FTC vs GAC: Workshop and Backlash
In a workshop, the Federal Trade Commission exposed the truth behind gender-affirming care on minors and the large-scale fraud it has committed against consumers and insurance providers. Gender activists are not happy about it.
On July 9th, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) took a giant and unprecedented step towards restoring and protecting children and medical ethics by hosting a workshop on “gender-affirming care (GAC)”—a euphemism for the set of practices that use puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and cosmetic surgeries to permanently alter healthy bodies. The workshop had multiple medical and psychiatric professionals in attendance and as speakers, as well as detransitioners and parents who shared their harrowing and heartbreaking accounts. You can watch the workshop in full here.
Contrary to what activists against the workshop would have you believe, it was a joint effort between Trump and Biden appointees, illustrating that the issues around GAC are beginning to unify the parties.
The workshop opened with powerful testimonials from detransitioners and parents whose children had been affected by GAC. The powerful stories included those of Simon and Gareth Amaya Price, Claire Abernathy, Elvira Syed, and Kayla Lovedahl. The audience was moved to tears as each one recounted how they were misled and taken advantage of by the medical system that was supposed to be a trusted guide in times of illness and distress but turned out to be a source of deep trauma instead.
Nearly all the individuals who underwent GAC were at some point or another diagnosed with autism and/or suffered some level of sexual trauma—tragically common among people who assume a trans identity. These comorbidities were overlooked by the “affirmation-only” model, and the patients were fast-tracked down a medical pathway. The parents on the panel described being helpless to stop the process. Any questioning or investigation into the evidence behind the affirmative care model was met with suspicion and extreme prejudice to the point of professionals even encouraging the discontinued contact of Elvira and her daughter. Her daughter's worsening mental health was ignored by the specialists facilitating her transition, and after they focused on her transition instead of her underlying mental health needs, she eventually took her own life. More parents and detransitioners like Beth Bourne and Prisha Mosely spoke later, adding to the growing list of consumers who have been wronged by the affirmation-only model.
The Case for Fraud
Between those panels, medical and psychological professionals took to the stage, expertly presenting the case for fraud against GAC. Each backed their claims with documented medical records of patients who had a range of violations committed against them from fraudulent diagnoses to falsified documentation of sustained medical care and evaluation. The presentations also included direct quotes, studies, and even video of gender affirming specialists blatantly and unapologetically acknowledging the lack of ethics and knowledge behind their barbaric practices.
For example, one gender-affirming endocrinologist, Dr. Dan Metzger, said:
“I think when we’re doing informed consent that’s really a big lacuna—we try to talk about it but most of the kids are nowhere in any kind of a brain space to really talk about it in a serious way. That’s always bothered me, but we still want the kids to be happy—happier in the moment, right?”
Another gender-affirming doctor, Marshall Dahl, said:
“Not only are the medications off-label, the whole field is off-label, right? But that’s all good.”
Further evidence revealed that gender-affirming care providers deliberately falsify medical documentation, falsely claiming their patients had “unspecified endocrine disorders” and required “reconstructive surgery.” This was done to deceive insurance companies into covering procedures that were, in reality, experimental, cosmetic interventions performed on healthy bodies.
After the presenters showed many similar quotes from gender-affirming providers, who recognized that informed consent was not possible, that their “treatments” were experimental and not actually backed up by thorough science like is often claimed, and that they falsified medical documents for insurance coverage, the evidence for the FTC’s fraud case against GAC is as strong as ever.
The Backlash
Unsurprisingly, the response from activists and ideologically captured news outlets has been swift and salty. The workshop seemed to have kicked the hornet's nest, so to speak, and there was quite a buzz.
An article from The Advocate, for example, was strictly critical about the workshop and interviewed trans identified male Admiral “Rachel” Levine to get his thoughts on the evidence that was presented. He told The Advocate:
“The evidence base is strong for the safety and efficacy of these treatments,”
…but the lead advocacy organization for transgender procedures, WPATH, claimed in their own guidelines that:
“A key challenge in adolescent transition is the quality of evidence evaluating the effectiveness of medically necessary gender-affirming medical and surgical treatments”
This is a clear contradiction, claiming that while there is no good evidence for these treatments, they are still considered “medically necessary.” Under the Biden administration, Levine coerced WPATH to remove age restrictions from their guidelines, despite the lack of evidence for its safety and effectiveness in adolescents, something even recognized by WPATH themselves.
Having attended the workshop, his urgency to remove guidelines harkens back to a speech from whistleblower Jamie Reed in which she testified that if GAC were adhering to the same principles and procedures as any other form of care, there would be strict standards and safety protocols put in place, but GAC does not reject anyone seeking it. In fact, according to both verbal testimony and evidence presented, the enforced protocol is to push everyone through the medical GAC pathway whether they ask for it outright or not, even often coercing vulnerable patients into it who are suffering from other conditions.
The article lambasts the workshop presenters as simply wanting to be restrictive and hateful towards transgender individuals, further arguing that whistleblowers like Reed were “disputed” in their claims. Of course, unlike the workshop, the article does not present any evidence to support its claims other than the unsubstantiated complaints of GAC proponents, who have a clear conflict of interest. The article also went on to omit any participation from detransitioners in the workshop, stating only that FTC Chair Ferguson “recounted emotionally charged stories from individuals who regret their transition.” It further dismissed detransitioners and the parents whose children were harmed by stating that “regret among people who receive gender-affirming care is ‘exceptionally low, hovering around 1 to 3 percent.’” This is, of course, not credible. There has been little to no follow-up in these studies. Further, there are reports of records being scrubbed after someone called in expressing regret, something covered in the workshop by participants.
Reading The Advocate article, one may wonder what the “strong evidence” in favor of GAC might be. Levine refers specifically to a “study” from Utah as “incredibly important,” as it allegedly supports the need for the procedures. Looking into it, though, we find it was a review of other studies—however, the link to download the report appears to be broken, as it opens a document filled with symbols and numbers and no data. We know that many of these “studies” are extremely flawed, not reporting when participants drop off, only following up in the short term, and only utilizing self-reports with no genuine input from medical professionals about the state of the patient’s mental health. Considering how objectively frowned upon it is in GAC circles to express or note any regret—even among patients who are suicidal after surgical results or hormones given—that is not surprising. Not only is there professional evidence of these things in the workshop, but it's also easy to stumble on during cursory ventures into online TQ+ spaces like Reddit and Tumblr. And, with increased numbers in recent detrans community spaces, it is becoming quite clear that the 1 to 3 percent statistic is unreliable.
The article goes on to say, “The study found over 230 primary studies involving 28,056 trans youth, ‘far exceeding’ the evidence that typically supports FDS approval for high-risk pediatric treatments, including gene therapy.”
That sounds impressive if you don't know the reality behind those studies, and if you don't stop to consider that:
Those pediatric treatments are done on children who are, undoubtedly very ill,
are also thereby, undoubtedly much fewer in number (considering that there has been about a 5000% rise in transgender identification in girls alone), and
high-risk procedures are often a last resort for children who are out of options, and therefore, may not work.
This is very different from disrupting and dismembering a healthy child's body over mental distress and delusion that they are the opposite sex. No other mental illness is treated with prolonged and à la carte surgeries and hormones the way that gender distress is, making it extremely unique for another, often overlooked reason: because of its highly subjective, individualized nature and little to no restrictions, there is no diagnosis other than a self-declaration for the child, and thus, there is no standardized care plan. This allows anything from laser hair removal to nullification to be performed as GAC, which is also something not consistently covered in the studies that look at regret rates.
Further, activists are quick to dispute any claim that gender distress is a mental health issue, while also trying to claim that any of the à la carte procedures—no matter how minor—are “lifesaving.” Why would there be a need for treatment and why would it be lifesaving if it weren't an illness of some kind? How many other illnesses can be as “fluid” as gender has been argued to be? No one has heard of anyone being “cancer-fluid,” or identifying in or out of other mental health disorders like BPD or schizophrenia.
Its proposed fluidity and marketing as a “journey” also beg the question as to why proponents are so keen to concretize an identity through procedures that are known to be permanent and disruptive in every other case in which they are used outside of GAC. Somehow, a gender identity seems to bestow immunity to permanence on a patient. However, we'll never know the secret behind the magic immunity of gender labels, as proponents are militant about shutting down any of these questions with accusations of bigotry. This is contradictory and confusing since they are often the same people who urge others to “trust the science.”
The other “study” cited by the article refers to a survey of children in grades 6, 8, 10, and 12, asking whether they were trans identified. The datasets were eventually deleted by the Utah Office of Substance Use and Mental Health and by the CDC but restored because of a court order by the HHS. The article did not specify anything other than 1.4 percent of the 729 participants answered they were trans identified. It also stated the sixth graders were not asked about their gender identities. Again, considering that gender can range from a self-declaration and a subjective belief that constantly changes to a complete alteration of one's body, it's hard to see how this survey is helpful or should influence anything regarding GAC. It certainly doesn't seem to suggest that we should restructure our entire system of medical ethics around such highly variable identities.
The Advocate article closes with yet another insult to the individuals and families who were harmed by GAC, stating that a counter event was going to be held the next day that would feature “...the people whose lives were actually affected by these policies.” And, by that, they mean “experts, parents, and transgender young people.” This is incredibly offensive to the experts, parents, and detransitioners (who were once, tragically, transgender young people themselves) whose lives were irrevocably affected by the policies that people like Rachel Levine advocated.
One would hope that sobering realization would be enough to change the minds of obstinately ignorant people like the writer of The Advocate article. However, given how people who raise concerns about GAC are treated, I do not think it would be wise to hold our breath in hopes of that. In the meantime, thanks should be given to the FTC for finally hearing and seeing the damage being done and joining hands across the aisle with Democrats and Republicans alike to put a stop to this billion-dollar disassembly line.
Help us produce visual-first science education on a large scale. Donate below.
