What are you curious about?
The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) has had a statement supporting affirmative treatment of children and teens with gender dysphoria. This may include psychotherapy, puberty blockers, cross-gender hormones, and surgery (some or all of these treatments).
Recently, their leadership reaffirmed their position on treatment. However, I was surprised to learn that they are engaging an outside research organization to review existing studies on this topic.
Why? I have not found a clear answer, so I am curious.
One potential explanation is that they are hoping that a neutral third party would be able to either solidify their position or find evidence that their position should be modified. This would make sense in light of controversy about this topic.
Another possibility is that they are not as confident in their current position as they would like to be. This may be, at least partly, because Sweden has reviewed studies on transgender care for children and have concluded that existing research is inconclusive.
That, too, raises my curiosity. What research is Sweden aware of that our AAP is not aware of or does not agree with? This is interesting because Sweden is not the only country reconsidering current treatments.
Sweden was an early adopter of medical management of transgender children. So, it may be surprising that they now think that there is insufficient evidence to confidently support current practice.
From what I can gather, it may be related to a desire to have longer term data on the effects of treatment. There is evidence of short term benefit, but I gather that there is controversy about whether the benefits persist and whether there are potential unknown long term harms.
Perhaps, these questions are why the AAP is seeking outside experts to review research findings. I trust that my curiosity will be settled once the review is completed.
