Unrepentant left still opposing children's needs

Don’t expect apologies from Louisiana’s leftist institutions and activists having now been caught out on supporting the erroneous “gender affirmation” model of addressing difficulties faced by a small number of youths, which state policy-makers continue to address.

The tiny proportion of youths who express “gender dysphoria,” or a feeling their mental maps of themselves are incongruent with their physical sex, has multiplied in numbers over the past decade. Until then, from the last part of the 20^th century medical professionals addressed this through watchful waiting as children, perhaps with psychological therapy, sorted out their feelings. Data indicated that feelings of this dysphoria were highly related to, if not a reflection of, other psychological maladies and that most children by their adult years shed the condition.

But in the early 21^st century the competing “gender affirmation” model developed in the U.S. and was exported globally. Over time the approach became more radicalized, dictating that even the youngest children who appeared to see themselves associated with typical conceptions of one physical sex while the other, whether consciously picking up on any cues to do that from adults called in to evaluate them, had to be catered to with social and even physical interventions to physically alter them to the sex with which they identified at that particular point in time.

Yet in recent years it became increasingly clear gender affirmation was doing much more harm than good. Those children and even young adults who underwent interventions by and large remained unhappy and some expressed regret to the point that they underwent “detransition” back to their previous physical sex. Meanwhile, a whole cottage industry catering to affirmation model sprung up – clinics, professional associations, media outlets, and ideological activists with some in elected office – that in increasingly shrill terms tried to defend it.

That all fell apart last week with the issuance of the Cass Review in Britain. Its National Health Service commissioned this research into treatment of dysphoria as part of an investigation into its practices on the issue, particularly with its Tavistock Clinic that had gained a reputation for aggressive promulgation of the affirmation agenda. The report reviewed the relevant and recent literature as well as data collected for it and determined the affirmation model almost entirely wanting in validity, stating “Gender medicine for children and young people is built on shaky foundations.” It reiterated that no surgery should be performed on children and that that no one under 18 get hormone drugs and on that account that “great caution” should be exercised with patients under 25.

Actually, much data available already indicated as such. One previous Dutch study popularly held out by the affirmation lobby as supporting evidence long ago withered under methodological critiques. Another recent longitudinal Dutch study revealed that transgenderism among children mostly is a fad. Besides the claim found wanting that suicidal ideation increased among children without affirmation, the report also shredded the view of adherents of affirmation who also hung their hats on the myth that detransition was rare.

The report dispatched all of this misinformation, thereby confirming the approach that Louisiana took last year when it banned use of puberty blockers for children. It also excoriated primarily American professional societies that favor affirmation for the poor research quality, almost evidence free in nature, and lack of independence among them for their treatment guidelines – strictures that the pro-affirmation lobby often cites to justify its extremist views. Additionally, it faults protocols that disregard the real phenomenon of desire to detransition.

And, most importantly for the current debate in Louisiana, it criticizes affirmation’s uncritical advancement of social transition – such as educators calling school students by a different name and/or pronoun – and strongly discouraging this among younger children, noting this may alter profoundly alter a child’s developmental trajectory, with long-ranging consequences. Should parents insist on this, the review recommended that a health care professional be involved in helping parents understand the risk-return ratio of such a profound and likely life-altering decision. For older teens, it strongly recommends that parents be involved in the decision, noting that secret transitions cause a rift between teens and their families, destabilizing the very support networks that are essential for young people’s long-term well-being.

That’s the approach behind Republican state Rep. Raymond Crews’ HB 121, which would have school employees address students by their given names or nicknames, and by the pronoun aligned with their natal sex, unless their parents wished them to do otherwise. Even in that case, the employee may not follow that wish if it conflicts with sincerely-held religious beliefs, echoing an approach endorsed late last year by Virginia’s highest court in a case there.

The bill provides protection from employees from being punished over confusion about a desired name and related pronoun of a student. It protects parents in that they can’t be subverted by schools officials’ ideology concerning social transition, which has become increasingly common. But, most importantly, the bill protects children from what the review identifies as a problematic, if not harmful, approach fulfilling an agenda where education employees may identify susceptible students then coach them into social transition by encouraging the use of different names and incongruent pronouns.

Naturally, legislative opponents during floor debate on the bill several days after the review’s release studiously avoided its implications, trying to steer debate into lacunae irrelevant to its protective intent of teachers, parents, and children. In fact, some repeated the same talking points discredited in the review. Nor have these same politicians, nor activists, special interests, and media outlets that opposed last year’s successful legislative effort to halt the interventions severely criticized in those few days after issuance, delivered apologies for being wrong on this issue and they continue to spread misinformation appertaining to the bill, which easily passed the House.

In fact, by amendment Crews bent over backwards to accommodate parents who, regardless of the caution expressed in the review, would want to facilitate social transition. The bill's path to follow must continue all the way into statute, because on a matter this important policy-makers must disregard an agenda that suits the desires of a minority of adults in favor of fulfilling children’s needs.