THE EPOCH TIMES – More than 700 medical experts and concerned citizens have signed an open letter slamming a recently published book by the American Psychiatric Association (APA) on “gender-affirming” care.
The Gender-Affirming Psychiatric Care (GAPC) textbook was published by the APA on Nov. 8 and is touted as “the first textbook dedicated to providing affirming, intersectional, and evidence-informed psychiatric care for transgender, non-binary, and/or gender-expansive (TNG) people.”
However, “the book’s claims of being evidence-informed are untenable,” said the open letter published this month by the Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism (FAIR). Signatories include psychologist Jordan B. Peterson.
“GAPC omits any in-depth analysis of the evidence to date, dismisses ‘scientific neutrality’ as ‘a fallacy’ (p. xix), and chooses authors with the correct ‘lived experiences” and ‘community impact of prior work over academic titles’ (p. xx).”
GAPC “neglects” addressing the various risks of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones while presenting “fundamentally flawed research” to support their version of gender care.
On page 52, authors claim that the use of puberty blockers for pubertal suppression “is a fully reversible intervention that allows young patients time to mature, explore their gender identity, and understand better the risks and benefits of” gender-affirming hormone therapy (GAHT).
The letter called this statement false. “It is astonishing to see such an outdated fallacy appear in this book, especially referring to a case presentation of a 10-year-old child.”
The signatories cited a September 2022 letter written by a group of medical experts to the ACCP journal’s editor stating that while more than 95 percent of youth who take puberty blockers go on to receive cross-sex hormones, 61–98 percent of youth who received psychological support ended up reconciling their gender identity with their biological sex.
“This contradicts both the reversibility and exploratory nature of puberty suppression claimed by GAPC,” the letter said.
Studies cited by GAPC authors “have been extensively critiqued.” Some of them downplay serious side effects, exaggerate efficacy and benefits, and are not based on randomized, controlled trials …
