The foundation of pediatric gender interventions is a subjective morass.
In recent weeks, the support beams propping up the field of pediatric gender medicine have begun to show signs of critical failure. In early February, journalist Ben Ryan broke the news about the first-of-its-kind payout to a detransitioner, Fox Varian, who was awarded $2 million in damages by a New York jury after undergoing a double mastectomy as a 16-year-old—despite a complex psychiatric profile, troubling family history, and indicators of broader identity instability. This was soon followed by a groundbreaking position statement by the American Society of Plastic Surgeons, which formally came out against surgical interventions for patients under 19, citing the findings of evidence reviews and medical practice reversals in European countries.
During Varian’s case, the World Professional Association for Transgender Health’s Standards of Care were referenced by expert witnesses to contextualize the professional standards governing treatment of adolescents with gender dysphoria at the time of her 2019 surgery. Such guidelines can assist jurors in evaluating whether the providers’ assessment practices aligned with accepted professional safeguards.
“This case was a medical malpractice case, not a referendum on gender-affirming care,” WPATH told the New York Times after the Varian verdict. “When care is delivered ethically and responsibly within these guidelines, the integrity of the field is strengthened,” it went on to add.
Continue reading the entire piece here at The Dispatch
______________________
Joseph Figliolia is a policy analyst at the Manhattan Institute.
