Even though “gender-affirming care” for minors has been rejected—or, at the least, viewed with skepticism—in the U.K., France, Norway, Finland, and Sweden, every major American medical association promoted it. Until now. The American Society of Plastic Surgeons (ASPS) has finally stepped up to challenge the consensus.
In July, the Manhattan Institute’s Leor Sapir spoke with ASPS to get their statement on “gender-affirming care.” The organization was unwilling to support any existing treatment regime for minors. In fact, it said there is “considerable uncertainty as to the long-term efficacy for the use of chest and genital surgical interventions.” Moreover, “the existing evidence base is viewed as low quality/low certainty.”
As Sapir explains, low quality is a technical term in evidence-based medicine. It means that the evidence does not for certain show that the long-term benefits of a treatment outweigh the dangers. For example, the Cass Review, which was a comprehensive assessment of scientific literature commissioned by England’s National Health Service, pointed out the lack of scientific consensus around “gender-affirming care.”
Despite the lack of evidence for the current consensus, the harms of “gender-affirming care” are significant and well-documented. Infertility and sexual dysfunction are only two possible, life-altering side effects. Tragically, people who undergo “gender-affirming” treatments are 12 times more likely to attempt suicide than those who do not.
Yet shockingly, organizations that promote “gender-affirming care,” like the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH), have deliberately manipulated reviews of scientific evidence to make it seem that their preferred treatment regime is safe and effective. Moreover, legal organizations such as the ACLU have collaborated with WPATH to craft “standards of care” that shield practitioners from litigation. The ACLU then cites WPATH guidance to back up its own legal ground in a corrupt circle.
The recent statement from the ASPS indicates that doctors know the system is fraudulent—and they are speaking out.
Yet in today’s social climate, that isn’t always easy. As one plastic surgeon told Sapir, “It’s a real problem when colleagues are afraid to debate any medical treatment or procedure, and especially when minors are the patients.” Given the potentially fatal side effects of “gender-affirming care,” that climate of fear is deadly.
So, too, is the alignment between political actors and WPATH. As unsealed court documents show, WPATH removed its age minimums for “gender-affirming care” under political pressure from the U.S. Assistant Secretary for Health, Rachel Levine, who identifies as transgender. This came at a time when advanced countries all over the West—many of them ruled by left-wing parties—banned gender surgeries and hormone therapies for minors.
As a result of this guidance, well over 6,000 girls received “gender-affirming” double mastectomies since 2017—and this data isn’t complete for 2023 and doesn’t include 2024. Nearly two dozen are now suing doctors. In the coming months and years, those lawsuits could prove critical to the future of “gender-affirming care” in the United States.
Although plastic surgeons do not have degrees in “gender-affirming care”—there are none—they are the ones charged with carrying out surgical procedures. It is significant, then, that the ASPS is the first major American medical organization to break with the manufactured consensus. If there is to be any genuine change in this field, it starts now.
Will other professional organizations follow suit? Only time will tell, but it’s clear that the voices of those warning against gender transitions for children are making a difference, and for the sake of America’s children, we can only continue to speak up.
—
Image credit: Unsplash
