Following the “Science” on Gender

 by John Hinderaker

Around the world, “trans” ideology has collapsed and medical professionals are stepping back from chemical and surgical interventions on young people. This is obviously a good thing, in my opinion, but there is much gnashing of teeth on the Left. The New York Times runs a piece by a liberal that focuses on how the purported scientific consensus on behalf of child mutilation fell apart:

American advocates for youth gender medicine have insisted for years that overwhelming evidence favors providing gender dysphoric youth with puberty blockers, hormones and, in the case of biological females, surgery to remove their breasts.

… As a billboard truck used by the L.G.B.T.Q. advocacy group GLAAD proclaimed in 2023, “The science is settled.” The Human Rights Campaign says on its website that “the safety and efficacy of gender-affirming care for transgender and nonbinary youth and adults is clear.” Elsewhere, these and other groups, like the American Civil Liberties Union, referred to these treatments as “medically necessary,” “lifesaving” and “evidence-based.”

 

Of course there was no such evidence. But, as this author notes, the supposed consensus was supported by the professional medical associations:

The reason these advocates were able to make such strong statements is that for years, the most important professional medical and mental health organizations in the country had been singing a similar tune: “The science” was supposedly codified in documents published by these organizations. As GLAAD puts it on its website, “Every major medical association supports health care for transgender people and youth as safe and lifesaving.”

But something confounding has happened in the last few weeks: Cracks have appeared in the supposed wall of consensus.

The American Society of Plastic Surgeons was the first to recant, followed immediately by the American Medical Association. The linked piece is long, and it describes the international trend away from “trans” ideology. The author chides the organizations that claimed to be following “science,” because they were doing no such thing.

Why have medical organizations now changed their tune? The Times author attributes the change to politics:

And now that the political winds have shifted radically, with the Trump administration launching an all-out assault on both the practice of and research into youth gender medicine, it seems some of them are realizing they would benefit from appearing a bit more moderate.

I disagree: I think it was malpractice lawsuits that brought gender-negating surgeries to a screeching halt. The first $2 million verdict rendered on behalf of a young woman burst the dam. I would guess that malpractice insurance carriers are either declining to cover sex-change surgeries on minors entirely, or jacking up rates astronomically.

There are two morals to the story, I think. First, that in today’s world there is zero reason to trust establishment industry groups like the A.M.A. They are at least as political as anyone else. Second, every now and then plaintiff’s tort lawyers actually do some good.

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2026/02/following-the-science-on-gender.php