Last October, anti-trans activist Abigail Shrier was platformed on Bari Weiss’s Substack to discuss – what else? – being silenced. In “Top Trans Doctors Blow the Whistle on ‘Sloppy’ Care”, Shrier opens:
For nearly a decade, the vanguard of the transgender-rights movement — doctors, activists, celebrities and transgender influencers — has defined the boundaries of the new orthodoxy surrounding transgender medical care: What’s true, what’s false, which questions can and cannot be asked.
As a Littman-certified “transgender influencer”, I decided to spend some time asking exactly those questions raised in her article, particularly this ominous claim:
And they never said anything about the distinct possibility that blocking puberty, coupled with cross-sex hormones, could inhibit a normal sex life.
Shrier’s assertion of sexual dysfunction is a fusion of two claims. One questions the outcomes of alternative vaginoplasty techniques necessary for some trans girls who may have very little genital tissue due to early use of puberty blockers. This known issue was broadly misused as a right-wing talking point that began circulating several years ago – long after equally effective surgeries were already in widespread use. The other is an apparently novel claim by Dr. Marci Bowers, a trans woman and vaginoplasty surgeon, that some experience of sexual stimulation or orgasm is necessary before vaginoplasty in order to access any meaningful sexual arousal after surgery. In her telling, early use of puberty blockers at Tanner stages 2 or 3 of a youth’s natal puberty could leave them sexually “naïve” and never motivated to seek out any sexual stimulation or derive enjoyment from this, an issue she says is not being acknowledged by other transition care providers.
But extensive data does exist on these questions. These and other relevant issues have been studied at length in clinical settings, and major transgender care centers have continued to publish their detailed findings in this patient group. What we know about the outcomes of youth who receive these treatments does not at all reflect the claims of Shrier and Bowers. Let’s directly refute the central point. Continue reading →