The American Academy of Pediatrics, the nation’s premier association of pediatricians, plans to review the evidence for gender-affirming medical care and potentially amend its policies that help guide doctors and clinicians providing the treatment to transgender youth.
The exact scope of the review has yet to be determined, but is expected to include an evaluation of medical interventions such as puberty blockers and hormones, which are in some cases used to delay puberty or boost physical features associated with a gender different from the patient’s sex at birth.
The process, known as a systematic evidence review, typically looks at all relevant evidence behind any given treatment, adjusting for bias and other potential flaws. It will be conducted by an external organization, the AAP said.
Five key facts everyone should know about the @AmerAcadPeds 2018 policy statement on “gender affirming care” for kids:
1. As explained in the document, the policy was conceptualized, written, revised, and approved by a single author.
BREAKING- UK: The NHS’ interim policy on puberty blockers for minors with gender incongruence/dysphoria calls out the very low quality of evidence for this experimental “treatment”. ⬇️ pic.twitter.com/8K1MppAI92
Another change of mind about puberty blockers. (Good God. What was he thinking to begin with.)
“I’ve changed my mind based on the evidence; it’s really not a pause for the vast majority of young people,” he said.
Dr. Stathis, who is medical director of Child and Youth Mental Health Service at Children’s Health Queensland, was referring to Dutch and English data showing that almost all of the young patients started on blockers went on to cross-sex hormones, which have irreversible effects.
Blockers have often been promoted as a “no regrets” option giving a child time to mature and consider the weighty decision whether to progress to lifelong hormones.
Dr. Stathis, a child and adolescent psychiatrist who founded the gender clinic at the Queensland Children’s Hospital where patient numbers rose from 48 in 2014 to 635 in 2021, made the remarks on July 23 during a lengthy presentation at a conference of the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists (RANZCP) in Cairns, Queensland.
Dr. Stathis appears to be one of the first gender-affirming clinicians to publicly accept the findings of systematic reviews in Finland, Sweden and the United Kingdom since 2019 that the evidence base for medical transition of minors is of low quality and very uncertain.
A leading gender clinician who champions the affirmative treatment model has acknowledged the low-quality evidence base for medicalised gender change with minors & says he no longer regards puberty blockers as a "pause" button for children #AusPolhttps://t.co/BpEQDFgHOJ
Michigan Democratic governor signs ban on ‘conversion therapy’ for minors
Let me see if I’ve gotten this right. If an adolescent seeks the care of a gender-affirming health professional offering permanent body-altering hormones and surgeries, that counsel should be encouraged & protected by law.
But if that same questioning adolescent encounters the care and counsel of a health professional offering advice on how to become comfortable with his/her body, that may be considered ‘conversion therapy’ which would result in disciplinary action against the health professional?
Did I get that right?
In the past ‘conversion therapy’ included treatments like electric shock-therapy. Nobody. NOBODY does this in the Western world today. Nobody. That disreputable treatment was considered a way of ‘getting the gay’ out. So using the term ‘conversion therapy’ conjures up those past horrors. It’s an effective rhetorical move.
And so today, ‘talk therapy’ could be considered ‘conversion therapy’ unless it goes in an affirming direction. Also, whereas ‘sexual orientation’ was the main concern, ‘gender identity’ is included in today’s legal language, something most people doubt they have.
The definitional goal-posts have been moved. And Michigan joins 22 other states that have banned so-called conversion therapy.
CNN reports on Michigan Law
One of the bills Whitmer signed into law Wednesday, House Bill 4616, prohibits mental health professionals from engaging in conversion therapy with minors. Under the bill, any violation will result in the mental health professional facing disciplinary action, which could include a suspended or revoked license.
House Bill 4617, meanwhile, adds the definition of conversion therapy to the state’s mental health code. It defines the term as “any practice or treatment by a mental health professional that seeks to change an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity, including, but not limited to, efforts to change behavior or gender expression or to reduce or eliminate sexual or romantic attractions or feelings toward an individual of the same gender.”
Glasgow University Law Professor Michael Foran has written a good article about the complexities involved with passing this kind of bill. I don’t agree with everything he writes, but a thorough set of questions are being asked by Foran. His article is well worth your time.
He’s writing because the UK parliament is debating a “Conversion Therapy Bill” that attaches criminal offense to the practice. It will be more retributive than mere professional discipline or the loss of a license. (The Michigan Law)
He argues that the proposed legislation, aiming to criminalize conversion therapy, must be crafted with precision, clarity, and proportionality. He warns against the potential criminalization of essential support for those grappling with sexuality and gender identity.
Professor Foran emphasizes the need for clear definitions of terms like “sex,” “sexual orientation,” and “gender identity,” without which the legislation may lead to confusion and unintended consequences. The relationship between gender identity and sexual orientation must be carefully considered, and the bill must avoid inadvertently enabling conversion therapy through hasty affirmation of transitions. In an ironic twist, Foran says this looks like “internalized homophobia” and an effort to “trans away the gay.”
Furthermore, the legislation must not create a chilling effect on therapists and mental health professionals, who must be free to provide appropriate care without fear of criminalization. It must also respect human rights, including freedom of expression, association, and religion.
Here are a few paragraphs of his argument.
Intuitively, one would assume a ban on conversion therapy is an unqualified good. This is partially because talk of conversion therapy conjures images of gay people being strapped to tables and electrocuted. But if this legislation is not carefully drafted, it could criminalise the provision of vitally needed support for vulnerable children and adults struggling with sexuality and gender identity issues.
When and if the Government produce a draft, for legislation to deserve support, it must ensure that therapists are still able to do their jobs without committing crimes, and patients are able to receive appropriate care, tailored to them which keeps their physical and mental wellbeing in focus. ————- There is a real danger that this Bill could discourage clinicians or those working with LGBT people, including vulnerable minors, from providing appropriate care that is tailored to the individual in question…..Appropriate care must ensure that there is informed consent to any medical interventions, something which cannot be done if professionals cannot speak openly about the risks involved and the possibility of regret or even detransition. ————- Any legislation that criminalises speech must be cognisant of the human rights implications. The Bill must be carefully tailored to ensure that it does not criminalise the expression of truth about biological sex as someone sees it. It must not criminalise consensual prayer between adults.
Enshrining gender identity in law is as bad an idea as enshrining souls in law. I don't have either, & don't want one foisted on me by legislators. We can protect trans-identified people like religious people – without requiring the rest of us to endorse their beliefs. https://t.co/vyCmXiY6Vl
Of course, I think Helen is wrong about the “souls” bit (see below). She grew up Catholic, and considers herself an atheist now. But I take her point.
As I’ve done previously on this blog, I must ask, who is engaged in conversion therapy here?
Is it the one who is trying to help a person align their thoughts and feelings with the body they were given at birth or the professional who disregards the body and proposes irreversible surgeries combined with life-long hormone treatments in hopes of aligning the outer body with a patient’s inner desires?
Who is the conversion therapist?
Gender Identity Ideologues pin that label on those clinicians and pastors who try to help an individual become more comfortable with their immutable biological sex. These concerned professionals and pastors counsel them not to transition away from their sex. It’s called Talk Therapy. And it is very effective, especially for children with gender dysphoria. As Professor Foran accurately states in his article
…several studies have indicated that between 60 and 80% of gender distressed children will desist if not placed on a medical pathway and up to 80% of them will grow up to be homosexual or bisexual.
Trans Activists regard these Talk Therapy efforts as immoral and professional clinicians are forbidden in some states and other countries from steering individuals toward accepting their birth sex by using the “watchful waiting” approach instead of heading down the medicalization path of no return.
The Classic Christian Perspective
I’ve briefly written about Western philosopher Rene Descartes in a few posts. I’ve highlighted the idea of Cartesian Dualism, the idea that the mind and body are separate entities. This is a dualism that today’s Trans Activists develop into an extreme antagonism. Those entities, body and soul, are indeed different. But they are designed by God to be fully integrated. Because to put it plainly, fully separating body from soul (mind) is the definition of death.
It’s like trying to separate the wind from the air – they exist together, intertwined. The mind and body, are not two unrelated things, but two parts of a whole. It’s like a symphony, where the body and soul are different instruments playing in harmony to create the music of our identity.
The biblical witness teaches us that we are created in the image and likeness of God, both body and soul. Our bodies, are not just vessels for our souls, but an integral part of who we are. Our bodies, are part of our identity, not separate from it.
The idea that one’s gender identity can be different from one’s biological sex, is like trying to separate the sun from its light – they’re inherently linked. Classic Christianity teaches us that our biological sex is a gift from God, not something to be rejected and harmed. It’s a part of who we are, as much as our soul is. Yes, sadly, there will be a separation at death. But there will be reintegration at the Resurrection.
Finally, Classic Christianity warns us that the thoughts or desires of our inner and outer being may lead us astray. The mind, for example, can be a tricky thing. It may be convinced of things that aren’t true.
In the end, we must respect and accept the bodies we’ve been given, not try to change them to fit an obvious delusion.
When is the madness going to stop? I’m talking about the latest attempt to pretend it’s normal for young women like me to have our healthy breasts surgically removed.
It’s not. It never has been and it never should be — however hard transgender lobbyists fight.
When I saw pictures this week of the new image emblazoned across Costa Coffee’s vans, I felt deeply concerned. I also felt immensely sad.
The cute cartoon of an androgynous-looking character in colourful yellow shorts with a big smile and two mastectomy scars promotes transgender surgery more keenly than it does the brand itself.
The message is clear: you too can live your best life like this trans man if you get your breasts cut off. And it could not be more disingenuous.
"[I]t's time to be honest about what a body really looks like after transition. And we need to address the reasons why so many young women are electing to have their breasts removed." https://t.co/DbaGUTjUZH
