What Does the American Medical Association Really Think About ‘Gender-Affirming Care’ for Minors?

Welcome back to Forgotten Fact Checks. This week, we look at the American Medical Association's everchanging position on gender transition surgery for minors, and we cover more media misses.

The New York Times vs. the American Medical Association on Surgeries for 'Trans' Youth

The American Medical Association surprised many conservatives last month by endorsing the American Society of Plastic Surgeons' announcement that trans-identifying minors should wait until at least age 19 before undergoing transition surgery. The ASPS also admitted to "substantial uncertainty" about the benefits of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones.

When National Review reached out to the American Medical Association — which had long refused to endorse any limits on the medicalization of gender-dysphoric children — the organization responded by agreeing with the ASPS that children should wait until adulthood before undergoing transition surgery.

"Our colleagues at ASPS concluded that the evidence supporting gender-related surgery in minors is insufficient and of low certainty," AMA communications officer Joshua Zembik said in a statement first provided to NR and later to the New York Times. "The American Medical Association respects the expertise and dedication of surgeons who care for patients every day. The AMA supports evidence-based treatment, including gender-affirming care. Currently, the evidence for gender-affirming surgical intervention in minors is insufficient for us to make a definitive statement. In the absence of clear evidence, the AMA agrees with ASPS that surgical interventions in minors should be generally deferred to adulthood."

The AMA statement, particularly that last sentence, seemed significant at the time because the influential organization had never before taken a stance on the medicalization of gender-dysphoric youth, always insisting when asked that its members support "evidence-based treatment." Finally, the organization seemed willing to publicly acknowledge what lay observers have long known: There is no evidence that the benefits of permanently modifying the reproductive organs of minors outweighs the obvious harms.

But recent developments suggest that not everyone within AMA leadership is on board with this concession to reality. After the Times published a straightforward report on the AMA's statement, AMA Chairman Dr. David Aizuss revealed in his March newsletter that the AMA had requested a correction from the Times "to reflect the actual language the AMA used in response to their inquiry."

"Additionally, a letter to the editor has been submitted requesting a public correction — this was neither a policy change nor was it an endorsement of a position taken by another medical society," Aizuss wrote.

The Times now says not only will no correction be made, because it stands by its reporting as "accurate and factual," but that it never received a request for correction from the AMA at all.

"The New York Times's body of reporting on the American Medical Association's stance on gender-related care for minors is accurate and factual, and remains so despite the recent statement from the Chair of the A.M.A. Board, which contradicts the A.M.A.'s own statements," the outlet said.

The paper also maintained it "received no requests to correct, clarify or update our articles from the A.M.A."

"After the board chair's comments, Times reporters also confirmed with the A.M.A. spokesperson that the statements reflected in our previous reporting remain accurate in reflecting the association's stated positions," the statement adds. "The board chair's claims are not based in fact, and are in contradiction to both the association's own statements provided to The Times."

Reached for comment by NR, a spokesperson for the AMA said only that the association’s position on "gender-affirming surgery in minors is unchanged" and that the chair's newsletter is "an informal communication with the AMA House of Delegates" and "should not be interpreted as setting policy."

“We support evidence-based treatment for medical care, including gender affirming care," the association said. "Currently, the evidence for surgical intervention in minors is insufficient for us to make a definitive statement. In the absence of clear evidence, surgical interventions in minors should be generally deferred to adulthood."

"Treatment decisions should be made between the physician and the patient (and family) based on the best medical evidence and clinical judgment,” the statement added.

Asked how long the AMA has had this position on surgical intervention for minors, the AMA spokesperson said only that "this is not new policy from the AMA" and that all of the association's policies are publicly available.

An earlier 2024 policy "clarification" on the matter highlights the association's commitment to "protecting" and "advocating" "evidence-based gender-affirming care" — however, the AMA did not go out of its way at that time to clarify that surgery for minors was not appropriately "evidence-based."

Meanwhile, a Stat News report published last month seemingly sought to rewrite history on the issue, saying,  "Among clinicians who provide gender-affirming care, the general consensus is that surgery — on breasts, facial features, or genitals — is mostly reserved for adults, though it should be available to minors on a case-by-case basis."

The report goes on to say that "conservative commentators that want to end any pediatric gender-affirming medical care celebrated" the AMA's statement and that "some media outlets and online commentators have also interpreted the comment as a backpedal on previous support."

Despite Stat News also maintaining that it was not a change in AMA policy, an expert quoted in the Stat News article makes clear that the February statement did, in fact, represent a change.

"The AMA was very vocal in opposing restrictions on gender-related care based on age, saying this should be driven by the patient and their perspective on their needs. And now they are walking it back," Carmel Shachar, director of the Health Law and Policy Clinic at Harvard Law School, told Stat News.

In 2021, the AMA urged governors to "oppose state legislation that would prohibit medically necessary gender transition-related care for minor patients" saying the efforts would be a "dangerous intrusion into the practice of medicine."

Media Misses

• Jimmy Kimmel came under fire last week for cracking a joke about newly confirmed Department of Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin at the working class's expense.

"Before he was elected to the Senate, Markwayne Mullin was a plumber. That's right. We have a plumber protecting us from terrorism now," Kimmel snarked. However, Mullin actually grew his family's plumbing business from a local outfit into a large enterprise employing more than 300 workers. He's managed people and systems and has likely had to make strategic calls on both technology and personnel. He's also served in both the House and the Senate.

• MS NOW contributor and former Congressman Joe Walsh served as a correspondent for the network at a "No Kings" protest over the weekend, where he reported live while wearing a "F*** Trump" shirt. During his appearance on the network, he and host Ali Velshi agreed that Trump is a "tyrant," and Walsh further went on to claim, "Trump is a king. He is a fascist. He is a tyrant."

• Charlamagne Tha God claimed on The Breakfast Club last week that people will be celebrating President Trump's death some day as if it were a Mardi Gras parade: "You're, you know, going to go down as the worst president of all time because you don't give a damn about democracy, ok? Wiping your ass with the Constitution, and on pace to lead this country into the worst financial crisis of all time. But you are also — ok — putting yourself into a position that when you pass, people are going to treat it like Mardi Gras in New Orleans!"

• The New York Times discovered this week that a freelancer had relied on AI to help write a book review it published back in January after a eagle-eyed reader informed the paper that the review shared a number of similarities with an earlier review of the book published by The Guardian. The Times then launched an investigation into the review, written by author and journalist Alex Preston, about the book Watching Over Her by Jean-Baptiste Andrea. Preston admitted he used AI to help write the piece and that he didn't realize the AI model had taken material directly from The Guardian.

"Editors have appended a note to a book review written earlier this year by a freelance critic, who told The Times after publication that he had used an A.I. tool to assist him in producing the piece," a Times spokesperson told The Wrap. "This tool produced similarities to a book review published in The Guardian, which our editors' note makes clear. For staff journalists and freelance writers alike, reliance on A.I. and inclusion of unattributed work by another writer is a serious violation of The Times's integrity and fundamental journalistic standards."

As a result of the investigation, Preston will no longer write for the paper, after having authored six reviews for the Gray Lady since 2021.