The long road back to plausible deniability
According to the New York Times, Mark Del Monte, the chief executive of the AAP, said: “the board has confidence that the existing evidence is such that the current policy is appropriate. At the same time, the board recognized that additional detail would be helpful here.”
This is a change of tune from AAP leadership, which has spent years resisting calls from within its own ranks for just such a review, going to extraordinary lengths to shut down dissent.
This is how organisations start to walk back from a medical scandal. Quietly, slowly — ideally so quietly and so slowly that no one notices they’ve retreated from shaky to solid ground at all.
First, they redefine ‘gender-affirming care’ to deemphasise controversial hormonal and surgical interventions. Moira Szilagyi, then-president of the Academy, tried this move out last year, when she insisted that “destigmatizing gender variance and promoting a child’s self-worth” is “what it means to “affirm a child or teen.” (Funny that the Academy’s guidelines spilled so much ink on “medical affirmation,” then, while demonising watchful waiting.) On social media, the AAP suggested that gender-affirming care has “never been about pushing medicines or surgery.” (We’ve also seen efforts elsewhere to broaden the umbrella of gender-affirming care to the point of meaninglessness, such that taking birth control pills, getting an abortion, and telling little girls it’s OK to wear dresses are all gender-affirming care now! Who knew?)
Then they’ll claim that this is all ‘gender-affirming care’ ever meant all along.
While I want this to end with every fiber of my being, the thought that the clinicians will simply slink away is untenable, given the harm to young people and the cost paid by families like mine that have been ripped to shreds, not to mention the damage to our mental health. That aside, what will make this interesting will be the lawsuits where clinicians try to point fingers at the AAP, saying they looked to the venerable org for guidance. AAP cannot deny their clearly affirming policy (the real one, not the "we meant watchful waiting" one) but will point to WPATH as the true culprit, who will in-turn say that AAP didn't follow their "guidelines" (they didn't really mean "Standards of Care," of course). Maybe no one will pay in the end, but I want to witness these scumbags writhing like vampires exposed to sunlight.
The capture of literally all of the professional organizations suggests this is a completely "top down" movement being imposed on the vast majority who do not agree with it in any way shape or form - and is being imposed as part of an agenda that is "above our pay grade" as they say. It is more than the typical oligarchic - "divide & conquer" - tactics we are used to - it is clearly something more deeply sinister and insidious. These organizations will NEVER regain their credibility after this fiasco.