I have a new post up at Unherd about the American Academy of Pediatric’s heavy-handed attempts to shut down debate over how to support gender-questioning kids:
The American Academy of Pediatrics has a gender problem. But it really doesn’t want to talk about it. And it doesn’t want its 67,000 members to talk about it either. The Academy, the top professional organisation for paediatricians in the United States, has gone all in on “gender-affirming care” in recent years, publishing “evidence-based” guidance on pubertal suppression (which the Academy describes as “reversible”), cross-sex hormones, and “gender-affirming surgeries”. It has condemned alternative perspectives and approaches as bigoted, harmful, and futile.
There were good reasons to question this approach back when it became official policy in 2018. There’s even more cause for concern now, with dissidents within the field raising concerns about affirmative care and calling for a systematic review of the evidence. Rather than listen, however, the AAP has bent and broken its own rules in order to enforce the party line. So much for “evidence-based”.
But the Academy may not be able to contain the issue for much longer, as frustrated critics have started to take their concerns public. Last week, the controversy broke out on the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal, where paediatrician Julia Mason and researcher Leor Sapir charged the AAP with “ignor[ing] the evidence that has led Sweden, Finland and most recently the U.K. to place severe restrictions on medical transition for minors” and with “stifl[ing] debate on how best to treat youth in distress over their bodies”.
…
The playbook is familiar by now. Advocates for a more cautious, exploratory approach want to talk about specifics: what is the relationship between social transition and medical interventions? How does the AAP square its condemnation of “watchful waiting” with Szilagyi’s call for “developmentally appropriate care that is oriented toward understanding and appreciating the youth’s gender experience”? Rather than answering these questions, proponents of affirmative care retreat behind abstractions like “promoting a child’s self-worth”.
Read the full piece here.
I got my first significant tattoo recently, and in looking at the FAQ of all the studios in my area, one statement came up every time: They will not tattoo minors, even with parental consent.
It struck me, because so many also are, positively so, clear supporters of the queer community, signified through rainbow iconage or pride tattoos in portfolios.
What cognitive dissonance, i thought, that one can be comfortable with the permanence of GAC - but also have concern that some ink in the dermis is something a minor cant possibly understand the lifelong consequences of.
Hiya, I saw JK Rowling being promoted in MSM for her new book under the name Robert Galbraith. Is all forgiven now?
Jo