Posts by Andrè Van Mol, MD

At the 2023 CMDA National Convention my wife Evelyn and I were honored, blessed and quite humbled to receive the 2023 Educator of the Year Award. This all happened under the watchful eye of Princeton’s Professor Robert George, whom I have admired for years (and no, I did not go full fan boy and embarrass CMDA, but we did talk privately a while). I was given a few minutes to share some thoughts which I am now offering you, my colleagues.

The BBC broke a story July 28 headlined, “NHS to close Tavistock child gender identity clinic.” Following the Cass Interim Review determination that the current model of care “is not a safe or viable long-term option,” Britain’s National Health Service announced that their Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS), the world’s largest pediatric gender clinic, is to close by spring 2023. It is to be replaced with centers in London and North West with increased emphasis on mental healthcare and relevant general practitioner services.  Also noted was that the UK’s 20-fold increase in referrals over the last decade (250 then and 5,000 in 2021) had overwhelmed the capacity of the service.

Supporters of gender-affirming therapy (GAT)—transition affirmation—are doubling down on claims that regret and detransition are rare. From state-level bills in my home state of California to national policy initiatives from the federal administration, the assertion that transitioning for gender dysphoria is all but regret free is used as a promotional tool for the proposed mandating of GAT essentially on request. However, the sales pitch does not hold up to inspection.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported that chemical abortions represented 38.6 percent of all U.S. abortions in 2018, an increase of 120 percent from 2009. According to the Associated Press, abortion by pill rose to 54 percent of all abortions in America in 2020. The abortion industry has evidently found its path to circumventing the possible overturning of Roe v. Wade, and that avenue is the mailbox.

Swiftly on the heels of his 2021 study showing sexual orientation change efforts (SOCE) “strongly reduces suicidality” and that restrictions on SOCE may “deprive sexual minorities of an important resource for reducing suicidality, putting them at substantially increased suicide risk,”[1],[2] Sociologist Paul Sullins’ new peer-reviewed analysis revealed, as per its title, an “Absence of Behavioral Harm Following Non-efficacious Sexual Orientation Change Efforts: A Retrospective Study of United States Sexual Minority Adults, 2016–2018.”[3]

A new study authored by a socio-politically diverse team of psychologists evaluated a religiously diverse population sample of varied sexual identification and found that sexual minority people who reject LGB identification have positive outcomes that contradict the expectations of both minority stress and sexual identity development theories.

A multitude of states, counties and cities have banned “conversion therapy,” usually for minors only, with efforts underway to issue a national ban for all through the so-called “Equality Act” (HR 5). Yet, “conversion therapy” is a misrepresentative, maligning and summarily ill-defined term employed as a jamming tactic to capitalize on an allusion to implicitly forced religious conversion while stigmatizing and intimidating any therapist who would engage in change-allowing therapy. It implies coercion and suffering, neither of which are true of modern change-allowing therapy (aka SOCE for sexual orientation change efforts). Modern SOCE therapists uniformly view old aversive techniques (think shaming, electric shocks, etc.) as unethical and ineffective. Tellingly, no state or municipality enacting a therapy prohibition has yet to ban aversive practices, only counseling that allows clients to explore their potential for change of SOGI (sexual orientation, gender identity). Why not ban aversive measures too, if abuse is really the issue?