Skip to content

Wojtek Wiercioch vs. transgender people

Wojtek Wiercioch is a Canadian researcher and anti-transgender activist. In 2021, Wiercioch received funding from anti-transgender hate group Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine (SEGM) and was a key figure in getting trans healthcare for minors banned in Florida in 2022.

Wiercioch is closely associated with a McMaster University yeam led by Gordon Guyatt and was recruited by SEGM to support anti-trans FUD propaganda that claims trans healthcare is based on “low quality evidence.”

2022 Florida report

Florida has long been one of the most hostile US states regarding the rights of trans and gender diverse people. Using slogans like “working together to protect our children” and “let kids be kids,” the state undertook an effort to eliminate gender affirming care for minors.

On April 20, 2022, the Florida Department of Health issued guidance related to gender affirming care for minors. The Secretary of the Florida Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) requested that Florida’s Medicaid program review “whether treatments are consistent with widely accepted professional medical standards.” AHCA commissioned five reports as a pretext for banning coverage of gender affirming care. The authors are:

The June 2, 2022 AHCA report found that “several services for the treatment of gender dysphoria – i.e., sex reassignment surgery, cross-sex hormones, and puberty blockers – are not consistent with widely accepted professional medical standards and are experimental and investigational with the potential for harmful long term affects.”

On July 8, 2022, Yale University pediatrician Meredithe McNamara and colleagues released â€śA Critical Review of the June 2022 Florida Medicaid Report on the Medical Treatment of Gender Dysphoria.” In it, they discuss the undisclosed conflict of interest:

The linchpin of the June 2 Report is the analysis by Brignardello-Petersen and Wiercioch (the “BPW document”), provided as Attachment C, which purports to be a comprehensive review of the scientific literature on medical treatment for gender dysphoria but, in fact, is extremely narrow in scope and so flawed in its analysis that it merits no scientific weight.

Romina Brignardello-Petersen is one of two authors of the document provided as Attachment C to the June 2 Report. Although Brignardello-Petersen claims to have no research interests in medical care for transgender youth, 25 she has conducted research for the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine (“SEGM”). 26 Although SEGM claims to be an international medical society, it is actually an activist group that opposes standard medical care for gender dysphoria. The SEGM has no publications or conferences and seems to consist solely of a website created by a small group of people with limited or no scientific credentials or clinical experience. The site presents a cherry-picked collection of studies and narrative content that is full of scientific errors. 27

25. Like the van Meter and Cantor attachments, the BPW document provides no express statement of conflicts of interest. The BPW document does offer a statement of “credentials and expertise,” in which she declares that “her research interests are not in this area,” meaning apparently research on medical care for gender dysphoria. BPW Document, p. 1.

26. Like the van Meter and Cantor attachments, the BPW document provides no express statement of conflicts of interest. The BPW document does offer a statement of “credentials and expertise,” in which she declares that “her research interests are not in this area,” meaning apparently research on medical care for gender dysphoria.

27. For one example of the purported research that Brignardello-Petersen apparently assisted in, see Alison Clayton et al., Commentary: the Signal and the Noise – Questioning the Benefits of Puberty Blockers for Youth with Gender Dysphoria – A Commentary on Rew et al. (2021), Child and Adolescent Mental Health, Dec. 22, 2021, at https://acamh.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/camh.12533. In the “Acknowledgements” section, the authors state, “We would also like to thank the Society for Evidence-based Gender Medicine (SEGM) for providing access to several experts who helped shape this commentary and ensure its accuracy. Specifically, we would like to thank Dr. Romina Brignardello Petersen [sic] for contributing her methodological expertise.”

“Low-quality evidence”

Federal judge Sarah E. Geraghty rejected these claims in a 2023 Georgia case where anti-trans activists Paul Hruz, Michael Laidlaw, and James Cantor testified against Yale University professor of pediatrics Meredithe McNamara:

The undisputed record shows that clinical medical decision-making, including in pediatric or adolescent medicine, often is not guided by evidence that would qualify as “high quality” on the scales used by Defendants’ experts. 30 (Doc. 70-1, McNamara Decl. ¶¶ 23–28; Tr. 74:11–75:1 (McNamara Testimony); Tr. 133:614 (Hruz Testimony).) In fact, the record shows that less than 15 percent of medical treatments are supported by “high-quality evidence,” or in other words that 85 percent of evidence that guides clinical care, across all areas of medicine, would be classified as “low-quality” under the scale used by Defendants’ experts. (Doc. 70-1, McNamara Decl. ¶ 25; Tr. 74:11–75:1.) Defendants do not refute Dr. McNamara’s testimony on this point, and indeed they “concede” that “low-quality” evidence “can be considered.” 31 [emphasis mine]

Geraghty also noted the obvious biases of Hruz, Laidlaw and Cantor:

Defendants’ experts’ insistence on a very high threshold of evidence in the context of claims about hormone therapy’s safety and benefits, and on the other hand their tolerance of a much lower threshold of evidence for claims about its risks, the likelihood of desistance and/or regret, and their notions about the ideological bias of a medical establishment that largely disagrees with them. That is cause for some concern about the weight to be assigned to their views, although the Court does not doubt that those they express are genuinely held.

(“Dr. [Paul] Hruz fended and parried questions and generally testified as a deeply biased advocate, not as an expert sharing relevant evidence-based information and opinions. I do not credit his testimony.”); Eknes-Tucker v. Marshall, 603 F. Supp. 3d 1131, 1142–43 (M.D. Ala. 2022) (explaining that the court gave Dr. James Cantor’s “testimony regarding the treatment of gender dysphoria in minors very little weight”); C. P. by & through Pritchard v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Illinois, No. 3:20-CV-06145-RJB, 2022 WL 17092846, at *4 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 21, 2022) (noting that it was a “close question” as to whether Dr. Michael Laidlaw was qualified to testify about the medical necessity of gender-affirming care because he has treated only two patients with gender dysphoria and has done no original research on gender identity).

References

Kam, Dara (July 15, 2022). Report targets Florida over its transgender treatment plan. WUWF https://www.wuwf.org/florida-news/2022-07-15/report-targets-florida-over-its-transgender-treatment-plan

McNamara M et al (July 8, 2022). A Critical Review of the June 2022 Florida Medicaid Report on the Medical Treatment of Gender Dysphoria. https://files-profile.medicine.yale.edu/documents/c11e1419-a122-4b2f-87a8-cc4c9fbf57a4

Selected publications by Wiercioch

Brignardello-Petersen, Romina; Wiercioch, Wojtek (May 16, 2022). Effects of Gender Affirming Therapies in People with Gender Dysphoria: Evaluation of the Best Available Evidence. https://ahca.myflorida.com/content/download/4864/file/AHCA_GAPMS_June_2022_Attachment_C.pdf

Resources

McMaster University (mcmaster.ca)

X/Twitter (x.com)

Google Scholar (scholar.google.com)

Guidelines International Network (g-i-n.net)