Table of Contents
For years, questioning the consensus on pediatric gender medicine was a professional third rail. Journalists, doctors, and whistleblowers who raised concerns about the rapid medicalization of gender-distressed children were frequently labeled "transphobes" or bigots. However, the conversation has undergone a significant shift. Following major systematic reviews like the Cass Review in the UK and a growing body of whistleblower testimony in the US, early skeptics are finding their concerns vindicated by the evidence.
The Free Press recently convened a panel featuring three of these early voices: Jamie Reed, a former case manager and whistleblower at the Washington University Transgender Center; Emily Yoffe, a senior editor at The Free Press; and Jesse Singal, a journalist who has covered the topic since 2018. Their discussion explores how the medical establishment rushed into an unproven treatment model, the institutional capture that silenced dissent, and why the United States remains an outlier as European nations pull back.
Key Takeaways
- The rapid expansion lacked evidence: The number of U.S. gender clinics exploded from zero to over 100 in two decades, often driven by ideological demand rather than robust clinical data.
- Social contagion played a significant role: Clinicians witnessed entire peer groups identifying as trans simultaneously, suggesting a "socially mediated" phenomenon that medical bodies ignored.
- Co-morbidities were sidelined: The "affirmative care" model frequently bypassed standard screenings for autism, depression, and trauma, attributing all distress solely to gender dysphoria.
- Journalism failed its watchdog role: Mainstream media outlets largely uncritically repeated activist talking points, failing to investigate the medical evidence or the financial incentives behind the industry.
- The U.S. is politicizing science: While European nations like the UK, Sweden, and Finland have restricted care based on systematic reviews, the U.S. debate remains trapped in a polarized political battle.
The Rapid Expansion of Gender Clinics
The landscape of pediatric gender medicine changed with startling speed. As Emily Yoffe noted during the panel, the West went from having virtually no dedicated gender clinics for minors to having over 100 in the span of roughly two decades. This expansion wasn't merely a response to organic medical need; it was accompanied by a totalizing ideological shift regarding biological sex.
Jesse Singal pointed out that when the first American clinics opened around 2007, such as the one at Boston Children’s Hospital, they were designed as niche specialties for a very specific, small cohort of children: those with severe, childhood-onset gender dysphoria. However, the demographics of the patients shifted dramatically and inexplicably.
Jamie Reed, who worked at the Washington University Transgender Center, witnessed this explosion firsthand. Her clinic opened in 2017 following demands from a parent support group that framed the issue as a civil rights mandate.
"When my caseload went from four new patients per month in 2018 to 60 by 2023... there was an explosion exponentially that had to at least—any good scientist should have said—let's pause for a minute."
Reed noted that hospital predictions based on historical trends estimated the center would treat perhaps 50 patients total. Instead, by the time she left, she had processed 1,500 unique patients in just a two-year sample set.
The Evidence Gap and the "Dutch Protocol"
A central pillar of the pediatric transition model was the "Dutch Protocol," which suggested that puberty blockers were a reversible "pause button" that allowed children time to think. However, the panelists argued that this protocol was rarely followed with fidelity in the United States, and the premise itself was flawed.
The Reality of Puberty Blockers
While proponents argued that blockers were neutral, evidence increasingly suggests they lock children onto a medical pathway. Hillary Cass, in her landmark review for the NHS, raised the concern that blockers may cement a trans identity that might otherwise have been transient. Historically, many children with gender dysphoria grew out of it after going through natural puberty, often realizing they were gay or lesbian.
Furthermore, Reed highlighted a disturbing trend in the U.S. clinics: many patients weren't even receiving the "pause" of blockers. Because so many patients were presenting later in adolescence (age 16+), they were bypassing blockers entirely and being prescribed cross-sex hormones immediately.
"Most of these girls who were sucked into this from a social contagion aspect actually didn't arrive to a gender center until past puberty... They skipped right to the irreversible damage to their vocal cords, to their urogenital tracts."
This rush to medicalize meant that teenagers were making permanent changes to their bodies based on an evidence base that the Endocrine Society itself had admitted was of "low quality."
Social Contagion and Overlooked Co-morbidities
One of the most contentious aspects of the debate has been the role of social influence, often termed "social contagion" or "socially mediated" dysphoria. The panelists described a phenomenon where distress seemed to spread through peer groups and online communities, particularly among teenage girls.
Jamie Reed recalled instances where teachers would contact the clinic reporting that a third of their classroom now identified as trans. Despite this statistical anomaly, the medical establishment largely refused to investigate the social vectors of the condition. While psychologists understand that behaviors like cutting or eating disorders can be socially contagious, this lens was rigorously applied to gender distress.
The "Affirmation Only" Trap
The "gender-affirming" model created a diagnostic tunnel vision. Children presenting with complex histories—including autism, depression, anxiety, and trauma—were often fast-tracked to gender medicalization. The prevailing dogma suggested that gender dysphoria was the root cause of all other mental health issues, rather than a symptom of them.
Singal noted that historically, clinicians would explore these co-morbidities first. The shift to an Americanized "affirmation" model meant that if a child claimed to be trans, that self-diagnosis was treated as the primary truth, often sidelining crucial explorations into autism or past trauma. This left vulnerable adolescents, who were often seeking solutions for genuine pain, tethered to a medical pathway that did not address their underlying struggles.
Institutional Capture and Media Failure
Why did it take so long for these concerns to reach the mainstream? The panel pointed to a systemic failure in journalism and medical institutions. During the rise of these clinics, media outlets frequently relied on activist organizations like GLAAD to dictate the framing of stories. Journalists who attempted to apply standard skepticism to these medical treatments were accused of bigotry.
Emily Yoffe argued that this lack of curiosity was a dereliction of duty. She drew parallels to the popularity of lobotomies in the mid-20th century—a medical craze that swept the establishment before being discredited. In the case of gender medicine, the moral heat of the "civil rights" framing caused journalists to turn off their critical faculties.
"You can't have social justice arguments based on censoriousness or shoddy arguments... Everyone deserves access to good information about medical research and that hasn't been the norm in the states."
This capture extended to major medical bodies. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) has been criticized for suppressing internal debate and allowing a small group of ideologically driven doctors to write guidelines that favor aggressive medicalization. While European health authorities were conducting systematic reviews and pulling back, U.S. associations doubled down.
The Future: Politics vs. Evidence
The United States is currently fracturing into two distinct realities regarding gender medicine. Republican-led states are passing bans and restrictions, while Democratic-led states are positioning themselves as "sanctuaries" for these treatments. The panelists expressed deep concern over this politicization.
In Europe, the shift away from pediatric transition has been technocratic and evidence-based. In the U.S., it is a partisan battleground. The Biden administration has largely supported the affirmation model, while figures like RFK Jr. and Donald Trump have vowed to restrict it. This leaves patients and families caught in a chaotic patchwork of regulations.
Despite the political gridlock, the legal landscape is changing. Yoffe highlighted recent malpractice lawsuits, including a significant victory for a detransitioner who sued her providers. The American Society of Plastic Surgeons has recently issued a statement acknowledging the poor quality of evidence for these surgeries, signaling that the medical consensus is beginning to fracture under the threat of litigation.
Conclusion
The "sea change" in gender medicine is undeniable. What was once a settled consensus is now a field rife with retracted studies, closing clinics, and successful lawsuits. The vindication of whistleblowers like Jamie Reed and journalists like Jesse Singal and Emily Yoffe serves as a reminder of the importance of skepticism, even in the face of overwhelming social pressure.
The hope, as expressed by the panel, is that the issue can eventually be depoliticized—that "social de-contagion" will reduce the number of distressed adolescents seeking these interventions, and that U.S. medicine will eventually align with the evidence-based caution now seen in Europe. Until then, the rigorous examination of facts remains the best tool for protecting vulnerable children.
