Writing for the Free Press, Ben Ryan chronicles internal turmoil within the American Medical Association over fallout from the organization’s contradictory statements regarding the American Society of Plastic Surgeons’ position statement opposing surgical interventions for minors. After the ASPS position statement was announced, the AMA provided quotes to outlets including the NYT suggesting that the organization agreed with the ASPS position, prompting the AMA board chair to imply in a newsletter that the Times mischaractized its position, which the paper forcefully denied in a fact-check. Ryan’s reporting reveals that the confusion stemmed from the AMA, not the Times, with AMA CEO Dr. John White telling members in a town hall that the board signed off on the published statement. “In this moment where the credibility of American medicine is being questioned at every turn, for the AMA to add to the national distrust by suggesting NYT has no editorial standards and, when facts come to light, it was the AMA that was the source of misinformation…a massive deal” said AMA member Dr. Frances Grimstad. For more coverage, see Ben Ryan’s follow-up on his Substack.
The Wall Street Journal’s Editorial Board explains the significance of a new Finnish nationwide cohort study that undermines clinical justifications for pediatric gender medicine. The study assessed the mental health trajectories of virtually every patient 23 and under that was referred to Finland’s gender clinics between 1996 and 2019. The study looked at the mental health outcomes of patients who ultimately underwent gender reassignment and those who did not, and also matched them to control groups in the general population. The study found that sex-distressed young people have worse mental health at baseline than matched controls and that medical reassignment did not improve mental health outcomes. Indeed, the researchers determined that for “some” patients, medical transition actually worsens preexisting mental health issues.
Earlier this week, the Montana Supreme Court upheld a District Court ruling which prohibits the state from enforcing policies which require birth certificates and licenses to reflect the sex of the document holder, rather than their “gender identity.” In this instance, the Montana Supreme Court suggested that the policy was inherently discriminatory. “Transgender discrimination is, by its very nature, sex discrimination” the court argued. The case will now return to the district level while the plaintiffs await a final decision on the merits. In the interim, Montana will not be able to enforce its policy.
The Texas Tech University System has announced plans to shutter all degree programs and certificates that are “centered on” the study of sexual orientation and “gender identity.” Content which merely includes or incidentally references sexual orientation and GI, however, will be preserved. Programs which are flagged for closure are expected to freeze admissions and come up with a plan for currently enrolled students by June of 2026. Notably, faculty research and student independent study are exempt from the policy. Moreover, professors who teach on disorders of sexual development and intersex conditions are free to do so if they do not “advocate for or validate sociological frameworks of fluid gender identities.”
The Colorado Supreme Court is hearing a case challenging the legality of Children’s Hospital Colorado’s decision to cease providing medical transition procedures to dysphoric minors, which plaintiffs are arguing violates the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act. Lawyers for Children’s Hospital Colorado argue, however, that continuing to render the practices could summon the wrath of the federal government and compromise funding for the hospital system. While several justices seemed persuaded that allowing cross-sex hormones for one condition but not another constitutes discrimination, lawyers for the hospital argued that the policy draws distinctions based on clinical purpose and age, rather than transgender status. Although a lower court broadly agreed with plaintiffs, it declined to issue a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of the policy.
Oklahoma lawmakers are advancing a Senate bill which would build off the state’s existing prohibition on medical transition for minors by explicitly prohibiting Medicaid from covering transition procedures for both children and adults. The bill came out of the House Public Health Committee on April 8th and is now being considered by the House oversight committee who will have to approve the bill before it comes up for a floor vote in the House.
In Gender Clinic News, psychologist Dr. Sandra Pertot discusses the failure of the Australian Psychological Society to promote evidence-based practices for the treatment of dysphoria, and liability concerns posed by the organization’s embrace of the “affirmative” treatment model. Like many other clinical psychologists, Pertot became concerned that the APS’ emphasis on affirmation undermined safeguarding by deemphasizing the need for comprehensive assessments and “differential diagnosis.” Pertot was initially optimistic back in 2022 that APS’ policies could be reformed after the organization assembled a taskforce to develop a position statement on “gender diversity,” but ultimately came to realize that the organization deferred to an activist interest group on “Diverse Bodies, Genders, and Sexualities.” “The exercise has been a total waste of time and is a betrayal of APS members who are aware of the flaws in the gender-affirming model,” Pertot laments.
In the Daily Wire, I write about the constitutional and clinical significance of the Supreme Court’s 8-1 ruling in Chiles v. Salazar, which struck down Colorado’s ban on “conversion” therapy for sexual orientation and “gender identity.” As I explain, the court determined that the law is subject to the highest level of legal scrutiny because it engages in explicit viewpoint discrimination by censoring the speech and thought of clinicians. I go on to unpack how the law misunderstands the nature of “gender identity,” and undermines ethical clinical practice by “flattening complex psychological and developmental factors into a single predetermined outcome,” which helps explain the rise of detransitioner malpractice lawsuits. “If mental health care is to remain grounded in evidence, ethics, and individualized treatment, it cannot be governed by laws that dictate conclusions in advance. The Court has recognized that when the state mandates one viewpoint while silencing others, it is no longer regulating medicine — it is enforcing orthodoxy” I argue.
Joseph Figliolia
Policy Analyst
News
