Over 200 sign open letter criticizing Professor Alex Byrne’s role in report on pediatric gender dysphoria treatment
Byrne disclosed co-writing a HHS report in May about gender dysphoria treatment for minors
On June 26, Professor of Philosophy Alex Byrne wrote a Washington Post op-ed disclosing his co-authorship of a previously anonymous Department of Human and Health Services (HHS) report on pediatric gender dysphoria treatment published this past May. In the op-ed, Byrne argued that the American medical establishment should reevaluate gender-affirming care for minors, stating, “Medical transition for minors is not empirically or ethically justified.”
The recent news has stirred controversy within MIT and other academic communities. As of time of publication, over 200 people — including MIT affiliates, those from other institutions, and anonymous signatories — have signed an open letter titled “Dear Professor Byrne,” which criticizes Byrne for contributing to the report. The open letter, authored by an unnamed “concerned colleague,” alleges that Byrne’s language harms the transgender community and condemns him for working with the Trump administration via his co-authorship.
Furthermore, the statement’s authors argue that Byrne failed to adhere to academic professional ethics by feigning knowledge outside his field of study. “Given your lack of the requisite expertise, we believe it is inappropriate for you to engage in the shaping of national medical policy on gender-affirming care for trans youth,” the authors wrote. Byrne is an academic who studies the philosophy of sex and gender. In 2023, he published Trouble With Gender, a book that argues against the “recent gender revolution,” specifically the rise in using gender identity terms such as cisgender and transgender in place of sex. Critics have called the work to not be inclusive of trans people.
The HHS report was produced in response to a Jan. 28 executive order titled “Protecting Children from Chemical and Surgical Mutilation,” which directed the department to review gender dysphoria treatment protocols for minors and publish its findings within 90 days. The order described gender-affirming care for minors as “destructive” and stated that medical guidance from the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) was based on “junk science.” According to the report’s press release, the names of the authors were withheld to “help maintain the integrity of the process.”
In the report, the authors argued that evidence in support of gender-affirming medical care for minors is weak. They also claim that treatments such as puberty blockers and hormones carry significant medical risks, including later sexual dysfunction. Instead, the report recommends psychotherapy, in particular “exploratory therapy,” for treating gender dysphoria in children and adolescents.
LGBTQ+ rights advocates, researchers, and doctors have criticized the report for contradicting the guidance of medical associations such as the American Academy of Pediatrics, which supports gender-affirming care for minors. Critics believe that the report attacks trans rights and misrepresents current scientific evidence. On the other hand, conservative groups such as Alliance Defending Freedom and the Center for American Liberty have voiced support for the report’s findings.
Katie Zhou G, a trans PhD student in MIT’s Philosophy Department studying the philosophy of gender, was aware of Byrne’s views before the report. Although Zhou disagreed with him and was concerned about the “harmful effects” of his beliefs, she was willing to consider his academic work on gender as a professor “exercising his right to free and open inquiry.” However, Zhou sees Byrne’s role as a co-author of the HHS report differently. “He is actively shaping national medical policy for trans youth, despite the fact that he is not a medical or community public health expert in this subject area,” Zhou wrote to The Tech.
Elle Kirsch G, a queer PhD student in MIT’s Philosophy Department involved in LGBTQ+ advocacy, finds the report’s recommendations for gender-affirming care in minors to be “concerning regardless of authorship,” as they believe that gender-affirming treatment “saves lives.” In their statement, Kirsch raised the question of why Byrne was able to co-author the report, whereas trans activists or academics “who have been fighting for decades” were “not in the position to contribute.”
TransMIT, an affinity group for transgender community members, did not respond to The Tech’s request for comment by the time of publication.
In a written statement to The Tech, Byrne admitted that he had reservations about being a co-author of the report, as he did not want to be associated with the “cruel and entirely unnecessary language” about transgender people in Trump’s executive orders. However, Byrne ultimately believes that there were benefits in contributing to the report. “An evidence-based accurate report is much better for everyone (especially for young people with gender dysphoria),” Byrne wrote. Overall, he found the report “both objective and well-argued,” citing the Washington Post editorial board’s article that considered it a “careful, thorough, and definitely skeptical tour through the subject [of gender-affirming care].”
Byrne disagrees with the open letter’s claim that he lacked the “requisite expertise” for the report, stating that his previous work is based on psychology, biology, and sexology. As for his decision to collaborate with the Trump administration, Byrne argues that MIT as a whole ‘collaborates’ with the government, pointing to the Lincoln Lab’s federal funding through sources like the U.S. Air Force.
Byrne believes that the letter is not a “constructive way” to criticize a colleague for “professional ethical lapses” and “errors of judgment.” However, Byrne said that he is open to addressing concerns about the report and talking with people who share different perspectives. “Most claims in philosophy are hotly disputed, so no one should be fazed if another controversy is added,” Byrne wrote.