Hormone studies as legal evidence

Longitudinal observational hormone studies (e.g., the 2‑year NEJM cohort) are increasingly cited as decisive evidence in legislation and court cases about pediatric gender‑affirming care. Because these designs do not settle causation and are sensitive to selection and reporting, their role as de facto legal proof risks misapplication and policy overreach. — If courts and legislatures treat single observational follow‑ups as dispositive, medical practice and youth rights could be reshaped by misinterpreted evidence, creating high‑stakes legal and ethical consequences.