EXCLUSIVE: Docs Knew Gender Science Was ‘Shoddy,’ But Pushed Chemical Sex Changes On Kids Anyway
Private emails released under public records laws show senior clinicians at a major university admitting the science behind child sex changes was “shoddy,” while their clinic expanded treatment for minors. The messages came from leaders at the University of California San Francisco and were obtained after a legal challenge forced the university to turn over thousands of pages. Republicans and skeptics will point to these emails as proof that ideology outpaced evidence in adolescent gender care.
The documents center on Maddie Deutsch and Stephen Rosenthal, clinicians tied to influential guidelines used worldwide. Those guidelines, known as Standards of Care version 8, shaped practice in hospitals and clinics and helped normalize giving puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones to young people. The records also show the UCSF clinic had long waiting lists and was under pressure to scale up services fast.
The release followed a lawsuit by a watchdog group after UCSF denied public records requests, and the haul included 2,491 pages of emails. Among the revelations was that puberty blockers were given to children as young as nine, and that the treatments relied on research many insiders privately questioned. Puberty blockers are not approved by the Food and Drug Administration for treating gender dysphoria in kids.
Shoddy Research
The emails reveal repeated concern that weak studies were being cited to justify widespread medical interventions for children. One internal message said, “You cite the Diana Tordoff study from Seattle Children’s Hospital as evidence of the ‘clear mental health benefits’ of gender-affirming care. Except that, apparently, that study says no such thing.” That line is a forensic admission that key evidence was being misread or misapplied.
Rosenthal himself acknowledged the Tordoff paper had “significant methodological concerns,” according to the emails, and promised long-term follow-up from ongoing NIH-funded work. Yet other insiders complained that favorable but flawed studies were repeatedly used as proof that hormones and blockers reduced depression and suicidality. When those fragile studies were folded into the influential Standards of Care, critics warned the guidance had a shaky foundation.
The long-term NIH study connected to these teams produced data that, when later released, did not show clear mental health benefits from puberty blockers, and there are records suggesting some researchers delayed publication out of concern the results would be used politically. That withholding fueled suspicions that the field prioritized narrative and expansion of care over transparent science. Republicans will seize that as evidence of institutional capture by ideology.
Overlooking Risks and Fueling Predatory Practices
The emails don’t just criticize outside studies; they show internal debate about real harms. Rosenthal warned that using GnRHa as a standalone treatment in adolescents older than 14 posed a bone health risk, writing, “[SOC 8] also states there are not data to support use of GnRHa (as monotherapy) in someone older than 14 without posing a risk to bone health.” Yet the resulting guidance did not clearly bar that approach.
Critics argued the guideline process itself was compromised. One outside expert said, “When a consensus is built among ideologically aligned individuals who ignore conflicting evidence, the result isn’t science—it’s dogma dressed up as clinical guidance.” That critique goes to the heart of the controversy: consensus topped evidence and drove policy that affects children’s bodies for life.
Deutsch warned colleagues that lowering assessment standards would “fuel already opportunistic and in some cases predatory practices by some surgeons,” and worried the guidance would open the floodgates to “surgery on demand.” Internal notes show a clear fear that removing rigorous checks would empower less qualified clinicians to approve irreversible procedures. Soon after the guidelines dropped, the clinic moved to implement those looser standards.
The tenor of the emails is blunt: leaders knew of weak evidence and real risks, but moved forward anyway while the clinic grew. For Republicans concerned about medical ethics and parental rights, those messages resemble a pattern of institutional overreach. Judicial Watch’s president summed the outrage with a line that will stick in many minds: “There is something rotten in the state of California.”
WPATH, Deutsch and Rosenthal did not respond to requests for comment in the documents, leaving the public with the records and the questions they raise. Lawmakers and regulators should be asking why experimental treatments for minors were scaled up amid internal doubts about the evidence. The emails demand answers, accountability, and a return to clear, transparent science before permanent interventions are normalized for children.
