Three VA psychologists published an op-ed last month calling the policy ‘a betrayal of our female patients.’
Clinical psychologists with the Department of Veterans Affairs faced retaliation and ostracization at work after they publicly opposed a gender-inclusion policy that allows men to access women’s medical spaces within the VA.
In January, Nina Silander, a primary-care psychologist based in Florida, co-authored with VA psychologists Edward Waldrep and Catherine Novotny an op-ed critiquing the department’s decision to begin enforcing in earnest a 2018 policy that allows males who identify as women access to female exam rooms and restrooms.
They argued that the VA’s adoption of gender ideology, which is in keeping with official White House policy, robs female veterans of many physical and legal protections.
Appealing to a combined 44 years of professional experience, much of it focused on sexual-trauma recovery, the trio said the policy would put the safety of female veterans, some of whom may be victims of sexual abuse, in jeopardy.
“We know that the perpetrators of sex crimes are usually male,” they wrote in the op-ed. “We view this VA policy as a betrayal of our female patients.”
Waldrep, whose wife is an active-duty lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Army and whose daughter is considering military service, has worked with many female military sexual-trauma survivors.
“There’s women that I’ve worked with who would be afraid to come into the VA clinic itself, be afraid to sit in the waiting room because of being around other male veterans,” he told National Review. “Now to say, you don’t have privacy in a bathroom? You don’t have privacy in a locker room? And if you go into a locker room or you have living quarters and a biological male says he’s a female and you complain, the female leaves.”
Ten days after the op-ed was published, Silander’s direct report delivered a memorandum removing her from her role as a psychologist. It was effective almost immediately. Silander was supervised until her departure from the office. This is the standard VA procedure when a staff member is detailed, she said.
After she was pulled from her position, Silander was subject to an investigation related to patient safety and care concerns.
“I had never had a patient complaint before,” she clarified. “It wasn’t like there was some sort of pattern of problematic professional behavior.”
Silander said she was never told how long the investigation would take — but she was reinstated last week.
During the suspension, Silander couldn’t communicate with any of her colleagues or contact any patients she had seen. Her cases were reassigned to colleagues for follow up. The next day, Silander was reassigned to administrative data entry. On February 6, the VA scheduled office hours for staff to air their grievances about the op-ed. But that meeting was subsequently canceled, she said.
“It made me feel uncomfortable as an employee,” she said. “Granted, the op-ed is in the public domain, but I wasn’t trying to draw people’s attention to it, especially at work.”
Waldrep, a co-author and psychologist at Rocky Mountain Regional VA Medical Center in Denver, was out for training when the joint piece went live. When he returned to work, he walked into a barrage of backlash in a VA group chat he belonged to that’s dedicated to LGBT matters. After some back and forth, Waldrep was kicked out of the chat in early February.
As far as the two understood, they did not break any VA rules in publishing their commentary. It is generally permissible for federal employees to write on topics of public concern, in their personal time, and on information that is publicly available. Waldrep and Silander said they met that criteria and were not attempting to represent the VA institutionally. They included in the article the disclaimer that, “Views expressed here are not necessarily those of the VA.”
Long before the group’s editorial debut on the issue, Waldrep had been penalized by his outpatient mental-health clinic for challenging the VA’s incorporation of DEI. The tug-of-war began almost two years ago, after his facility announced racially segregated trauma groups. After objecting, Waldrep said he was pulled into a three-hour fact-finding — a type of administrative investigation for the VA.
The VA stripped Waldrep of his ability to supervise students, prohibiting him from doing didactics trainings with rotations and from attending meetings where students were present.
“All because I questioned DEI,” he told National Review. “I was retaliated against then, I was basically censored, cut off from speaking at different meetings.”
Waldrep’s facility rescinded the fact-finding against him in December after he pursued an investigation for abuse of authority. Since reporting a hostile working environment, Waldrep has been readying a complaint with the VA’s equal opportunity office.
As for the VA’s adoption of gender ideology, Silander said, “It’s really not a matter of questioning people who authentically believe that they are transgender, but biological men who have predatory predispositions can use this policy as a way of accessing and taking advantage of biological women.”
Asked for comment, the VA referred to a January press conference with VA Secretary McDonough, who answered questions about the op-ed.
“ . . .We hold ourselves to the standard that we lay out in the V-signal, the survey, which really seeks to ensure in every engagement that a Veteran gets timely access, that the treatment the Veteran receives is effective, and third, and importantly, in regard to this question, that every Veteran feels respected and treated with the dignity that they’ve earned,” the secretary said. “So that’s what I say to all our Veterans, irrespective of identification or orientation.”
Regarding the right of the Silander and Waldrep to voice their concerns in an op-ed, the secretary said: “. . . We do not require our employees to choose between their conscience and their career. And so that is the case, 365, 24/7.”
Having had transgender veterans as patients, Silander said the urgency in the field to diagnose veterans with gender dysphoria ignores potential psychological comorbidities.
“One thing we learn very well is to do a very thorough clinical assessment, be it through a diagnostic interview, administering different objective, psychometric tests, and really careful consideration of differential diagnoses,” she said. “Chronic PTSD or Borderline Personality Disorder or Bipolar, sometimes these conditions, at face, value appear very similar, but when you . . . ask more questions . . . that’s when you can start differentiating. And to do so is important because the best evidence-based treatment is different depending on the condition.”
This medical-discovery process is suspended when it comes to gender, however, because to question someone’s self-professed gender identity is, as activists claim, to deny their existence.
“The environment of ideological conformity is palpable,” Waldrep said. “People are afraid to speak up. This is not only bad because I don’t like DEI, but this is also bad because this has a potential negative impact for health care.”
Waldrep said he has heard some veterans say they feel dismissed by the psychologists at the VA. They confide in Waldrep, a Purple Heart recipient, because he’s a veteran. A psychologist recently hired in Waldrep’s department said her favorite pastime was “dismantling the patriarchy.”
“What kind of care are veterans getting now?” Waldrep asked. “Most of the veterans are males. Are you here as a political activist, or do you care what the veterans are coming to you for?”