Dr. Rachel Levine, assistant secretary for health at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), tweeted in 2023: “Accredited medical professional groups agree that gender-affirming care is important for transgender people.” and is medically necessary, safe, and effective for non-transgender youth. It’s important that we lead with science, data, and compassion.”1
However, the science is only two pages long, according to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request filed by nonprofit watchdog Protecting the Public Trust (PPT). In addition to asking for “scientific evidence, research, and/or data records” to support Levine’s assertion that gender-affirming care is safe, effective, and medically necessary, the PPT also asked for “medical professionals’ opinions on the value and use of gender-affirming care.” Investigative Records of Significance.” Providing “gender-affirming care’ for minor children.”2
In response to the Freedom of Information Act, the Department of Health and Human Services provided only a two-page document. It’s not even a scientific study, but a pamphlet posted on their website titled “Gender-affirming care and young people.”3
“Safe and affirming healthcare environments are critical to achieving better outcomes for transgender, non-binary and other gender-wide children and adolescents,”4 But PPT claimed Levine’s statement violated HHS’s scientific integrity because he made politically motivated statements without reliable scientific support.5
What is gender-affirming care?
According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, gender-affirming care “is a supportive form of health care” that includes medical, surgical, mental health and non-medical services for transgender and non-binary people. Transgender describes people whose gender identity differs from the sex assigned at birth, while nonbinary describes people who do not identify as male or female.6
The World Health Organization similarly states that “gender-affirming health care can include any single or combination of social, psychological, behavioral or medical (including hormone therapy or surgery) interventions designed to support and affirm an individual’s gender identity.”7
In a section dedicated to “Gender-affirming care and young people,” the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services describes social affirmation as a form of care that can be used at any stage and includes the use of gender-affirming hairstyles, gender pronouns, bathrooms, and names . During adolescence, gender-affirming care may develop into puberty blockers, hormones that pause pubertal development.8
During early adolescence and beyond, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services lists hormone therapy as a partially reversible option. This involves the use of the hormone testosterone in women and estrogen in men. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services describes permanent gender-affirming surgery on a “case-by-case” basis in adulthood or adolescence.
In addition to facial feminization, there are also “top” surgeries that can create a male-typical chest shape or enhance the breasts. There are also “bottom” surgeries, which are surgeries on the genitals or reproductive organs.9 HHS cites a study in its Gender-affirming Care Handbook,10 This showed a slight reduction in suicidality among transgender youth who received treatment. While 51% of people who received treatment were suicidal, this was lower than the 62% of people who needed hormones but didn’t receive treatment.11
PPT calls for investigation
In a complaint obtained by The Daily Telegraph, PPT wrote to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Inspector General calling for an investigation into Levine’s comments and whether they violated U.S. Department of Health and Human Services science Integrity Policy.12 The complaint to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) describes the Freedom of Information Act submission as “essentially a marketing material containing cherry-picked data and agenda-driven assertions,” stating:13
“This is contrary to science and evidence-based decision-making, and goes against the agency’s commitment to ‘consistent with the principles of professional practice, ethical conduct, and honesty and objectivity in conducting, managing, using, and communicating results.'” About Science and Scientific Activities . “
Levine, who is transgender, has made statements to multiple media outlets, including Reuters and NPR, supporting gender-affirming care for transgender youth. According to the Daily Telegraph, “Levine has often used his role as a science official to claim that ‘treatment options for gender-affirming care for transgender youth are indeed evidence-based’ and that opposing it is ‘unreasonable.'”14
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services similarly said “experts and doctors” agree that such care is “necessary.”15 But according to PPT, this rhetoric not only ignores the scientific literature showing the harms of such care but also “claims that they do not exist.” According to the Daily Telegraph, PPT stated in its complaint:16
“These statements not only fail to acknowledge evidence to the contrary, they claim that no evidence to the contrary exists. Despite overwhelming scientific evidence from around the world and a growing number of policy decisions in other countries moving in the opposite direction, Admiral Levin Consistently make assertions that there is no data, research or evidence that contradicts or does not support these statements.
The Assistant Secretary not only ignored the growing controversy over the use of these treatments on minors, but also claimed that such controversy simply does not exist and that there is no controversy in the scientific or medical community about these treatments. In fact, the opposite appears to be true. There appears to be little evidence to support the statement made by Admiral Levin.
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has had the opportunity to provide the evidence on which these statements are based.
Rather than providing a wealth of research, data and evidence, the agency could only provide a two-page information sheet containing a few carefully selected studies. It is difficult to imagine a clearer case of an official violating the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ scientific integrity policy and undermining the state of science in pursuit of a controversial policy agenda. “
Landmark study supporting gender-affirming surgery revised
A 2019 study published in the American Journal of Psychiatry that has been widely used to support this practice found that gender-affirming surgery reduces the likelihood of mental health treatment.
After receiving feedback that questioned the study’s statistical methods, the researchers sought statistical consultation and reexamined their data and found no clear benefit from the surgery on mental health visits, substance use or hospitalizations for mood or anxiety disorders, and suicide attempts.
They noted that their initial conclusions may have been too definitive because their study did not use a prospective or randomized design. In 2020, a correction was issued stating that gender-affirming surgery does not actually have any advantage “in comparison to health care visits or prescriptions or hospitalizations related to subsequent mood or anxiety disorders following a suicide attempt.”number 17 According to the Daily Telegraph:18
“In contrast, the authors acknowledge that ‘people diagnosed with gender nonconformity who have had gender-affirming surgery are more likely to receive treatment for anxiety disorders than people who have been diagnosed with gender nonconformity but have not had gender-affirming surgery.'”
The New York Times has also reported on young people who received gender-affirming treatment and regretted it, then joined the growing community of transgender people, including those who received medical intervention but no longer considered themselves transgender. people.19
Leaked emails reveal doctors knew cross-sex hormone treatment could cause cancer
Leaked emails from doctors at the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) also show that gender-affirming health care is not black and white. WPATH influenced the gender-affirming treatment guidelines adopted by Britain’s National Health Service, but according to Michael Shellenberger, an American journalist who reviewed the documents, “So-called ‘gender medicine’ is neither science nor medicine.”20 One doctor wrote:twenty one
“I have a transitioning friend/colleague who, after about eight to ten years in the workforce, [testosterone] develop liver cancer [a form of liver cancer] …From what I understand, it had something to do with his hormonal treatment…The effects of the treatment were so severe that he opted for palliative care and died a few months later. “
Another child psychologist said children do not understand the consequences of hormonal treatments and surgeries, saying:twenty two
“[It is] Go beyond their development to understand the extent to which some of these medical interventions affect them. They’ll say they understand, but then they’ll say something else that makes you think, oh, they don’t really understand that they’re going to have facial hair. “
For example, giving puberty blockers to children who have not yet reached puberty can delay the onset of sexual characteristics associated with the sex assigned at birth. It’s especially shocking that the adults who guide them through gender reassignment don’t thoroughly inform them of the difficulties they may face.
Overall, I believe that children and adolescents are not capable of making decisions about transition, and it really should be illegal to encourage or facilitate transition. In another case, a 16-year-old girl was approved for “top” surgery, a bilateral mastectomy, even though she had developed liver cancer from hormone treatment.
“Both oncologists and surgeons have indicated that the likely culprit is hormones,” the document states. “We are prepared to support the patient in any way possible (e.g., performing top surgery when the condition is stable, etc.).”twenty three The Daily Telegraph further reported:twenty four
“The UK has closed transgender clinics and warned doctors that many young people are just going through a phase. Norway, Finland and Sweden also found a lack of evidence that the benefits of hormones, puberty blockers and surgery outweigh the risks.”
Some gender transition centers don’t even require any form of mental health evaluation, and many family planning clinics will apparently issue a prescription for hormone replacement therapy (HRT) at the first visit. To learn more, the video “Trans Terror: The Unspoken Truth” delves into “the unspoken reality of transgender reassignment surgery and all the pain, regret, and horror it brings.”25
A stepping stone to the transhumanist agenda
Many believe that the transgender movement and gender-affirming health care for adolescents are cornerstones of the transhumanist agenda. Ultimately, the goal is to shed flesh and blood entirely, allowing our existence to exist either in synthetic bodies or as disembodied avatars in cyberspace, or both.
Turning humans into people of the wrong gender who cannot reproduce naturally is just the first step in this direction. Next is the integration of humans, machines and artificial intelligence. Over time, the flesh part of humans decreases and the synthetic part increases.
That said, while I believe the trans movement poses a serious threat to mental, emotional, and physical health, it can be counteracted through calm discussion and the sharing of truthful messages. You can learn more about how to protect your children from transgender ideology in my interview with Dr. Miriam Grossman, a child and adolescent psychiatrist and board-certified physician.