Summary
In 2018 the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), the main US children's doctors' group, issued a policy backing a "gender-affirming" approach for children and teens. It rejected both conversion therapy and "watchful waiting", meaning supporting a child without pushing either way. James Cantor, a psychologist, read the papers the AAP cited and argued they did not back it. Papers cited about conversion therapy were about sexual orientation, and papers cited to criticise watchful waiting actually recommended it. He also said the AAP left out the follow-up studies of children with gender distress, all of which found most stopped wanting to transition by puberty. The piece became influential. In 2023 the AAP kept its policy but ordered a formal review of the evidence. This is one author checking citations, not new data, and the childhood studies it relies on are themselves disputed.
Key findings
- يفحص المقال المصادر المستشهد بها في سياسة الأكاديمية الأمريكية لطب الأطفال لعام 2018 بشأن رعاية الأطفال والمراهقين المتحولين ومتنوعي الجندر (رافرتي وآخرون).
- يرى كانتور أن AAP رفضت «الانتظار اليقظ»، وهو النهج الذي استخدمته جميع العيادات والمجموعات المهنية تقريباً في ذلك الوقت، وأيدت التأكيد كنهج وحيد مقبول.
- يذكر أن الأوراق التي استشهدت بها AAP ضد علاج «التحويل» أو «الإصلاحي» كانت عن التوجه الجنسي، لا عن الهوية الجندرية لدى الأطفال.
- يذكر أن عدة أوراق استشهدت بها AAP لانتقاد الانتظار اليقظ دعمته فعلاً.
- يلاحظ أنه من بين 11 دراسة متابعة لأطفال ذوي كرب جندري، وجدت جميعها أن معظمهم توقفوا عن الرغبة في التحول قبل البلوغ، لم تستشهد AAP إلا بواحدة (فالين وكوهين-كيتينيس 2008) ولم تذكر ما وجدته.
- في أغسطس 2023 أعادت AAP تأكيد سياستها لعام 2018 مع طلب مراجعة رسمية للأدلة لتوجيه تحديث.
Abstract
The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) recently published a policy statement: Ensuring comprehensive care and support for transgender and gender-diverse children and adolescents. Although almost all clinics and professional associations in the world use what's called the watchful waiting approach to helping gender diverse (GD) children, the AAP statement instead rejected that consensus, endorsing gender affirmation as the only acceptable approach. Remarkably, not only did the AAP statement fail to include any of the actual outcomes literature on such cases, but it also misrepresented the contents of its citations, which repeatedly said the very opposite of what AAP attributed to them.
Conclusion
Cantor concludes that the AAP policy statement is not based on the evidence it claims: it omitted the outcomes literature on gender-dysphoric children (every follow-up study finding that most desisted by puberty) and misrepresented its citations, which repeatedly supported watchful waiting rather than the affirmation-only approach the AAP endorsed. The AAP is free to adopt any policy it wishes, he argues, but any assertion that its policy is evidence-based is demonstrably false.