The American Medical Association rejects claims that it has backed away from support for gender-affirming care, saying its guidelines remain unchanged despite growing political pressure and public turmoil.
Stay up to date LGBTQ+ News and Politics. Sign up for The Advocate’s email newsletter.
In an interview with defenderAlex Sheldon, Executive Director GLMA: Health Professionals Advancing LGBTQ+ Equalitysaid the controversy reflects a misunderstanding rather than a substantive change in medical guidance.
“We quickly learned that any reported shifts in policy were gross exaggerations,” Sheldon said, pointing to the GLMA’s role in the AMA’s House of Delegates, where it has voting rights and direct visibility into policy-making.
At the center of the turmoil is a dispute with the AMA. new york times How the organization’s position is characterized. In February and March, the Times reported that the AMA joined with the American Society of Plastic Surgeons in supporting restrictions on gender reassignment surgery for minors, marking this development as a change. The AMA then pushed back, arguing that that interpretation overstated its position and that policy had not changed. In response, the newspaper defended its reporting, citing previous AMA language that noted that such surgeries are generally deferred until adulthood.
related: Two physician organizations update recommendations for gender-affirming care for transgender youth
related: World’s largest psychiatric association passes policy to support care for transgender youth by wide margin
on a recent board Newsletterthe AMA sought to resolve the issue by stating that its policy “does not change” and reiterating that gender-affirming care is “medically necessary” and should be guided by patients, families, and physicians, not government mandates. The group also emphasized that the existing framework continues to support access to care across the full range of treatment options.
The clarification came after weeks of scrutiny that blurred the distinction between years of clinical vigilance and widespread retreats that medical groups say never happened.
As previously reported, defenderthe AMA acknowledged that there is limited evidence regarding surgeries in minors, noting that such surgeries are usually deferred until adulthood. However, these interventions are only a small part of gender-affirming care, which typically includes counseling, hormone therapy, and social transition, all of which continue to be supported by mainstream health care providers.
Sheldon claimed that that nuance was lost in translation and then amplified.
“in this case, new york times itself relied on quotes from other news outlets,” they said, describing an “echo effect” that distorted the AMA’s fundamental policy framework.
The distortions have an impact beyond the news cycle, they say. In Washington and statehouses across the country, policymakers are using perceptions of medical uncertainty to justify restrictions on health care. “The federal government is using its power to undermine medical integrity, expertise, and science,” Sheldon said. “It’s not based on evidence or science, it’s based on their own ideology.”
related: American Medical Association strengthens support for gender-affirming care
related: White House clarifies support for gender-affirming care for transgender youth after backlash (Exclusive)
These efforts have also faced resistance in the courts. In one recent case, a federal judge in Oregon sided with a coalition of states that challenged federal efforts to limit access, condemning elements of the Trump administration’s transgender medical care ban.
Sheldon pointed to these legal outcomes as evidence that the broad medical consensus remains intact, even as political actors attempt to reshape it.
“The vast majority of them continue to stand up and say this is not what the science and evidence tells us,” Sheldon said, noting that the AMA’s explanation reaffirms that gender-affirming care is “medically necessary, evidence-based, and supported by the majority of medical institutions.”
In a lawsuit challenging an executive order targeting care for transgender and nonbinary youth, GLMA itself sued the federal government over efforts to restrict access and won an injunction, Sheldon said. The practical question for clinicians and families is less about institutional disputes and more about which guidance to trust. Sheldon’s answer was direct. The underlying standard of care has not changed.
“This clarification should give confidence to clinicians, health systems, and policy makers in particular that affirming care remains a medically appropriate approach,” they said.
“Medical professionals, not politicians, are best placed to make decisions about patient care,” Sheldon added.
Source: Advocate.com – www.advocate.com
