Amber Vibeto

Minot

With the passing of HB 1254 on the floor of the House, North Dakota is one step closer to protecting minors from the medical malpractice that is deceptively labeled “gender-affirming care.” It is an unfortunate commentary on the state of our culture that we need such a bill, but that is the reality in which we find ourselves. HB 1254 passed with 66 yeas and 25 nays, which means there are 25 North Dakota representatives who fundamentally misunderstand the issue of gender identity and the predatory movement behind it.

Among the representatives who opposed the bill, three stood up during the floor discussion to urge the assembly to vote red. Representative Karla Rose Hanson was the first to make her argument and asserted that denying hormones and surgery to confused minors would be harmful to their mental health and would add to their risk of suicide. This is an oft-repeated mantra from gender activists. Concerned parents of trans-identifying children are usually asked the alarming and impossible question: “Do you want a live son or a dead daughter?” This is emotional blackmail and medical manipulation from ideologically-biased (and sometimes financially-motivated) providers. When proponents of ‘gender affirming care’ bring up the high suicide rate of LGBT youth, they imply or claim the reason is a lack of parental or societal affirmation. However, there is little to no data to support that claim nor is there any interest among gender activists to discover the true cause.

Could the high suicide rate of trans-identifying youth be due to the high-level of puberty blockers and cross sex hormones that are known to disrupt mental health? Could it be due to the oft-accompanied diagnoses like depression, anxiety, and other psychological conditions that predispose gender dysphoric youth to suicide? Could it be because the trusted adults in their lives are lying to them about who they really are? Could it be from the pain and regret of choosing to become a life-long medical patient? Could it be from the unbearable grief of losing their future fertility and future ability to be satisfactorily intimate with a loving partner? The most reliable research shows that in the long run, medical transition does not reduce and may even exacerbate the psychological distress that could lead to suicide. Unfortunately, gender activists ignore research that doesn’t align with their ideology and does so to the detriment of vulnerable people and society as a whole.

Representative Boschee lamented being forced to talk about the protection of minors from harmful medical treatment, presumably because it’s difficult to articulate a moral defense for child sterilization and mutilation. Boschee asserted there are no North Dakota physicians performing gender surgeries on minors — they are simply providing puberty blockers, which he confidently declared “are reversible and life-saving.”

This irresponsible and false statement reveals an allegiance to ideology, not science. Individuals who undergo gender-affirming medical therapies are, in fact, at risk for permanent infertility, among other serious side effects. Suppression of puberty with hormones in the pediatric patient can pause the maturation of germ cells, and thus, affect fertility potential. Testosterone therapy suppresses ovulation and alters ovarian tissue, while estrogen therapy leads to impaired production of sperm and testicular atrophy. The effect of hormone therapy on fertility is potentially reversible, but it’s quite the gamble.

Considering that childhood-onset gender dysphoria has been shown to have a high rate of natural resolution, with 61-98% of children re-identifying with their biological sex during puberty, it is medical malpractice to risk sterilizing young people who not only lack the developmental ability to comprehend the life-long consequences of their decisions, but who will most likely outgrow their identity confusion. Even if the effects of hormone treatment were reversible, how easy is it for trans-identifying children and teens, who are most likely struggling with anxiety and depression, to change their mind when surrounded by affirming adults? How easy is it for them to walk back a major life announcement and advocate for their treatment to stop? Most of the time, the road of affirmation leads only one way — an initially exciting and fulfilling, ever-progressing journey from social transition to puberty blockers to cross sex hormones to plastic surgery to body mutilation, complete with a myriad of serious health side effects. The road to detransition begins often years later when the frustrating and never-ending striving towards an unattainable goal eventually becomes too painful to bear.

Representative Boschee condescendingly and inaccurately frames those who oppose gender affirming care as ignorant and old-fashioned Republicans who are simply uncomfortable with living alongside people who may be different from them. Maybe his perspective would benefit from listening to Jamie Reed, a gender clinic whistleblower who self-identifies as queer and to the left of Bernie Sanders. Reed worked as a case manager at the Washington University Transgender Center at St. Louis Children’s Hospital for four years and as a matter of conscience, recently detailed how the clinic permanently harmed the vulnerable patients in their care.

Representative Murphy from District 43 posed the question: “If I had a child with cancer, would I withhold treatment?” He then proceeded to admit that gender dysphoria is a psychiatric illness which reveals that his attempt at a comparison would have been more accurate if he would have mentioned anorexia instead of cancer. In the cases of anorexia and gender dysphoria, when there is a disconnect between the mind and body, is it more ethical and more effective to treat the mind rather than the body? Medical ethics and common sense tell us yes.

No one is advocating for not treating the mental health struggles of children and teenagers. No one is advocating for ignoring their pain and suffering. That is a dishonest and inaccurate framing of the argument. The question is: What should the treatment be? Giving puberty blockers and surgery to those with gender dysphoria is the equivalent of giving anorexics diet pills and weight loss surgery.

Any defense of gender affirming care wouldn’t be complete without an appeal to credentialism and parental rights. The three representatives who stood in opposition to the bill admonished the assembly to trust the experts and respect parental decision-making. First, parental rights do not allow for abuse. Parents have the right to join a cult, but they may not sacrifice their children on its altar. Secondly, let’s take a closer look at these so-called experts. The leader in professional guidance relating to gender identity is the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) and is a radical, far-left organization that is composed of gender activists who have a financial and ideological stake in transitioning as many young people as possible.

The majority of WPATH members have affiliations with the University of Minnesota Program in Sexuality, which is primarily funded by Tawani Foundation, a transgender advocacy organization. In addition to their clear conflict of interest, WPATH receives guidance from disturbed and biased individuals. Their collaboration with participants of an online fetish forum that hosts and produces fictional child pornography and extreme sadomasochistic content led to draft guidelines which included the category of ‘eunuch’ as a protected “gender identity.”

Supporting parental decision-making is incompatible with the acceptance of WPATH’s guidelines. WPATH has no minimum age recommendations for minors to obtain medical treatments and suggests that parents may need to be excluded from making medical decisions if they refuse to affirm their child’s transgender identity. In fact, Ren Massey, an author of WPATH’s new guidelines, says “there are at least some Child Protective Service workers who are willing to enforce the need for affirmation by parents.” Perhaps Massey was unaware of the high quality study that found states with laws allowing minors to access hormone treatment without parental consent have higher rates of youth suicide. Threatening hesitant parents into affirming their child’s trans identity is activism masquerading as healthcare.

Transgenderism is not an objective identity and is not a condition that requires medical intervention. It is an ideology that, in large part, originated with two degenerate researchers who sexually abused infants and children for their unethical and pseudoscientific experiments. This ideology has morphed into a pervasive and destructive social contagion that is being spurred on by ideologues, activists, and financial opportunists. Like all evil movements in history, there will be a reckoning for the butchery taking place across the country. During this legislative session, North Dakota will decide where it stands. The bravery and moral clarity of the 66 legislators who voted in favor of House Bill 1254 is a good first step.