States are taking action against child sex-change clinics and medical personnel.
Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey is investigating the Transgender Center at St. Louis Children’s Hospital based on a whistleblower’s sworn affidavit and supporting documents about what she witnessed, which included continuing treatment after parents revoked consent. Multiple state agencies are involved in the probe, said Bailey, in a news release, on February 9.
The investigation could lead to revocation of medical licenses, The Daily Signal reported on February 10.
Legislatures in other states are also taking action. The Virginia House of Delegates passed Sage’s Law (HB 2432) which would require public school personnel to notify parents if a child self-identifies as a sex different from biological sex, on February 7. Utah Gov. Spencer Cox signed into law S.B. 16, which restricts hormonal transgender treatment and allows individuals to bring medical malpractice actions related to certain procedures, on January 28.
Nearly 20 other states are considering legislation to restrain gender treatments, says Jay Richards, director of the DeVos Center for Life, Religion, and Family at The Heritage Foundation.
“States that are working to restrict and prohibit these treatments without criminalizing it are doing the best thing in my view,” Richards said. “For example, a state legislator can pass a law stating that a doctor who performs these surgeries on minors loses their license. Then the state can extend the statute of limitations.”
Allowing patients to sue later in life could change the motivations of doctors, insurance companies, and drug makers, says Richards.
The most powerful voices are those of “de-transitioners” who were manipulated into these treatments, says Ginny Gentles, the director of the Education Freedom Center at the Independent Women’s Forum.
“[T]he young adults who have been harmed by ‘gender-affirming care’ are speaking up and demanding that this stop,” said Gentles. “Society and legislators must listen to them.”
‘Put the Brakes On’
U.S. laws regarding child sex change procedures are the most permissive among a dozen of the most developed countries, according to a report titled “Reassigned,” published by Do No Harm, a physician-led policy group.
Compared to 11 other countries in northern and western Europe, there are few restrictions on gender transition, insurance coverage, or minimum ages for gender-altering hormones, in the United States. America also leads Europe by having the highest number of youth gender clinics, the report states.
“The fact that more progressive countries have already put the brakes on these treatments is really important for legislators and for courts,” Richards said.
Dutch Studies’ Protocols
The scientific justification for so-called “gender-affirming” care in the United States is primarily based on two Dutch studies that have been found to have major flaws, says Richards.
“Even if you believed the original Dutch protocol was really well done, what we’re doing in the U.S. has nothing to do with it,” said Richards. “[Americans] have had no guard rails. Kids with psychological comorbidities were excluded from the Dutch studies. In the U.S., we’re completely off-base.”
In the Dutch studies, researchers screened participants and disqualified youth with psychological comorbidities, such as attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, anxiety, depression, obsessive rumination, and challenges due to autism or social pressure at home or at school. American practitioners have not applied the same protocols, says Richards.
‘Irreversible Damage Inflicted’
The responses to gender dysphoria in children might include therapy, love, and attentive care; instead, professional medical groups are promoting radical treatments, says Gentles.
“In the case of the American Academy of Pediatrics, a handful of activists set the policies followed by the nation’s pediatricians, and the organization refuses to address the concerns of practicing pediatricians about the irreversible damage inflicted on children by puberty blockers, hormones, and surgeries,” Gentles said. “Anyone even gently questioning the [activists’] agenda is labeled a bigot and accused of wanting gender-confused children to kill themselves.”
There are no long-term studies on the benefits and harms of these interventions, or comparing them to alternative treatments, or randomized trials, says Richards.
“All these groups claiming to work for medicine and science aren’t basing guidelines on scientific knowledge,” said Richards.
‘Directly Benefiting Financially’
The gender craze raises big questions on the cozy relationship between regulators and the industries they’re supposed to be regulating, says Richards.
“The American medical establishment’s adoption of so-called ‘gender-affirming’ care, more accurately called ‘sex-denying’ intervention, is the most obvious example of medical capture since the eugenics craze,” said Richards.
Medical specialists and drug companies involved in these ‘transitions” are directly benefiting financially but are primarily driven by a bizarre commitment to an ideology, says Richards.
“Gender ideology as applied to medicine is probably the most toxic and existential expression of a perverse ideology,” said Richards. “It denies basic biology and replaces it with this completely unverifiable notion that people select their gender.”
Ashley Bateman (firstname.lastname@example.org) writes from Virginia.