Whistleblower Jamie Reed discusses new state legislature in Missouri that extends the statute of limitations for those harmed by gender treatment.
In a recent
episode of “American Thought Leaders,” host Jan Jekielek talks with Jamie Reed, who worked as a case manager at a pediatric gender clinic. After witnessing the irreversible effect that “gender-affirming” care was having on children, she decided to speak out. She was recently instrumental in Missouri state legislation that extends the statute of limitations for those harmed by gender treatment. That fear of liability, claims Ms. Reed, was enough to close her former gender clinic.
Jan Jekielek: The clinic has closed, so that has been a significant change.
Jamie Reed: Yes. The state of Missouri passed a law to impose a four-year moratorium on any new pediatric patient starting a puberty blocker, cross-sex hormones, or having surgery. There was a grandfather clause, so anyone already on these treatments could continue.
One thing the legislature did is increase the limit of time where somebody could sue if they were harmed by treatment. In most states this is really limited. It’s maybe one or two years. They increased the limit of time, and that fear of liability closed the center. Most of the centers in Missouri have ceased to do so because of the extended time for liability.
It’s interesting. The narrative is that these are safe, effective treatments. If that were the case, then nobody would be afraid of an extended period of time for malpractice.
Mr. Jekielek: I read the affidavit you provided to the Missouri Attorney General. It’s utterly shocking. You fully bought into the whole approach at one point. Please tell us how you got into this field.
Ms. Reed: I’ve spent years in social work doing case management, working with individuals who are coming into their own, being a teen, and learning how to navigate adulthood. I was working with young adults who were HIV-positive. A lot of the individuals were trans-identified, so I became an expert in trans issues within that setting.
This position came up working in the pediatric center, and a number of people said, “This seems like something you would be really good at.” I was hired in 2018. I was the second person to take on the role of case manager. I really did go into this believing we were going to alleviate suffering and help young people become their true selves.
Mr. Jekielek: One of the things in your affidavit is that the Dutch model excluded young people with psychiatric comorbidities. Whereas, in your work setting, almost every prospective patient had serious psychiatric comorbidities.
Ms. Reed: The Dutch were excluding individuals with severe mental health issues, but they were also excluding patients who didn’t have lifetime gender dysphoria. People had to have been experiencing gender dysphoria from a very young age. In this cohort in the United States presenting in these clinics, a huge number of teenagers don’t have any lifetime or early-onset gender issues.
We had set up a system where children were basically fulfilling the role that we used to give to doctors. I would watch parents turn to their adolescents, who are struggling or in distress, and say, “Are you really sure?” Everybody looked at the kid. We’ve created a medical system where we’ve put all of this on the kids. We have allowed them to make that decision on their own, a decision that should have never been theirs in the first place.
Mr. Jekielek: How many patients did you see over the years that you worked there?
Ms. Reed: I saw close to 1,200 patients, and we medicalized a significant majority of those.
Mr. Jekielek: Do you reflect on your participation in this process? It must be difficult to deal with.
Ms. Reed: I recognized that mistake by the second year of my tenure, and then I spent two years within the system trying to see if we could shift the care. We would have case conferences, and I would say, “This patient doesn’t meet criteria. I have concerns about this patient. Can we put a pause on this?” Trying to advocate that way went nowhere.
But I was complicit. I worked in an industry that was harming children. The thing I grapple with every day is making amends for that and trying to address the wrongs I participated in. I can’t change the past, but I can change my future. That means listening when somebody wants to tell me their story. I have detransitioners ask me, “Jamie, will you read through my medical records?” Because they know I understand how to do that.
Mr. Jekielek: You’re not giving medical advice here, but as a parent who might have a kid in this situation, what should a parent do?
Ms. Reed: It is so insidious right now for parents. I know of parents who have been pulling children out of school and homeschooling. I recognize for individual parents, that might be the thing they have to do for their child.
But we all have to be willing to go to the school board meeting and say, “Please explain what is happening in our schools.” We have to go to the camp counselor on the Monday morning of the theater camp and say, “Are you going to ask these 12-year-olds what their pronouns are?”
Everybody is afraid that if they do that, they will be hit with, “You’re transphobic. You’re anti-LGBT.” I will tell you, as somebody from the LGBT community, it is not anti-LGBT to not be indoctrinating children into this ideology. If you walk into a room and everybody picks up a name tag and starts writing their pronouns on it, be willing to say, “I’m not doing that.” If you work in a business and everybody’s putting their pronouns at the end of their name, you can say, “No, thank you. I’m not participating in this.” You can do that in a loving, caring, and kind way.
This interview was edited for clarity and brevity.
