I mean, it would be awfully strange if I just pulled a list like that out of my fundament, wouldn't it?
But anyhow:
https://transhealthproject.org/resources/medical-organization-statements/
And you can double-check this against each individual organisation, if you should feel so inclined. It's pretty simple to check the position of each of these institutions.
Here's some additional relevant information:
https://www.glaad.org/blog/medical-...s-youth-healthcare-and-against-discriminatory
It's factually correct to state that every significant public-health-related entity is positively affirmative of transgender identity. That's important and revealing.
No, it’s factually correct to state that US medical organisations are heavily promoting medical transition for gender dysphoria, including for minors.
What is informative and revealing is to look at the actual evidence based behind recommendations.
For example, the fact that a fact-check of the AAP's
position statement on gender affirmation for children and adolescents shows that none of the citations provided support the claims made, and many outright contradict the claims. Which has, of course, already been discussed on previous versions of this thread.
This is supported by Cantor’s analysis and is easily verified.
Transgender and Gender Diverse Children and Adolescents: Fact-Checking of AAP Policy (ohchr.org)
For example, and AAP claims that conversion therapy for gender identity in minors is demonstrated to be harmful, citing six sources. Cantor (pp2-4) goes through each of these citations in turn and shows that the ones discussing conversion therapy do not mention gender identity, and the ones that do mention gender identity do not mention conversion therapy. The exception is one source that covers both sexual orientation and ‘gender discordance’, but in that case the AAP completely misrepresents the claims made. This was a publication by the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (AACAP), which recommended watchful waiting and took a neutral position on endorsing medical treatment for childhood dysphoria due to lack of evidence. The AAP misrepresented the AACAP by implying they endorsed affirmation, and that they rejected conversion therapy for gender identity, when they only discussed it in relation to sexual orientation. The concept of conversion therapy for gender identity has no definition and makes no sense because most children with gender dysphoria spontaneously re-identify as their natal sex at puberty if not affirmed and transitioned.
The AAP also claimed that delaying any form of transition before puberty is ‘arbitrary’, but the sources cited to support this actually state clearly that puberty is a pivotal point for desistence of gender dysphoria. Again the citations do not support the claims. The AAP document implies that previous studies showing most children desist after puberty are flawed, but provides no evidence. All of the criticisms of these studies by activists have been addressed, but these rebuttals are never cited.
As Cantor (p6)states
"In its policy statement, AAP told neither the truth nor the whole truth, committing sins both of commission and of omission, asserting claims easily falsified by anyone caring to do any fact-checking at all."
".... AAP’s statement is a systematic exclusion and misrepresentation of entire literatures. Not only did AAP fail to provide compelling evidence, it
failed to provide the evidence at all. Indeed, AAP’s recommendations are
despite the existing evidence"
Also informative is that countries such as Sweden and Finland (and of course the UK) have now
abandoned WPATH’s standards of care for treatment of gender dysphoria in minors. Every country that has conducted an independent review of the evidence for these treatments has changed course. The US is now an outlier in this.
