor in this highly-gendered context of pregnancy care seems driven largely by their concerns about producing normative offspring rather than non-normative gestating patients themselves.”
In response, the bioethicists argued that “medical ethics exists to guide medical providers and protect both the expectant mother and her future offspring.”
ABSENCE OF DATA
They also slammed the authors of the paper for what they called the conspicuous absence of any “robust, concrete data to substantiate their claims”.
“Instead, they bolster their argument by cherry-picking quotations from their study involving a pool of 70 international “trans” individuals and 22 “health care providers who self-identified as focusing their practice with trans populations,” Drs Lahl and Fell wrote.
“One doesn’t have to look hard to find a list of drugs and substances that are known to be harmful to a developing fetus,” they continued.
And they noted that “presently, testosterone is classified as a teratogenic, US FDA pregnancy category X drug, suggesting it can induce birth defects.”
“It is labeled as such because “studies in pregnant women have demonstrated a risk to the fetus, and/or human or animal studies have shown fetal abnormalities; risks of the drug outweigh the potential benefits,” they explained.”
They also pointed to the inherent contradiction in the claims being made about ‘males’ wanting to become pregnant.
“Pfeffer and colleagues write that most participants in their study use testosterone “as a critical medically managed component of their transition” and that there are concerns and fears about pausing testosterone prior to or during pregnancy and the postpartum period. Specifically, pausing testosterone would make “public recognition as a man more challenging” and might increase body dysphoria and depression, including postpartum depression,” they wrote.
“We have to stop here, rub our eyes, and shake our heads. Why would someone wanting to pass as a male desire to take on the very female task of pregnancy? Not only that, but none of the stated concerns or fears of stopping testosterone during pregnancy, postpartum, or while breastfeeding are life-threatening or permanent conditions. There are ways to safely manage depression and body dysphoria that don’t involve potentially harmful compounds.”
“Upon reviewing the treatment approach proposed in the article, it’s clear that the authors lack a nuanced understanding of medical ethics and the principles of evidence-based medicine,” the bioethicists concluded.
“They offer a distorted interpretation of the four basic principles of medical ethics and their application to patient care. If a “trans man” seeks to conceive and bear a child, the physician is obligated to safeguard both patients—the parent and the fetus.”
“The authors’ suggestion that medical providers should deviate from the principle of “do no harm” to follow paths where the evidence indicates harm is quite shocking,” they wrote.
“This perspective, driven more by ideology, emotions, and personal desires than by evidence, conflicts with the foundations of evidence-based medicine.”
Elsewhere, the Daily Mail said that there was “fury” over the call to let women who are transition to ‘men’ and who are pregnant “take testosterone despite risk to babies”.
And their report revealed that what they “woke, government-funded researchers” were in receipt of “a £500,000 grant by a subsidiary of Britain’s UK Research and Innovation to conduct research on trans male experiences”.