These should be simple questions for medical practitioners to answer: What is your current position on gender “transitions” for minors? Would you revise that position? If so, when?
Herein lies the problem: If a medical association takes a position without scientific evidence, it must admit that it has become an ideological body, not a scientific one.
On October 14, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) sent a letter to six different health organizations, giving them a final opportunity to unequivocally state their position on sex-rejecting procedures and medical treatment (a.k.a. “gender-affirming care”) for children. Those medical associations are the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, the American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the Endocrine Society.
HHS has both external scientific evidence and internal reports showing that cross-sex hormones, puberty blockers, and gender mutilation surgeries are harmful to children. The letter cites HHS’s own report, “Treatment for Pediatric Gender Dysphoria: Review of Evidence and Best Practices,” which draws on extensive research and expert perspectives from the U.S. and Europe — from psychiatrist Dr. Riittakerttu Kaltiala in Finland to the Cass report in the UK.
The Cass Review found no consistent standards of care and no substantive research supporting the claims made by gender doctors.
While a considerable amount of research has been published in this field, systematic evidence reviews demonstrated the poor quality of the published studies, meaning there is not a reliable evidence base upon which to make clinical decisions, or for children and their families to make informed choices.
We have the same issue here in the U.S., but the aforementioned six organizations refuse to admit it.
For years, influential figures within these organizations promoted an increasingly invasive response to gender dysphoria in children and adults alike. It began with social transition, including the use of preferred names and pronouns; progressed to medical intervention, such as puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones; and culminated in surgical mutilation of the body.
Bureaucrats like former Assistant Secretary for Health Richard “Rachel” Levine claimed there were “no arguments” about gender-affirming care. Gender activists have claimed it’s “settled science.” Clearly it is not, and medical professionals across many disciplines have pointed this out for years.
Current HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said of these six organizations, “When medical organizations set standards that shape the care of children, they have a responsibility to explain the evidence behind those standards.” He added, “HHS has asked these organizations for clear answers about their current positions, the evidence supporting their guidance, and whether they intend to change it. Parents and clinicians deserve transparency, and we expect these organizations to provide it.”
Some organizations first received letters on December 30, 2025, asking them to justify their position on transitioning children. As of this writing, HHS has not confirmed responses from any of the organizations. However, I did find a short memo on the Inside Health Policy website stating, “Medical organizations responding to HHS’ ‘final demand’ for answers regarding their positions on gender-affirming care for minors are rebuffing the administration’s pressure to change their policies, saying HHS documents on the issue ignore evidence on the benefits of transition care in favor of the positions of political activists.”
It’s the same playbook over and over again. These organizations have used defamation as a weapon to discredit dissenting voices. They have dismissed any doctor, psychologist, psychiatrist, or journalist who challenges their theories, writing them off as “bigoted” or “politically motivated,” regardless of the evidence. HHS wasn’t necessarily asking them to change their position; it was asking them to defend it on the science. And they seemingly responded with the flippant arrogance only a doctor with a god complex can muster.
This should set off alarm bells for everyone. Our medical institutions no longer care about evidence-based research or putting a patient’s health above their own eagerness to experiment on him or her. “Their so-called science was more ideological than factual,” observes marriage and family therapist Soad Tabrizi at The Federalist.
It also shows a level of hubris that will and should quickly cost them credibility. If they respond to challenges to their standards with cold silence or accusations of bigotry, they have lost the argument altogether.
