Twenty-six U.S. states have banned certain medical interventions for children with gender dysphoria. In a free country, the barrier for straight up banning a medical intervention needs to be very high. The evidence needs to be overwhelming that such interventions are bad—that they do far more harm than good. That is not the case for puberty suppressing drugs, hormone replacement therapy, or even surgery. Such bans are an insult to liberty and should be removed.
If a doctor, parent, and child, all agree that a particular medical intervention is the best solution for their problem, then who the Hell is the government to stop them? Who the Hell are you to stop them? It doesn’t matter how you feel about transgenders, unless such interventions are clearly net bad for patients to the point where no reasonable person would perform them, they should not be banned.
There are lots of studies on transgender interventions, and there is some evidence that puberty suppression, hormones, and/or surgery help children and adolescents with their gender dysphoria, their quality of life, depression, and even lessens their chance of suicide. Unfortunately, that evidence is mixed and the studies are far from conclusive. Researchers on both sides seem biased and exaggerate the quality of evidence for their positions while undervaluing the evidence in favor of other positions.
The evidence is mixed enough that doctors and parents need to approach such decisions with a heavy dose of caution. The burden of evidence for stopping, and especially changing, a child’s natural puberty needs to fall on the intervention. If doctors are negligently transitioning kids who should not be transitioned, then those doctors should be charged and sued under normal medical malpractice or negligence laws. We don’t need to ban procedures to enforce basic medical law.
I strongly encourage parents and medical professionals to be careful about transitioning children, and for parents to get second opinions from different-thinking doctors. The evidence in favor of such interventions is quite modest, and it’s hard to tell which children are more likely to benefit from them. Nevertheless, such decisions should be in the hands of the parents, doctors, and the children, not the government. We are not truly a free country if medical interventions can be banned on such weak justifications.
What the Science on Gender-Affirming Care for Transgender Kids Really Shows Heather Boerner. 2022 5 12. Scientific American. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-the-science-on-gender-affirming-care-for-transgender-kids-really-shows Mastectomy John Hopkins Medicine. https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/breast-cancer/mastectomy#:~:text=A%20mastectomy%20is%20surgery%20to,a%20high%20risk%20for%20it. Correction: Access to gender-affirming hormones during adolescence and mental health outcomes among transgender adults Jack L. Turban et
“In the first of the two new analyses, a team of researchers led by McMaster University’s Anna Miroshnychenko looked at evidence from 10 studies on the effects of puberty blockers. Three of these studies compared patients given puberty blockers to those who were not, while the others assessed patients before and after being treated with puberty blockers. In both sets of studies, there was “very low certainty evidence” on tested outcomes, including their effect on gender dysphoria, depression, and bone mineral density.
“Most studies provided very low certainty evidence about the outcomes of interest, thus, we cannot exclude the possibility of benefit or harm,” write the study authors.”
…
“The second analysis—also led by Miroshnychenko—looked at evidence related to hormone therapy, using data from 24 studies. Evidence about the effects of hormone therapy was mostly low certainty or very low certainty, they found. Many of the study designs were “limited in assessing intervention effects” and the studies were at risk of “bias and imprecision” resulting “from an insufficient sample size.”
“The best available evidence reporting on the effects of [hormone therapy] in individuals experiencing [gender dysphoria] ranged from moderate to high certainty for cardiovascular events, and low to very low certainty for the outcomes of [gender dysphoria], global function, depression, sexual dysfunction, [bone mineral density], and death by suicide,” they write.
On one level, these analyses don’t tell us much about the best course of action when it comes to young people with gender dysphoria and hormone treatments. They leave open the possibility that puberty blockers and hormone therapy may be beneficial, but also the possibility that they may be harmful or have little effect at all.”
“If the Trump administration merely ended all formal DEI training and initiatives, I wouldn’t be too concerned. They were, after all, never a significant part of what we did. What troubles me most is the attempt to stop all conversations about race and gender. Personal relationships and teams are strengthened by having difficult conversations, conversations that can sometimes make people uncomfortable. Avoiding, or worse banning, those conversations weakens both relationships and teams. Trust, mutual respect and shared values and goals are the foundations of strong teams. All are enhanced by open and candid conversations.
Eliminating any discussion of race or gender will have three negative consequences. The Trump administration and Secretary Hegseth are sending a strong message that white males are in charge again and they don’t want to hear anything about gender or racial inequities. Intended or not, that is what is being heard. Conversations I have had with leaders at all levels of the military indicate this is already having a significant impact on the morale and well-being of a large fraction of the force. Second, this is going to have a very negative effect on recruiting and retention that will deny our military the benefit of some of the most capable people in the nation. By the end of the Biden administration, we had met or exceeded all of the Department of the Air Force’s recruiting goals; I would hate to see that trend reversed. People already serving will choose to leave, and those considering service in the military will find other career options. Finally, the changes being implemented will empower the small minority of people who do have conscious gender or racial bias to act on those views. There aren’t many of these people in our military, but I can say from personal experience that they do exist.
If the Department of Defense and the nation are to move forward on gender and racial issues, we have to do it together. This means that white males like myself must join conversations that we may find uncomfortable and we must develop and display empathy for people unlike ourselves. That is called leadership. Conversations about race and gender are still going to happen no matter what policies are put in place to outlaw DEI training, ban certain words or eliminate affinity groups. Because of what the Trump administration and Secretary Hegseth are doing those conversations just won’t include white males. That is not going to make our military more united or stronger. It is going to make us weaker.”
“Just hours into his presidency, Trump signed an executive order that seeks to roll back trans rights in nearly every facet of life. The order describes trans women as men and directs federal agencies to keep them out of “intimate spaces” designed for women. It targets trans people’s identity documents and health care, and it narrowly defines sex in a way that aims to erase the very concept of trans and nonbinary people.
In the week since, the administration has halted transgender people’s passport applications, transferred incarcerated trans women to solitary confinement and moved to bar transgender troops from serving in the military – an effort that was met with an immediate legal challenge. On Wednesday, the Office of Personnel Management ordered federal programs promoting “gender ideology” to be shut down and their employees put on leave. A day earlier, Trump directed federal agencies to begin crafting policies that could cut off young people’s access to transition care nationwide. And he has done so in orders that describe trans people as dishonorable and “mutilated,” lacking “humility and selflessness.””
“Trump also signed a broad order Monday eliminating federal recognition of transgender and nonbinary individuals. In practice, said Mailman, the order will mean barring any options other than male and female from government documents, including passports and visas, ending the annual recognition of Transgender Day of Visibility, and excluding trans people from gender-segregated spaces that take federal funding, including prisons, migrant housing and domestic violence shelters.”
We should focus on helping those in poverty and those with a lack of wealth and opportunity, not people who have these problems specifically because of race. Those in trouble because of legacy racial issues will be helped by race-neutral welfare.
People around most leaders say the leader is good and they have respect for them. Even people close to Trump often later say he is nuts.
“According to exit polls, 55 percent of men voted for Trump in 2024, compared to 45 percent of women, for a 10-point gender gap — 1 point less than the 11-point gap in support for Trump in both 2020 and 2016.*
Compared to other exit polling results that point to how Trump’s victory may have boiled down to a referendum on President Joe Biden and the economy, this relatively static gender gap may not point to gender as a major factor in the election. But differences in the gender gap across groups of voters — such as growing gaps among Black and Latino voters — can tell us more about the country’s changing partisan landscape. And there’s a reason gender has also been widely discussed in the aftermath of Election Day: The role that gender played in each party’s 2024 presidential campaigns highlights a potential shift in the parties’ approaches to male and female voters, and how voters think about gender and politics.”
…
“Trump’s 11-point gap in support between men and women in 2016 and 2020 was a record, but men have been consistently more likely than women to back Republicans since 1980. From then until 2016, the gender gap in support for Republicans ranged from 0 points (in 1992) to 10 points (in 2000), according to exit polls. (The phenomenon of men consistently showing stronger support for the more ideologically conservative party than women is not limited to the U.S., either.)”
…
“the gender gap isn’t uniform across all groups. For example, white men and women voted more similarly to each other in 2024 than Black or Latino men and women.”
…
“Nonwhite and younger voters had the largest gender gaps”
…
“in 2020 Trump won 61 percent of white men and 55 percent of white women, for a 6-point gender gap among white voters. That gap was just 1 point bigger this year according to exit polls — 60 percent to 53 percent, for a 7-point gender gap among white voters. But the gender gap among nonwhite voters increased by significantly more.
Among Black voters, even as the vast majority of both men and women voted Democratic in both elections, Trump gained 2 points of support among men and lost 2 among women, moving the gender gap from 10 points in 2020 to 14 points in 2024. The gap is even more striking among Latino voters, one of the groups among whom Trump gained the most support overall compared to 2020. Four years ago, 36 percent of Latino men and 30 percent of Latino women supported Trump, a gender gap of just 6 points. That gap nearly tripled in 2024, as Trump’s support among Latino men went up by almost 20 percentage points: He won 55 percent of Latino men and 38 percent of Latino women, for a gender gap of 17 points.”
…
“49 percent of men and 37 percent of women aged 18 to 29 supported Trump, for a 12-point gender gap, 3 points larger than in 2020. The gap among men and women aged 30 to 39 was also 12 points, while it actually shrank among voters over 50.”
“In January, Delaware Rep.-elect Sarah McBride will also make history in congressional representation, becoming the first openly transgender individual to serve in Congress. But once again, being a trailblazer has come with challenges.
In response to McBride’s election, South Carolina Rep. Nancy Mace introduced a resolution last week intended to ban transgender women like McBride from using women’s bathrooms in the Capitol. House Speaker Mike Johnson initially equivocated on the issue, but under pressure from fellow Republicans like Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, he issued a statement that all single-sex facilities in the Capitol and House offices “are reserved for individuals of that biological sex.” Mace has since followed up with an even more sweeping proposal, a bill that would apply a transgender bathroom ban to all facilities on federal property.”
…
“56 percent of Americans said they agreed more that “transgender rights have gone too far, infringing on the rights of women and children,” compared to 32 percent who said they agreed more that “protecting transgender rights is essential to ensuring equality for all Americans.” And in another YouGov poll last week, a plurality of 43 percent of Americans said they’d prefer their congressional representatives to focus more on upholding traditional definitions of gender, versus 30 percent who wanted them to focus more on protecting the rights of transgender people (12 percent said neither, and 15 percent were unsure).
When it comes to specific policies, about half of Americans in that poll (including 78 percent of Republicans and 29 percent of Democrats) seemed to agree with Mace on bathroom bans, telling YouGov they think transgender people should use bathrooms that correspond to their assigned sex at birth, while 34 percent thought they should use bathrooms that align with their current gender identity, or either option.
Slightly more voters also seem to favor bans on sports participation, while opinions are split on banning gender-affirming care for youth. In an October UMass Amherst poll, a plurality of Americans, 47 percent, supported bans on transgender individuals’ participation in school sports teams matching their gender identity, compared to just 25 percent who opposed them (the rest were undecided). In a Morning Consult poll of registered voters from Nov. 6-7, 56 percent said they would support and 30 percent said they would oppose banning transgender girls and women from competing in high school and college sports. Meanwhile, 39 percent in the UMass Amherst poll said they would oppose policies to ban gender-affirming care for trans youth, while fewer, 35 percent, said they would support them. And in the Morning Consult poll, more were still in favor of the bans: 46 percent, compared to 39 percent opposed.”
…
“in an October CNN poll, registered voters were asked if they supported federal policies that were more supportive or more restrictive of transgender rights: Their answers were about evenly split between those options, but a plurality, 42 percent, said they “don’t have strong feelings either way.” That indicates that these issues may not be as pressing or important to many Americans as they are to politicians hoping to fan the culture war flames.”