Research into trans medicine has been manipulated

The content of the article does not support the claim in the headline. No specific evidence is presented that any particular study was changed or suppressed at WPATH's request. The article presents evidence that WPATH requested the authority to approve publications, but also notes that the request was refused by Johns Hopkins. Everything else in the article, including the title, is speculative.

Not surprised to see The Economist join the list of major publications cave to conservative concern trolling around gender-affirming care. These have done far more damage to the trans community and trans youth than any of these purported risks combined.

Case in point, plucking out this single instance of weird behavior and slapping on this clickbait title that implies a much more widespread problem. Journalism has completely given over to feeding “well-actually” transphobia for clicks.

There is a lot of insinuation here without a lot of facts. But I can tell you this: If the world treated transgender people with kindness and acceptance and without constant and oppressive threats and hate, barely veiled insinuations about pedophilia, etcetera,then you would not have a reflexive, advocate-first mindset being so dominate.

Like begets like, but in opposition. Radicals beget radicals, the right and the left. Male chauvinism ruled the world, but a feminist movement arises, among some, overshoots into female chauvinism, begetting renewed male chauvinistic radicalism.

Radicalism is often necessary to effect change, because radicals don't see nuance, and when you don't see nuance, taking action...even risky action, is easier to justify.

The story has been told millions of times.

If you want better science in gender affirming care: 1) fund it, 2) don't make it scary for the scientists who do study it, as death threats are the norm, 3) dont interpret studies with preexisting agendas.

Identifying who will and who will not benefit from gender affirming care is important, but investigating one or the other can't be seen as claiming allegiance to one camp or another.

The article title does not end in a question mark. The guidelines say not to editorialize titles - and adding a question mark surely counts as editorializing?

Scant detail in this article about the papers in question or WPATH's objection. Maybe these papers were rejected for good reason?

Ironic this would be in "The Economist". ;D Manipulating data is all economists do!

Not surprising

I support LGBT rights, but that doesn't mean we should discount medical advice.

It's the typical problem of people who refuse to listen to doctors and want to self diagnose and self medicate.

While more biased source, a lot more details on this topic can be seen here: https://www.lgbtcourage.org/wpath