In a recent appearance on “The Joe Rogan Experience,” former daytime TV talk show host Dr. Phil McGraw fearlessly criticized major medical associations for endorsing child “gender-affirming care” without sufficient research. Dr. Phil questioned the hasty approval of procedures like sex reassignment surgery and hormone therapy for children, emphasizing the lack of comprehensive studies on potential long-term harm.

Expressing his concerns, Dr. Phil highlighted the use of terms like ‘gender-affirming care’ as a clever way to camouflage what essentially involves invasive medical interventions on minors. He specifically called out organizations such as the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American Endocrine Society for providing their endorsement without a thorough examination of the potential risks.

“I have never seen those organizations sign off on anything with less information as to whether or not it does long-term harm, of anything in my life,” Dr. Phil remarked, emphasizing the importance of the medical community adhering to the principle of “first do no harm.”

Dr. Phil drew attention to the decisions made by European countries, including Sweden and Norway, which halted “gender-affirming care” for children in 2022. Citing the European countries’ conscientious objection to endorsing procedures lacking concrete evidence of benefits, Dr. Phil underlined the ethical dilemma faced by medical professionals.

The conversation between Dr. Phil and Joe Rogan delved into the notion that raising concerns about the potential harm of these procedures often leads to being labeled as transphobic, inhibiting open discussions on the topic. Dr. Phil stressed the importance of acknowledging the real and complex issues associated with gender dysphoria, rather than relying on unproven methods that may not address the root causes.

The World Health Organization’s decision not to issue recommendations on “gender-affirming care” for children and adolescents under 20 years old, due to a lack of scientific literature, further supports Dr. Phil’s argument. This cautious approach aligns with the stance taken by European countries that have halted such interventions until more conclusive evidence is available.

In conclusion, Dr. Phil’s bold stance against the rushed approval of child “gender-affirming care” serves as a call for more critical evaluation within the medical community. As he promises to showcase the real results of these interventions in upcoming shows, Dr. Phil urges society to question the motives behind these endorsements and advocates for a more measured and responsible approach to the well-being of young individuals grappling with issues of gender identity.