MSU sociology professor Dr. Carla Pfeffer is being criticized for a scientific journal article that says trans men should be allowed to use testosterone during pregnancy, despite warnings that hormones can cause serious health problems in fetuses

A professor has been criticized for saying in a scientific journal that trans men could use testosterone during pregnancy, despite warnings it could lead to serious health problems.

Dr. Carla Pfeffer, who is not a doctor, has co-authored a new paper with five other academics entitled ‘Medical uncertainty and reproduction of the ‘normal’: decision-making around testosterone therapy in transgender pregnancies.

Pfeffer, a professor of sociology at Michigan State University, argues that pregnancy care focuses too much on helping women have healthy babies, and that trans men may be able to use testosterone during pregnancy.

The authors, who are sociologists, have since been accused of choosing to ignore the safety of a developing fetus “in the name of trans inclusion.”

In a scathing response In the paper, two nurses criticized the article, saying that adhering to their position “would leave us in a vacuum without medical ethics.”

Dr. Carla Pfeffer, pictured here, published an article with five other academics on the use of testosterone therapy during transgender pregnancies

The sociology professor and her cohorts have since been criticized by two nurses for ignoring the safety of a fetus ‘in the name of trans inclusion’

Authors Jennifer Lahl and Kallie Fell, executive director of the Center for Bioethics and Culture, published a response to the article titled, “Is There a Doctor in the House?”

In it they said: ‘The authors argue that ‘gendered’ pregnancy care focuses too much on helping women have healthy babies, and that it could be OK for trans men to continue taking testosterone during pregnancy, despite the known health risks for the fetus and their consequences. on its normal development.

“This is honestly insane.”

In the article, Pfeffer and her colleagues had studied 70 international transgender people and 22 health care providers who focus on transgender people.

Their article states: ‘We argue that in the context of missing and uncertain medical evidence (HRT with testosterone during pregnancy and lactation) in a highly gendered treatment context (pregnancy and lactation care), both patients and healthcare providers tend to take precautionary measures to pursue offspring. -targeted treatment approaches.’

In response, Lahl and Fell say the findings are flawed as only biologically fertile human females possess the traits for pregnancy and childbirth.

The two label this as “a simple biological reality” and say that pregnancy care is not “gender-related” at all.

According to the Mayo ClinicTestosterone can cause birth defects if a pregnant woman comes into contact with it.

Lahl and Fell also added: ‘Pfeffer and colleagues’ concerns center on physicians’ modern treatment approaches, which they deem excessively ‘precautionary’ and ‘offspring-oriented’.

Kal Fell, front, and Jennifer Lahl, background, published a response to the newspaper entitled, “Is There a Doctor in the House?”

‘Fortunately, caring for the child and the mother are not mutually exclusive and are not zero-sum.

“In situations where a woman wants to become pregnant and is committed to motherhood, physicians can provide care that optimizes outcomes for both parties while minimizing potential harm.

“If a woman chooses to continue the pregnancy, isn’t the developing fetus also entitled to the four principles of medical ethics?”

‘In such cases, the doctor is obliged to care for both the child and the mother.’

A healthcare provider also told the researchers, “I think if you choose to get pregnant, your female hormone levels are already so high that testosterone probably wouldn’t even help mentally.”

“If you produce breast milk and you can’t live without testosterone for mental health, if you can’t live without testosterone, then you probably shouldn’t be pregnant.”

Concluding their piece, Lahl and Fell said, “The authors’ suggestion that medical providers should deviate from the ‘do no harm’ principle and follow paths where the evidence points to harm is quite shocking.

“This perspective, driven more by ideology, emotions and personal desires than by evidence, is contrary to the foundations of evidence-based medicine.”