Writing for the Free Press, Dr. Karla Solheim— formerly the chair of the Iowa Section of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG)—explains how she was forced to resign from the ACOG because of her public criticism of the association’s endorsement of WPATH guidelines. Dr. Solheim performed hysterectomies at an LGBTQ clinic before an encounter with one young, “non-binary” patient requesting a hysterectomy, with no other plans to pursue medical transition, made her uneasy, prompting her to look more into the foundations of youth gender medicine. “I was floored to discover the research basis into gender medicine both for adolescents and adults was not just poor; it was fraudulent. I couldn’t understand how my medical association, let alone others in my field, could endorse it,” writes Dr. Solheim. “Ordinary people can see quite clearly that this medicine is dangerous. When our greatest medical authorities insist otherwise, it undermines doctors’ credibility and makes people less likely to trust us for their care.”
The Department of Justice has reached a settlement agreement with Connecticut Children’s Medical Center, with the center agreeing to cease providing “sex-rejecting” procedures to minors, and to allocate $500,000 towards detransition care. “As with Texas Children’s and Cleveland Clinic before it, I am encouraged when leading institutions like Connecticut Children’s agree to be part of the solution and no longer the problem,” said Brett Shumate, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division. “But while we can be grateful when we arrive at such positive resolutions, we cannot and will not rest in our pursuit of justice for the victims of these discredited practices.”
Trans-identified federal employees have filed a class-action suit challenging the Trump administration’s policy of prohibiting the Federal Employees Health Benefits and Postal Service Health Benefits programs from covering medical transition procedures for gender dysphoria. The lawsuit argues that the policy constitutes sex-discrimination, and plaintiffs are seeking a permanent injunction, attorney fees, and damages. In light of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Skrmetti—where the court rejected the premise that regulating gender medicine is inherently discriminatory—this argument is unlikely to hold up. While a representative for the Human Rights Campaign asserted that the policy discriminates based on “who you are,” it can be argued that the policy is motivated more by clinical rationale and a lack of high-quality evidence for “affirming care.”
Following a ruling by a U.S. District Judge, Michigan has agreed to stop enforcing a ban on “conversion therapy” practices for LGBTQ identified youth. “Conversion” practices are understood as any attempt to change a person’s “gender identity.” In the ruling, the Judge determined that the policy violated the plaintiff's’ constitutional rights to free speech and hindered their ability to counsel youth distressed over their sex. Notably, the decision follows in the wake of the Supreme Court’s March decision to strike down a similar Colorado law for viewpoint discrmination. “Now counselors can offer compassionate counseling without fearing that state bureaucrats will come knocking,” said Luke Goodrich, Senior Counsel at Becket.
The U.S. Department of Education is investigating the Minnesota Department of Education over allegations that the department failed to notify parents, or allow opt outs, for activities involving the use of “transgender dolls” with children as young as four. “Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment (PPRA) guarantees parents the right to opt their children out of surveys that elicit certain sensitive information about students or their families, and to review related instructional materials,” the DOE asserts in its press release. “While Governor Walz and the radical left continue to funnel taxpayer dollars to perverted ideologies that can harm children, the Trump Administration is fighting to protect children’s innocence and defend parents’ role as the first and primary decision-makers in their child’s education,” said U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon.
In City Journal, I wrote about the American Medical Association’s recent doubling down on pediatric gender medicine. Despite growing awareness of the “low quality” evidence for benefit, and medical practice reversals abroad, the AMA recently renewed its support for youth gender medicine, called for restored research funding, and explicitly asserted that surgical interventions fall under the “affirming care” umbrella, despite the release of a position statement by the American Society of Plastic Surgeons opposing surgeries for patients under 19. Among the contradictions I point out is the AMA’s schizophrenic stance that “affirming care” is both safe for use in routine practice but requires more data to “remain evidence-based.” I also go on to explain why, given what we do know about the impact of youth gender medicine, even clinical trial research in this area remains controversial from a medical ethical perspective.
The Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine (SEGM) provides an overview of a recent paper published in Acta Paediatrica, by the Swedish psychiatrist Mikael Landén, which argues that a lack of “definitional clarity” surrounding the concept of “gender identity” exacerbates existing problems with gender medicine. Among Landén’s main critiques is that the uncritical interrogation and proliferation of the concept has led “youth with sex-atypical interests or traits...to question their ‘gender identity,’ rather than question the rigid gender stereotypes.” As SEGM explains, this was less of an issue when gender medicine was limited to a small cohort of adult transitioners but poses larger ethical concerns when the demographics shifted to distressed minors with frequent psychiatric comorbidity.
In Gender Clinic News, Bernard Lane provides a more comprehensive update on the failed legal challenge seeking to halt the UK’s clinical trial of puberty blockers. Last Friday, the UK’s High Court determined that the trial could proceed and deferred to the judgment of the regulating agencies charged with approving the trial, the Health Research Authority (ethical approval) and the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (regulatory approval). “The court’s function is not to say whether it agrees with the decision under challenge, but rather to examine whether the defendant [the HRA and the Health Secretary on behalf of the MHRA] has exercised their function contrary to the legislative scheme or otherwise unlawfully,” the judge explained. The legal group challenging the trial, however, maintains that the trial fails to “meet the legal and ethical thresholds required for research on children,” specifically citing the Declaration of Helsinki on clinical trials which was not designed to “permit experimental interventions on highly vulnerable children simply in order to discover whether benefit exists.”
Journalist-activist Erin Reed reports that—after a legal campaign launched by author J.K. Rowling—Amnesty International UK disavowed a report it published which labeled many gender critical groups as fundamentally “anti-rights.” “Should any of the women’s organisations targeted by Amnesty UK’s recent ‘anti-rights’ blacklist wish to take legal action, applications can be made to the JK Rowling Women’s Fund,” the author wrote on social media. Seemingly in response, Amnesty International eventually retreated, calling its own report "an error,” which should “never have been published.”
Joseph Figliolia
Policy Analyst
News
