Both of these can be true at the same time: 1. Medical transition genuinely helps trans people 2. x% of adolescents who identify as trans will desist in adult

Both of these can be true at the same time: 1. Medical transition genuinely helps trans people 2. x% of adolescents who identify as trans will desist in adulthood > First, do no harm The fact of the matter is that without a reliably way to differentiate 1 from 2, medical transition will be doing genuine harm to x percent of people. This is a core violation of bioethics. To borrow from Blackstone, I would rather nine trans people go through their biological puberty than perform a mastectomy on or render infertile one adolescent who will later come to deeply regret it. > The Endocrine Society acknowledges .. it is placing “.. a higher value on psychological well-being, and a lower value on avoiding potential harm. This acknowledgement is shocking to me, and I imagine it's why there is so much vitriol in this debate. What kind of parent would want to see their child harmed this way by a system which has explicitly de-prioritized harm reduction? And this is all aside from the fact that one of the main themes of the investigation is the lack of high quality evidence that medical transition uniformly helps trans people.