Key facts
- A US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) report links 'gender ideology' to left-wing authoritarianism and political violence.
- Scientists have criticized the report for poor methodology and being 'nakedly political'.
- The report was not published in a scientific journal and did not undergo peer review.
- Critics argue the report violates federal regulations requiring peer review for influential scientific information.
- The report names several mainstream medical organizations and appears to attack the scientific establishment.
- The study surveyed 1,208 people on statements about support for trans people, political ideology, and political violence.
A recent report from the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has drawn sharp criticism from scientists who describe it as 'nakedly political' and poorly conducted. The study attempts to link 'gender ideology,' which it measures through statements supporting transgender identity and exploration, with left-wing authoritarianism and a willingness to justify political violence.
Experts like Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz, an epidemiologist, and Daniel Aaron, an associate professor at the University of Utah's SJ Quinney College of Law, have pointed out significant methodological flaws and questioned the report's adherence to federal regulations, particularly the requirement for peer review for influential scientific information. Aaron noted that the report's subject matter is not health-related, making its publication by HHS unusual.
Craig Konnoth, a professor at the University of Virginia School of Law, suggested the report is an attack on mainstream health and science organizations, using trans rights as a vehicle. The report names organizations such as the American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association, the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, and the American Academy of Pediatrics.
Colin Wright, one of the report's authors and a fellow at the conservative thinktank Manhattan Institute, acknowledged the report's quick release due to a leak and suggested the language could have been tightened. He disputed the direct link between supporting trans people and political authoritarianism, stating the study aimed to highlight how gender-affirming care guidelines might fuel authoritarian tendencies to silence opposition.
Meyerowitz-Katz further critiqued the study's questionnaire, suggesting it primarily measured political affiliation (Democrat) rather than authoritarianism and that its focus on political violence was skewed towards right-wing extremism, omitting violence against other actors. He described the report as 'pseudoscience.' The report's findings are based solely on correlations, with no specific numbers on respondent actions released.