In a groundbreaking verdict this month, a detransitioner was awarded $2 million after a New York jury sided with her in a medical malpractice lawsuit she filed against her psychologist and plastic surgeon. Having been rushed into an irreversible double mastectomy at just 16 years old, only to deeply regret it later, Fox Varian’s legal win could be the first of many more to come. In the days that followed, not one but two major medical associations shifted their stance on sex-change procedures for minors. Coincidence? Observers aren’t so sure.

The American Society of Plastic Surgeons (ASPS), the largest plastic surgery organization in the world, was the first to share the news. In a fairly detailed position statement, ASPS outlined its concerns: emerging evidence indicates that gender-affirming surgeries on minors carry heightened risks of long-term physical and psychological harm; allowing children and adolescents — with still-developing decision-making capacity — to consent to such irreversible procedures raises profound ethical questions; and, at minimum, these body-altering operations should be deferred until adulthood, when patients can better weigh the lifelong implications. ASPS even acknowledged that most cases of gender dysphoria resolve naturally over time — without any need of medical intervention.

This marked a clear departure for the ASPS, which had previously avoided firm positions on the issue. The organization described its updated guidance as essential clarity for members navigating a “rapidly evolving and controversial clinical area.”

Soon after, the influential American Medical Association (AMA) weighed in but it was significantly less detailed than the ASPS statement. The AMA gave a nod to the plastic surgeons’ stance that transgender-related surgeries “should be generally deferred to adulthood.” However, it stopped short of a stronger endorsement, claiming that “the evidence for gender-affirming surgical intervention in minors is insufficient for us to make a definitive statement.”

For advocates working to shield minors from what are commonly viewed as dangerous and experimental interventions, the AMA’s response was not enough to inspire real confidence that a genuine course correction was on the horizon — skepticism that’s only amplified when considered next to the organization’s long history of robust support for transgender-related procedures for both minors and adults. So, the key question being asked isn’t simply whether the AMA has changed course — but whether it has even truly changed at all.

This very concern was front and center during a candid discussion on Thursday’s edition of “Washington Watch,” featuring Family Research Council President Tony Perkins and guest pediatric endocrinologist Dr. Quentin Van Meter. As a former president and current executive committee member of the American College of Pediatricians, Van Meter has long critiqued the AMA’s advocacy on transgender issues.

He noted that the ASPS statement had been in development for months, proving it is, at least in part, independent of the recent court ruling. The same, he asserted, is not true for the AMA. In contrast to ASPS, the AMA’s response appeared reactive. It didn’t even issue its own full statement but instead referenced the ASPS. “It’s a complete 180,” Van Meter noted, emphasizing the AMA’s track record of “rabid” support for social, medical, and surgical sex-rejecting interventions. “[I]t’s just as of yesterday they decided, ‘Well, maybe we’ll go with the prevailing winds. This looks like a good idea.’”

Yet even more troubling, Van Meter argued, is the AMA’s reluctance to extend any form of caution beyond surgery to the broader spectrum of so-called gender-affirming care. “What we would like to say to the AMA is, ‘Why stop with just surgical interventions that are sex rejecting? Why not go the whole nine yards … [and admit] that there is no clinical … [or] psychological benefit from intervening socially, medically, or surgically in minor patients?’” For Van Meter, it’s a matter of “waiting for the other shoe to drop from the AMA.”

He pointed out that other influential bodies, such as the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Pediatric Endocrine Society, and the Endocrine Society, have yet to shift on this issue. But for the AMA, whether driven by sincerity or pragmatism, the changes are undeniable. As Perkins echoed, even this brief and cryptic statement from the AMA represents at least some form of turnaround. So, he asked, “What was the straw that broke the camel’s back?”

Van Meter attributed it to the mounting body of research exposing the risks, especially for minors — from the HHS report and the Cass Review to numerous other studies. “The evidence is so overwhelming that there has never been any psychological benefit in the long run to these patients who are struggling with their gender identity,” he stressed. Perkins added that the concerns extend beyond surgery alone to additional experimental medical interventions like hormone therapy and puberty blockers.

Van Meter agreed, stating the ASPS “got a backbone and looked among themselves and said, ‘Look, we cannot really tolerate this as a process for minors who can’t consent to do this.’” He also emphasized a core inconsistency: “We don’t allow [children] to consent for other things. Why on God’s green earth would we allow them to consent for this process?” True progress, Van Meter argued, requires medical organizations to acknowledge that they’ve allowed ideology to override science and to respond by renouncing outdated policies and declaring plainly: “medical intervention is not appropriate here.”

Perkins asked whether the $2 million malpractice award — and the looming threat to malpractice insurance — played a role in the AMA’s pivot. Van Meter’s answer was “absolutely.” These issues of medical malpractice and a medical entity’s policy position cannot be separated, he said. Monday’s ruling marks the first time a detransitioner has secured compensation through a jury of peers (rather than just a judge), declaring malpractice.

And while $2 million “was really not … financially adequate for the degree of suffering, in my humble opinion,” Van Meter noted, it stands as a landmark warning: It’s “time to be concerned. If you’ve been on that ideologue side of the medical care for these people, you’d better watch out.” Malpractice suits could become highly lucrative for attorneys, he concluded, especially with “many, many more cases coming” on the horizon.