The PAS Meeting’s premier event dedicated to gender-related care will be led by academics tied to SEGM and Genspect, groups known for anti-scientific, anti-trans practices.
And this is yet another reason why Trump's DOJ is attacking the SPLC and the good work they do protecting us from hate groups. Hate groups that now are now mainstream by the Trump Regime.
Thank you, S. Baum, for this incredibly well researched and written report, which contains very useful talking points with which to refute false claims made about gender by members of this panel of so-called experts who are attending this medical conference. Shame on the PAS for allowing this to happen.
You might add that the argument popular with conservatives - that trans women are just living out a sexual fetish - does not explain the majority of the gender spectrum community - folks who identify as trans men, trans-masculine, non-binary, gender fluid, and gender non-conforming.
Is there a network of gender affirming pediatricians who could be informed about this and take some action at the conference? Communicate to their peers about who these folks are, or petition for an alternative workshop with GAC providers who use evidence based practices? The slyness of it all is very disturbing.
Another possibility would be to organize some sort of "trans-101" panel with actual early-transitioning trans people. We do have scientists in our community, but I don't know who would be available on short notice. However, I think there might be a possibility that we would be allowed to speak for ourselves. It's something to ask the organizers.
Nah, you're not alone at all! My fear about having later-transitioning folks talk is that we might be regarded as "groomers." I think this is a conversation that needs to take place with trans kids - and probably their supportive families. Or perhaps have one of us (later-transitioners) there to say, "yeah, this is what happens when you can't transition until you're a mature adult. Your body goes to hell, and you're so much easier for bigots to clock."
We need to know who the organizers of the PAS event are, and how to contact them. They had to have known who these bigots were before giving them the greenlight- and if they somehow didn't, then they need to be put on blast anyway for failing to do their due diligence.
I am writing to urge the immediate cancelation of one of the scheduled events at PAS 97—specifically, the panel titled 'A Scientific Dialogue on the Care of Transgender and Gender Diverse Youth' which is currently scheduled for Sunday, 4/26/26 from 0800-0930.
In the interest of transparency, I am a transgender individual living in the Portland Metro Area in Oregon. I am 35 years old. I have seen and experienced firsthand the positive impact that gender affirming care has on transgender individuals. As you know, efforts to ban providers from giving this care have lead to an onslaught of legal attacks by medically unqualified entities nationwide.
I will be direct—the panel in question is assembled solely of bad-faith actors who each have ties to the Society for Evidence-based Gender Medicine (SEGM), a Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC)-designated hate group. SEGM and its affiliates have been pushing pseudo-scientific attacks on transgender people and framing it as "education" for years, and this panel will be no different based on the four speakers:
-Dr. Anna Hutchinson pro-conversion therapy (peddled under the name "gender exploratory therapy") and anti-gender affirming care (which she claims is the real 'conversion therapy' in the field of transgender care, contrary to the positions of every major accredited medical institution). She openly admits she is a paid consultant for SEGM.
-Dr. Steven Montante has also received compensation from SEGM and is a member of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons (ASPS) which has recently released a position statement recommending surgeons delay all gender-related breast/chest, genital, and facial surgery until a patient is at least 19 years old, despite markedly low regret rates and vast improvements in mental well-being among patients who have undergone one or more gender affirming surgeries (GAS).
-Dr. Riittakerttu Kaltiala is a prominent anti-trans activist in the medical field. She has received honoraria from SEGM, testified in Florida as a primary witness in favor of Ron DeSantis' ban on transgender healthcare, and served on the advisory board for the deeply unscientific and politically motivated Cass Review (which has notoriously been cited around the world as the basis for similar care bans). Moreover, she runs her own gender clinic in Finland which has also embraced "gender exploratory therapy" (again, this is a modern pseudonym for conversion therapy) and has been alleged in multiple patient reports of abuse, including profoundly disturbing practices such as sexually interrogating minors and attempting to evoke shame and feelings of inadequacy in patients with regard to their chosen gender.
-Lastly, the organizer of the panel Dr. Moti Gorin notoriously co-authored the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Gender Dysphoria Report (which has served as the basis for numerous gender affirming care bans in the US), and acted as a founding board member for the LGB Courage Coalition (LGBCC) which regularly provides the funds for activists to travel and testify in favor of anti-trans policies across the country. He has also spoken at two SEGM events (and received an honorarium for one of them) and collaborated with SEGM researcher J. Cohn on a 2025 paper against gender affirming care in youth.
Given the obvious biases of the four panelists, this event is not in keeping with the spirit of continuing medical education, and should not be credited as such.
I cannot help but notice the lack of any CME-credited panels in favor of widely accepted and proven standards of gender affirming care at PAS 97. Including a single panel on transgender care which platforms solely those with contrarian positions is irresponsible at best and intentionally politically motivated at worst.
Please, do not waste the limited time of doctors' required CME hours on what will amount to essentially anti-transgender propaganda. Cancel this panel, and in the future please ensure more time and care is spent in deciding who is actually qualified to be providing CME with regards to care of transgender patients.
The Pediatric Academic Societies (PAS) will once again hold a meeting later this month focused solely on transgender care.
A major concern is the composition of the panel, which appears to present a predominantly anti-trans perspective rather than a balanced view of evidence-based medical care.
The issue is not simply disagreement, but that some of the positions represented rely on data that is disputed or not widely accepted within the broader medical community.
When discussions of transgender healthcare exclude established, peer-reviewed research and recognized standards of care, they risk misinforming attendees rather than educating them.
Additionally, professionals who attend these sessions often receive continuing education credit.
That raises an important question: should credit be granted when the discussion presents only one side of a complex and evolving medical issue—especially if that perspective does not align with widely accepted clinical guidelines?
For medical education to be meaningful and ethical, it should reflect rigorous, evidence-based information and include diverse, credible viewpoints.
Without that balance, such forums risk undermining both professional standards and patient care.
I usually just ignore your AI-like summaries, but this time it is outright wrong. PAS is not "holding a meeting [...] focused solely on transgender care". They are holding a conference about pediatrics in general, and only one of the panels is about transgender care.
unfortunately i know longer have Erin's article too recheck my information - but however if i miss read or miss understood her article i appologise - however if i read it correctly the meeting was focused on only transgender care
However, some clinicians have raised concerns about the conference’s sole panel dedicated to transgender health care, sources familiar with the situation told Erin in the Morning. The workshop will be stacked exclusively with academics who have been tied to a Southern Poverty Law Center-designated hate group—the Society for Evidence-based Gender Medicine, or SEGM“Platforming a one-sided perspective that is not based in medical society guidelines or in the preponderance of the scientific evidence misleads pediatricians, who are attending these talks in good faith that what they hear will be free from bias and rooted in science and good patient care,” they saidThe panel looks innocuous enough on the conference schedule. “A Scientific Dialogue on the Care of Transgender and Gender Diverse Youth” is advertised as “a scholarly review of the current evidence informing clinical approaches to care.”
In reality, the billed speakers have often been accused of pushinganti-trans ideology framed as “science” and misusing evidence to influence laws and public policies to harm transgender people.
There's some context that you seem to be missing, Mike.
Meetings of this sort (also known, depending on the organization holding them, conventions, conferences, and occasionally other names) are large, and during the course of them, many scheduled events are held. Those events are often known as panels.
The phrase 'the conference’s sole panel dedicated to transgender health care' doesn't mean the conference has only one panel, but that only one of its plethora of panels is about trans health care.
I can see how someone who didn't have that context would misread what S. Baum wrote - but I don't fault Baum for writing as though all readers would have that context, because gatherings with this structure are very common, and occur across a wide range of shared interests, from academic/scientific/professional conferences, to political conventions, to annual general meetings of religious denominations, to fans of various genres of literature, just to name a few.
My advice, as a long-time transgender activist originally from the scientific community, is that you should protest ONLY if the panel discussion goes forward. Hopefully this issue just goes away without drama, based on complaints we are submitting to the ACCME. The ACCME has been responsive to our complaints before. This situation may be different, because there is very little time before the discussion panel.
I would also make any protest as dignified and low-key as possible. Literally, just dress nicely, and politely hand out explanatory fliers to everyone who enters the room. Smile, and tell them, "Supplementary event materials" as they walk through the door. Get permission from the event organizer to do this. S. Baum's excellent article would be an excellent document to hand out. Offer to hang around in case the attendees have any questions of you afterwards.
I would appreciate a list of attendees so I could contact them to voice my opposition. Or perhaps it would be best for them to attend and VOICE their anger/displeasure/opposite opinions. How in the heck are physicians remaining silent?
It would be difficult to find out the roster of attendees, beyond those who are presenting papers, posters, and sessions. There is an online roster, but it is login protected. (I suppose someone could register for the conference to access the list, but it might still be cumbersome to mine for attendee names/affiliations. There might not be contact information.)
There will be about 7500 attendees, so you can expect somewhat of a zoo.
I would suggest trying to contact event organizers to explain the situation, point out that many of us have complained to the ACCME, ask if the event will still be held, and if it is to be held, ask for permission to politely and respectfully distribute informational flyers outside the panel discussion room door that you will have them preapprove. I've been to a gazillion of these sorts of conferences, and I think that's the only way you're going to reach the target audience.
Does anyone have a final word as to whether the panel discussion was held? I noted that Dr. Rauch (program chair) was the leader of the Q&A session at the end. I originally had the impression that the panel facilitator led the Q&A. Did I "misremember?" Did he come in at the end to balance out the session?
I have written both a formal complaiint to ACCME to ask that panel attendees not receive CME creidit and to Dr. Rauch asking her to cancel the panel entirely. In case any of Erin's readers are looking for a template, here is the text of what I wrote to Dr. Rauch (Daniel.Rauch@hmhn.org):
Dear Dr. Rauch,
I am submitting this complaint because the upcoming PAS session on transgender and gender‑diverse youth is not a balanced scientific panel, but rather a lineup dominated by individuals with well‑documented ties to SEGM, Genspect, and similar organizations known for promoting ideologically driven, anti‑transgender pseudoscience.
Major medical organizations—including the AAP, AMA, APA, and Endocrine Society—affirm that gender‑affirming care for youth is safe, effective, and associated with improved mental‑health outcomes.
In contrast, several panelists have promoted discredited theories such as “social contagion,” endorsed practices resembling conversion therapy, or contributed to reports criticized for scientific inaccuracies and ideological bias. Presenting these individuals as neutral experts is a grave injustice to the medical practitioners who will attend the conference and an explicit danger to all the transgender youth that are seen by pediatricians who attend this misleadingly unscientific presentation.
Please, please, review this session for scientific validity, politicized bias and conflicts of interest. I am confident if you do that review, you will quickly see the need to cancel the panel and work to ensure future programming includes balanced representation from clinicians who follow recognized standards of care, especially on highly polemic and politicized issues. Transgender youth deserve care grounded in rigorous evidence, not ideology. Lives are at stake. Show integrity and stand up for scientific truth.
PS- You should know that I have also registered a formal complaint with ACCME urging them to immediately withdraw this panel from CME credit, meaning that if you go ahead with the panel, many of your members may not receive the CME credit they expect. The frustration of attendees who may not receive promissed CME credit's is a small injury compared to the far greater harms likely to be inflicted on youth who undergo care from pediatricians misinformed by this panel, but it is something else you should consider as a reason for canceling the panel altogether.
And this is yet another reason why Trump's DOJ is attacking the SPLC and the good work they do protecting us from hate groups. Hate groups that now are now mainstream by the Trump Regime.
Thank you, S. Baum, for this incredibly well researched and written report, which contains very useful talking points with which to refute false claims made about gender by members of this panel of so-called experts who are attending this medical conference. Shame on the PAS for allowing this to happen.
You might add that the argument popular with conservatives - that trans women are just living out a sexual fetish - does not explain the majority of the gender spectrum community - folks who identify as trans men, trans-masculine, non-binary, gender fluid, and gender non-conforming.
Is there a network of gender affirming pediatricians who could be informed about this and take some action at the conference? Communicate to their peers about who these folks are, or petition for an alternative workshop with GAC providers who use evidence based practices? The slyness of it all is very disturbing.
Another possibility would be to organize some sort of "trans-101" panel with actual early-transitioning trans people. We do have scientists in our community, but I don't know who would be available on short notice. However, I think there might be a possibility that we would be allowed to speak for ourselves. It's something to ask the organizers.
Yeah! Why is that? Hugely frustrating. I don't think I'm alone in wishing I could have trasitioned as a child instead of 18 years ago at 50 years old.
Nah, you're not alone at all! My fear about having later-transitioning folks talk is that we might be regarded as "groomers." I think this is a conversation that needs to take place with trans kids - and probably their supportive families. Or perhaps have one of us (later-transitioners) there to say, "yeah, this is what happens when you can't transition until you're a mature adult. Your body goes to hell, and you're so much easier for bigots to clock."
We need to know who the organizers of the PAS event are, and how to contact them. They had to have known who these bigots were before giving them the greenlight- and if they somehow didn't, then they need to be put on blast anyway for failing to do their due diligence.
This is the PAS organizational structure:
https://www.pas-meeting.org/about/
This is the contact info for the PAS Program Chair:
https://www.getcare.hackensackmeridianhealth.org/provider/daniel-adam-rauch/2592196
(Be nice.)
Thank you. Strongly (but not *too* strongly) worded letter fingers activated.
Good afternoon Dr. Rauch,
I am writing to urge the immediate cancelation of one of the scheduled events at PAS 97—specifically, the panel titled 'A Scientific Dialogue on the Care of Transgender and Gender Diverse Youth' which is currently scheduled for Sunday, 4/26/26 from 0800-0930.
In the interest of transparency, I am a transgender individual living in the Portland Metro Area in Oregon. I am 35 years old. I have seen and experienced firsthand the positive impact that gender affirming care has on transgender individuals. As you know, efforts to ban providers from giving this care have lead to an onslaught of legal attacks by medically unqualified entities nationwide.
I will be direct—the panel in question is assembled solely of bad-faith actors who each have ties to the Society for Evidence-based Gender Medicine (SEGM), a Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC)-designated hate group. SEGM and its affiliates have been pushing pseudo-scientific attacks on transgender people and framing it as "education" for years, and this panel will be no different based on the four speakers:
-Dr. Anna Hutchinson pro-conversion therapy (peddled under the name "gender exploratory therapy") and anti-gender affirming care (which she claims is the real 'conversion therapy' in the field of transgender care, contrary to the positions of every major accredited medical institution). She openly admits she is a paid consultant for SEGM.
-Dr. Steven Montante has also received compensation from SEGM and is a member of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons (ASPS) which has recently released a position statement recommending surgeons delay all gender-related breast/chest, genital, and facial surgery until a patient is at least 19 years old, despite markedly low regret rates and vast improvements in mental well-being among patients who have undergone one or more gender affirming surgeries (GAS).
-Dr. Riittakerttu Kaltiala is a prominent anti-trans activist in the medical field. She has received honoraria from SEGM, testified in Florida as a primary witness in favor of Ron DeSantis' ban on transgender healthcare, and served on the advisory board for the deeply unscientific and politically motivated Cass Review (which has notoriously been cited around the world as the basis for similar care bans). Moreover, she runs her own gender clinic in Finland which has also embraced "gender exploratory therapy" (again, this is a modern pseudonym for conversion therapy) and has been alleged in multiple patient reports of abuse, including profoundly disturbing practices such as sexually interrogating minors and attempting to evoke shame and feelings of inadequacy in patients with regard to their chosen gender.
-Lastly, the organizer of the panel Dr. Moti Gorin notoriously co-authored the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Gender Dysphoria Report (which has served as the basis for numerous gender affirming care bans in the US), and acted as a founding board member for the LGB Courage Coalition (LGBCC) which regularly provides the funds for activists to travel and testify in favor of anti-trans policies across the country. He has also spoken at two SEGM events (and received an honorarium for one of them) and collaborated with SEGM researcher J. Cohn on a 2025 paper against gender affirming care in youth.
Given the obvious biases of the four panelists, this event is not in keeping with the spirit of continuing medical education, and should not be credited as such.
I cannot help but notice the lack of any CME-credited panels in favor of widely accepted and proven standards of gender affirming care at PAS 97. Including a single panel on transgender care which platforms solely those with contrarian positions is irresponsible at best and intentionally politically motivated at worst.
Please, do not waste the limited time of doctors' required CME hours on what will amount to essentially anti-transgender propaganda. Cancel this panel, and in the future please ensure more time and care is spent in deciding who is actually qualified to be providing CME with regards to care of transgender patients.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Regards,
[my name which I am reacting here]
Thanks! Good letter.
Dr. Daniel Rauch is the head of the Progam Committee, which decides the meeting agenda. drdanrauch@gmail.com
https://www.getcare.hackensackmeridianhealth.org/provider/daniel-adam-rauch/2592196
The Pediatric Academic Societies (PAS) will once again hold a meeting later this month focused solely on transgender care.
A major concern is the composition of the panel, which appears to present a predominantly anti-trans perspective rather than a balanced view of evidence-based medical care.
The issue is not simply disagreement, but that some of the positions represented rely on data that is disputed or not widely accepted within the broader medical community.
When discussions of transgender healthcare exclude established, peer-reviewed research and recognized standards of care, they risk misinforming attendees rather than educating them.
Additionally, professionals who attend these sessions often receive continuing education credit.
That raises an important question: should credit be granted when the discussion presents only one side of a complex and evolving medical issue—especially if that perspective does not align with widely accepted clinical guidelines?
For medical education to be meaningful and ethical, it should reflect rigorous, evidence-based information and include diverse, credible viewpoints.
Without that balance, such forums risk undermining both professional standards and patient care.
I usually just ignore your AI-like summaries, but this time it is outright wrong. PAS is not "holding a meeting [...] focused solely on transgender care". They are holding a conference about pediatrics in general, and only one of the panels is about transgender care.
I don’t understand why people can’t understand when someone can write - again if you don’t like it don’t read my posts
I'm not sure what purpose your summaries serve. However, Jenny has a point, that you conveyed inaccurate information, which surely cannot be helpful.
Sorry according to Erin’s post their are several main speakers on the roster set to speak that hold that view
unfortunately i know longer have Erin's article too recheck my information - but however if i miss read or miss understood her article i appologise - however if i read it correctly the meeting was focused on only transgender care
What do you mean, you no longer have Erin's article? It's still there.
I have taken excepts directly from Erins post :
However, some clinicians have raised concerns about the conference’s sole panel dedicated to transgender health care, sources familiar with the situation told Erin in the Morning. The workshop will be stacked exclusively with academics who have been tied to a Southern Poverty Law Center-designated hate group—the Society for Evidence-based Gender Medicine, or SEGM“Platforming a one-sided perspective that is not based in medical society guidelines or in the preponderance of the scientific evidence misleads pediatricians, who are attending these talks in good faith that what they hear will be free from bias and rooted in science and good patient care,” they saidThe panel looks innocuous enough on the conference schedule. “A Scientific Dialogue on the Care of Transgender and Gender Diverse Youth” is advertised as “a scholarly review of the current evidence informing clinical approaches to care.”
In reality, the billed speakers have often been accused of pushinganti-trans ideology framed as “science” and misusing evidence to influence laws and public policies to harm transgender people.
There's some context that you seem to be missing, Mike.
Meetings of this sort (also known, depending on the organization holding them, conventions, conferences, and occasionally other names) are large, and during the course of them, many scheduled events are held. Those events are often known as panels.
The phrase 'the conference’s sole panel dedicated to transgender health care' doesn't mean the conference has only one panel, but that only one of its plethora of panels is about trans health care.
I can see how someone who didn't have that context would misread what S. Baum wrote - but I don't fault Baum for writing as though all readers would have that context, because gatherings with this structure are very common, and occur across a wide range of shared interests, from academic/scientific/professional conferences, to political conventions, to annual general meetings of religious denominations, to fans of various genres of literature, just to name a few.
I’m in Boston. Is there any protest happening to shed light on their phony research?
My advice, as a long-time transgender activist originally from the scientific community, is that you should protest ONLY if the panel discussion goes forward. Hopefully this issue just goes away without drama, based on complaints we are submitting to the ACCME. The ACCME has been responsive to our complaints before. This situation may be different, because there is very little time before the discussion panel.
I would also make any protest as dignified and low-key as possible. Literally, just dress nicely, and politely hand out explanatory fliers to everyone who enters the room. Smile, and tell them, "Supplementary event materials" as they walk through the door. Get permission from the event organizer to do this. S. Baum's excellent article would be an excellent document to hand out. Offer to hang around in case the attendees have any questions of you afterwards.
Liars gonna lie. 😑 😑 😑
I would appreciate a list of attendees so I could contact them to voice my opposition. Or perhaps it would be best for them to attend and VOICE their anger/displeasure/opposite opinions. How in the heck are physicians remaining silent?
It would be difficult to find out the roster of attendees, beyond those who are presenting papers, posters, and sessions. There is an online roster, but it is login protected. (I suppose someone could register for the conference to access the list, but it might still be cumbersome to mine for attendee names/affiliations. There might not be contact information.)
There will be about 7500 attendees, so you can expect somewhat of a zoo.
I would suggest trying to contact event organizers to explain the situation, point out that many of us have complained to the ACCME, ask if the event will still be held, and if it is to be held, ask for permission to politely and respectfully distribute informational flyers outside the panel discussion room door that you will have them preapprove. I've been to a gazillion of these sorts of conferences, and I think that's the only way you're going to reach the target audience.
Thank you for great information.
Thank you for the reporting, it is such a sham how these organizations try to pass themselves off as scientific to peddle hate against our community.
Every single person who attends this particular segment should carry a button that makes a “wrong” buzzer sound and hit it whenever panelists lie
Why is it that half of the anti-trans braintrust are Israelis?
Does anyone have a final word as to whether the panel discussion was held? I noted that Dr. Rauch (program chair) was the leader of the Q&A session at the end. I originally had the impression that the panel facilitator led the Q&A. Did I "misremember?" Did he come in at the end to balance out the session?
Thank you for this incredible reporting! I've written an email to Dr. Daniel Rauch, PAS Program Chair, at (Daniel.Rauch@HMHN.org).
I have written both a formal complaiint to ACCME to ask that panel attendees not receive CME creidit and to Dr. Rauch asking her to cancel the panel entirely. In case any of Erin's readers are looking for a template, here is the text of what I wrote to Dr. Rauch (Daniel.Rauch@hmhn.org):
Dear Dr. Rauch,
I am submitting this complaint because the upcoming PAS session on transgender and gender‑diverse youth is not a balanced scientific panel, but rather a lineup dominated by individuals with well‑documented ties to SEGM, Genspect, and similar organizations known for promoting ideologically driven, anti‑transgender pseudoscience.
As reported in Erin in the Morning ( https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/trumps-hhs-report-co-author-is-headlining?r=27vxn7&utm_medium=ios&triedRedirect=true ), every listed speaker has a history of advancing claims that contradict the established medical consensus and misrepresent the evidence on gender‑affirming care.
Major medical organizations—including the AAP, AMA, APA, and Endocrine Society—affirm that gender‑affirming care for youth is safe, effective, and associated with improved mental‑health outcomes.
In contrast, several panelists have promoted discredited theories such as “social contagion,” endorsed practices resembling conversion therapy, or contributed to reports criticized for scientific inaccuracies and ideological bias. Presenting these individuals as neutral experts is a grave injustice to the medical practitioners who will attend the conference and an explicit danger to all the transgender youth that are seen by pediatricians who attend this misleadingly unscientific presentation.
Please, please, review this session for scientific validity, politicized bias and conflicts of interest. I am confident if you do that review, you will quickly see the need to cancel the panel and work to ensure future programming includes balanced representation from clinicians who follow recognized standards of care, especially on highly polemic and politicized issues. Transgender youth deserve care grounded in rigorous evidence, not ideology. Lives are at stake. Show integrity and stand up for scientific truth.
PS- You should know that I have also registered a formal complaint with ACCME urging them to immediately withdraw this panel from CME credit, meaning that if you go ahead with the panel, many of your members may not receive the CME credit they expect. The frustration of attendees who may not receive promissed CME credit's is a small injury compared to the far greater harms likely to be inflicted on youth who undergo care from pediatricians misinformed by this panel, but it is something else you should consider as a reason for canceling the panel altogether.
DONE ! Letter submitted