Note to Debrief readers:
The Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine is hosting its annual conference in Washington, DC from November 5-7, 2026. This is a rare opportunity for professionals in the US, as their past conferences have primarily been in Europe. The program is thoughtful and substantive, with researchers, clinicians, patients, parents, and legal experts examining the evidence and some of the most important unresolved questions in this field.
Featured topics for this three-day conference include:
· Day One -- Where the field stands: Current evidence on benefits and harms, ethical questions, and perspectives from patients and families.
· Day Two -- Practical approaches to providing care: Understanding the patient population and providing evidence-based care amid a rapidly changing and divided policy landscape.
· Day Three -- Where we go from here: Emerging research, unanswered questions, and priorities for strengthening the evidence base.
You can see the program, speakers, and registration information here.
SEGM is generously extending preferred registration rates to Gender Debrief subscribers: MI and CJ readers can use promo code MI-SAVE50% for a 50% discount on in-person and live stream tickets. (Discounted rates are also offered for residents and early-career clinicians. Contact events@segm.org to inquire)
On Tuesday, Senator Eric Schmitt of Missouri introduced a bill designed to prohibit child welfare agencies from characterizing a parent’s refusal to “affirm” a child’s “gender identity” as abuse or neglect. The bill would prevent federally funded child welfare agencies from penalizing families for affirming their child’s biological sex, create a private right of action for those harmed, remove funding for ideological trainings, and amend the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act to prevent states from claiming custody of trans-identified minors for the purpose of rendering medical transition procedures. “Currently, these parents are at the mercy of social workers and judges who are trained to view them as abusive and can drag proceedings out for years, even when parents are cleared of spurious abuse charges,” Laura Hanford, a Senior Policy Analyst at the Heritage Foundation, explained to the Daily Signal. Crucially for children, the bill would not change a state’s ability to intervene in real cases of abuse, but it would take off the table the premise that raising a boy as a boy, or a girl as a girl, constitutes abuse.
The U.S. Department of Education has formally rescinded a 2024 Biden administration federal rule which controversially redefined sex under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 to include “gender identity.” Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance. Last month, federal courts dismissed all outstanding litigation relating to the regulations—which followed decisions by two separate courts to vacate the rule in its entirety— clearing the way for the Trump administration to officially reinstate its 2020 Title IX regulations. “Today’s rulemaking clears the Biden Administration’s illegal rewrite of Title IX from the Code of Federal Regulations and restores the commonsense language promulgated in the first Trump Administration, which we have been enforcing since the first days of the Administration,” said U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon.
According to a U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission press release, an unknown pediatric hospital will pay $650,000 to a former employee as a condition of resolving a complaint involving religious objections to performing “affirming” medical procedures on minor patients. According to the complaint, an employee’s request for religious accommodation from providing “affirming” services was rejected before the employee was ultimately let go. The complaint alleged that the hospital’s conduct violates Title VII. “Protecting workers from religious discrimination is a core priority under the EEOC’s National Enforcement Plan, and this resolution reflects that commitment,” said Jeremy Crosbie, deputy director of the EEOC’s Houston District.
On Monday, the Trump administration asked the U.S. Supreme Court to allow it to enforce a policy prohibiting trans-identified federal inmates from accessing medical transition procedures for the treatment of gender dysphoria. The policy is temporarily on hold after a D.C. based U.S. District Judge blocked the Federal Bureau of Prisons from enforcing the policy. While the policy allows federal inmates to access psychological and psychiatric services for the treatment of dysphoria, it expressly prohibits social accommodations and medical and surgical interventions.
On Tuesday, the North Carolina Court of Appeals heard oral arguments that could revive a previously dismissed malpractice suit brought by detransitioner, Prisha Mosley, against the doctors and therapists who facilitated her medical transition when she was a teenager. Mosley, who struggled with multiple psychiatric issues including anorexia before her transition, accused her doctors of malpractice, but the case was initially dismissed because the statute of limitations had expired. “One of the most important functions of the American court system is sending a message to defendants about what kind of conduct is acceptable and what kind of conduct is unacceptable,” Mosley’s attorney told the judges. “If the court affirms in this case, what you get is more of the kinds of abuses that occur here. We get more childhood gender transition abuses.” The court did not immediately issue a ruling.
Gov. Gavin Newsom surprised some supporters by vetoing AB 2164, a California shield bill which would have further protected abortion and youth gender medicine as protected health care activities by preventing the extradition of providers to red states for criminal violations. Newsom maintains that extradition falls under the executive functions of governors and should not be left to the legislature. According to Mother Jones, AB 2164 would have gone even further than other states with similar laws by controversially extending California’s shield law protections to providers in other states where “affirming care” and abortion are legal.
A Denver judge has sided with Children’s Hospital Colorado in a suit filed by patients and families alleging that the hospital was discriminating by refusing to render medical procedures for minor patients with gender dysphoria. The ruling comes after Children’s Hospital Colorado modified its scope of services to include “affirming care,” however, the hospital’s doctors have refused to fill prescriptions citing fear of federal reprisal. In the latest ruling, the judge determined that although families may not be satisfied with the hospital’s conduct, “The Court did not order CHC to provide medical gender affirming care...It ordered CHC to stop refusing to provide that treatment, which CHC did.”
Joseph Figliolia
Policy Analyst
News
