Megan Udinski, FISM News
United States pediatricians are calling out the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) for pushing a harmful “drugs-first” reaction to teens struggling with gender dysphoria.
According to DailyMail.com, leaked documents reveal that top-level child health experts have accused the AAP of putting ideology over science with their support of puberty-blocking drugs to affirm transgenderism.
The documents exposed how rank-and-file AAP members in the US are confronting the organization’s ‘shoddy’ drugs-first approach, suggesting instead that counseling or therapy first would be more beneficial. The health experts recommend a more cautious approach similar to that which has been adopted by professional bodies in other countries.
While the AAP defends its guidelines to unequivocally support the gender a teen chooses as evidence-based, many critics point out that the cocktail of drugs pushed on young bodies to fast-track transitioning can lead to sterility and osteoporosis, among other long-term problems. While some transgender people celebrate their transitions, many others regret the treatment and desire reversals which in many cases are not possible.
The Academy’s leadership conference concluded this past Monday where a draft resolution written by some members was sidelined due to rule changes. Instead of letting the issue go, members took to the private online chat in the group’s members-only website. However, some of the comments were leaked, including that of an anxious pediatrician who asked, “Before promulgating gender-affirming care, with all of its ethical implications (irreversible bodily changes, sterility, etc.) … don’t we want to be sure this is the best path?”
Another member pointed to an online forum from over 37,000 detransitioners expressing the long-term harm after undergoing the arduous process of transitioning. They stated, “What is most needed right now is better research to make sure we do the right thing for our patients.”
The comments came from members all over the country, including New York, Alabama, Kentucky, Virginia, Idaho, Nevada, Wisconsin, Colorado, California, Utah, Texas, Tennessee, Maine, South Carolina, North Carolina, Nevada and Pennsylvania.
Many took to slamming the organziation’s dismissal of Resolution 27, which was drafted by five members to address the AAP’s 2018 gender-affirming policy, calling for a “systematic review of available evidence regarding the safety, efficacy, and risks of childhood social transition, puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and surgery” with the intent to update the Academy’s guidelines for dealing with gender dysphoric youth.
The resolution cites similar conclusions made in other countries. For example, the UK’s National Health Service, Finnish Health Authority, Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists, National Academy of Medicine in France, and Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare have done similar reviews or posted statements concluding that a hormones-and-drugs first approach is inconclusive in effectiveness, causing more harm than benefits, and psychotherapy should be the first step in treatment.
Julia Mason, one of the five authors of Resolution 27 and advisor for the Society of Evidence-based Gender Medicine, said, “I’m really disappointed the AAP is being driven by ideology, rather than evidence. They’re embarrassed that they’ve let young activist doctors get them on record in support of gender-affirming care, and now they can’t backtrack. They’ve suppressed my efforts and come up with new rules to hide what we’re trying to say from rank and file pediatricians.”
The AAP said in a statement to DailyMail, “AAP supports the ongoing evaluation of evidence around the care of transgender young people.”
The issue of how to treat gender dysphoric youth seems to be politically divisive, but a Pew Research Center poll shows the public leans toward the view that sex is determined at birth and not someone’s choice later on in life.
Pediatricians fighting back against the horrific transgender policies pushed by the Biden administration and the AAP should give us hope that not all in the medical community are blindly following unsupported suggestions, but actually desire to do no harm to those they serve.