In early March, the Supreme Court criticized California for requiring schools to keep students’ gender transitions secret from their parents.
The legal aspects of this situation are quite significant, but they also highlight deeper societal divides regarding how we should address children’s experiences with gender distress. Plus, they raise questions about how public health officials can create policies to support these kids effectively.
Up until recently, this conversation was largely dominated by extreme gender advocates who pushed for affirmation at any cost.
From their perspective, girls who believe they are boys should be recognized as such. They argue that denying this new identity could do more harm than the irreversible impacts of surgery or a lifetime of cross-sex hormones.
In California, the pathway to these extreme measures starts in the classroom. State law mandates that teachers withhold information regarding children’s gender confusion from their parents, even if it means being dishonest during parent-teacher conferences, leaving the very people responsible for their children’s welfare in the dark.
Children undergoing social transitions in school might face future medical interventions that could lead to issues like reduced bone density, infertility, cardiovascular problems, and other serious health concerns.
There appears to be no alternative routes. California’s ban on “conversion therapy” extends beyond the abusive practices typically associated with the term. It also prohibits any counseling that aims to relieve children’s gender distress without affirming their gender identity. Several states have enacted similar broad bans; recently, however, the Supreme Court invalidated one in Colorado.
These policies have more to do with “queer theory” than actual scientific evidence. Over time, activists have aligned their beliefs with some medical professionals through persistent campaigning and intimidation. Not long ago, it was claimed by a large medical association that interventions for transgender youth showed safety and lifesaving potential.
However, strong evidence to justify such confidence was lacking.
Fortunately, perspectives are shifting. There’s now a growing international consensus that the beliefs of gender activists may have been incorrect. Scientific evaluations in countries like Sweden and Finland, along with the UK’s significant Cass report, have influenced a reduction in sex-denial interventions for minors.
Last fall, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) put out a comprehensive review titled “Treatment of Childhood Gender Identity Disorder: A Review of Evidence and Best Practices,” which reached similar conclusions. This suggests that there’s no proven benefit for minors who undergo medical transitions.
The notion of choosing between a “transgender son or a dead daughter” has pushed many parents to approve harmful interventions for their children, highlighting a false choice.
There is increasing evidence suggesting that children identifying as transgender may be grappling with deeper issues than merely feeling “out of place” in their bodies.
The recent rise in gender dysphoria among adolescents coincides with a troubling decline in teen mental health, likely tied to the influence of social media. This trend appears especially prevalent among girls.
A noted study found that 63% of adolescents with gender concerns also had at least one additional neurodevelopmental or mental health disorder.
These young individuals likely don’t require puberty blockers or hormones. Instead, they would benefit more from psychotherapy, family counseling, a thorough clinical evaluation, and perhaps treatment for anxiety or depression.
In December, based on these findings, CMS and HHS proposed two new regulations aimed at ensuring that taxpayer-funded healthcare programs rely on evidence instead of ideology. The first rule would prevent taxpayer money from subsidizing sexual refusal interventions through programs like CHIP and Medicaid. The second rule would disallow hospitals performing these interventions from participating in Medicare and Medicaid due to the notable risks involved.
In January, CMS hosted a “grand round” to discuss the evidence surrounding sexual refusal interventions for minors with prominent medical associations. A month following that, the American Society of Plastic Surgeons released a statement declaring insufficient evidence to back up the safety and efficacy of gender-related endocrine and surgical interventions for children and adolescents.
The American Medical Association concurred soon after, leading to the dissolution of the previous “scientific consensus” that supported transitioning minors.
Not long ago, parents standing up in California felt isolated. That sentiment has shifted for many. This government now supports their stance.
We are committed to defending scientific integrity and authentic compassion against the extreme ideologies of radical gender advocates. Our goal is to free institutions from the pressures exerted by activists and their allies. Above all, we prioritize parents and children’s welfare.
