Tag archives: Transgenderism

You Can’t Twist Scripture to Force Women to Compete Against Men in Sports

by David Closson

March 26, 2021

On Monday, South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem (R) vetoed House Bill 1217, legislation that would protect women from being forced to compete against biological men in sporting events. In a press conference announcing the veto, Noem said she supported a bill to protect middle and high school girls but argued that extending the same protections to female collegiate athletes would prompt lawsuits from groups like the NCAA.

While most conservatives were frustrated by Noem’s capitulation on the transgender sports bill, one faith group, the South Dakota Synod Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA), actually encouraged Noem to veto it. Signed by about 30 church leaders, the short letter read:

Dear Governor Noem:

Grace and peace to you in this season of Lent. I reach out to you today on behalf of the 200 South Dakota congregations, ministry sites and organizations of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA). As Lutherans, baptized members in the body of Christ, we care about the actions of our government because it is a gift from God intended for the safety and flourishing of human life. Yet, as sinners in need of God’s grace and forgiveness, the gift and power of government is abused. It is why I am urging you to veto HB 1217 that claims to promote “fairness” in women’s sports. In the Gospel according to Luke, Jesus asks his disciples, “which one of you, having a hundred sheep and losing one of them, does not leave the ninety-nine in the wilderness and go after the one that is lost until he finds it?” After the lost sheep is found Jesus says, “rejoice with me, for I have found my sheep that was lost.” (ref. Luke 15:4-6) Meaning that there is no rejoicing until all have found a place in the flock — including our trans siblings of faith. Policies and laws that purposely exclude trans individuals contribute to deteriorating mental health. The Trevor Project reports that 40% of transgender adults reported having made a suicide attempt, and that over 90% of those attempts took place before the age of 25. Looking after the lost one means inclusion and compassion. God the incarnate goes to the far stretches of the Earth to find the lost and calls them home by name, “you are mine.” (Isaiah 43:1) As people of faith, we are invited to do the same. Please, as a beloved child of God, do not forget about the one child, when you have the ninety-nine with you.

As Christians, it is important to think carefully about current events. When it comes to matters of public policy, there are many issues that do not have a clear-cut answer for how believers should think. This requires restraint and humility. On the other hand, there are some topics—such as abortion—where Scripture speaks clearly. Christians, especially pastors and Christian leaders must be clear about their convictions.

This brings us to the recent letter to Governor Noem. One of the most important responsibilities a minister of the gospel has is caring for hurting people. As Christ’s under-shepherds, pastors are called to serve people with love and care (Acts 20:28). Thus, it is appropriate when ministers discuss legislation they believe will affect their congregants and those in their ministries. However, the recent letter to the South Dakota governor is problematic for a few reasons, chiefly its misuse and appropriation of Scripture.

But first, it is important to note their letter contains some helpful reminders. For example, they are right to acknowledge that positions of leadership, especially in government, can be challenging. They also acknowledged that man is fallen and broken due to sin. Moreover, the desire to love our neighbors who identify as transgender is commendable, as Christ has called the church to love everyone (Mt. 5:43-48, Luke 6:27-36). Their reminders along these lines are helpful.

However, there are a few problems about the letter that deserve attention. First, our love of neighbor must be modeled after the pattern of Christ, not the world (Rom. 12:2). We cannot adopt the world’s understanding of love, which demands affirmation of lifestyles and actions contrary to the will of God as revealed in Scripture. According to the leaders who signed the letter, love for their friends who identify as transgender requires accepting transgender ideology which contradicts the Bible’s teaching on sexuality.

Second, the letter misuses Scripture to make its main point. In its proper context, the parable of the lost sheep in Luke 15:1-7 is about salvation and pursuing lost people (i.e., those who do not have a relationship with God). The shepherd goes after the one lost sheep because it is lost; he rescues it and shows it the way of life. This parable (and the subsequent parables of the lost coin and the prodigal son) discloses Christ’s heart and His redemptive love for sinners. It encourages believers following His example to pursue those who do not have a relationship with God in order to show them the way of life.  

Clearly, Jesus’ intention in telling the parable of the lost sheep was not to make sure “all have found a place in the flock” (if inclusion in the flock means disregarding and flouting clear biblical teaching). Again, the context of the passage is about repentance and salvation. Jesus’ explanation of the parable makes it clear that He is talking specifically about sinners who repent. Moreover, Scripture is very clear about God’s design and purpose for marriage and human sexuality.  

Citing the parable of the lost sheep as evidence that Christians ought to oppose a bill that would protect women and girls’ sports is not a faithful interpretation of Luke 15. Christians are called to tell the truth, and that includes the truth that God made us male and female. It is not unloving or unkind to truthfully (1 Cor. 13:6) point out the many injustices and physical dangers associated with allowing biological males to compete against biological females. 

It is never permissible to misuse Scripture to advance a political agenda. Moreover, there is no reason for Christians to oppose commonsense legislation that protects women and girls at all levels of athletic competition. In fact, supporting legislation like House Bill 1217 is a practical way to protect female athletes. This bill deserves support, not condemnation, from Christian leaders in South Dakota and around the country.

Arkansas Moves to Protect Children from Gender Transition Procedures

by Chantel Hoyt

March 25, 2021

The Arkansas Senate is currently considering HB 1570, the Save Adolescents from Experimentation (SAFE) Act. This bill aims to protect children from invasive and untested procedures associated with “gender transition,” as these types of procedures pose serious health risks and cannot be fully reversed. Such drugs and procedures are based on the unscientific theory that some individuals can be born in the “wrong” body. Eighteen states have introduced similar legislation so far in 2021.

The Arkansas SAFE Act prohibits health care professionals from performing gender reassignment surgeries or providing puberty-blocking drugs and cross-sex hormones for the purpose of gender transition to individuals under the age of 18. Health care professionals found to be in violation of this policy would have their medical licenses revoked. The bill also prohibits medical insurance from covering such treatments for minors. The bill is sponsored by Rep. Robin Lundstrum of Arkansas’ 87th district (Benton and Washington counties) and recently passed the House floor with a vote of 70-22. It is currently awaiting action in the Senate. 

The liberal news media has decried this legislation’s so-called “assault” on transgender rights.  Back in January 2020, when only six states had introduced such legislation, CNN quoted Ryan Thoreson, a Yale law school lecturer and LGBT rights researcher, as saying, “There are alarming signals that this could pass in conservative states.” Thoreson also referred to these bills as part of a series of “attacks on transgender youths” by lawmakers and said that the proposed laws would restrict young people’s access to “basic health care.” The CNN article also insisted that bills like these could “prove devastating to transgender children” and suggested that children who cannot obtain such procedures are more likely to commit suicide.

You don’t have to be a physician to know that describing gender reassignment surgery and hormone therapy as “basic health care” is ludicrous. In what other instance would the suppression of natural bodily development and removal of healthy or non-diseased body parts from children (or anyone for, that matter) be considered permissible, let alone essential health care? 

Transgender activists typically argue that securing access to gender transition procedures is really about the child’s mental health, theorizing that these procedures are the only thing that will cure their gender dysphoria and reduce their distress. This idea might be more compelling if it had any scientific evidence to back it up. We currently have no good evidence that these procedures even accomplish their stated purpose—improving children’s mental health. FRC argues that such evidence would be “absolutely necessary to justify such radical and unnatural physical intervention.”

This lack of evidence, combined with the fact that most children with gender dysphoria will outgrow their condition and not identify as transgender adults, makes the legality of performing gender transition procedures on children and activists’ advocacy for said procedures even more troubling. For most kids with gender incongruity, puberty is the cure, not the disease.

The number of proposed bills aimed at protecting minors from the harmful effects of gender transition procedures has seen a sharp rise in the past two years. This trend, combined with conservative wins in state legislatures in the most recent election, is cause for optimism. Hopefully, states will be able to pass common-sense legislation that protects children from such harmful practices, nurturing them rather than sacrificing their health and well-being on the altar of unscientific transgender ideology. 

Based on its recent success, the Arkansas SAFE Act could very well be the first bill of its kind to pass a state legislature, but it needs your help! If you (or your family and friends) live in Arkansas, please speak up now and ask your elected officials to protect minors from the growing pressure to treat puberty like a disease.

Do Gender Transition Procedures Prevent Suicide?

by Family Research Council

March 24, 2021

Transgender advocates often claim that gender transition procedures are the cure to suicide risk among transgender-identifying youth, and that legislation restricting gender transition procedures on minors causes suicide. But a closer look at suicide studies (see pp. 11-12) reveals several problems with those claims:

  • The 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey published by the National Center for Transgender Equality did find elevated risk of suicide among people who identify as transgender during their lifetime:
    • Forty percent (40%) have attempted suicide in their lifetime, nearly nine times the rate in the U.S. population (4.6%).
    • Seven percent (7%) attempted suicide in the past year—nearly 12 times the rate in the U.S. population (0.6%).
  • However:
    • This did not account for untreated mental illness, perhaps because transgender advocates resist any association between gender incongruity and mental illness; and
    • This was drawn from a “convenience sample” (an online poll of volunteers).
    • A survey that used more scientific methods, the California Health Interview Survey, found that among “highly gender non-conforming” youth, only 3% of girls and 2% of boys reported having attempted suicide.

Furthermore, although such statistics are often cited as evidence that minors should pursue gender transition, these numbers do not prove causality. Even if the elevated rates are legitimate, the data often do not indicate when the suicidal thoughts or actions occurred—before or after gender transition.

  • For example, a 2020 article in the journal Pediatrics examined the link between taking puberty-blocking hormones and nine different mental health outcomes. Although it found that those who received puberty blockers had a lower rate of “lifetime suicidal ideation,” it also found that those who received puberty blockers were twice as likely to have had a suicide attempt resulting in inpatient care (i.e., hospitalization) in the last 12 months as those who did not (45.5% vs. 22.8%). (Neither finding rose to the level of statistical significance in the study.)
  • A 2011 Swedish study (in which the authors were able to examine the medical records of every person in Sweden who underwent gender reassignment surgery over a 30-year period) found a number of physical and mental health problems were elevated among this population, including a rate of completed suicides among those who completed transition that was 19 times higher than the general population.
  • A comprehensive review of the literature on the subject by the U.S. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services declared about the Swedish study that “we cannot exclude therapeutic interventions as a cause of the observed excess morbidity and mortality.” In other words, not only does gender reassignment surgery (and other “therapeutic interventions” such as hormone therapy) not demonstrably benefit those who identify as transgender (including by reducing their risk of suicide)—it may actively harm them, and increase that risk instead.

When you combine these facts with findings that the “desistance” rates (the rate at which transgender-identifying adolescents cease to identify as the opposite sex) range from 70 percent to 97.8 percent in biological males, and from 50 percent to 88 percent in biological females, the picture becomes clear. For most transgender-identifying youth, puberty is the cure, not the cause, of gender incongruence. Even among those who continue to identify as transgender, there is evidence that transitioning causes more harm than good, at least as measured by rates of suicide attempts resulting in hospitalization and rates of completed suicide. Furthermore, these studies include populations from Sweden and California, two jurisdictions that are arguably very supportive of gender transition policies.

For a full report on the dangers of gender transition procedures, see FRC’s Do Not Sterilize Children: Why Physiological Gender Transition Procedures for Minors Should Be Prohibited

Alabama Seeks to Protect Minors from Gender Transition Drugs and Surgeries

by Chantel Hoyt

February 18, 2021

Alabama lawmakers are currently considering two bills that would prohibit doctors from prescribing gender transition drugs, hormones, and surgeries to minors. Known as the “Vulnerable Child Compassion and Protection Acts,” these bills are designed to protect minors who are struggling with gender confusion from harmful procedures that cannot be fully reversed later and that they may likely come to regret.

These bills also prohibit nurses, counselors, and school personnel from withholding information about a child’s gender confusion from the child’s parents. Senate Bill 10, introduced by Representative Shay Shelnutt of the state’s 17th district, passed the Senate Healthcare Committee in a vote of 11 to 2 last Wednesday, while House Bill 1 is still awaiting a vote after being the subject of a public hearing by the House Judiciary Committee on the same day. Under both bills, doctors who violate such laws would face criminal charges.

The Alabama House version of the bill was introduced by Republican Wes Allen last year. “When I learned that this was going on in our state of Alabama, I was really shocked that puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones were being given to minors,” he said on Washington Watch recently. When asked about his motivation behind the bill, Allen replied that it is simply about protecting children. “The most important thing we can be doing as legislators is taking care and protecting children, so that’s really the motivation behind it.” 

Rep. Allen also spoke briefly about how children lack the proper ability to make life-altering decisions, as well as studies that suggest that 85-90 percent of children with gender dysphoria will eventually outgrow such issues and “grow to accept how God made them and grow to accept their bodies.” Allen was hopeful about the success of House Bill 1: “We’ve got to make sure we protect our kids, and we’re looking forward to advocating for this bill in the weeks to come.”

Chantel Hoyt is a Research Assistant with State & Local Affairs at Family Research Council.

Transgenderism is Now Rated G

by Arielle Leake

July 17, 2020

The Baby-Sitters Club is a new Netflix series based on the popular children’s books by the same name published in the late ‘80s and early ‘90s. The books—and now the television series—follow the lives of four 12-year-old girls and their entrepreneurial babysitting endeavors. Unfortunately, parents who fondly remember the books from their own childhood should think twice before allowing their impressionable children to watch this G-rated show.

Transgenderism is brazenly presented, unchallenged, and actively celebrated. The fourth episode of the show “Mary Ann Saves the Day” prominently displays the show’s cultural indoctrination. One of the four main characters, Mary Ann, is tasked with babysitting Bailey, a young boy who firmly believes he is a girl and lives a transgender lifestyle. The episode is fraught with highly concerning dialogue and messaging. For example, Mary Ann’s friend explains Bailey’s lifestyle to her by saying, “We all want our insides to match our outsides.” This explanation clearly illustrates the two-story dualism underlying the transgender movement or, as Nancy Pearcy puts it in her book Love Thy Body, “the idea that your brain can be at war with your body.”

The scriptwriters are so committed to the idea that your feelings control who you really are that they cannot even promote healthy encouragement. When Mary Ann, who struggles with self-confidence (as most tween girls do), exclaims that she is “a pathetic cry-baby,” the only help her friend can offer is to say, “If you believe you are a pathetic cry-baby who am I to tell you otherwise.” It could have been a moment used to show young girls how to support and encourage one another while not affirming a lie someone believes about themselves. Instead, all the show can muster is a weak statement meant to shove forward the philosophy that how you feel dictates who you are.

Mary Ann finally finds her “confidence” when she takes it upon herself to reprimand the doctor and nurse who dare to address Bailey by his biological sex. Mary Ann instructs them that “from here on out,” they should “recognize her for who she is.” Further, she requests that they bring Bailey something other than the standard blue hospital nightgown, which he evidently finds highly offensive.

Even more appalling, those in the position of authority—both the medical professionals and the child’s parents—willingly go along with the young child’s whims. Instead of helping him see who God created him to be, they encourage his harmful fascinations and reinforce the idea that fitting a certain “stereotype,” whether it be wearing blue or playing tea parties, is what makes you a male or female.

As a young woman, I am disappointed to see a show that will be viewed by many young and impressionable girls espousing such harmful views—without so much as a question about the consequences of these ideas. Instead of giving young girls a proper view of what it means to be a woman, The Baby-Sitters Club presents womanhood as something that is merely a product of your feelings and not a God-given identity.

In a world that is becoming increasingly accepting of transgender ideology, parents should be cautious about the ideas being espoused in the media their children consume. Christians have a role to play in restoring an understanding that humans are a unique combination of both body and soul, which equally make up who we are and are not at war with each other. Nancy Pearcy defines the Christian’s role as being “the first in line to nurture and support kids who don’t ‘fit in’ by affirming the diversity of gifts and temperaments in the body of Christ.” This is exactly the opposite of what is done in The Baby-Sitters Club.

Arielle Leake is a Policy & Government Affairs intern focusing on religious liberty.

Gender-Neutral Intersex Passport Case May Advance Larger Transgender Goals

by Peter Sprigg

May 22, 2020

In a decision on May 12, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit ruled that the State Department should reconsider its refusal to grant a gender-neutral passport to a plaintiff with an intersex condition who identifies with a “non-binary” gender.

An “intersex” condition is a biological condition in which one or more of the biological indicators of sex does not develop in the typical male or female way. It is completely different from a “transgender” condition, in which an individual does not identify psychologically with his or her biological sex at birth. True intersex conditions are rare; but transgender identification is rapidly growing.

There is a proverb which warns, “Once the camel gets his nose in the tent, his body will soon follow.” What seems like a small intrusion can quickly become a large one. I fear that metaphor may apply to the legal fight over “gender-neutral” passports.

Although several news outlets covered the story, Courthouse News Service was the most thorough in describing the plaintiff:

The birth certificate Zzyym was given in 1958 originally used the name Brian Orin Whitney and left the gender line blank because they were born with “ambiguous external sex characteristics.” Raised male, Zzyym was 5 when they underwent medically unnecessary corrective surgery at their parents’ request.

In 1995, the six-year Navy veteran changed their name to Dana Alix Zzyym.

The complaint that was filed by Zzyym elaborates:

Zzyym’s parents decided to raise Zzyym as a male, so the original birth certificate’s blank for sex was filled in as “male.” The State Department has treated this birth certificate as the original.

Zzyym lived as a male until adulthood. As an adult, Zzyym explored living as a woman and obtained a driver’s license identifying as female. But Zzyym grew increasingly uncomfortable living as a woman and eventually identified as a nonbinary intersex person. While identifying as intersex, Zzyym obtained an amended birth certificate identifying the sex as “UnKnown.”

According to one physician quoted in the court opinion, Zzyym did not merely “explore” living as a woman; he “has had surgery for transition to female genitalia.”

Zzyym applied for a passport—and requested that his sex be listed as “X.” (I will use male pronouns for Zzyym, since that is how he was identified on his original birth certificate, and in a photograph released by Lambda Legal, he appears to be conventionally male except for the hair on the top of his head being dyed blue.) The State Department refused, stating that U.S. passports may list only “M” (for Male) or “F” (for Female) as the passport holder’s sex. (This initial application and denial took place in 2014—under the administration of President Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry.)

As the court acknowledged, “The State Department … noted that it had offered to produce a passport with an ‘F’ (matching Zzyym’s original Colorado driver’s license) or an ‘M’ (matching the original birth certificate).” However, the unprecedented “X” designation was refused.

News coverage made the Tenth Circuit decision appear to be a defeat for the State Department—but that is not the case. The District Court had ruled in favor of Zzyym outright, issuing “a permanent injunction against enforcement of the binary sex policy” with respect to Zzyym. The Tenth Circuit vacated this lower court decision.

Instead, the unanimous three-judge panel issued a more nuanced (but still flawed) ruling. The State Department had listed five reasons for upholding its binary-sex policy for passports. The court (in an opinion written by Judge Robert E. Bacharach, an Obama appointee) rejected three of these reasons, saying that the record of the case did not support them.

However, the panel also ruled that “the State Department had statutory authority to require applicants to identify their sex as male or female,” and that two of the five reasons for the policy were supported by the record. One might think that “statutory authority” and even one good reason would be enough to sustain the policy. But instead, the court said the State Department should reconsider to determine whether two reasons instead of five constitute enough justification.

The key error in the Tenth Circuit decision was its assumption that people with an “intersex” condition are neither male nor female. For example, the court stated that “most state identification documents pigeonhole[] everyone as male or female even though some people are neither.” They also asserted that requiring Zzyym to identify himself as male or female would amount to “forcing intersex individuals like Zzyym to inaccurately identify themselves” (emphasis added). The opinion even declares, “The State Department acknowledges that some individuals are born neither male nor female.”

If true, this is an unfortunate mischaracterization of what an “intersex” condition is. As even one intersex activist, Jonathan Leggette, has acknowledged, “Intersex traits can involve genitalia, chromosomes, hormones, and other secondary sex characteristics.” If even one of these characteristics develops in an abnormal way, that constitutes a “disorder of sexual development” (DSD), the medical term for an intersex condition. If, say, 98% of a person’s sex-related characteristics are normal male characteristics, and 2% are abnormal or appear to be those considered typical of a female, it would hardly make sense to say such a person is “neither male nor female.” Instead, that individual is clearly a male, but one with a DSD.

Anne Fausto-Sterling, a biologist at Brown University, has been widely quoted as asserting that up to 1.7% of the population is intersex. However, this claim has been challenged by others who point out that many who fall under Fausto-Sterling’s broad definition of “intersex” are people who may live their entire lives without even being aware that they have an intersex condition (such as an abnormality in their chromosomal make-up). The percentage of people who have any real ambiguity about their biological sex is far smaller—being found, by one estimate, in only 2 out of every 10,000 births.

Even among those with such a genuine intersex condition, however, the number who have both male and female characteristics in nearly a 50-50 ratio is very small. There are dozens of different DSDs that have been identified; of those, only one comes close to this type of ambiguity. It is known as an “ovotesticular” DSD (or “true gonadal intersex” or “true hermaphroditism”) because those with this condition have both ovarian and testicular tissue. This is the rarest DSDonly about 500 cases have ever been reported in the medical literature. And yet even among these, “Most affected individuals have a 46, XX chromosomal [typical female] make-up …, which normally results in female sexual development.”

The Tenth Circuit decision reports that Zzyym “was born with both male and female genitalia.” That is a stronger assertion than the one found in Zzyym’s original complaint in the District Court, which was merely that “Zzyym was born intersex, with ambiguous genitalia.” We don’t know if that is a reference to “ovotesticular DSD,” since that more technical term is not used in the opinion.

In one sense, the ultimate disposition of Zzyym’s case poses little danger of setting a major precedent for others, since the number of people “with both male and female genitalia” is tiny. People with such a birth defect are deserving of our compassion.

However, this case, demanding a “gender X” passport for someone with a biological “intersex” condition, is merely the camel’s nose in the tent. In asserting that intersex people are “neither male nor female,” the court fails to note that most people with intersex conditions are perfectly content to identify as either male or female, notwithstanding their physical problems. The only reason Zzyym felt the need to sue the State Department is because—unlike most “intersex” people—his psychological “gender identity” is “non-binary,” meaning “neither male nor female.”

But declaring one’s “gender identity” to be “non-binary” is merely the latest fad in the larger “transgender movement.” Just as most “intersex” people are not “non-binary,” most of those who choose to identify as “non-binary” do not have a biological intersex condition but are entirely normal with respect to their biological sex at birth.

Transgender activists would like for anyone who identifies as “non-binary” to be able to get identification documents with an “X” gender marker. Winning one for an intersex person would only be the first step toward that even more radical goal.

The State Department should continue to refuse Zzyym’s request.

Amidst a Global Pandemic, California Legislators Seek $15 Million for Transgender Hormone Therapy and Dance Classes

by Peter Sprigg

May 13, 2020

Peter Sprigg, FRC’s Senior Fellow for Policy Studies, submitted the following letter on May 12, 2020, to the California Legislature in opposition to AB 2218, the “Transgender Wellness and Equity Fund.”

***

Dear California Legislators:

I am writing to urge that you oppose Assembly Bill 2218, which would establish a “Transgender Wellness and Equity Fund” with an appropriation of $15 million. I am writing on behalf of Family Research Council (FRC), a national non-profit public policy organization representing tens of thousands of Californians, and whose issue portfolio includes human sexuality.

In particular, we believe that it is inappropriate to provide taxpayer dollars

to a hospital, health care clinic, or other medical provider that currently provides gender-affirming health care services, such as hormone therapy or gender reassignment surgery, to continue providing those services, or to a hospital, health care clinic, or other medical provider that will establish a program that offers gender-affirming health care services . . .

No “hormone therapy” (neither puberty-blocking hormones nor cross-sex hormones) has been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the purposes of facilitating gender transition. Fenway Health, which serves the LGBT community in Boston, writes that “no medications or other treatments are currently approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the purposes of gender alteration and affirmation.” A 2018 article in the journal Transgender Health reiterated that “there are no medications or other treatments that are FDA-approved for the purpose of gender affirmation.” And the American Medical Association’s Council on Science and Public Health reported that “steroidal hormones,” “GnRH analogs” (puberty blockers) and “antiandrogens” are all used “off-label” for “gender re-affirming therapy”—because their use “lacks scientific evidence.” While it is not illegal to use drugs “off-label” in certain instances, the lack of proof that using these hormones for gender transition is safe and effective is a strong argument against the state funding these largely experimental treatments.

Similarly, evidence does not support the assertion that gender reassignment surgery is “medically necessary.” In 2016, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services under the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (CMS) declined to issue a new “national coverage determination” (NCD) that would mandate coverage for such surgery under Medicare, declaring that “there is not enough high quality evidence to determine whether gender reassignment surgery improves health outcomes.” CMS examined 33 studies, but found that all had “potential methodological flaws,” and that “[o]verall, the quality and strength of evidence were low.”

Even the evidence that is available does not demonstrate that gender reassignment surgery is effective at achieving its fundamental goal—improving the long-term mental health of individuals. Patients in the best studies “did not demonstrate clinically significant changes” after surgery. One of the strongest studies, out of Sweden, showed a suicide rate among post-surgical transgender patients that was 19 times that of the general population.

In addition to directly funding procedures of questionable medical value (as well as “guided meditation” and “dancing, painting, and writing classes”), this bill would also fund programming that essentially amounts to ideological indoctrination, in the form of “trans-inclusive best practices” and the creation of “educational materials” and “capacity building training.”

It also seems ironic that the sponsors of this legislation, who I presume would support laws to prohibit “discrimination” on the basis of “gender identity,” are actually mandating such discrimination by giving favored treatment to organizations that meet a numerical quota of officers, board members, or a fiscal sponsor who themselves “identify as TGI” (“transgender, gender nonconforming, or intersex”).

Finally, it seems inconceivable that during a crisis caused by a global pandemic, with tax revenues shrinking and emergency expenditures rising, the California Legislature would even consider investing time or money in a program that would have to be considered a luxury even in normal times, and even if it were worthwhile (which, for the reasons cited above, I believe it is not). When, at this writing, nearly 70,000 Californians have become infected with the novel coronavirus and nearly 2,800 have lost their lives, it would reflect misplaced priorities to be appropriating money to support the programs listed above.

I urge you to oppose AB 2218.

Sincerely,

Peter Sprigg
Senior Fellow for Policy Studies
Family Research Council
Washington, D.C.

Idaho Leads the Way in Pursuing Fairness for Women Athletes

by Blake Elliott

April 29, 2020

Idaho Governor Brad Little (R) has recently come under fire for signing the Fairness in Women’s Sports Act. This common-sense law makes Idaho the first state to protect female athletes’ opportunities to compete (including for scholarships) without going head to head with male athletes who identify as female but retain immense physical advantages. Now, the ACLU is suing to block the law and undermine women’s sports.

In Connecticut, Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) is representing three high school women facing precisely this problem, after the Connecticut Interscholastic Athletic Conference changed its policies to allow men who identify as women to compete in women’s sports. As ADF legal counsel Christiana Holcomb notes, “Title IX was designed to eliminate discrimination against women in education and athletics, and women fought long and hard to earn the equal athletic opportunities that Title IX provides. Allowing boys to compete in girls’ sports reverses nearly 50 years of advances for women under this law. We shouldn’t force these young women to be spectators in their own sports.”

It’s not just athletic scholarships that are at stake. Sports play a crucial role in the development of young people by helping them build character, learn the value of hard work, and learn how to compete. Sports can bring people together and give a student-athlete the opportunity to be part of something bigger than him or herself.

I grew up in West Texas, and it was common for the whole region to rally in support of high school teams that were excelling. I see it now when 100,000-plus Aggie fans pack into Kyle Field to support Texas A&M football. During these times, peoples’ stances on politics or social issues are put to the side as fans unite to support their team. Sports can help develop life-long friendships and memories.

But in recent times, men who identify as transgender women have begun to dominate women’s sports, both at the amateur and professional levels. According to expert testimony filed with the Connecticut athletic complaint, “…the lifetime best performances of three female Olympic champions in the 400m event—including Team USA’s Sanya Richards-Ross and Allyson Felix—would not match the performances of literally thousands of boys and men, just in 2017 alone, including many who would not be considered top tier male performers.” Dr. Gregory Brown of the University of Nebraska, who provided that expert testimony, has also found that puberty in males creates for a height and body mass difference that gives a significant athletic advantage to males.

Chelsea Mitchell, one of the three Connecticut athletes who filed the ADF complaint, summed it up well by saying that the three athletes are simply asking for a fair chance. It is clear that they’re not getting it: Terry Miller and Adraya Yearwood, the two biologically male athletes at the heart of the lawsuit, have won 15 girls indoor and outdoor state championships since 2017. Just last February, they finished 1st and 2nd in the 55-meter state championship, with Miller breaking the state record. Miller has also set record-breaking times in the 100-meter and 200-meter sprints, typically blowing other sprinters completely out of the race.

Karissa Niehoff, the executive director of the Connecticut Interscholastic Athletic Conference, spoke about the issues surrounding transgender athletes running with girls by saying, “A lot of people have asked, can you run a separate race, can you put an asterisk next to their name, do something that shows there is a standard that is different from that?” One sports league is trying just that: The Raw Powerlifting Federation is now in the process of creating a transgender division after Mary Gregory, who is a biological male, shattered various women’s weightlifting records. The federation’s president stripped Gregory of the titles and records after “it was revealed that this female lifter was actually a male in the process of becoming a transgender female.” When this story broke, former Great Britain Olympic swimmer Sharon Davies spoke out, tweeting: “This is a trans woman, a male body with male physiology setting a world record & winning a woman’s event in America in powerlifting. A woman with female biology cannot compete… it’s a pointless unfair playing field.”

The Connecticut women are still waiting for justice. Alanna Smith, an athlete in the lawsuit and daughter of MLB Hall of Famer Lee Smith, was a “three-peat” state champion in the 100-meter race in 6th, 7th, and 8th grade, setting school and state records. While the 100-meter race was her strong race in middle school, she has recently excelled in the 400-meter race in high school. Despite her past athletic successes and clear potential, she cannot compete and win against the men.

Christiana Holcomb, the attorney representing the girls from Alliance Defending Freedom, said in a statement: “Having separate boys’ and girls’ sports has always been based on biological differences, not what people believe about their gender, because those differences matter for fair competition. And forcing girls to be spectators in their own sports is completely at odds with Title IX, a federal law designed to create equal opportunities for women in education and athletics.” It is revealing that these issues surrounding transgender athletes in women’s sports are not getting the support of Democrats, like Elizabeth Warren, even as they continue to push for the Equal Rights Amendment.

Rather than making this into a “trans rights” issue, it must be acknowledged that each girl and woman deserves the right to participate in sports knowing that they are competing on a level playing field and that they have an equal opportunity to win. Alanna Smith, Selina Soule, and Chelsea Mitchell are prime examples of female athletes whose athletic opportunities have been sharply curtailed by men’s ability to compete in women’s sports. (There are many more examples.)

Idaho Governor Brad Little should stand firm and stand for women. And the ACLU should be ashamed for seeking to deprive Idaho girls of these opportunities.

Blake Elliott is a Government Affairs intern at Family Research Council.

Britain May Ban Gender Transition for Minors

by Peter Sprigg

April 28, 2020

A clinic in the United Kingdom has been the subject of controversy amid accusations that it rushes minors with gender dysphoria into gender transition medical procedures without adequate screening. Now, a cabinet minister has indicated that the government might ban such treatments for minors altogether.

Liz Truss, the Minister for Women and Equalities, told a parliamentary committee that the Conservative government would propose amendments to the nation’s Gender Recognition Act. The Act, first adopted in 2004, specifies the steps a person must take in order to change one’s legally recognized gender. However, instead of loosening the requirements, as transgender activists had urged, the government appears poised to tighten them.

Truss said that one of three priorities would be:

… making sure that the under 18s are protected from decisions that they could make, that are irreversible in the future.

I believe strongly that adults should have the freedom to lead their lives as they see fit, but I think it’s very important that while people are still developing their decision-making capabilities that we protect them from making those irreversible decisions.

Truss did not provide further details. But since relatively few minors undergo actual gender reassignment surgery, observers assume that the “irreversible decisions” the government is concerned about include the use of puberty-blocking hormones in young adolescents and cross-sex hormones in older teens.

In the U.S., efforts to ban such procedures for minors stalled this year in the South Dakota legislature after businesses and Gov. Kristi Noem expressed concern about the bill. In Alabama, a bill was advancing toward passage until the coronavirus pandemic prematurely ended the state’s legislative session.

Under Britain’s system of socialized medicine, known as the National Health Service (NHS), a limited number of medical clinics provide gender reassignment services. The only clinic serving minors is the Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS) of the Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust, with offices in London and Leeds.

After a three-year trial, the GIDS decided in 2014 to significantly expand its services to minors—including giving puberty blockers to children as young as nine. Since then, GIDS has seen a considerable increase in the number of children referred to them. But the clinic is also facing heightened criticism.

An Oxford professor, Dr. Michael Biggs, says that the clinic has downplayed the negative health effects of puberty blockers. Britain’s Sky News reported late in 2019 that as many as 35 psychologists have resigned from the GIDS over the last three years, with at least a half dozen speaking out against its practices—but anonymously, for fear of retaliation.

However, one retired psychotherapist, Marcus Evans, did speak out publicly after resigning from Tavistock’s Board of Governors. Evans warned:

When doctors always give patients what they want (or think they want), the fallout can be disastrous, as we have seen with the opioid crisis. And there is every possibility that the inappropriate medical treatment of children with gender dysphoria may follow a similar path.

… Tavistock officials … [seem to] have bought into the idea that transition is a goal unto itself, separate from the wellbeing of individual children, who now are being used as pawns in an ideological campaign.

This is the opposite of responsible and caring therapeutic work, which is based on the need to re-establish respectful but loving bonds between mind and body.

Victoria Gillick, a critic of the GIDS, predicted in 2014:

There will, in the future, be an awful lot of doctors who will be sued by older men and women for having done something to them before they were of an age to understand what the significance of it was.

That prediction came true this year with the filing of a lawsuit against the clinic. Originally filed by psychiatric nurse Susan Evans (wife of Marcus Evans) and the unidentified mother of a 15-year-old autistic girl awaiting treatment at the clinic, the suit has been joined by a 23-year-old woman, Keira Bell. She received hormone treatment at the clinic as a teenager but has now “de-transitioned” to reclaim her biological identity as a female. Bell declared:

I have become a claimant in this case because I do not believe that children and young people can consent to the use of powerful and experimental hormone drugs like I did.

I believe that the current affirmative system put in place by the Tavistock is inadequate as it does not allow for exploration of these gender dysphoric feelings, nor does it seek to find the underlying causes of this condition. 

Hormone-changing drugs and surgery does not work for everyone and it certainly should not be offered to someone under the age of 18 when they are emotionally and mentally vulnerable.

The treatment urgently needs to change so that it does not put young people, like me, on a torturous and unnecessary path that is permanent and life-changing.

The U.K. government appears to agree. When state legislators in the U.S. are able to convene again, they would be wise to follow the British example and prohibit “torturous and unnecessary” gender transition medical procedures for minors.

Virginia Democrats Force Citizens to Deny the Reality of Male and Female - on Good Friday

by Cathy Ruse

April 15, 2020

While Virginia families were preoccupied with the trauma of the coronavirus pandemic and job loss, Governor Ralph Northam quietly signed into law a bill that forces public businesses and even private organizations to open women’s bathrooms, locker rooms, showers, and dressing rooms to men who claim that they are women. It is an official rejection of God’s purposeful design of male and female.

The new law prohibits “all places or businesses offering or holding out to the general public goods, services, privileges, facilities, advantages, or accommodations” from denying access based on “gender identity.” “Gender identity” is defined as “gender-related identity, appearance, or other gender-related characteristics of an individual with or without regard to the individual’s designated sex at birth.”

Two Democrats from Fairfax sponsored the bill: Delegate Marcus Simon and Senator Jennifer Boysko.

Christians, feminists, and all other conscientious objectors who believe in the science of biology can be punished for failing to follow this new law. The law makes no consideration for female athletes in Virginia, or for any women and girls who are not comfortable sharing intimate spaces with adult males. The Governor and his party have chosen sides, and they have chosen who the losers are. To the many women and girls who are sex abuse survivors, the message could not be clearer: We don’t care about you. Shut up and take it.

In a statement accompanying the signing, Northam said: “This legislation sends a strong, clear message—Virginia is a place where all people are welcome to live, work, visit, and raise a family.” But that’s not true at all. This law renders public schools, businesses, and organizations unwelcome to people unless they affirm an anti-Christian, anti-woman creed.

The law includes an extremely narrow exemption for private organizations that are “not in fact open to the public.” The exemption reads: “The provisions of this section shall not apply to a private club, a place of accommodation owned by or operated on behalf of a religious corporation, association, or society that is not in fact open to the public, or any other establishment that is not in fact open to the public.”

What does that mean for churches that invite the public to worship services? That offer free English language classes and meals to those in need? That perform sacred music in concerts open to the public? What does it mean for Christian schools that host competitive sports in their gymnasiums? Are these services, activities, and events not, in fact, open to the public under the language of this narrow exemption?

As former Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in his concurring opinion in NIFLA v. Becerra, “[I]t is not forward thinking to force individuals to ‘be an instrument for fostering public adherence to an ideological point of view [they] find unacceptable.’” This new law, which punishes people for not assenting to an anti-Christian, anti-woman view of the human person, is not forward-thinking. It is offensive to freedom and devastating to women.

And it happened in Virginia, of all places. The home of Thomas Jefferson’s Religious Freedom Act, the model for the first freedom in the Bill of Rights.

And it happened on Good Friday; the day Christians worldwide commemorate God’s willing sacrifice of His only Son as the ransom for our sins.

We must work and pray for an end to this unjust law.

  • Page 1 of 3
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
Archives