Ashley’s response to our recent paper argues that a fuller appreciation of the available clinical data, of the rights of children to autonomy, and of the primary purpose of gender-affirming endocrine treatment supports the rejection of both the pathway and consent dilemmas for the treatment of gender dysphoria, as raised in this journal. In this response, we highlight certain misrepresentations of our argument, and defend our conclusions against Ashley’s main objections.
- decision making
- gender identity
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Contributors TB is the primary author. GD revised critically.
Funding This study was funded by Lumina Quaeuruntur (LQ300092001).
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Two dilemmas for medical ethics in the treatment of gender dysphoria in youth
- Flawed reasoning on two dilemmas: a commentary on Baron and Dierckxsens (2021)
- High court should not restrict access to puberty blockers for minors
- Gender dysphoria in adolescents: can adolescents or parents give valid consent to puberty blockers?
- Forever young? The ethics of ongoing puberty suppression for non-binary adults
- Assessment and support of children and adolescents with gender dysphoria
- Current management of male-to-female gender identity disorder in the UK
- Gender dysphoria in children: puberty blockers study draws further criticism
- What are the health outcomes of trans and gender diverse young people in Australia? Study protocol for the Trans20 longitudinal cohort study
- Gender dysphoria in young people is rising—and so is professional disagreement