https://doi.org/10.1080/00380253.2026.2656897
An interesting new paper exploring the ways in which proponents of "Gender Exploratory Therapy", such as Therapy First, manufacture doubt in the scientific consensus around Gender-affirmative Therapy in ways similar to anti-vaxers, climate-change sceptics, and the smoking lobby. For example, they apply asymmetric standards of evidence, requiring substantially higher standards of evidence for Gender-affirmative Therapy than they require of themselves (Cass being a case in point).
"Mischaracterizing opponents’ positions, demanding heightened certainty for disfavored evidence, magnifying controversy, and accusing expert institutions of unscientific motivations are well-documented strategies that actors deploy to influence policy".
This is US-based research, but has obvious relevance to the UK.
"I find that proponents of an ostensibly novel gender exploratory therapy reiterate key ideas and practices associated with religiously motivated gender identity change therapy, despite differentiating themselves from these more marginal contenders by declaring ideological neutrality."
Well who'da thunk it?