Revisiting Transgender Medical Approaches for Minors
As medical associations rethink the approach to transgender “medicine” for minors, some Democrats, including moderate figures like Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear, appear to be overlooking this shift.
Just days after a jury awarded $2 million to a detransitioner who had surgery at 16, the American Society of Plastic Surgeons advised against such procedures for those under 19. Yet, Beshear opted to reaffirm his support for transgender “treatments,” linking them to his Christian beliefs.
Speaking on “The View” recently, he mentioned that “the most authentic thing” motivating him is his faith, emphasizing the importance of loving one’s neighbors and drawing from religious teachings. When vetoing a significant anti-LGBTQ bill, he conveyed his intentions in terms of compassion and faith.
While I find his commitment to compassion commendable, I see a contradiction in his stance. Beshear’s principles around love and kindness don’t seem to translate into effective protection for children.
His approach could inadvertently expose minors to the transgender agenda rather than safeguard them.
Beshear’s Veto
As the Democratic leader of a predominantly Republican state, Beshear has exercised his veto power on multiple occasions, though those have often been overridden by the Legislature.
He has labeled certain legislation, like 2023 Senate Bill 150, which offered protections to parental rights and restricted medical interventions for minors, as the most extreme anti-LGBTQ law. Unfortunately for him, the Legislature overrode his veto, allowing it to take effect.
In his 2023 veto message, he remarked that the bill represented excessive government intrusion into personal healthcare decisions and claimed it would harm Kentucky’s children. However, he later signed an executive order in 2024 that prohibited “conversion therapy,” indicating a willingness to impose restrictions on other forms of healthcare.
This order introduced a form of inconsistency. It permitted therapists to guide minors toward embracing LGBTQ identities but prohibited counseling that might steer them in a different direction, suggesting such advice is harmful. Interestingly, while some activist groups label “conversion therapy” as dangerous, studies indicate that counseling can actually lead to reduced suicidal thoughts among those who receive it.
It’s clear that Beshear believes in protecting kids, but he seems to misallocate that concern.
How to Actually Protect Kids
The prevailing theory asserts that “conversion therapy” poses such long-term risks that minors shouldn’t be allowed to consent to it until they’re adults. Consequently, the government should step in to shield them.
I align with Beshear on the point that minors are at risk regarding their health; they often lack the capacity for informed consent. Still, the protection he offers is misdirected, as his executive order specifically endorses counseling that can lead to harmful outcomes.
According to his directives, therapy aimed at facilitating a gender transition does not qualify as “conversion therapy.”
This sets a concerning precedent. Young people are sometimes encouraged along a path that implies they must conform to a different gender identity, beginning with what’s termed a “social transition.” Based on insights from specialists, even minor acknowledgment of a child’s asserted gender identity can significantly affect their mental health and future.
As they grow, these individuals may receive treatments that have profound physical implications—taking puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones, for instance—these steps, while presented compassionately, can lead to infertility and an array of other serious health issues.
In recent years, there’s been a notable shift within medical institutions. The American Society of Plastic Surgeons has changed its stance, now advising against procedures for minors, and other organizations are echoing similar sentiments. This change of heart has followed recent reviews indicating that there’s insufficient evidence supporting the benefits of such interventions for minors.
What Does Christianity Have to Do With It?
From a Christian perspective, it’s imperative to protect children from experimental medical procedures. Minors aren’t in a position to give informed consent regarding interventions that could lead to significant long-term harm. It seems vital, then, to safeguard them from what is often labeled “gender-affirming care.”
The Christian view holds that God made individuals as male and female, and suggesting otherwise could be viewed as a perverse form of “conversion therapy.”
Encouraging children to partake in medical practices that could lead to regret and harm doesn’t embody compassion. It’s concerning to witness Governor Beshear align his faith with this narrative. Fortunately, the medical community seems to be reconsidering these approaches.
