Unrepentant left still opposing children's needs

Blog: Between The Lines

Abstract

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 20th 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 21st 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.