Gender, sexuality, transgender and gender reassignment issues are taking a front and center seat in political activism and sports. Unfortunately, the actual science and arguably the most important aspect, medicine, is being thrown to the wayside as individuals scream and yell about being “fair” and “woke.”

The National Library of Medicine published the “LGBT testimony and the limits of trust” by Maura Priest who has written extensively about transgender children. In the Abstract, Priest writes:

In, ‘Forever young: the ethics of ongoing puberty suppression (OPS) for non-binary adults,’ Notini et al discuss the risks, harms and benefits of treating non-binary patients via identity-affirming OPS. Notini et al’s article make a strong case for OPS’s permissibility, and their conclusion will not be disputed here.

Instead, I directly focus on issues that their article addressed only indirectly. This article will use a hypothetical case study to show that while Notini et al’s ethical conclusion might be spot on, that perhaps the method they took to get there was superfluous.

If the medical community is to take LGBT testimony seriously (as they should) then it is no longer the job of physicians to do their own weighing of the costs and benefits of transition-related care. Assuming the patient is informed and competent, then only the patient can make this assessment because only the patient has access to the true weight of transition-related benefits.

Moreover, taking LGBT patient testimony seriously also means that parents should lose veto power over most transition-related pediatric care.

Priest is directly addressing a colossal problem. When it becomes so important that the transgender individual’s wishes or “testimony” is granted, major results occur such as “it is no longer the job of physicians to do their own weighing of the costs and benefits of transition-related care.”

In essence, medical training is pointless because “assuming the patient is informed and competent, then only the patient can make this assessment because only the patient has access to the true weight of transition-related benefits.”

Additionally, “taking LGBT patient testimony seriously” also means that parents have become obsolete.  The parents “should lose veto power over most transition-related pediatric care.”