The American Academy of Pediatrics is Promoting Dangerous Pediatric Medical Transition for Children & Teens with Gender Dysphoria & Suppressing Evidence of Harm & Dissent within theIR Ranks.
Several European countries are banning or curtailing policies that promote socially and medically transitioning gender dysphoric minors. The three most prominent organizations supporting this agenda in the United States are the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Endocrine Society, and WPATH. This article delineates the bizarrely politicized behavior of the AAP. It is an activist organization supporting the “gender affirming care” (GAC) movement, not a proponent of evidence-based medicine. And they are seeking to suppress accounts of harmed young people and doctors within their organization who are raising alarm bells and calling for evidence reviews, as several European countries are banning or curtailing pediatric medical transition.
AAP timeline
9/2018
The Journal Pediatrics published a letter by Dr. Jason Rafferty urging pediatricians to support the underage medicalization “affirmative model”. He is described as “the lead author of the policy statement and a member of the AAP Section on Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Health and Wellness.”
Pediatricians are key in supporting transgender, gender-diverse youths
The AAP took down the names of the members of the LGBT group due to later controversy but they are listed below and archived here.
Executive Committee:
Christopher Harris, MD, FAAP
Chairperson
Chestnut Hill, MA
Brittany J Allen, MD, FAAP
Madison, WI
Michelle Forcier, MD, MPH, FAAP
Barrington, RI
Kathryn Lowe, MD
Bozeman, MT
Jason Rafferty, MD, MPH, EdM, FAAP
Riverside, RI
Ilana Sherer, MD, FAAP
Oakland, CA
10/2018
The AAP released its policy statement in support of “gender-affirming care”. The statement is here:
Ensuring Comprehensive Care and Support for Transgender and Gender-Diverse Children and Adolescents
Participating doctors were listed as:
Jason Rafferty, MD; COMMITTEE ON PSYCHOSOCIAL ASPECTS OF CHILD AND FAMILY HEALTH; COMMITTEE ON ADOLESCENCE; SECTION ON LESBIAN, GAY, BISEXUAL, AND TRANSGENDER HEALTH AND WELLNESS; Michael Yogman, MD; Rebecca Baum, MD; Thresia B. Gambon, MD; Arthur Lavin, MD; Gerri Mattson, MD; Lawrence Sagin Wissow, MD; Cora Breuner, MD; Elizabeth M. Alderman, MD; Laura K. Grubb, MD; Makia E. Powers, MD; Krishna Upadhya, MD; Stephenie B. Wallace, MD; Lynn Hunt, MD; Anne Teresa Gearhart, MD; Christopher Harris, MD; Kathryn Melland Lowe, MD; Chadwick Taylor Rodgers, MD; Ilana Michelle Sherer, MD
The science journal Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy was willing to publish a scathing critique of the statement by sexologist and gay man Dr. James Cantor.
Transgender and Gender Diverse Children and Adolescents: Fact-Checking of AAP Policy
As I read the works on which they based their policy, however, I was pretty surprised—rather alarmed, actually: These documents simply did not say what AAP claimed they did. In fact, the references that AAP cited as the basis of their policy instead outright contradicted that policy, repeatedly endorsing watchful waiting.
And:
In its policy statement, AAP told neither the truth nor the whole truth, committing sins both of commission and of omission, asserting claims easily falsified by anyone caring to do any fact- checking at all. AAP claimed, “This policy statement is focused specifically on children and youth that identify as TGD rather than the larger LGBTQ population”; however, much of that evidence was about sexual orientation, not gender identity. AAP claimed, “Current available research and expert opinion from clinical and research leaders ... will serve as the basis for recommendations” (pp. 1–2); however, they provided recommendations entirely unsupported and even in direct opposition to that research and opinion.
AAP is advocating for something far in excess of mainstream practice and medical consensus. In the presence of compelling evidence, that is just what is called for. The problems with Rafferty, however, do not constitute merely a misquote, a misinterpretation of an ambiguous statement, or a missing reference or two. Rather, AAP’s statement is a systematic exclusion and misrepresentation of entire literatures. Not only did AAP fail to provide compelling evidence, it failed to provide the evidence at all. Indeed, AAP’s recommendations are despite the existing evidence.
Problems with the letter and the 2018 policy statement:
1) The statements strongly emphasized the view the mental health problems in “transgender youth” are due to lack of affirmation and stigma when studies indicate that that gender dysphoria tends to cluster with other mental health issues that are likely not due to stigma alone (here, here, here). For example, stigma does not cause autism, ADHD, or personality disorders.
2) They claimed puberty blockers are “reversable” when they lead to the stunting of the child’s genitalia and permanent sexual disfunction, impact bone health, and may affect IQ and mood. They provided a brief nod to these concerns later in the paragraph. This negates the reversibility claim, so why make it in the first place?
3) They made the unsubstantiated claim that social transition is reversible when some gender clinicians worry that social reinforcement will increase persistence. Desistance rates have decreased in affirmative-gender-clinic settings. The Cass Report (the most thorough evidence review) does not recommend social transitions.
4) They claimed pubertal blockade improves mental health. Studies that promoted this narrative are low quality studies or fraudulent in some cases such as Tordoff (2022). The Cass Report which reviewed multiple studies regarding this subject matter contradicts the AAP’s assertions.
5) They claimed that the affirmative model is “lifesaving.” Studies claiming this have been deemed low quality, and other studies contradict this claim (here, here, here, here).
6) They used activist, postmodern-influenced gender ideology concepts and language such as “cis” and “sex assigned at birth”. They link The Gender Book, which contains blatantly activist narratives of sex and gender that are not only highly controversial but disliked, including among people who are LGB or identify as trans.
7) They claimed that “being transgender does not imply a sexual orientation.” Most males who transition are motivated by autogynephilia, a heterosexual male paraphilic compulsion. The mental health and medical professions are currently engaged in widespread fraud by engaging in autogynephilia denialism. While there is debate about what defines the term “sexual orientation,” AGP is certainly highly sexually motivated in many cases.
8) They didn’t consider the increase in trans identities could be a social contagion, even though mental health and body dysmorphia contagions are a well-known phenomenon, particularly in females between the ages of 12-25 (the largest cohort going to clinics now).
9) They were uncurious about the rise of “gender fluid” identities and seek to validate and medicalize them when there are no quality studies about the safety and efficacy of socially transitioning or medicalizing this cohort. And there is little understanding of what motivates their need to dissociate from their biological truth.
10) Earlier, clinics had been supporting the “watchful waiting” model given desistance research indicates minors may outgrow clinical, DSM-diagnosed gender dysphoria (formally gender identity disorder). The AAP policy statement acknowledged desistance but aggressively promoted the affirmative model, social and medical transition underage, and described watchful waiting as “outdated” without providing robust evidence-based arguments.
11) The policy statement inappropriately cited studies on anti-homosexual conversion therapy as an argument in support of the affirmative model when no such study has been done regarding gender dysphoria or children.
12) The AAP members used inappropriate citations multiple times, demonstrating the policy statement is a sloppy, politically motivated, and poorly argued document that expects people to not to bother looking into the claims they, as the authority figures, are making. One can reference Cantor’s letter for a detailed explanation of how citations are flagrantly misused.
13) They waved away the relevance of puberty and maturation in helping the child desist by claiming choosing to “affirm” only after puberty and not before is merely “arbitrary.” Puberty is a critical period in the child’s development and appears to aid in desistance, and they admit this as well. They contradict themselves.
14) They claimed the watchful waiting model withholds “critical support,” as if affirming dissociation and body dysmorphia and medicalizing them is the only way to “support” a young person.
15) They stated partial transition may be a better choice for some trans-identified people while at the same time recommending normalizing irreversible body modification on cognitively immature tweens and teens.
16) They criticized the methodologies of older studies that support desistence but promoted affirmation studies with methodological problems.
17) They claimed persistence could be higher than recorded in previous studies due to short follow-up periods. They failed to mention that a study from the Dutch protocol that began medicalizing minors, Cohen-Kettenis (2015), found few desisters (3.3%) became persisters later.
18) The AAP stated “that pediatricians have a role in advocating for, educating, and developing liaison relationships with school districts and other community organizations to promote acceptance and inclusion of all children without fear of harassment, exclusion, or bullying because of gender expression.” Given health organizations are now trans activist organizations, it is logical to have concerns that this type of advice will disregard girls’ sex-based interests, free speech concerns, or lesson plans that will confuse at risk-youth, pre-gay children, autistic youth, or youth who come from trauma and unstable homes who have higher rates of gender dysphoria. A review of the problems with radical gender activism in schools may be found in these documents.
19) It is strange that the AAP added this statement- “Dr Rafferty conceptualized the statement, drafted the initial manuscript, reviewed and revised the manuscript, approved the final manuscript as submitted, and agrees to be accountable for all aspects of the work.” A complex issue boils down to the advice of one man meant to influence the 67,000 pediatrician members the AAP serves. Conversely, they claim the AAP owns the copywrite of this statement, and the board approves the policy.
11/1/2019
AAP pediatricians attempted to submit two resolutions regarding the affirmative model. Resolution #50 asked that supportive exploratory therapy not be characterized as “conversion therapy” (a term for attempts to convert homosexuals to heterosexuals). Resolution #51 asked the AAP to ensure that pediatric transition is evidence-based in light of new information regarding the lack of proof of efficacy. They could not find any sponsors for these resolutions, so they failed to move forward.
2/2020
Pediatrics, the official journal of the AAP, published this flawed study by Dr. Jack Turban that claimed puberty blockers reduce suicide.
Pubertal Suppression for Transgender Youth and Risk of Suicidal Ideation
The study was based on James et al. (2016), the “U.S. Transgender Survey” (USTS). Despite being widely covered in mainstream media, there were significant issues with both Turban’s study and the USTS survey it was based on.
The USTS study issues:
1) While a large dataset, there are better quality study designs than this one when prioritizing non-biased results. It’s an online convenience sample recruited via gender advocacy groups.
2) This type of study would not include people who desisted or detransitioned, which would be vital information to determine the psychological benefits of social and medical “affirmation”.
Articles that examined the study can be found below.
Puberty Blockers and Suicidality in Adolescents Suffering from Gender Dysphoria
The Distortions in Jack Turban’s Psychology Today Article on ‘Gender Affirming Care’
Turban et al. (2020) issues:
1) The number of individuals who said they had received blockers as minors was not credible due to their ages (this protocol would not have likely been available to them).
2) While not included in the final analysis, almost 75% of those who reported having taken puberty blockers would have taken them after the age of 18. This indicates the responses in the survey were in no way reliable.
3) In the cohort of individuals who claimed they received blockers; the attempted suicide rate was twice as high as the group that did not receive blockers.
4) There was no information regarding what kind of therapy the respondents received, which could account for differences in mental health outcomes.
5) The study did not provide enough information to link the reported puberty blocker use with better mental health outcomes.
6) As they did admit, more severally mental ill patients may not be approved for blockers in the first place, affecting results for those who had taken blockers versus those who never received them.
7) The study indicated the individuals answering the survey may have confounded desire for puberty blockers with cross sex hormones generally.
8) They admitted in the study that they have not proved causation. But the media reported on the study as if it had.
9) Pediatrics designated the study as “Best of 2020”. Editor in Chief Lewis First claimed this was because it was the most read, not due to academic rigor.
Turban published another problematic study soon after in JAMA regarding supposed conversion therapy indicating the AAP featured a doctor with a pattern of creating sloppy work.
Some critiques are below.
Recent Article Criticizes the Quality of Jack Turban's Analysis
Jack Turban’s Dangerous Campaign to Smear Ethical Psychotherapy as Anti-Trans ‘Conversion Therapy’
One Size Does Not Fit All: In Support of Psychotherapy for Gender Dysphoria
10/1/2020
The AAP gave an award to Racheal Levine, a trans activist who the Biden administration later hired who aggressively pushed for removing age limits for medical treatments.
Dr. Levine is recognized for “outstanding work to improve the lives of children and families in Pennsylvania.” She is a member of the Section on Adolescent Health.
12/21/2020
The AAP began participating in amicus briefs in court cases challenging bans on medicalizing minors and putting boys on girls’ sports teams, which contained many of the problems highlighted above in their policy statements.
2/16/2021
A public petition was submitted via change.org stating:
We are petitioning the American Academy of Pediatrics to renounce its scientifically unsupported "affirmative" policy for young people with gender dysphoria. This harmful policy is in direct conflict with the AAP constitution and bylaws, which say [1]'The American Academy of Pediatrics shall pursue specific scientific, social, and educational objectives including the following A.foster measures and conduct activities directed toward establishing and maintaining the highest quality and acceptability in the delivery of health care to infants, children, adolescents, and young adults.'
3/9/2021
The AAP published the article below explaining how they are helping to defeat bans on allowing boys onto girls’ sports teams and medicalizing minors.
Pediatricians say state bills would harm transgender youths
Pediatric advocates across the U.S are battling state legislation that discriminates against gender-diverse and transgender youths, including in several states where AAP chapters worked to defeat similar bills last year.
Problems with the article:
1) The AAP cited their flawed Turban et al. (2020) study stating, “A Pediatrics study found that when individuals who receive medication to align their body with their gender identity, the risk of suicide decreases by about 70% (http://bit.ly/3sXuSDj).”
2) It claimed “transgender youth” are being banned from sports. They are not. These bills oppose boys being placed on girls’ sports teams because boys have significant physical advantages over girls, even before puberty (see here p. 30).
3) Dr. Al Nofal claimed, with enthusiasm, that puberty blocked boys don’t have a biological advantage over girls with no concern that early blocked boys experience loss of sexual function, stunted genitalia that make the “gold standard” vaginoplasty impossible, bone impacts, sterility, and possible reduction in IQ.
4) Rebecca L. Carl, M.D., M.S., FAA made a red herring argument by claiming many “trans” youth don’t want to compete in sports anywhere, despite the fact this is irrelevant to the argument whether sex-segregated sports for girls should exist.
5) The article stated, “In 2020, Idaho became the first state to enact legislation prohibiting transgender females from participating on athletic teams according to their gender identity.” Dysphoric boys and men are not female. They are male. A medical association has normalized promoting false concepts and language.
6) The article made the false claim the AAP has proof that puberty blockers aid in identity formation.
This allows time for the child to learn more about themself, receive counseling and gain an understanding of the concept or their feelings and how they identify, he [Dr. Al Nofal] said.
This may severely interfere with the minor’s trajectory by chemically castrating them.
7) The article highlighted “Kathryn Lowe, M.D., FAAP, a member of the AAP Section on Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender Health and Wellness Executive Committee.” This advocacy conflates LGB issues with trans issues in the public’s mind. Pediatric transition risks overmedicalizing LGB youth.
3/16/21
The AAP provided a news release by Lee Savio Beers, MD, FAAP, President, American Academy of Pediatrics.
American Academy of Pediatrics Speaks Out Against Bills Harming Transgender Youth
Problems with the article:
1) They reaffirmed their commitment to forcing girls to compete with dysphoric boys despite the boys having physical advantages over girls in sports.
2) To lessen the anatomical advantages boys have over girls requires the use of puberty blockers. These cause the feminized boy to have stunted genitalia, destroyed sexual function, and be sterilized (after HRT) and possibly subjects them to bone weakening and a reduction in cognitive function.
3) They appealed to emotion rather than provide proof of effective evidence-based medicine by invoking suicide risk and mental health problems.
4/2021
After several letters were submitted by doctors criticizing Turban et al. (2020), Pediatrics refused to publish any of them.
Dr. Jula Mason, “Breaking the chain”:
Multiple rebuttals to this 2020 USTS-derived paper were submitted, pointing out flaws, but the journal—Pediatrics, the official journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics—refused to correct the paper or even acknowledge the letters by publishing them. The same survey has been used by Dr Jack Turban [an American psychiatrist popular with media outlets who was first author on the Pediatrics article] for at least six other papers on topics ranging from trying to prove that psychotherapy is harmful, to asserting that surgery is extremely helpful. None of the rebuttals to any of these papers have been published by these journals.
They told Dr. Julia Mason that her study critiques were “offensive to the pediatric readership of the journal.”
5/23/21
Dr. Lee Savio Beers, president of the American Academy of Pediatrics, stated he opposed bills banning pediatric medicalization in a piece by 60 Minutes that included accounts of transition regret.
8/3/2021
After initially accepting an application and payment, the AAP rescinded permission for an exhibitor booth for the Society for Evidence Based Gender Medicine (SEGM) for the American Academy of Pediatrics annual 2021 annual conference. SEGM is a group that examines the quality of the evidence in support of the affirmative model and has exposed several affirmative model studies as having serious flaws. SEGM was told via emails with booth organizers that it was very rare for them to reject an organization. SEGM’s appeal can be found here.
The incident was covered in the WSJ and elsewhere.
A Pediatric Association Stifles Debate on Gender Dysphoria:
The cosmetics company L’Oreal and the National Peanut Board will be there, but not the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine.
The article also demonstrated the affirmative model movement is authoritarian and censorious.
Many of the pediatricians I spoke to for this article say they fear professional retribution because of their views and asked not to be identified...according to Dr. Mason. 'What we’re dealing with is institutional capture,' she said. The leadership is not in the same place as the membership.'
Later, journalist Benjamin Ryan uncovered listserv/email messages pertaining to an AAP pediatrician's view of SEGM, quoting a trans activist known for spreading incorrect information..
Andrew Cronyn, a pediatrician at Transhealth Northampton in Massachusetts:
'It’s important that we know about these groups and fight them at every turn,' Dr. Cronyn wrote to his pediatric colleagues.
He provided a link to an article written by a British trans activist, Mallory Moore, who condemned SEGM as an “anti-trans psychiatric and sociological think tank” pushing inaccurate information.
8/5/2021
In 2021, a pediatrician submitted resolution #33, which “was seconded” by an AAP leader. It repeated the requests of resolutions #50 and #51- that the AAP ensure they are practicing evidence-based medicine by reviewing the data and to support the concept of an ethical therapeutic process. There was significant interest in and support for the resolution, according to SEGM.
…Resolution #33, introduced at the AAP Annual Leadership Forum 2021, which deals with evidence in pediatric gender medicine, has been the 5th most voted-on resolution among nearly 60 resolutions this year, and the 4th in terms of the number of affirmative votes. This resolution, which registered concern about the low quality of evidence underpinning treatment of minors with hormones and surgeries, was upheld by over 80% of AAP members who voted.
Resolution #33 did not receive a sponsor or votes from the leadership to move forward despite being in the top five regarding interest.
3/31/2022
The Biden administration referred to the AAP 2018 Policy statements in their trans issues “fact sheet”. The document repeated many of the false or inflated claims reviewed here. In 2024, the extent of unethical activism coordinated between WPATH, the AAP, Johns Hopkins, and the Biden administration via HHS and the Justice Department (now invoking the concept of constitutional right to hormones and surgeries underage), will be revealed via emails found in the discovery process of the Alabama attorney general and emails obtained by journalists (see below).
5/4/2022
In AAP News, the AAP reaffirmed its support of placing gender dysphoric boys on girls’ sports teams and medicalized pediatric transition in the article below when discussing a Trans Youth Project study. In the study, almost all of the affirmed children went on to medicalize (which concerns some people given prior high rates of desistence). As usual, the AAP did not consider childhood affirmation may be a powerful psychosocial intervention that increases persistence despite this being a logical concern.
Study: Few transgender children retransition to cisgender
7/2022
Five pediatricians submitted resolution #27 requesting the AAP do a systematic review of pediatric transition evidence and reevaluate their 2018 policy statement on March 31st. Later, the AAP actively took steps to suppress members seeing other memebrs questioning their policies. Genspect, an alliance of mental health professionals and parents, wrote a protest letter to the AAP and described the AAPs intentional efforts to censor debate.
However, we were very disappointed to learn that the AAP leadership chose to specifically disallow pediatrician comments on Resolution 27, omitting it from the list in the link sent to pediatricians soliciting their comments. We understand that this is due to a “new rule” that “unsponsored” resolutions cannot be commented on. It is alarming that not a single chapter or committee within the AAP was willing to “sponsor” a resolution that asks to conduct a non-partisan and systematic review of evidence in pediatric gender medicine – something the AAP has never done. It is even more alarming that the AAP appears to be preemptively suppressing debate by not allowing comments on “unsponsored” resolutions, a rule that did not exist last year when a similar “unsponsored” resolution got many supportive pediatrician votes and comments.
Journalist Christina Buttons added more detail about the incident.
With the advent of this rule, the resolution submitted in 2022 (#27) was omitted from the list of resolutions emailed to members for commentary. The AAP's maneuver appears to be a calculated attempt to suppress debate by disallowing comments on “unsponsored” resolutions.
The same article described how pediatricians, frustrated by the censorship, began commenting on another more pro-affirmation resolution (resolution #28).
Reacting to these restrictions, dozens of AAP members took an unprecedented step by voicing their concerns in the comments section of a separate resolution on the AAP's members-only website. Despite these efforts, Resolution #27 failed to progress at the leadership meeting in Chicago last year. Due to the new rule introduced that year, it was the only resolution out of 45 to be suppressed.
Further committing themselves to suppressing critical voices, the AAP removed the comments about Resolution #27 found on the Resolution #28 page in the archived version of the document.
Other entities reported on the controversy surrounding the AAP.
American Academy of Pediatrics Accused of Censoring Concerns about ‘Gender-Affirmative Care’
An account from a dissenting pediatrician may can be found here
Meanwhile, The AAP claimed it would review evidence by creating documents called “Providing Affirmative Clinical Care to Transgender and Gender-Diverse Children” and “Care of Transgender Youth, Clinical Report” headed by the Committee on Adolescence. Still, they did not explain in detail how they would uphold rigorous methodology in the process.
7/10/2022
The AAP published this article by Moira Szilagyi, MD, PhD, FAAP (then AAP president), in the “AAP Voices Blog,” explaining that she was happy that Resolution #27 failed.
Why We Stand Up for Transgender Children and Teens:
At this year’s Leadership Conference, there was a second resolution on transgender youth, offered by five pediatricians who disagree with the Academy’s approach to gender-affirming care. These pediatricians were unable to recruit a sponsor, which meant no one was willing to support their proposal. During our meeting, this resolution did not advance because it did not receive a second vote on the floor. Much like other formal democratic processes, the AAP Leadership Conference follows a set of standard parliamentary procedures to structure our discussions.
Problems with the article:
1) The author made the unsubstantiated claim: "There is strong consensus among the most prominent medical organizations worldwide that evidence-based, gender-affirming care for transgender children and adolescents is medically necessary and appropriate. It can even be lifesaving."
2) Dr. Szilagyi states- “Yet outside of our organization, there is a dangerous movement taking place, led by extremists, targeting youth who are receiving gender-affirming care, and vilifying the pediatricians providing their care. The result has been rampant disinformation about what this care is and real threats of violence against some of our members.” Threats of violence are more commonly wielded against people questioning the affirmative model by extremists. The fact people make threats is not a reason to squelch legitimate criticism and debate. And she failed to characterize what she regards as “disinformation,” given there is disinformation in AAP policy statements, studies, and editorials.
7/28/2022
The Economist reported on the mounting AAP controversy.
Questioning America’s Approach to Transgender Health Care
In it the AAP claimed:
Robust evidence demonstrates that access to gender-affirming care decreases risk of suicidal ideations, improves mental health, and improves the overall health and well-being of transgender and gender-diverse youth.
Higher quality evidence reviews from Sweden, the UK, and Finland describe evidence as poor, not robust.
8/3/2022
Pediatrics published another flawed study by Dr. Jack Turban claiming the explosion in trans identification (see here and here) is not due to social contagion.
Sex Assigned at Birth Ratio Among Transgender and Gender Diverse Adolescents in the United States
The flaws are laid out in the below article.
Problems with the study:
1) Turban left out the numbers of youth who answered “I don’t know” in terms of identity; while it is well known that this group now includes so-called “nonbinary” people, affirmative doctors and mental health professionals believe should be medicalized. This was a larger group than those who claimed binary identities.
2) Turban claimed that there isn't a disproportional increase in girls (who are more prone to social contagions) without verifying the sex of the respondents, pointing to why the AAP's adoption of promoting false belief systems such as "sex is assigned as birth" creates problems.
3) Turban's 2017 and 2019 "Youth Risk Behavior Survey" conclusions contradict other evidence, including reports from gender clinic cohorts, demonstrating a significant female majority.
8/17/2022
The Wall Street Journal printed an article critical of AAP policy and Jack Turban’s study.
The American Academy of Pediatrics’ Dubious Transgender Science
According to the WSJ article, Dr Jack Turban’s study was of such poor quality, pro affirmative professionals stated it made them look bad.
Yet Dr. Turban’s study is deeply flawed and likely couldn’t have survived a reasonable peer-review process. The swift response from the scientific community made both points clear—with even those who support hormones and surgery for gender-dysphoric youth noting that Dr. Turban’s shoddy science undermined their cause.
AAP member Moira Szilagyi, M.D. responded to the critical article above.
Academy of Pediatrics Responds on Trans Treatment for Kids
The AAP is committed to following the evidence and basing our recommendations on the best science. When concerns are raised about a study in Pediatrics, the journal follows a standard process to investigate. Evidence review also is a normal part of the AAP’s policy-writing process and doesn’t require a resolution at its annual leadership conference.
Problems with the article:
1) As in her previous article, Dr. Szilagyi repeated the unsubstantiated claim the affirmative model reduces suicide.
2) She stated that clinical “affirmative” environments are places that are supportive of parents raising questions and concerns. According to some parents, these environments promote misinformation and strong-arming parents into medicalizing their children very rapidly (see some accounts on 4thwavenow and anecdotal examples contained in lawsuits such as this one and those against AAP members specifically covered in this document).
3) She claimed the AAP policies don’t push medicalization when their 2018 policy statement can be described as doing exactly that.
9/1/2022
The AAP published the paper below, reinforcing their position that parents should affirm their children’s ideas that they are born in the wrong body.
Developing Parenting Guidelines to Support Transgender and Gender Diverse Children’s Well-being
10/8/2022-10/11/2022
Incidences of note at 2022 AAP Anaheim conference:
1) The 2022 AAP conference director told attendees not to engage with people (from parent and gay groups such as Our Duty, Do No Harm, and Gays Against Groomers) outside protesting against the affirmative model. A counter-protest was also present and whose planning was discussed in emails that were later released by journalists.
2) The AAP prominently displayed “My pronouns are” tags for members.
3) A gender clinician AAP member, Dr. Morissa Ladinsky, glorified suicide in trans-identified minors as a noble act of resistance.
And in the final days of 2014, a local sixteen year old young lady’ Leelah Alcorn, of trans experience, stepped boldly in front of the tractor trailer ending her life. Her suicide note written to post on social media about an hour after her death went viral, literally around the world.
She later expressed regret about her word choice, but the incident was another example using suicide threat to enforce the affirmative model.
4) In one seminar, they refer to mothers feeding their babies as “chestfeeding” so as not to trigger gender dysphoric females who have given birth.
5) In a trans care seminar, Dr. Johnathan Avila avoided questions regarding policy changes in Europe and declined to answer a question about what the youngest age is he starts minors on hormones and stated he will answer privately.
12/2022
In December 2022, Jeff Hudson was awarded a Pursuit of Excellence award from the AAP for his work on behalf of “trans” youth, according to a LinkedIn post.
“I am extremely honored to have been awarded the AAP Pursuit of Excellence award for my work on behalf of trans and gender diverse youth,” Hudson wrote in the post.
2/2023
The AAP claimed that they review policies every five years and were in the process of updating the 2018 policy.
4/1/2023
Resolution #37 was proposed by Dr. Julia Mason and twenty-three FAAP coauthors. Its title was "Align the AAP Treatment Recommendations for Gender Incongruence and Gender Dysphoria with Findings from Systematic Reviews of Evidence.” The resolution called for an evidence review and update to the 2018 position statement. The resolution went unsponsored.
Pediatricians submitting the resolution were concerned that the AAP, who had stated they would update their 2018 policy, would do so without a systematic review of the evidence.
A summation of the incident below:
Despite assurances from the AAP in February 2023 that policy statements undergo a review every five years, and thus an update of the 2018 statement is already underway, Resolution #37 states that the AAP is proceeding with the update without conducting a systematic review of the evidence. No AAP committees working on these policy updates plan to perform such a review, and there's no indication that a systematic review related to treatments for gender dysphoria is even being considered.
Resolutions #5 (designed to prevent children from being separated from gender-affirming parents) and Resolution #6, which stated that “gender-affirming care”) should be federally protected for doctors and patients and is a human right, both passed with #6 bringing in the most votes of any resolution. Resolution #55 stated that the AAP should not plan events in states that did not support GAC or abortion.
8/4/2023
The AAP reaffirmed its commitment to the 2018 policy and indicated concerns about political efforts to restrict care influences its policymaking.
AAP reaffirms gender-affirming care policy, authorizes systematic review of evidence to guide update
From the AAP release:
The AAP Board of Directors voted to reaffirm the 2018 AAP policy statement on gender-affirming care and authorized development of an expanded set of guidance for pediatricians based on a systematic review of the evidence.
The decision to authorize a systematic review reflects the board’s concerns about restrictions to access to health care with bans on gender-affirming care in more than 20 states.
AAP CEO/Executive Vice President Mark Del Monte, J.D., is speaking today at the AAP Leadership Conference in Itasca, Ill.
He emphasizes that policy authors and AAP leadership are confident the principles presented in the original policy, Ensuring Comprehensive Care and Support for Transgender and Gender-Diverse Children and Adolescents, remain in the best interest of children.
The statement did claim they planned to “authorize a systematic review.”
SEGM, an organization that seeks to promote science-based medicine regarding pediatric transition, expressed concern about the AAP reaffirming the 2018 policy and dragging its feet in completing a systematic review of the evidence.
1) The AAP (as of 1/2024) is taking a long time to complete the evidence review they claim they want. This stalling appears intentional and is likely because evidence reviews in Sweden, Finland, and the UK have found low-quality evidence and proof of negative health side effects. As SEGM points out, health professionals will put thousands of minors through this protocol while they feel no motivation to ensure it is helping.
2) SEGM noted:
One such statement is the assertion that “policy authors and AAP leadership are confident the principles presented in the original policy, Ensuring Comprehensive Care and Support for Transgender and Gender-Diverse Children and Adolescents, remain in the best interest of children.” Not only is it inappropriate to start a research process with a pre-ordained conclusion, but this conclusion also contradicts the findings of the current systematic reviews of evidence.
3) The AAP was clear the political landscape of public alarm about these practices heavily influences its decision-making designed to protect the affirmative model.
4) AAP CEO/Executive Vice President Mark Del Monte, J.D. stated they were “confident” in their protocols.
5) They stated, “The AAP opposes any laws or regulations that discriminate against transgender and gender-diverse individuals, or that interfere in the doctor-patient relationship.” But there are historical examples of medical harm that need to be litigated or regulated by law. This concept is not inherently discriminatory, and the doctor-patient relationships is not sacred beyond all regulation.
9/25/2023
The AAP issued a correction to the trans policy statement Rafferty wrote in 2018 because of incorrect citationing.
10/20/2023
Pediatrics published a paper stating refusing body modifications underage is child “maltreatment”.
Prohibition of Gender-Affirming Care as a Form of Child Maltreatment: Reframing the Discussion
Problems with the paper:
1) The paper contained the unsubstantiated claim pediatric transition reduces suicide risk. The highest quality study on the topic to date showed no such proof.
2) It claimed GAC is evidence-based when the more recent, higher-quality systematic reviews claim evidence is weak.
3) They handwave away concerns about puberty blockers which may impact IQ and are known to destroy sexual function, harm bone health, and lead to sterility when HRT is commenced.
4) They use queer/gender theory activist parlance such as “gender journey.”
5) They believe in adultizing children to make irreversible decisions they cannot understand, a view not shared by other pediatricians.
6) They engage in very sloppy citation practices as noted by Jessie Singal in his article, “It’s Almost 2024 And Doctors Are Still Misleading The Public About Youth Gender Medicine”
10/23/2023
Two detransitioners filed lawsuits against the AAP. Isabelle Ayala and Campbell Miller Payne were the first detransitioners to target the American Academy of Pediatrics specifically. A later article noted one of Ayala’s care providers told her mother she would kill herself without hormone treatment, an unsubstantiated claim.
Jason Rafferty, MD; Michella Forcier, MD; Meghan Gibson, MD; Gillian A. Morris, MD; Brittany Allen, MD; Jill Wagner, LCSW
Layton Ulery, a detransitioned lesbian later announced a lawsuit against Dr Rafferty, Julie Lyons, and Dr. Michelle Forcier.
10/20/2023-10/24/2023
Incidences of note at the 2023 AAP annual conference in DC.
1) The AAP allowed the Foundation Against Intolerance & Racism (FAIR), an organization that is skeptical of the GAC model, to have a booth at the event. Five detransitioners and whistleblower Jamie Reed were also at the booth.
2) Some detransitioners (here and here) who participated in the FAIR in Medicine booth described some of the pediatricians becoming alarmed and leaving the conversations when they discovered they were detransitioners. Others were receptive. One angry pediatrician was critical of a detransitioner and caused her to cry.
Most doctors, nurses, administrators and other exhibitors approached the FAIR in Medicine booth at the American Academy of Pediatrics’ annual conference with curiosity. Once they realized what we wanted to talk about, their faces either closed in anger, opened in surprise, or softened with relief. And then, conversations—and sometimes arguments—ensued.
3) Dr. Patrick Hunter, a Florida doctor concerned about the affirmative model, proposed a panel discussion with detransitioners for the Orlando AAP conference. The AAP rejected his application.
4) Dr Ilana Sherer, pediatrician at Palo Alto Medical Foundation/Sutter Health, gave a presentation where she encouraged doctors to use language encouraging and reinforcing body disassociation in children.
She advocated for heterosexual males who want to be lesbians to call their penises’ “strapless” referring to the practice among some lesbians of using sex toys. Some lesbians find the concept of “lesbian penises” offensive. She suggested that pediatricians not wait until their patients are adolescents to talk to them about “gender care and sexual health” but instead start conversations about “sexual identities” in “childhood.” Sherer demanded no one record her session but a recording was passed on to a journalist. During her presentation, a man who identified as gay stated her view of gender seemed to erase gay peoples’ experience. Shere acknowledge some lesbians had the same concerns but didn’t have an answer.
5) Another account indicated an atmosphere of social punishment for failure to comply with AAP policies.
Unfortunately, those who agreed that something has gone wrong with how we help kids with distress over their bodies said they fear the personal and professional repercussions of voicing their concerns.
Daily Caller and Benjamin Ryan months later obtained emails that showed some doctors wanted the detransitioners’ narratives censored from AAP events and made unsubstantiated claims of harrassemnt.
Points of note from the emails:
1) The Sun:
Gina Sequeira, co-director of the Seattle Children’s Gender Clinic, wrote to AAP leadership the day after the 2023 conference had completed, reporting that there was “verbal harassment experienced by one of our trans-identified members” at FAIR’s booth. Dr. Sequeira stated that multiple members of the AAP who were LGBTQ or provided gender-affirming care to children had asserted that FAIR’s presence had made them “lose trust in the AAP’ and doubt whether the conference could be a “safe space for them in the future.”
2) Sequeira contacted Mark Del Monte (CEO and executive vice president of the AAP) and according to her he was willing to cave to their demand for censorship.
Sequeira wrote. “I know we escalated some of these concerns to Mark in our brief meeting on Monday and he provided us with verbal reassurance that something like this wouldn’t happen again, but I think given the severity of what occurred and the degree of harm this decision caused our members, we should request a formal response from leadership to ensure we get a clearer idea of what is being done internally to ensure our safety at future NCEs.”
3) The Sun:
In a January 2024 email from the AAP’s LGBTQ listserv that was obtained by the Sun, pediatrician Laura Sinai expressed anger and disappointment over the AAP for allowing FAIR to attend the conference in the first place. “I don’t believe it was an accident,” Dr. Sinai wrote. “I don’t think they cared. And the AAP did nothing about FAIR the whole time they were there despite many complaints to let them know. Despicable and horrible.”
Dr. Sinai later told the the journalist, “I am disgusted that you’ll be citing my emails…”.
5) Dr. Christopher Harris was most interested in getting the detransitioners to condemn “anti-trans laws.”
6) Cincinnati Pediatrician Dr. Christopher Bolling said, “I believe the whole episode has triggered a completely new vetting process for exhibitors.”
7). They made claims of supposed harassment which were false according to booth attendees and a witness.
On the same email thread, Philadelphia pediatrician Kate Hentschel recounted to listserv about having been “harassed” by the FAIR group at the 2023 conference. “I personally do not feel safe going to Florida as a visibly queer/genderqueer human,” Dr. Hentschel said. FAIR’s presence that year, the pediatrician said, “solidified my decision” not to attend in the fall
The Northern Californian AAP member attended the conference and said that she closely observed the FAIR booth. There, she said, “I did see a couple somewhat more heated exchanges, but these were initiated by people passing by, not those who were at the booth.”
None of the FAIR representatives interviewed said they recognized Dr. Hentschel based on the physician’s headshot.
Multiple members of FAIR’s group did report that one exchange in particular, between an unidentified AAP member and a few of the booth’s attendants, became especially heated after the pediatrician was particularly critical of one of the detransitioners, Camille Kiefel, to her face and caused her to cry.
11/2023-12/2023
According to Leor Sapir and the New York Sun:
In November, the AAP announced that it would be publishing a new book, Pediatric Collections: Gender-Affirming Care. On Dec. 6, the AAP said that “due to an upcoming policy review on this topic, the publication of this book has been placed on hold” and preorders are “canceled.”
The AAP denied the lawsuits they faced had anything to do with it.
12/20/2023
Prohibition of Gender-Affirming Care as a Form of Child Maltreatment: Reframing the Discussion is published to oppose bills restricting “GAC”.
They deny children access to routine health care that has been shown to decrease dramatically high rates of suicide and depression for TGD youth.2,3 They fuel discriminatory rhetoric, which negatively impacts the mental health of TGD children and imperils their safety.
Later, Pediatrics published a letter to the editor challenging the claims in the original article.
Documents discovered during a FOIA request by journalist Benjamin Ryan at the end of 2023 revealed AAP CEO Mark Del Monte instructed AAP members to avoid using work emails when discussing sensitive topics in the coming year. The timing was very suspicious and likely a response to state bans on pediatric transition and lawsuits against the AAP.
A source at the AAP just confirmed that they’ve been there for 5 years and have never seen a message of this kind being sent from leadership.
1/2024
FAIR issued an open letter to the AAP.
On November 8, 2023, Gender-Affirming Psychiatric Care was released by the American Psychiatric Association’s official publishing house.
We the undersigned strongly support the following Open Letter to the APA. Our letter calls on the APA to explain why it glaringly ignored many scientific developments in gender-related care and to consider its responsibility to promote and protect patients’ safety, mental and physical health.
On Dec 28, 2023, this Open Letter was sent to the leadership of the APA, asking for a substantive response. We invite you to sign below to support our continued efforts to demand medical and mental health excellence from the APA.
3/2024-11/2024
AAP internal emails obtained by leaks, subpoena, and FOIA begin to leak out into the public.
The Daily Caller released leaked emails and a Federal court began to unseal documents relating to internal communications between Johns Hopkins hospital, WPATH, and the American Academy of Pediatrics that greatly undermined the credibility of these organizations. This happened as a result of challenges to state bans on pediatric transition, and the Alabama Attorney General had subpoenaed these documents in this case. Much of the dialogue pertained to WPATH updating its standards of care (SOC 8). Later, Benjamin Ryan also reported on emails he obtained.
Research into trans medicine has been manipulated
Biden officials sought to remove gender-affirming care minimum age guideline, Alabama court records show
Points of note regarding WPATH, AAP, & the Biden Administration:
1) The Sun stated:
The unsealed documents indicate Wpath leadership caved to political pressure from outside groups and quietly crafted its pediatric guidelines with the intent of influencing public policy.
2) The Biden DOJ had sued to block the Alabama law which made prescribing puberty blockers or hormones to anyone under age 19 a felony.
3) The Biden administration strong-armed WPATH into removing all age limits in its SOC, with trans-identified Rachel Levine (Assistant Secretary for Health) leading the charge.
Adm. Rachel Levine, assistant secretary for health with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, was “very concerned” that a minimum age for such surgeries “will affect access to health care for trans youth,” according to the emails.
4) The AAP also pressured WPATH to remove any age limits.
NYT:
Additional emails cited in the new court filings suggest that the American Academy of Pediatrics also warned WPATH that it would not endorse the group’s recommendations if the guidelines set the new age minimums.
Rafferty alluded to differences between the AAP’s policy and the WPATH clinical guidance, writing: “I personally continue to support the AAP’s current position over WPATH in my practice as articulated in the statement.”
And:
On Sept. 8, 2022, then-AAP president Moira Szilagyi sent a letter to WPATH letting them know the final version of the SOC-8 “raised concerns” from their clinical experts, who emails revealed to be Rafferty, Sherer, Hodax, and Allen. The AAP specifically took issue with WPATH’s inclusion of age minimums for pediatric sex-change surgery and their validation of “anti-transgender arguments.”
5) The DOJ sought to prevent James Cantor, a sexologist and gay man who believes pediatric transition has serious risks from testifying in the Alabama case because he doesn’t work to transition children. It’s known evidence analysis needs to be outside of the group of people directly involved in policy who may be prone to bias.
6) WPATH supressed research from Johns Hopkins that didn’t have results that justified their protocols, which is not how sponsored studies are supposed to work ethically.
The documents show that the organisation’s leaders interfered with the production of systematic reviews that it had commissioned from the Johns Hopkins University Evidence-Based Practice Centre (epc) in 2018.
From early on in the contract negotiations, wpath expressed a desire to control the results of the Hopkins team’s work. In December 2017, for example, Donna Kelly, an executive director at wpath, told Karen Robinson, the epc’s director, that the wpathboard felt the epc researchers “cannot publish their findings independently”. A couple of weeks later, Ms Kelly emphasised that, “the [wpath] board wants it to be clear that the data cannot be used without wpath approval”.
7) The AAP asked only four doctors, all affirmative model advocates, to review WPATH’s clinical guidance.
8) AAP had political motivations for its behavior. State government affairs analyst Jeff Hudson asked the pediatricians to review WPATH SOC because it had “implications” for their “existing legal arguments” regarding state bans.
Hudson requested the feedback quickly so that the AAP would have time to “formulate an advocacy strategy and media strategy” before the SOC-8’s anticipated release in September. Emails show a small group from the AAP, which included Hudson, the gender pediatricians and CEO Mark Del Monte, was given access to the embargoed guidance.
9) AAP president Moira Szilagyi sent a letter to WPATH complaining that the SOC-8 “raised concerns” from their “experts” (Dr. Jason Rafferty, Dr. Ilana Sherer, Dr. Juanita Hodax, and Dr. Brittany Allen).
10) Many consider WPATH an extremist organization, yet their leadership found that the AAP’s positions were more extreme.
Then-president of WPATH Walter Bouman responded to Arcelus, writing: “I have also read all the comments from the AAP and struggle to find any sound evidence-based argument(s) underpinning these. I am seriously surprised that a ‘reputable’ association as the AAP is so thin on scientific evidence.”
Arcelus wrote he was “shocked” that the comments about the SOC-8 had come from “very junior people at the AAP.”
Other points of interest from the email releases:
1) Rafferty admitted in emails that transition doesn’t always help and that puberty suppression leads to permanent sexual dysfunction.
In his response to the law firm’s questions, Rafferty described how puberty blockers can cause sterility in children and admitted there were no studies evaluating whether puberty suppression leads to sexual dysfunction.
The Sun is the source for the following highlighted emails:
The doctor asked Dr. Rafferty, “Is there data to support the intuition that gender reaffirming hormones help prevent suicide attempts?” Dr. Rafferty’s reply was equivocal. “The perfect study does not yet exist – actually, no population study answers the question of whether hormones are right for any particular person,” he said. “As much as hormones can be ‘life-saving’ in some situations, they also complicate other situations.”
2) In one of the email exchanges, Dr. Andrew Cronyn called SEGM a hate group.
In an August 2021 email obtained by the Sun that was forwarded to a listserv for AAP members in western North America, Andrew Cronyn, a pediatrician at Transhealth Northampton in Massachusetts, provided a link to an article written by a British trans activist, Mallory Moore. In the article, she condemned SEGM as an “anti-trans psychiatric and sociological think tank” pushing “dodgy science.”
“It’s important that we know about these groups and fight them at every turn,” Dr. Cronyn wrote to his pediatric colleagues.
3)
“In December, one member from Hawaii went so far as to argue for reporting to child protective services certain lawmakers, in particular Republicans in Texas, who established policies that the group saw as harmful to transgender children.”
4)
In December, one member from Hawaii went so far as to argue for reporting to child protective services certain lawmakers, in particular Republicans in Texas, who established policies that the group saw as harmful to transgender children.
5)
“In a December 22 email, pediatrician Alice Turner of Kaiser Permanente in Walnut Creek, California, provided information to the listserv about the Biden administration’s keen interest in defending access to gender-transition treatments for minors and combating state bans against it.”
6) Rafferty seemed to admit the treatment criterion and it’s benefits are not clear.
Dr. Rafferty’s reply was equivocal. “The perfect study does not yet exist – actually, no population study answers the question of whether hormones are right for any particular person,” he said. “As much as hormones can be ‘life-saving’ in some situations, they also complicate other situations.”
7) Benjamin Ryan’s Substack
Dr. Bolling provided his AAP colleagues a video from the Human Rights Campaign about gender-affirming care that he said “is a nice summary for lay people.” But the HRC video, which is below, contains a glaringly false claim: “No medical interventions with permanent consequences happen until a person is old enough to give informed consent.”
4/1/2024
Fourteen pediatricians submitted Resolution #32, which asked the AAP to review the evidence around suicide prevention claims and to review evidence generally in light of the systematic reviews done in the UK, Germany, and Sweden. They could not get a sponsor and the AAP previously changed the rules so members could not see unsponsored resolutions, something likely done specifically to suppress the dissenting voices of the pediatric transition issues.
4/13/2024
The AAP acknowledged the Cass Report in a daily email briefing. This was unlike previous politicized statements in support of GAC.
4/24/2024
The AAP had to appease the activists in the organization due to the political climate of Florida (opposition to “GAC” and abortion) after it scheduled its conference in Orlando. The AAP’s statements in the article were politicized.
AAP to inform, support members during National Conference in Orlando:
“The Academy recognizes that people of color, members of the LGBTQ+ community, pregnant people, and those from other marginalized groups may have concerns about Orlando and we will be working hard to ensure all attendees experience a welcoming and safe environment,” said AAP CEO/Executive Vice President Mark Del Monte, J.D.
The Florida AAP president weighed in.
“We know Florida has made several unfortunate decisions the last few years, and the pediatricians have been here fighting for children’s and women’s rights,” Dr. Gambon said. “It has been and continues to be a hard journey. Some providers have left the state, but most have stayed. We live here, our families are here and our patients are here. We want to continue to be here to represent, to try to educate our legislators to make better decisions and hopefully improve care in our state.”
501(c)3s are barred from lobbying.
5/13/2024-5/23/2024
The AAP declined to respond to a journalist for an article discussing Dr. Hillary Cass’s view that American doctors are not practicing evidence-based medicine regarding gender.
The American Academy of Pediatrics declined to comment on Dr. Cass’s specific findings, and condemned the state bans. “Politicians have inserted themselves into the exam room, which is dangerous for both physicians and for families,” Dr. Ben Hoffman, the organization’s president, said.
The president of the AAP responded with a letter to the editor. They claimed they are going to do an evidence review (not done as of 1/2025).
An independent review that is already underway will evaluate the body of evidence so the A.A.P. can continue to provide the best guidance to pediatricians. Dr. Cass’s conclusions will be considered in this review. "The A.A.P. will continue to follow the science and put patients and families first."
Dr. Benjamin Hoffman stated they added the Cass Report to their “evidence base” while failing to realize this is not how evidence-based medicine is conducted.
7/30/2024
The AAP put out an article referencing its pediatric transition policy.
Internally, AAP leaders continue re-examining policies, guidelines and educational materials to eliminate race-based medicine. In addition, the review of new evidence related to the AAP policy Ensuring Comprehensive Care and Support for Transgender and Gender-Diverse Children and Adolescents continues. The policy, which was reaffirmed in 2023, often has been mischaracterized as aggressively pushing medications or interventions, he said.
“The AAP will continue to follow the science and put patients and families first,” Del Monte said.
8/15/2024
The AAP tagged Adm. Rachel L. Levine, Assistant Secretary for Health in the Biden administration’s Health Department to be the keynote speaker at the Orlando annual meeting.
9/3/2024
The AAP submitted an amicus brief regarding the Supreme Court case USA v Skrmetti referencing the Endocrine Society and WPATH standards of care.
9/24/2024
The AAP began to receive direct pressure from twenty republican attorney generals coming from the perspective of consumer protection laws and the AAP’s misleading statements about puberty blockers.
9/26/2024-9/30/2024
The AAP 2024 annual conference in Orlando incidents of note:
1) There was a lot of conflict promoted by some AAP members and allies leading up to the conference that was exposed by the email releases. The AAP’s LGBTQ affinity group and allies complained and threatened protests because the AAP located their conference in Florida, a state that passed laws restricting abortion and pediatric transition. The AAP leadership claimed canceling the conference location would be too costly and difficult.
One Florida Doctor repeated unsubstantiated claims pediatric transition reduces suicide.
“We all know gender-affirming care is life saving,” said the Florida pediatrician in the Jan. 17 email that sparked the thread.
Another doctor quoted from his article in The Sun-
“I personally do not feel safe going to Florida as a visibly queer/genderqueer human,” Dr. Hentschel said. FAIR’s presence that year, the pediatrician said, “solidified my decision” not to attend in the fall.
Dr. Hentschel, was the same person who complained about the FAIR booth at the 2023 conference and claimed she was harassed despite no one else witnessing this.
Back in January, Dr. Hentschel said in an email to the LGBTQ listserv that the AAP should meet a litany of demands over the Florida conference, including “significant gender-affirming LGBTQ focused content,” given the Philadelphia pediatrician’s disappointment over a paucity of such content at the 2023 meeting. Dr. Hentschel also sought “more security and oversight to prevent transphobes, bigots, and possibly armed vigilantes from infiltrating the conference.”
2) The AAP denied a press pass to journalist Benjamin Ryan who had been reporting on the facts around pediatric transition.
3) The AAP denied a booth to FAIR in medicine, the group questioning the affirmative model that featured detransitioners at the 2023 event.
4) The AAP put out a “safety and inclusion” statement in response to AAP members' complaints that Florida is anti-LGBTQ. Later, they provided a link to a social justice organization people could donate to.
5) They made efforts to shield the LGBTQ group meeting and hide the itinerary from public view and ban recording.
For the conference overall, the AAP admonished attendees via email in August not to share password-protected information from the organization with outside sources. “This protects our work together and allows the rich, dynamic and candid collaboration between colleagues to continue,” wrote Mr. Del Monte in a recent directive. The conference code of conduct also forbids attendees from taking video and screenshots of presentations without written permission.
6) A protester (a lesbian woman), entered the Racheal Levine talk and yelled, "Stop transing gay kids!" demonstrating AAP the affinity groups doesn’t represent all opinions in these populations. Many children with gender dysphoria used to desist through purberty and likely LGB adults.
10/15/2024
The Alabama Attorney General submitted a scathing amicus brief in the United States v Skrmetti case.
“Even WPATH leadership has said that the AAP’s recommendations ‘have a very weak methodology, [and were] written by [a] few friends who think the same.’”