First Medical Society to Break Ranks on Gender Treatments for Minors

It’s amazing what a successful lawsuit can accomplish, isn’t it?

Or is that being too cynical? You decide. I know what I think. 

More details are available in the article below.https://t.co/leDQhtHSIm

— Colin Wright (@SwipeWright) February 3, 2026

For whatever reason, after more than a decade of staying silent or even abetting the mutilation of children, the American Society of Plastic Surgeons has broken ranks with the AMA and all the ghouls who have been promoting the sterilization and mutilation of children. 

The American Society of Plastic Surgeons has issued a broad recommendation against gender transition surgeries for youths, becoming the first major medical association in the United States to narrow its guidance on pediatric gender care amid a crackdown by the Trump administration.

A statement sent Tuesday to the group’s 11,000 members and obtained by The Washington Post recommends surgeons delay gender-related chest, genital and facial surgery until a patient is at least 19 years old. Fewer than 1,000 minors in the United States receive such surgeries every year, according to research published in JAMA, the American Medical Association’s journal, and the vast majority of the procedures are mastectomies, not genital surgeries.

But there’s an intense debate over when young people should be able to get medical interventions as more have sought gender transition and some systematic reviews have suggested the evidence for the benefits and risks of pediatric transition is insufficient. Supporters of transition care for youths have pointed to the widespread endorsement by U.S. medical organizations.

“This is a vulnerable, adolescent population,” said Scot Bradley Glasberg, past president of ASPS who did not vote on the new guidance but has been involved in discussions about the group’s stance. “We are mindful that some of these surgeries are irreversible.”

Who knew that mastectomies, castrations, and creating artificial genitals were irreversible? 

No doubt the people who pushed this through have known for years that this practice is evil, dangerous, and would permanently scar a generation of patients, but they were too pusillanimous to stand up and say so. 

As with so much bad “science,” the evidence for doing dangerous, damaging, or just ridiculous things like “social distancing” comes down to a fake “consensus” rather than anything less vaporous. Everybody is pointing at everybody else and basing their utterances on what others are saying, like a great big circle jerk. 

Now that holding the “consensus” view imposes some serious costs, suddenly the “evidence” is not so clear. 

The group, which represents plastic surgeons primarily in the U.S., has evolved its stance on the issue. In 2019, the group opposed attempts by states to restrict transition care and said “plastic surgery services can help gender dysphoria patients align their bodies with whom they know themselves to be and improve their overall mental health and well-being.” In August 2024, the group said it was crafting guidance for plastic surgeons, citing “considerable uncertainty” about the long-term benefits for chest and genital interventions.

The new guidance says “there is insufficient evidence demonstrating a favorable risk-benefit ratio for the pathway of gender-related endocrine and surgical interventions in children and adolescents.” It cites “substantial uncertainty” about the long-term benefits and harms of hormones and puberty blockers more routinely prescribed for gender transition but does not give any specific recommendations for those treatments.

Not to be ungenerous, because I think it is great that the Society has broken ranks after it realized that some really huge settlements are in its future, but its views did not “evolve.” I sincerely doubt that many of the doctors actually changed their minds about the evidence—after all, they specifically cite the LACK of evidence in their new stance—but rather are swayed by the costs and benefits of sticking to the old line. 

“There has been a continuing evolution of the data,” Glasberg said. “As each of these systematic reviews came out, we felt compelled to enhance the position we had previously taken.”

Glasberg said the group chose age 19 as the cutoff because it’s a “developmental landmark” when puberty has generally concluded. He pointed to FDA restrictions on getting silicone breast implants before age 22 because they can hinder breast development.

Oh, come on. None of the systematic reviews brought in new data. They pointed out the fact that there was no real data supporting a widespread practice, and if these surgeons who SPECIALIZE in these types of surgeries didn’t know that, why are they allowed to practice in the first place? 

“Gee, we didn’t know” is a really bad explanation for why, just a bit ago, you were arguing that this was “life-saving.” You were certain enough then, and now you admit there isn’t even any evidence? 

The costs of breaking ranks are now lower than the costs of continuing down the current path. They easily could have just said to their members, “You will get sued now.”

But whatever. Rhetorically, for those of us who have been sane throughout this madness, it is good to have the credentialed class beginning to fracture. 

• Editor’s note: If we thought our job in pushing back against the Academia/media/Democrat censorship complex was over with the election, think again. This is going to be a long fight. If you want to join the conversation in the comments — and support independent platforms — why not join our VIP Membership program? Choose VIP to support Hot Air and access our premium content, VIP Gold to extend your access to all Townhall Media platforms and participate in this show, or VIP Platinum to get access to even more content and discounts on merchandise. Use the promo code FIGHT to join or to upgrade your existing membership level today, and get 60% off!