The report was reviewed by 10 different experts and research groups — and none identified major faults in the findings that US doctors should pause giving common gender dysphoria treatments until more is known about the long term effects on patients, the lead author told The Post.

“They were given the chance to show mistakes, show errors. And they were not able to identify any,” said Dr. Leor Sapir, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and one of the project researchers.

“They had some minor comments here and there, but nothing that gets to the main findings about evidence and ethics,” he said.

“And that includes the former president of the Endocrine Society, the very organization that has been one of the chief proponents of these interventions,” Sapir added.

The report was first released in May after President Trump issued Executive Order 14187 after taking office.

The order claimed that US doctors were “maiming” teens with gender-affirming treatment that “must end,” and ordered the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to compile an assessment of the standards of care of minors who identify as transgender.

The subsequent report found that many of the studies that proponents of gender-affirming care use to back their treatments were of “very low quality,” and that little is really known about the long-term psychological and quality-of-life effects of treatment, along with how often patients regret about undertaking them.

The report also noted the UK has banned the use of puberty blockers and other treatments for minors altogether.

Instead, the report said, doctors should focus on psychotherapy until more is known about the effects of gender-affirming care treatments for children.

The report was widely denounced by trans advocates when it was released in May — with many complaining that the authors’ names had been withheld and that it was biased by the Trump administration’s open hostility toward the trans community.

But Sapir noted that the report’s nine authors and their research process were “completely independent of HHS” — and that most are Democrats.

Including Sapir, they were Dr. Alex Byrne, a philosophy and linguistics professor at MIT; Evgenia Abbruzzese, a health care researcher at the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine; Dr. Farr Curlin, a professor at the Duke University School of Medicine; and Dr. Moti Gorin, who teaches philosophy at Colorado State University.

The others were Dr. Kristopher Kaliebe, a psychiatrist who teaches at the University of Southern Florida Morsani College of Medicine; Dr. Michael Laidlaw, a private practicing endocrinologist; Dr. Kathleen McDeavitt, a psychiatrist teaching at the Baylor College of Medicine; and Dr. Yuan Zhang, a researcher at the health care policy group Evidence Bridge.

Including Sapir, they were Dr. Alex Byrne, a philosophy and linguistics professor at MIT; Evgenia Abbruzzese, a health care researcher at the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine; Dr. Farr Curlin, a professor at the Duke University School of Medicine; and Dr. Moti Gorin, who teaches philosophy at Colorado State University.

“We are very politically and ideologically a diverse group,” he said. “Most of the authors are liberals, Democrats. They wouldn’t vote for Trump if he forced them to. This is a bi-partisan initiative.”

He added that keeping names anonymous was also standard practice in peer review processes, so that responses are not colored by preconceived notions of authors.

And when the report was submitted to three organizations that had been critical so they could join the peer review process, only one responded, the American Psychiatric Association, which did not substantively criticize the evidence analysis.

Seven other experts from across the medical field participated in the peer review, too, and also found no fundamental problems.

Morning Report delivers the latest news, videos, photos and more.

Please provide a valid email.

By clicking above you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.