On Chicago’s Morning Answer, host Dan Proft spoke with journalist Benjamin Ryan about an episode at McMaster University that has roiled the already-charged debate over youth gender medicine: a leading evidence-based medicine lab published reviews finding weak and uncertain support for pediatric gender interventions—then publicly distanced itself from its own sponsor and adopted activist language critics say its findings do not support.
Ryan’s report in UnHerd centers on Dr. Gordon Guyatt, the McMaster professor widely credited with co-founding the modern discipline of evidence-based medicine. Beginning in 2021, Guyatt’s team undertook five systematic reviews on youth gender treatments commissioned by the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine (SEGM), a small nonprofit that favors rigorous appraisal of the literature. The first three papers—covering puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and mastectomies—concluded the underlying evidence is weak and uncertain. That is consistent with other high-quality reviews and with recent policy shifts abroad, including England’s Cass Review and subsequent NHS restrictions on routine use of puberty blockers.
The blowback was swift. In 2024, the Southern Poverty Law Center labeled SEGM a “hate group,” relying in part on donor-advised fund linkages that, as Ryan noted, do not demonstrate coordination with other grantees. Activists pressured McMaster and the lab; a prominent local editorial added heat. On August 14, the research group issued a statement disavowing SEGM, insisting its work should not be used to support bans, and describing pediatric interventions as “medically necessary”—terminology the team’s own reviews had not substantiated. The statement also referred to “hormone replacement therapy” for minors, a menopause-derived term critics argue is scientifically inapt because it “replaces” hormone levels that were never present.
The situation grew more tangled after Guyatt’s recorded interview with two researchers who have scrutinized gender-medicine policy (Mia Hughes and Stella O’Malley). When confronted with the “medically necessary” phrasing, Guyatt said he had not authored—and, crucially, had not read—the paragraph containing it. He later told journalist Jesse Singal that, while he does not believe SEGM is transphobic or ban-oriented, he felt compelled to protect junior colleagues from reputational harm given SPLC’s designation and the pressure campaign. According to Ryan, the McMaster team is now seeking to remove their names from two forthcoming SEGM-commissioned reviews—an unusual step that raises questions about academic stewardship and whether future funders can rely on contracted research being published without post-hoc disavowals.
Ryan contrasted McMaster’s stance with cases where scholars have dug in despite attacks. He cited Northwestern’s Michael Bailey and researcher Lisa Littman, both criticized for work exploring social contagion dynamics in adolescent gender dysphoria; Littman’s paper was withdrawn and republished with clarifications, while Bailey’s was retracted and later reissued elsewhere. In Canada, psychologist Ken Zucker was ousted from a clinic after allegations he later disproved in court, winning a settlement but leaving activists claiming victory. The pattern, Ryan argued, is an escalating tactic: engineer a “scalp” to deter others from publishing unwelcome results.
Proft linked the episode to a broader reluctance among U.S. institutions to allow definitive adjudication—scientific or legal—on contested gender issues. He pointed to this week’s abrupt withdrawal of a Ninth Circuit case involving a male Boise State runner challenging Idaho’s female sports law; the athlete and the ACLU moved to vacate the appeals ruling as the case neared likely Supreme Court review, a move critics called gamesmanship to avoid an adverse national precedent.
The McMaster controversy arrives despite mounting policy caution abroad and at some U.S. hospitals regarding puberty blockers and surgeries for minors. For Ryan, that is the crux: when a flagship lab in evidence-based medicine signals one thing in its data and another in its public positioning, it invites charges that activism is crowding out independence—and risks eroding the very trust needed to navigate a low-information, high-stakes clinical domain.