https://www.city-journal.org/article/new-england-journal-of-medicine-transgender-activists
The New England Journal of Medicine is the world’s most prestigious medical journal. It publishes only 5 percent of the original research submissions that it receives. Physician Marty Makary, President Trump’s nominee to head the Food and Drug Administration, has written that publishing a study in the journal “is rocket fuel for your academic career.”
But like so many other institutions, NEJM has allowed a dubious commitment to “social justice” to overtake its pursuit of excellence in medical science—particularly when it comes to youth gender medicine. NEJM’s coverage of this controversial field has abandoned even the pretense of objectivity, declining to hold researchers to scientific standards or air alternative views that would advance scientific knowledge.
“Gender-affirming care” for youth involves the use of puberty-blocking drugs, cross-sex hormones, and surgeries to treat children who experience distress associated with their sex. Once embraced by many Western countries, this protocol has faced criticism in recent years for lacking credible evidence of its safety and benefits, for its potential harms, and for imposing life-altering treatments on children unable to give informed consent. In the U.S., though, medical associations have bucked the growing international consensus, maintaining their commitment to what they regard as a nonnegotiable human right.
In his first days in office, President Trump signed executive orders designed to starve the pediatric gender industry of federal funding. Transgender advocacy groups and several Democratic attorneys general filed lawsuits to block the administration from achieving its goal.
Commentators on all sides lament that this issue has become so politicized. But the politicization is the result of scientific and medical institutions failing to impose high standards and to facilitate open debate.
NEJM’s conduct is a good illustration of that failure. Its refusal to hold the research it publishes to high scientific standards and its documented track record of suppressing debate on these novel, invasive, and risky procedures has directly contributed to the politicized environment we see today.