Dr. Paul McHugh, former psychiatrist-in-chief at Johns Hopkins, opens with the sentence that should have stopped this entire movement in its tracks:

“Should their psychological idea take precedence over the physical fact when they diverge? It’s as simple as that.”

Every single one of the elders at this table answers no—but each brings a different understanding of why.

McHugh brings historical memory: he watched the first gender clinic rise and fall. He shut it down when the evidence failed.

Bradley brings developmental insight: she witnessed children resolve dysphoria spontaneously when given time, support, and space to grow.

Zucker brings long-term outcome data: 80–90% of children desisted when not socially or medically transitioned.

Blanchard brings typology clarity: gender dysphoria is not one thing but multiple pathways with identifiable origins.

Levine brings adult psychiatric outcomes: surgery satisfies but does not heal; suicidality remains unchanged.

Van Meter brings endocrine precision: puberty blockers were repurposed from a specific medical condition into an ideological tool.

Lappert brings the scalpel: gender surgeries create dependency, not liberation.

Goldis brings the legal forecast: lawsuits are coming, discovery will be damning, and medical institutions will not survive what is coming.

What unites them is not ideology, but shared recognition that the psychological idea—”I was born in the wrong body”—was elevated into dogma without evidence, without caution, and without regard for the long-term consequences.

My reflection: In truth, what these elders are naming is a rupture in our cultural spine. We traded discernment for deference, complexity for simplification, and human development for ideological certainty. When elders across disciplines converge on the same warning, we are no longer dealing with a debate—we are dealing with testimony. And testimony requires us to listen not with defensiveness, but with moral courage.