Child psychiatry group excludes advocates of sex changes for children from annual conference.

American Psychiatry Organization Rejects Panels on Gender Dysphoria Treatment

A top pediatric​ psychiatry organization has recently ⁣faced controversy for rejecting panels featuring leading European psychologists ⁢discussing Europe’s approach to chemical interventions for children with gender dysphoria. This decision has ​raised⁣ concerns about the politicization of American ⁣medicine and highlighted a clinical divide between the United States and much of the world.

The American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (AACAP), responsible for setting practice guidelines in the field, rejected ‍one panel in 2022 and two more in May 2023 based on advice from its “Gender Identity Committee.” The committee’s co-chair, Aron Janssen, ⁤has been critical of restrictions on puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones, referring to them as an “effort to oppress.”

The proposed⁤ panels would ⁢have​ featured clinicians from countries ​that have ​limited access to these drugs, allowing their use only in clinical trials or after extensive psychological evaluation. The speakers planned to discuss the data that led Finland, Sweden, and England to‌ adopt a​ more cautious treatment model compared to the United States.

It is highly unusual for the academy to reject events with international speakers,‍ especially when they are prominent figures​ in gender medicine. This decision has sparked concerns​ about ideological​ capture within the organization.

The rejection of these‍ panels, which included renowned clinicians such as Riittakerttu Kaltiala, the chief psychiatrist at one of Finland’s pediatric gender clinics, suggests that ⁢even a moderate stance on gender dysphoria treatment may be too controversial for the⁢ AACAP. Kaltiala has been prescribing ‍puberty blockers since 2011 but has called⁢ for‍ more caution in recent years due to potential irreversible ⁢effects.

This incident reflects a pattern of activist doctors suppressing dissenting viewpoints‍ within professional associations, creating an illusion of consensus where none exists. ⁤Similar‍ controversies have occurred in other medical organizations, such as the American Academy of Pediatrics, which barred clinicians skeptical of ​”gender-affirming care” from participating in its annual conference.

The AACAP’s rejection of‌ panels⁣ featuring ‍European clinicians aimed to challenge the prevailing consensus ‌on gender dysphoria treatment. However, the‍ organization’s decision to ‌reject these panels while accepting other presentations on ⁤transgender issues demonstrates a double standard.

There is a growing divide between ‍the AACAP’s official stance and the views of ‌its members.‌ While the organization’s Gender Identity Committee dismisses the role of social forces in gender dysphoria, a poll conducted by the AACAP’s Social Media Institute found that 83 percent of members believe ​social media often influences their patients’ gender identity.

The increasing prevalence of gender dysphoria among young ⁤people has led ​to a surge in‍ clinics worldwide. Rates of gender dysphoria have risen dramatically in countries like Sweden and England, prompting a reevaluation of treatment​ approaches.⁣ European countries have shifted towards more cautious use of puberty blockers, considering factors such as preexisting mental health conditions.

While the debate⁤ on gender‍ dysphoria treatment has become ⁣highly polarized in the United States, it remains less partisan in ⁢other parts of the world.⁤ Critics of⁣ current‍ treatment approaches come from diverse backgrounds and are not driven by political motivations.