Ojeda, T., Pape, M., Grijseels, D.M., Llaveria Caselles, E., Bekker, S., Blanc, J-S., Bons, D., Demers, G., Gonsalves, T., Lamble, S., Pearce, R., & Vähäpassi, V. (2026). Misuse of evidence in sex and gender policy. International Journal of Feminist Approaches to Bioethics.
This peer-reviewed article by 12 international researchers across multiple disciplines (clinical psychology, neuroscience, sociology, criminology, sports science, public health, law) examines how evidence is systematically misused in policy debates affecting transgender people. The authorship team met at a 2025 University of Lausanne workshop on sex and gender policy and represents institutions in Australia, Canada, Chile, Finland, Germany, the Netherlands, Switzerland, the UK, and the USA.
The paper identifies six recurring patterns by which evidence is weaponized in anti-trans policymaking:
Anti-trans campaigns routinely elevate individual opinion — often from ideologically aligned figures with no relevant clinical or research expertise — as though it carries the weight of scientific consensus.
Examples from the paper: Individuals with no background in pediatric gender medicine testifying in state hearings as "experts"; the UK's Cass Review placing more weight on selected expert testimony than on systematic reviews of clinical evidence.
Trans people with direct lived experience and clinicians who work with trans patients are systematically excluded from policymaking processes, while anti-trans figures are centered as the relevant authorities.
Examples from the paper: The Cass Review excluding trans-led research organizations and trans healthcare providers from its evidence-gathering process; US state hearings where professional medical associations (WPATH, Endocrine Society, AAP) are dismissed as biased while fringe groups are platformed.
Long-established scientific consensus — such as the medical necessity of gender-affirming care recognized by every major medical association — is framed as "controversial," "ideological," or "activist-driven."
Examples from the paper: Characterizing WPATH's Standards of Care as political rather than evidence-based; the framing of international medical consensus as "minority activism" in UK policy documents.
Policymakers demand levels of evidence that are impossibly high or methodologically inappropriate — often requiring RCTs for treatments where randomization would be unethical — and then use the absence of such "gold standard" evidence as justification for restricting care.
Examples from the paper: The Cass Review treating absence of long-term RCTs as absence of evidence; requiring trans youth to first resolve all mental health distress before receiving gender-affirming care (a functional catch-22, since that distress is often caused by gender dysphoria).
Data points or study findings are quoted in isolation, stripped of methodological context, or applied to different populations than those studied, creating misleading impressions of risk.
Examples from the paper: Citing detransition rates from studies with narrow populations as if they apply broadly; presenting correlation (e.g., trans youth presenting with mental health comorbidities) as causation (gender-affirming care causes mental illness).
Organizations with no scientific credibility adopt names evoking medical or scientific authority and produce content that mimics research but fails basic standards of evidence.
Examples from the paper: The American College of Pediatricians (a designated hate group, not the real AAP), SEGM, and the Clinical Advisory Network on Sex and Gender (CAN-SG) (see CAN-SG profile) all operate as purportedly "science-based" organizations while promoting ideologically motivated claims that contradict established medical consensus.
The paper argues that the evidence-misuse strategies developed in anti-trans contexts are part of a broader erosion of trust in science and expertise. The same techniques — elevating opinion over evidence, discrediting consensus, mobilizing decontextualized claims — are used to undermine climate science, immigration policy, and public health measures. The authors specifically link these tactics to the mass defunding of scientific programs and institutions in the United States.
This article is significant because it moves beyond individual case studies to identify a repeatable pattern of evidence misuse that recurs across multiple policy domains affecting trans people. It provides a framework that advocates, journalists, and policymakers can use to identify and counter these tactics, and it draws together examples from healthcare, prison housing, and sports to show that this is not isolated misconduct but a coordinated set of rhetorical strategies.
Pages on this site may reference this paper as a source for the broader pattern of evidence misuse. Key pages that draw on this framework include: