Major mainstream medical associations – including the American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the Endocrine Society, the American Psychological Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry – have affirmed the practice of gender-affirming care and agree that it’s clinically appropriate care that can provide lifesaving treatment for children and adults.
This is highly misleading in the sense that only the United States continues a blind adherence to so-called “gender-affirming care.” It has been reviewed and rolled back by medical associations and societies (and governments) throughout Europe and, most recently, in Brazil. Any impartial review of the medical literature will tell you that, at best, we don’t know if what we’re doing is working—and there’s increasing evidence that it comes with a lot of harms.
Last year, an extensive but controversial research review in the UK said the rationale for early puberty suppression was “unclear” and that any benefit for mental health was supported by “weak evidence.” The review – known as the Cass Review for Dr. Hilary Cass, the pediatrician who conducted it – and its methodology have come under sharp criticism from some scholars and practitioners. However, the report prompted policy changes, including banning prescriptions of puberty blockers for gender dysphoria in adolescents.
The Cass Review was controversial only in that it contravened the American transgender orthodoxy. It’s the best study of its kind. I don’t know if the UK Supreme Court reviewed it (I suspect they did) when issuing their landmark, commonsense ruling that “woman” means biological females, but today the FA (finally) barred biological men from women’s soccer.