I had the displeasure of interacting with Simon Price's dad and the LGB Courage Coalition in Cambridge MA almost 2 months ago. One of them even called us "brown shirts" because we wanted to protect trans youth.
Wow! Thanks again for sharing this, Chloe. This event is a great illustration of what we're dealing with: $200-a-plate dinners where well-funded groups strategize how to deny healthcare to trans folks (youth first, of course) while claiming they're the ones being persecuted.
This isn't about genuine concern - it's about ideology and control.
But it is heartening to see that 150 people showed up to protest! Even the Vice Mayor stood with the community - that is great to see :) These anti-trans groups rely on operating in the shadows - shining a light on them and public opposition matters!
Sorry you couldn't stay due to noise sensitivity (I don't like loud/noisy environments either), but thank you for being there and for sharing the article. It's important to document these events so people understand what "reasonable concerns about youth gender care" actually looks like in practice: expensive dinners, conversion therapy advocates, and calling protesters fascists for defending human rights.
Every accusation is usually an admission of guilt with these groups.
I'm sorry you had to deal with that, Chloe. The irony of them calling people "brown shirts" for protecting vulnerable youth while they're actively trying to strip away healthcare and civil rights is... breathtaking.
The LGB Courage Coalition is one of those "divide and conquer" groups I mentioned - using LGB people as weapons against trans folks. They're particularly vicious in their tactics.
Would you be comfortable sharing more about what happened in Cambridge? These firsthand accounts of their behavior are important - they show what's behind the "reasonable concerns" mask.
Thank you for standing up for trans youth despite their harassment. That takes real courage (unlike their appropriated name).
I included both WPATH and WHO in my list of supporting organizations - both are global bodies that include European participation and membership. WPATH has strong European representation, and WHO covers all of Europe. So yes, Europe is included in 'worldwide.'
I see we've moved from "medical organizations" to governments and health systems - those aren't the same thing.
Medical organizations = groups of medical professionals (like WPATH, BMA, Royal College of Psychiatrists)
Government health systems = political bodies that deliver healthcare
Even so:
NHS England still provides gender-affirming care
Sweden and Finland still provide gender-affirming care (with modified youth protocols)
Meanwhile, Spain, Germany, and others have expanded access
But I notice you keep changing the subject:
"You excluded Europe" → No, I didn't
"But consensus not evidence" → Addressed that
"But what about governments" → Different topic entirely
What exactly is your actual position here?
The "Europe has rejected trans healthcare" narrative is simply false. What's true is that some countries are refining their approaches to pediatric care specifically, while maintaining the fundamental principle that gender-affirming care, when indicated, is appropriate medical treatment.
-Yes, you did. You said all medical organizations, that's false when you include Europe. It's not even true in the US. But, more to the point, not including the NHS in "medical organizations" is disingenuous.
"But consensus not evidence" → Addressed that
-That wasn't me changing the subject, I was responding to what someone else posted.
"But what about governments" → Different topic entirely
-Not really, when the government is the healthcare provider and they're the ones conducting systematic reviews.
What exactly is your actual position here?
-That youth with gender dysphoria deserve evidence based medicine, and, while further study is need, the current evidence does not suggest that the benefits of hormonal intervention outweigh the risks. This does not mean that these treatments are at a dead-end, only that careful assessment of patients is needed, something that wasn't happening in the UK/US.
I said "every major medical organization" - which is accurate. Cherry-picking outliers doesn't disprove the consensus.
"NHS is a medical organization"
NHS is a healthcare delivery system, not a professional medical organization. The BMA and Royal Colleges are the UK's medical organizations - and they support gender-affirming care.
"Current evidence does not suggest benefits outweigh risks"
According to whom? The evidence shows:
- 98-99% satisfaction rates
- 60-73% reduction in suicidality
- ~1% regret rates
- Improved mental health outcomes
You keep asserting "evidence doesn't support" while ignoring actual evidence.
"Careful assessment wasn't happening in UK/US"
This is simply false. Both countries have always required psychological assessment, diagnosis of persistent gender dysphoria, and capacity to consent. What you call "not careful" was actually following established clinical guidelines. Better documentation, more research, focused long-term outcomes! Sure! We *always* need that in every area of care.
Your "actual position" appears to be: ignore positive evidence, exaggerate the risks, and concern troll about "evidence-based medicine" while dismissing the actual evidence base. This is not to say there is not room for improvement - but to say there is not enough evidence is misleading, at best.
We're going in circles. Readers can evaluate whether someone who keeps moving goalposts and misrepresenting facts is arguing in good faith.
As I think this is going nowhere, I'll say one more thing, then you can have all the last words you want.
It's incredibly bad faith to accuse me of cherry picking outliers when all I've mentioned are systemic reviews, which are specifically designed to guard against cherry picking. They are the exact opposite of cherry picking.
"We're going in circles. Readers can evaluate whether someone who keeps moving goalposts and misrepresenting facts is arguing in good faith."
I agree, but I don't think they'll see me moving goalposts or misrepresenting facts. Not counting NHS in medical organization is moving goalposts. Denying that clinical guidelines, to the extent they existed, were routinely ignored, is misrepresenting facts.
Also, WPATH and WHO are worldwide professional medical organizations that also have issued recommendations for providing gender affirming healthcare for transgender patients.
No one is suggesting no healthcare for transgender youth. The question is what does the evidence suggest is the best healthcare for youth with gender dysphoria. Even this report admits that the evidence isn't there to support these treatments, the recommendations are based on consensus.
Without any new systematic reviews, I'm not sure why we should weight this report more strongly than previous ones.
Because it represents current medical consensus based on current evidence. Medicine evolves. We don't dismiss current cardiology guidelines because they differ from 1970s recommendations.
The question isn't whether the evidence is perfect - it's whether denying care based on imperfect evidence causes more harm than providing care based on the substantial evidence we have.
And that evidence strongly supports access to appropriate, individualized care.
I think it's also worth mentioning that the author here accuses SEGM of "Promotes conversion therapy as ‘exploratory therapy’", when this same recommendation is made in this report.
"an important goal to be clarified in advance can be to accompany a process of self-exploration in constant interaction with social role-testing, without suggesting any commitments for the future regarding a permanent desire to transition. "
Are you trying to make the point that SEGM promotes the same "exploratory therapy" as what other institutions recommend when they use the same term?
If so, that's exactly the problem - SEGM is co-opting legitimate therapeutic terminology. In practice, SEGM's "exploratory therapy" is essentially conversion therapy
"Exploratory therapy affirms a young gender dysphoric person's feelings as real and valid, but rather than confirming their self-diagnosis, questions and probes, looking for developmental factors that may have contributed to gender-related distress. "
It perfectly demonstrates the co-opting I'm talking about. Let's parse SEGM's language:
"Affirms feelings as real and valid" - Sounds good, right? But watch what comes next...
"BUT rather than confirming their self-diagnosis" - There it is. They frame trans identity as a "self-diagnosis" (like a disease) rather than an identity.
"questions and probes, looking for developmental factors that may have contributed" - Only looking for what "caused" it. Not exploring identity openly, but hunting for pathology.
Compare to actual exploratory therapy:
1. Explores all aspects of identity without predetermined outcomes
2. Doesn't assume something "contributed to" or "caused" gender identity
3. Supports whatever authentic identity emerges
SEGM's version only "explores" in one direction: what made you think you're trans? It's like "exploring" homosexuality by only looking for "developmental factors that contributed" to being gay.
That's not exploration. It's pathologization dressed up in therapeutic language.
Excellent article. I got into with some jerk the other day who used many of the tactics you describe in your article. I wouldn’t play along so the outrage began. Saved for future reference. Thanks for the info.
IKR? I find it amusing because it is as though folks like this think that trans people don't have different sexual orientations. If this was indeed all about "transing away the gay" then wouldn't most trans people be straight? That is not what we observe though, most are bi/pan! So much for that theory 😂
The same people who claim trans women transition in order to get "access to women" and want to exclude them from lesbian spaces because apparently lesbian trans women are such an epidemic claim transness is a result of repressed homosexuality or doctors forcing gay people to become heterosexual? It would be hilarious if people didn't fall for it.
Good work! Why has she written this article now? The Barnes book is years old - I thought people had moved on from the trans away the gay argument. Especially here in uk where they’ve effectively turned under 18 care into ‘exploratory’ therapy.
I have some ideas/theories, but they are speculation - nothing more. I think the timing is strategic. While the 'trans away the gay' narrative seemed to lose steam after the Barnes book, it took root in certain LGB only groups, and I think it's being resurrected now for several reasons.
I think there's a legal strategy shift. As courts reject religious/safety arguments against trans rights, activists are testing new angles. The 'protecting gay youth' frame polls better with liberals and moderates.
Post-Cass, there's a momentum felt, and anti-trans activists are trying to export the UK's restrictive approach to the US. Goldis citing UK sources isn't coincidental - they're attempting to normalize 'exploratory therapy' (aka conversion therapy lite) here. Also consider that when you need supporting evidence to defend your position/agenda, any straw looks like a solid beam.
There is the election cycle coming up, so we need to draw lines and differentiate ourselves, perhaps. With 2026 ramping up, culture war issues get amplified. Recycling old arguments with fresh packaging is a standard/expected thing.
Divide and conquer. After marriage equality, LGBTQ+ solidarity is strong. Breaking that coalition by pitting identities against each other is a deliberate strategy. I don't think it will work, from what I understand, the LGB only/alliances are a very small group, and most the members are straight.
The fact that the UK has already implemented what Goldis advocates for (and it's harming trans youth) makes an attractive copy/paste. The fact it harms trans people, or that it will help erode their own rights and protections doesn't seem to matter to them. The goal is spreading fear and confusion, not presenting accurate information, and achieving their goal - seemingly no matter the cost.
![People with Inconvenient Truths about Transphobes [PITT]](https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!YttD!,w_80,h_80,c_fill,f_webp,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep,g_auto/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F704ba0db-3e10-4112-9364-c2f224d0cfae_500x500.png)
![People with Inconvenient Truths about Transphobes [PITT]](https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!YttD!,w_36,h_36,c_fill,f_webp,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep,g_auto/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F704ba0db-3e10-4112-9364-c2f224d0cfae_500x500.png)
I had the displeasure of interacting with Simon Price's dad and the LGB Courage Coalition in Cambridge MA almost 2 months ago. One of them even called us "brown shirts" because we wanted to protect trans youth.
https://boston.eater.com/2025/5/20/24434034/glass-house-cambridge-boycott-anti-trans-dinner here's an article on the protest. I didn't stay there because of noise sensitivity.
I will dive into this - thanks for sharing!!
Wow! Thanks again for sharing this, Chloe. This event is a great illustration of what we're dealing with: $200-a-plate dinners where well-funded groups strategize how to deny healthcare to trans folks (youth first, of course) while claiming they're the ones being persecuted.
This isn't about genuine concern - it's about ideology and control.
But it is heartening to see that 150 people showed up to protest! Even the Vice Mayor stood with the community - that is great to see :) These anti-trans groups rely on operating in the shadows - shining a light on them and public opposition matters!
Sorry you couldn't stay due to noise sensitivity (I don't like loud/noisy environments either), but thank you for being there and for sharing the article. It's important to document these events so people understand what "reasonable concerns about youth gender care" actually looks like in practice: expensive dinners, conversion therapy advocates, and calling protesters fascists for defending human rights.
Every accusation is usually an admission of guilt with these groups.
Also they are a 501c3 that it seems they didn't have their required tax filings published
Which means they either make less then $50k or they are committing fraud
One can only hope that this is caught!
Also they haven't updated their name with the IRS. https://www.transgendermap.com/issues/academia/gender-critical/lgbt-courage-coalition/ has more info on them
I'm sorry you had to deal with that, Chloe. The irony of them calling people "brown shirts" for protecting vulnerable youth while they're actively trying to strip away healthcare and civil rights is... breathtaking.
The LGB Courage Coalition is one of those "divide and conquer" groups I mentioned - using LGB people as weapons against trans folks. They're particularly vicious in their tactics.
Would you be comfortable sharing more about what happened in Cambridge? These firsthand accounts of their behavior are important - they show what's behind the "reasonable concerns" mask.
Thank you for standing up for trans youth despite their harassment. That takes real courage (unlike their appropriated name).
"Every major medical organization worldwide supports it"
Is there a reason you don't count Europe in "worldwide"?
I included both WPATH and WHO in my list of supporting organizations - both are global bodies that include European participation and membership. WPATH has strong European representation, and WHO covers all of Europe. So yes, Europe is included in 'worldwide.'
But the NHS isn't? The gov'ts of Sweden and Finland?
I see we've moved from "medical organizations" to governments and health systems - those aren't the same thing.
Medical organizations = groups of medical professionals (like WPATH, BMA, Royal College of Psychiatrists)
Government health systems = political bodies that deliver healthcare
Even so:
NHS England still provides gender-affirming care
Sweden and Finland still provide gender-affirming care (with modified youth protocols)
Meanwhile, Spain, Germany, and others have expanded access
But I notice you keep changing the subject:
"You excluded Europe" → No, I didn't
"But consensus not evidence" → Addressed that
"But what about governments" → Different topic entirely
What exactly is your actual position here?
The "Europe has rejected trans healthcare" narrative is simply false. What's true is that some countries are refining their approaches to pediatric care specifically, while maintaining the fundamental principle that gender-affirming care, when indicated, is appropriate medical treatment.
"You excluded Europe" → No, I didn't
-Yes, you did. You said all medical organizations, that's false when you include Europe. It's not even true in the US. But, more to the point, not including the NHS in "medical organizations" is disingenuous.
"But consensus not evidence" → Addressed that
-That wasn't me changing the subject, I was responding to what someone else posted.
"But what about governments" → Different topic entirely
-Not really, when the government is the healthcare provider and they're the ones conducting systematic reviews.
What exactly is your actual position here?
-That youth with gender dysphoria deserve evidence based medicine, and, while further study is need, the current evidence does not suggest that the benefits of hormonal intervention outweigh the risks. This does not mean that these treatments are at a dead-end, only that careful assessment of patients is needed, something that wasn't happening in the UK/US.
"You said all medical organizations"
I said "every major medical organization" - which is accurate. Cherry-picking outliers doesn't disprove the consensus.
"NHS is a medical organization"
NHS is a healthcare delivery system, not a professional medical organization. The BMA and Royal Colleges are the UK's medical organizations - and they support gender-affirming care.
"Current evidence does not suggest benefits outweigh risks"
According to whom? The evidence shows:
- 98-99% satisfaction rates
- 60-73% reduction in suicidality
- ~1% regret rates
- Improved mental health outcomes
You keep asserting "evidence doesn't support" while ignoring actual evidence.
"Careful assessment wasn't happening in UK/US"
This is simply false. Both countries have always required psychological assessment, diagnosis of persistent gender dysphoria, and capacity to consent. What you call "not careful" was actually following established clinical guidelines. Better documentation, more research, focused long-term outcomes! Sure! We *always* need that in every area of care.
Your "actual position" appears to be: ignore positive evidence, exaggerate the risks, and concern troll about "evidence-based medicine" while dismissing the actual evidence base. This is not to say there is not room for improvement - but to say there is not enough evidence is misleading, at best.
We're going in circles. Readers can evaluate whether someone who keeps moving goalposts and misrepresenting facts is arguing in good faith.
As I think this is going nowhere, I'll say one more thing, then you can have all the last words you want.
It's incredibly bad faith to accuse me of cherry picking outliers when all I've mentioned are systemic reviews, which are specifically designed to guard against cherry picking. They are the exact opposite of cherry picking.
"We're going in circles. Readers can evaluate whether someone who keeps moving goalposts and misrepresenting facts is arguing in good faith."
I agree, but I don't think they'll see me moving goalposts or misrepresenting facts. Not counting NHS in medical organization is moving goalposts. Denying that clinical guidelines, to the extent they existed, were routinely ignored, is misrepresenting facts.
A 400-page report was released in May 2025 from 26 European medical and psychotherapeutic professional organizations that recommends healthcare for transgender youth: https://register.awmf.org/assets/guidelines/028_D_G_f_Kinder-_und_Jugendpsychiatrie_und_-psychotherapie/028-014eng_S2k_Geschlechtsinkongruenz-Geschlechtsdysphorie-Kinder-Jugendliche_2025-06.pdf
Also, WPATH and WHO are worldwide professional medical organizations that also have issued recommendations for providing gender affirming healthcare for transgender patients.
No one is suggesting no healthcare for transgender youth. The question is what does the evidence suggest is the best healthcare for youth with gender dysphoria. Even this report admits that the evidence isn't there to support these treatments, the recommendations are based on consensus.
Without any new systematic reviews, I'm not sure why we should weight this report more strongly than previous ones.
Because it represents current medical consensus based on current evidence. Medicine evolves. We don't dismiss current cardiology guidelines because they differ from 1970s recommendations.
The question isn't whether the evidence is perfect - it's whether denying care based on imperfect evidence causes more harm than providing care based on the substantial evidence we have.
And that evidence strongly supports access to appropriate, individualized care.
"And that evidence strongly supports access to appropriate, individualized care."
And, based on multiple systematic reviews, appropriate care does not include endocrine intervention, except in the context of a research protocol.
As I said, no one is opposed to providing care. The question is what qualifies as appropriate.
Which specific systematic reviews are you citing that recommend endocrine interventions ONLY in research contexts?
I think it's also worth mentioning that the author here accuses SEGM of "Promotes conversion therapy as ‘exploratory therapy’", when this same recommendation is made in this report.
"an important goal to be clarified in advance can be to accompany a process of self-exploration in constant interaction with social role-testing, without suggesting any commitments for the future regarding a permanent desire to transition. "
Are you trying to make the point that SEGM promotes the same "exploratory therapy" as what other institutions recommend when they use the same term?
If so, that's exactly the problem - SEGM is co-opting legitimate therapeutic terminology. In practice, SEGM's "exploratory therapy" is essentially conversion therapy
But it's not. It's the same exploratory therapy promoted in this document.
No, it is not. From SEGM's own site:
"Exploratory therapy affirms a young gender dysphoric person's feelings as real and valid, but rather than confirming their self-diagnosis, questions and probes, looking for developmental factors that may have contributed to gender-related distress. "
It perfectly demonstrates the co-opting I'm talking about. Let's parse SEGM's language:
"Affirms feelings as real and valid" - Sounds good, right? But watch what comes next...
"BUT rather than confirming their self-diagnosis" - There it is. They frame trans identity as a "self-diagnosis" (like a disease) rather than an identity.
"questions and probes, looking for developmental factors that may have contributed" - Only looking for what "caused" it. Not exploring identity openly, but hunting for pathology.
Compare to actual exploratory therapy:
1. Explores all aspects of identity without predetermined outcomes
2. Doesn't assume something "contributed to" or "caused" gender identity
3. Supports whatever authentic identity emerges
SEGM's version only "explores" in one direction: what made you think you're trans? It's like "exploring" homosexuality by only looking for "developmental factors that contributed" to being gay.
That's not exploration. It's pathologization dressed up in therapeutic language.
Excellent article. I got into with some jerk the other day who used many of the tactics you describe in your article. I wouldn’t play along so the outrage began. Saved for future reference. Thanks for the info.
Thanks Kay-El, I am glad you liked it and found it useful!
That is kind of how it seems to go, isn't it? When the arguments don't work and when the points being made are good, they get mad.
LMAO I wasn't gay *until* I transitioned.
By this logic I transed away my straight 😂
IKR? I find it amusing because it is as though folks like this think that trans people don't have different sexual orientations. If this was indeed all about "transing away the gay" then wouldn't most trans people be straight? That is not what we observe though, most are bi/pan! So much for that theory 😂
The same people who claim trans women transition in order to get "access to women" and want to exclude them from lesbian spaces because apparently lesbian trans women are such an epidemic claim transness is a result of repressed homosexuality or doctors forcing gay people to become heterosexual? It would be hilarious if people didn't fall for it.
Good work! Why has she written this article now? The Barnes book is years old - I thought people had moved on from the trans away the gay argument. Especially here in uk where they’ve effectively turned under 18 care into ‘exploratory’ therapy.
I have some ideas/theories, but they are speculation - nothing more. I think the timing is strategic. While the 'trans away the gay' narrative seemed to lose steam after the Barnes book, it took root in certain LGB only groups, and I think it's being resurrected now for several reasons.
I think there's a legal strategy shift. As courts reject religious/safety arguments against trans rights, activists are testing new angles. The 'protecting gay youth' frame polls better with liberals and moderates.
Post-Cass, there's a momentum felt, and anti-trans activists are trying to export the UK's restrictive approach to the US. Goldis citing UK sources isn't coincidental - they're attempting to normalize 'exploratory therapy' (aka conversion therapy lite) here. Also consider that when you need supporting evidence to defend your position/agenda, any straw looks like a solid beam.
There is the election cycle coming up, so we need to draw lines and differentiate ourselves, perhaps. With 2026 ramping up, culture war issues get amplified. Recycling old arguments with fresh packaging is a standard/expected thing.
Divide and conquer. After marriage equality, LGBTQ+ solidarity is strong. Breaking that coalition by pitting identities against each other is a deliberate strategy. I don't think it will work, from what I understand, the LGB only/alliances are a very small group, and most the members are straight.
The fact that the UK has already implemented what Goldis advocates for (and it's harming trans youth) makes an attractive copy/paste. The fact it harms trans people, or that it will help erode their own rights and protections doesn't seem to matter to them. The goal is spreading fear and confusion, not presenting accurate information, and achieving their goal - seemingly no matter the cost.