The Page Is Gradually Turning On Trans
In a watershed moment, on February 3, 2026, the American Society of Plastic Surgeons (ASPS) issued an official position statement recommending that a key step of “gender-affirming” care—surgical intervention—be delayed until the patient is “at least 19 years old.” The recommendation against performing gender-affirming procedures in minors extends to all types of gender-related surgeries, including breast/chest, genital, and facial surgeries. However, the ASPS statement goes much farther than merely advising surgeons to delay surgery. It raises serious evidentiary and ethical concerns about the entire gender-affirming treatment pathway for youth, including social transition, puberty blockers, and cross-sex hormones.
Via The Wall Street Journal,
Suffering from anxiety, depression, disordered eating and social phobia, [Fox Varian] received a gender dysphoria diagnosis at age 15 and had her breasts removed at 16.
. . . In a historic medical malpractice trial that recently concluded in White Plains, N.Y., a jury awarded her $2 million. Ms. Varian, now 22, claimed that the psychologist who recommended a double mastectomy and the plastic surgeon who performed the operation had failed to obtain adequate consent about the risks before she agreed to undergo the procedure.
During the trial, Ms. Varian’s mother testified that the psychologist, Kenneth Einhorn, repeatedly assured her that the double mastectomy would improve her daughter’s well-being, even threatening that she would otherwise commit suicide.
Nevertheless,
Kayleigh Bush was crowned Miss North Florida in September 2024. She told TMZ that she was stripped of her title after refusing to sign a revised contract from the organization.
"I was unwilling to agree that little boys can become girls and I took a stand against the Miss America organization and lost my crown as a result of that," she told the outlet in an interview published on Wednesday.
The Miss America organization issued what appears to be a weasel-worded denial, but the crux of the matter seems to be this:
According to Miss America’s updated rules, contestants must be "a female," aged 18 to 28, unmarried, with no children and a citizen of the United States. The rules state that a "female" includes "a born female or an individual who has fully completed Sex Reassignment Surgery."
Bush told TMZ that she took a stand after Miss America changed the rules after she won the Miss North Florida title.
"I was asked to sign a contract that was different than the first one that I had agreed to, because they had changed it four weeks after I rightly won," she said. "And so I didn’t lose my crown because I broke a rule, I lost the crown because I was unwilling to rewrite the truth."
. . . The spokesperson said Bush "sought to modify the standard contestant agreement in a manner that would exclude certain individuals who otherwise meet the organization's eligibility criteria," adding that the organization "does not negotiate indidualized terms."
The issue seems to boil down to whether Ms Bush can continue to compete in Miss America events if she hasn't signed the revised contract that includes males who've had surgery in the definition of "woman". But organizations that insist that trans males are women, like the Kappa Kappa Gamma sorority, whose University of Wyoming chapter admitted a trans male under the national rules, are so 2022. Things seem to be slowly changing, including whether it's now OK even to ask why so many mass shooters, arsonists, and the like are trans:
Another mass shooting, and another devastated community.
And once again, elites in the media class and public officials are so terrified of offending that they don’t dare ask the obvious question: Why are so many of the most horrifying attacks carried out by people who identify as “trans”?
After Canada suffered one of its deadliest school massacres Tuesday, police identified the biologically male shooter as 18-year-old Jesse Van Rootselaar — noting that he began to transition six years ago.
The writer concludes,
If someone denies basic biological truths about themselves, that is evidence of distress — not a brave new identity to be endlessly affirmed.
And pumping vulnerable teenagers full of hormones and psychotropic drugs could exacerbate their distress.
Silencing doctors who raise concerns does not improve outcomes.
What we're beginning to see is that medical opinion is changing, and juries' view of medical malpractice is changing as well. A medical newsletter tries to put the best possible picture on such developments, at least as they apply to the medical establishment:
[W]hen the American Medical Association told some media organizations last week that “surgical interventions in minors should be generally deferred to adulthood,” conservative commentators that want to end any pediatric gender-affirming medical care celebrated. Some media outlets and online commentators have also interpreted the comment as a backpedal on previous support.
. . . While the AMA’s statement (posted on X by a writer at the National Review) is less of a departure from the group’s past positions than either conservatives or trans-rights activists are contending, its issuance and the reactions it sparked are indicative of the high-stakes political moment in which caring for transgender young people can draw the ire of the federal government.
. . . Experts say that neither the ASPS statement nor the AMA’s comment are the first concern for hospitals and providers assessing whether they should continue providing gender-affirming care like surgery to young people. Proposed rules that would withhold federal funding to hospitals providing any such care, along with subpoenas and the threat of federal investigation are much bigger concerns, according to Hannah Oliason, an attorney at Nilan Johnson Lewis who works with hospitals.
In other words, the problem isn't whether professional standards are changing -- hospitals have never taken those seriously. The real question is whether the hospitals can still get federal funding for trans surgery on minors. I suppose in the bright sunlight of day, that's the one truly realistic assessment. And in fact, Trump knows how to turn off cash spigots.On the other hand, my wife, a retired insurance attorney, thinks the real turning point is the White Plains malpractice case discussed in the WSJ link above: If juries are going to award damages to victims of "gender-affirming care", insurers aren't going to cover it in malpractice policies. This may be an even more powerful disincentive than loss of federal funding.
Either way, it's going to be all about the Benjamins, and things may actually change more quickly than anyone expects.
