Medical organizations and media let Canadians believe gender medicine is safe and universally accepted. It’s not: 14 physicians sign statement for Inside Policy

May 14, 2025

Many Canadians are likely unaware that several other medically advanced countries—like Britain and multiple EU member states—have restricted hormone therapies and surgical interventions which have documented harms and no clear benefits, writes a group of Canadian doctors.

Following similar actions by peer countries around the world, United States President Donald Trump signed a Jan. 28 executive order declaring his administration will not “fund, sponsor, promote, assist, or support” so-called “gender-affirming” medical treatment for minors—which prescribes hormone therapies and surgical interventions that change sex-determined physical characteristics. Now, a recent report from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services confirms what many other medical bodies and advanced countries have already recognized: the science and reasoning behind this form of medicine is deeply flawed.

This news appears shocking to many ordinary Canadians, as well as legacy media outlets like The Globe and Mail. That’s largely because Canadian medical organizations and governing bodies—presumed by the public to speak for physicians—have vocally supported “affirmation”: an approach that unquestioningly supports the choice of patients to undergo these treatments. This has left the public with the false impression that such treatments are safe, effective, and universally accepted by physicians. We, a group of 14 Canadian physicians, feel it is vital for the public to know that many—and perhaps most—physicians believe there must be restrictions on gender therapies that permanently change a minor’s body.

Many Canadians are likely unaware that similar restrictive policies are already in place in other medically advanced countries, like Britain and several EU member states.

Most notably, the U.K. government commissioned Dr. Hilary Cass to produce what has become known as the Cass Report, a thorough review of the literature around the treatment for gender dysphoria. Cass investigated whether there is actually proof that these therapies “save lives,” as many activists will insist, or if there is evidence that such interventions make patients’ lives better? Dr. Cass concluded that although medical treatments for gender dysphoria can cause significant harm (as is the case with any medical intervention), there is no conclusive proof of benefit. Hormone therapy and surgeries can lead to chronic pain, incontinence, sterility, and more. They are permanent and irreversible. Therefore, Britain and many other countries restrict most of these treatments for minors.

Here in Canada, Alberta has been the leader in following the evidence. In 2024, the province introduced legislation mandating a minimum age before children could consent to make these permanent, life-altering changes to their bodies. Many physicians were involved with drafting the well-considered legislation. Many more applauded it—some publicly, others quietly.

Despite that, the usual suspects leapt forward to pillory Premier Danielle Smith’s government. The CBC, Globe and Mail, and other legacy media outlets ran headlines like: “Medical experts warn Danielle Smith’s restrictions on gender affirming care will harm vulnerable youth in Alberta.” Most articles quoted bodies such as the Alberta Medical Association (AMA), Canadian Pediatric Society (CPS), and the venerable Canadian Medical Association (CMA), all of which very quickly released statements decrying Alberta’s stance. Such articles give the public the impression that these organizations speak for physicians, expressing a majority, if not unanimous, view.

These organizations do not speak for all physicians. It is hard to know what percentage of physicians oppose “gender-affirming care” for minors because many are afraid to speak their minds in a climate where any dissent is couched as “transphobia.” Physicians who speak out have been subject to investigations and penalties by regulatory organizations, particularly after the passing of federal Bill C-4 in 2022, which potentially makes it a criminal offence to refuse support of a child’s belief that he or she is transgender.

In 2025, one needs to take statements from physicians’ groups with a grain of salt.

Engagement with the CMA is in decline. In 2018 (when membership remained mandatory for doctors in many provinces), the association claimed 87,000 members. By 2024, membership dropped to 75,000 despite an increase in the number of physicians in Canada. Many are members only in a nominal sense, and have little meaningful involvement with the CMA. Rather than taking the pulse of the medical profession as a whole, seeking diverse viewpoints, and making statements that represent this range of views, the CMA is captured and directed by a radical progressive fringe. Unfortunately, this fringe retains the historical imprimatur of being the “voice of physicians” in Canada.

The same phenomenon has occurred with provincial physicians’ organizations like the AMA, which collect mandatory dues but seek minimal engagement from members. Activists have exploited this vacuum to take the helm of these organizations.

This same phenomenon can be seen in organizations like the CPS, CMA, and similar specialty bodies. Their mission statements and missives increasingly read like Marxist screeds rather than wise and measured comment.  Just one such example is the CMA’s “ReconciliACTION Plan,” which “challenges anti-Indigenous structures in the health care system.” When physicians with more conservative and scientifically-based views attempt to engage these groups, they have often been met with indifference or hostility, and are systematically prevented from holding positions within these organizations.

This shows that these organizations do not speak for all physicians. When mainstream media rely on such organizations as their sole source for “expert” comment, they miss the real story and avoid engaging with facts. Legacy media portrays this as a battle between science-denying right-wing bigots on one side, and empathetic experts on the other. This could not be further from the truth.

The science is not “settled” by any means. So-called “gender-affirming care” has proven risks and harms, but unproven benefits. It is not “life-saving,” but it is permanently life-altering. We are 14 of the many physicians who strongly believe that minors should not be allowed to make such decisions. The self-proclaimed “experts” do not speak for us.

Written and signed by,

Dr. Arney Lange MSc, MD, FRCPC
Dr. Brent McGrath, MD, FRCPC
Dr. Chris Millburn MD
Dr. David Zitner MD
Dr. Dion Davidson MD, FRCSC, FACS
Dr. Duncan Veasey MD
Dr. Julie Curwin MD FRCPC
Dr. Lori Regenstreif MD, CCFP (AM), FCFP
Dr. Mark D’Souza MD, CCFP (EM), FCFP
Dr. Martha Fulford MD, FRCPC
Dr. M.J. Ackermann MD
Dr. Richard Gibson MD, FCFP
Dr. Roy Eappen MDCM, FRCP (C)
Dr. Shawn Whatley MD, FCFP (EM)

This statement is an initiative of the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, written and signed by concerned physicians from across Canada who are calling for a more careful, evidence-based, and ethically responsible approach to the treatment of gender issues.

NT5