Denmark has already signaled growing skepticism about the medicalization of gender confusion, and the picture is becoming clearer by the day.

As you likely know England, Finland, Sweden, and Norway have all pulled back from their “full speed ahead” approach to medicalized gender treatments due to systematic reviews that show that there is no good evidence that the treatments have benefits and substantial evidence that they may be harming children.

So it is no surprise that Denmark is following the trend that has been well-established in Europe.

I have yet to see an explanation from advocates of pediatric sex characteristic modification (e.g. "gender affirming care") for what's been happening in the UK and Europe. The only response I've seen–and it's not from official sources–is that 1/

— Moti Gorin (@GorinMoti) August 17, 2023

the acceptance of trans people. As SEGM notes, "In 2014, Denmark became the first European country to pass a “self-id” law for adults whereby adults did not need a diagnosis of gender dysphoria to register a legal sex change. Denmark continued to be a leader…3/

— Moti Gorin (@GorinMoti) August 17, 2023

It’s clear that the new skepticism toward hormonal and surgical treatments has nothing to do with ideological concerns, but rather the opposite is the case. Ideological opposition has blossomed because an increasing number of “patients” and care providers have blown the whistle on the industry’s obsession with transing kids despite significant problems.

Denmark changed its medical practice without doing a new systematic review of evidence; they chose to rely on the existing reviews. This is consistent with the key principle of evidence-based medicine: one must rely on existing quality systematic reviews if they are available. /3

— SEGM (@segm_ebm) August 17, 2023

The treatments that have been pushed to interrupt puberty and surgically alter children have been pushed despite the weak to nonexistent evidence that they accomplish the intended goals and that they don’t do actual harm to children. This is, of course, contrary to evidence-based medicine, and recent reviews have demonstrated that the evidence points away, not toward, the medicalization of puberty.

Unlike European countries who are working together, the @AmerAcadPeds is choosing American exceptionalism. Their decision to ignore the existing systematic reviews' findings, and to reaffirm the AAP "affirmation" policy is at odds with the principles of evidence-based medicine./5 pic.twitter.com/YqIq5yRsjI

— SEGM (@segm_ebm) August 17, 2023

In the Western world it is the United States that has become an outlier, with organizations such as the American Academy of Pediatrics persisting in sterilizing and mutilating children despite the growing body of research and the best judgment of their peers that doing so is a terrible mistake.

I wrote last Thursday about the American Academy of Pediatrics shutting down European Psychiatrists from sharing their concerns at their annual conference. These psychiatrists were trying to share their latest findings and were simply shunned for not promoting alphabet ideology.

Rather than seeking out evidence, they are actively silencing anybody who doesn’t accept the “consensus” that the Academy wants to enforce.

Sound familiar? It is easy to have a consensus when the only people about to speak all say the same thing.

Critical🚨: ⁦@aaronsibarium⁩ with a new report on institutional capture at ⁦⁦@AACAP⁩.

The group allegedly rejected top European experts who transition kids from presenting at its conference because they support guardrails for hormones. https://t.co/4lYx7eEENb

— Leor Sapir (@LeorSapir) August 11, 2023

The AAP’s official position is that physicians have a responsibility to instantly accept the assertion of a child that they are in need of transition and that “watchful waiting”–a standard practice everywhere until recently–is an outdated practice:

When pediatricians lack knowledge about the needs of transgender and gender-diverse youth, they may default to the “watch and wait” approach. This method is outdated and harmful, denying resources needed to explore gender identity. When a questioning young person opens up about their gender identity, the response needs to be one of unconditional support, which will resonate for a long time. Start by asking what pronouns are used and what name is affirming for them. The benefits of social affirmation are significant. According to the Trevor Project’s 2023 Survey on the Mental Health of LGBTQ Young People, those who were in affirming homes, schools, and online spaces reported lower rates of depression and suicidality. Pediatricians should also assess safety. These two appraisals are the foundation of gender-affirming care.

They take this position because The Trevor Project–a transgender activist group–says that is the right one.

OK. Makes sense. Do what The Trevor Project says. Got it, experts.

Who wouldn’t listen to the Trevor Project instead of the physicians in the UK, Denmark, Finland, Sweden, and Norway–the countries that started this whole trend in the first place and that have decided they were mistaken? It’s not like these doctors have any experience with the matter.

At the core of the dispute here are a few questions:

• What does gender confusion reflect?
• Is it temporary or permanent?
• Can a child understand the long-term consequences of a choice and make informed consent?
• What are the long-term physical consequences of medical transition?
• If a medical transition is ever warranted, what are the dangers of waiting in an environment that supports their mental health?
• What are the mental health consequences of medicalization for a child not persisting in dysphoria, as is usually the case?
• What is the origin of rapid-onset gender dysphoria?

The medical reviews in Europe are sounding a warning on these and other issues, but all of them are ignored here in the States. This bodes ill for children.

Few people deny that some very small number of children genuinely suffer from gender dysphoria and need at minimum psychological support; but that is not the issue being debated. It is the headlong rush into experimental and dangerous treatments for thousands of children who in all likelihood are being drawn into a social contagion.

In America part of the problem is ideological, but another is the obvious financial incentives for this industry to explode.

Matt Walsh exposed how Vanderbilt Children’s Hospital admitted (in private) that it was all about the Benjamins:

Vanderbilt was apparently concerned that not all of its staff would be on board. Dr. Ellen Clayton warned that "conscientious objections" are "problematic." Anyone who decides not to be involved in transition surgeries due to "religious beliefs" will face "consequences" pic.twitter.com/CgNicrG4Mg

— Matt Walsh (@MattWalshBlog) September 20, 2022

There’s a lot of money at stake.  Enough to threaten caregivers with “consequences” if they have moral qualms.

This, my friends, is “compassionate” medical care in America.