I guess I find it kind of funny that the only possible explanation for medical groups refusing panels to the author is bias and groupthink, whereas her research is apparently fully objective and entirely free of such problems.
The author links to another article which goes into more detail on this and quotes the program committee chair:
> The academy's unwillingness to host Kaltiala and other likeminded clinicians suggests that even this moderate stance may now be a bridge too far for America's premier child psychiatry association, where even senior officials are raising concerns about ideological capture.
> AACAP has chosen "advocacy over science," Kaliebe said in an email to James McGough, who oversees conference programming, after the second two panels were nixed. In response, McGough conceded that politics likely played a role.
> "I actually share some of your concerns about AACAP ... coming down too heavily on one side of politically charged topics," McGough told Kaliebe in a May email. Decisions about conference programming, he added, are "based on input from various AACAP committees." If the gender committee is "too one sided, the program committee is in a tough spot. Our committees are considered our experts."
> The exchange illustrates how a small group of activist doctors can suppress the viewpoints of clinicians who disagree with them, creating the appearance of medical consensus where none exists.
What even is an activist doctor? Seems like a weird phrase to me. Shouldn't all doctors be activists, especially when they're in decision-making authorities such as the AACAP?
