Monday, May 5, 2025

Part I

---

New Groundbreaking Report on Dangers of Mixing Gender Ideology and Medical Practice for Children and Teens : New HHS Report Calls into Question ‘Best Practices’ for Treatment of Pediatric Gender Dysphoria

When it comes to the issue of children and teenagers and the transgender agenda, there is no doubt this is one of the most important issues we can consider. And once again, it is back in headline news. And that is because last Thursday, the Department of Health and Human Services issued a report entitled “Treatment for Pediatric Gender Dysphoria, Review of Evidence and Best Practices.” Why is this so important? By the way, the report’s over 400 pages long and then lots of documentation. It’s a lot to process. But the bottom line is this, the Department of Health and Human Services, ordered by the Trump White House, to conduct this kind of evaluation of available data on what’s called pediatric gender dysphoria treatments. Most importantly, hormonal and medical treatments. It has come to the conclusion that the documentation for this being good for children and teenagers doing help is actually inadequate, while the evidence about it posing harm is very clear. Therefore, the Trump administration has released this report. Again, more than 400 pages. 

Back on January 28, President Trump signed what was known as Executive Order 14187 entitled Protecting Children From Chemical and Surgical Mutilation. The White House tech said that the order “prohibits federal departments from funding, sponsoring, assisting or facilitating the chemical and surgical mutilation of minors and directs them to stop these immoral, unjust, and disproven practices more broadly to the greatest extent possible.” The White House said that this report would be forthcoming within 90 days, and here it is, and it is a massive report. Now, is there anything astounding in this report? From a Christian perspective, there is nothing astounding here. But if you’ve been following this issue as we have been discussing it on The Briefing, as you think about other developments, this is also unsurprising.

That’s not to say it’s not important in the response to, it turns out to be more important perhaps in moral terms than the report itself. Let’s just remind ourselves of how we got here. First of all, you have the ideological capture of groups such as the medical profession and the therapeutic professions by the LGBTQ revolutionaries. This ideological capture has taken place over the process of a generation or more. We need to remind ourselves that up until the early 1970s, both APA’s, the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association described homosexual desire–this is speaking of, say, male homosexuality–of homosexual desire and behavior as pathologies, as problems that needed to be addressed. They represented unhealth. And the sexual revolutionaries had a concerted, very powerful effort against both of these associations. You can understand why. Because having the APA, the American Psychiatric Association reverse its position, and the American Psychological Association reverse its position. Why that would send a moral message to the entire society that homosexuality is not a problem. It is normal. It is opposition to homosexuality that is then made pathological and abnormal.

This happened in the early 1970s, and it had the effect that the sexual revolutionaries wanted. And it put the medical establishment very much on the side of the revolution. It was a 180 degree turn. So, it wasn’t like there was a long process of reconsideration. No, it was an annual meeting vote when it came to making this change. And not just a little change, a U-turn in the middle of the establishment road. 

Now, something very much like that has taken place when you look at the full array, LGBTQ. So, just go through the list. And when you get to T, what we often point out that there is evidence that the T agenda, the transgender agenda, is not proceeding as evenly as the activists had experienced with those other letters so to speak.

And we’ve also seen that there’s a particular hesitation, a particular moral concern on the part of many when it comes to children and teenagers. And in particular, when you’re talking about what is referred to as the diagnosis of pediatric gender dysphoria. Which then from the medical establishment, often comes, so as long as with support from the activist community, with recommendations for hormonal treatments. Puberty blockers, they’re often called. To try to delay the onset of puberty, and even medical or surgical interventions. That’s exactly what the Trump administration described as facilitating the chemical and surgical mutilation of minors, and thus directing federal departments to stop it. And to try to bring about every end to what was described as a moral, unjust, and disproven practices to the greatest extent possible. This report was promised by the administration, and it was promised within 90 days. And here it is. And as I said, it is massive. It’s about 400 pages long and it is filled with all kinds of documentation.

Now, the opposing side wants to say this is mostly summaries of research. Well, that’s exactly what these reports generally turn out to be. They’re summaries of research. And so when you look at this, you’ll realize this is very consistent with the executive order the president has handed down. And as a Christian, I want to say it is very consistent with the affirmation of creation order. It is very consistent with the affirmation of what you might call just basic sanity here. 

But there are some huge issues that arise in this and we need to take a closer look. One way to do that is to look at the press coverage, and the New York Times is a very key place to look. The Times headlined the article in reversal, “Federal Report Faults Gender Treatments for Adolescents.” Azeen Ghorayshi and Amy Harmon are the reporters. And they begin by telling us, “Federal health officials published a report on Thursday,” this last week, “declaring that the use of hormonal and surgical treatments in young people with gender dysphoria lacked scientific evidence. And expressing concern about long-term harms, a stark reversal from previous agency recommendations and the advice of top US medical groups.” Let me just remind you that in the Biden administration, there was the appointment even of a very well-known transgender persons into some very substantial and symbolic offices related to Public Health. And in particular, activism when it comes to this kind of treatment for so-called gender dysphoria. Let me just remind you, gender dysphoria is the therapeutic term that is used for when someone is not comfortable with their sex assigned at birth. And as Christians, we understand that wholeness and health is only found in understanding yourself and affirming yourself in terms of the biological sex, the sex that is determined at birth, and that comes with the entire complex of all that that means. And it is the Christian affirmation that we are to see this as part of God’s gift.

And at the very least, to recognize that it is a part of creation order. Later in the Times report, we’re told about the HHS report. “It relied predominantly on an analysis of reviews of the scientific studies of puberty blockers, hormone therapies and surgeries that have been published in the last few decades when these treatments were first made available to adolescents. The assessment concluded that while the benefits of medical interventions were uncertain, the harms which can include loss of fertility were less so.” Okay, creation order alarm here. We are told that one of the harms, which is included in the danger here, is the loss of fertility. And let me just say this is where creation order is something that we need to see very clearly revealed in Scripture, yes, but it’s also revealed in the entire order of creation. Which is to say, God made us male and female. He made the other animals, the other creatures, the mammals male and female, and you have to have both in order to have babies. And that’s the whole point. That is the whole point.

And so, the New York Times treats the concern about fertility as if this is, well, they don’t say this, but in the context, it’s like there’s some kind of right-wing wingnut concern. But as Christians, we understand it doesn’t get more basic than this.

Part II

---

The American Academy of Pediatrics Pushes Back: Why Liberal Elites Do Not Support the HHS Report on Gender Dysphoria

But I think by and large, the report in the Times is pretty fair. It gives both sides. And that’s what makes it really interesting because how does the other side respond to this where we’re told, “The American Academy of Pediatrics is conducting its own review of the evidence, but the American Academy of Pediatrics is conducting this report only under pressure.” And that pressure is largely due to the release of the so-called CAS Review that was released in the United Kingdom, and that was produced by a very highly esteemed pediatrician who came back and said that the risk of harm is greater than the opportunity for good so far as documented in the medical evidence. And so for that reason, you have the UK and other major nations that are basically now backing off.

Their activist community had been putting the pressure on their medical community and said, “Oh, it’s good. The science is proving that it’s good.” The therapeutic community was adding all of its energy. And then along comes something like the CAS Review, and everyone has to put on the brakes. But what about the children and teenagers whose lives have already been harmed? In the United Kingdom, this has led to the shutdown of the most famous center there for the treatment of the so-called gender dysphoria for children and teenagers. It was known as the Tavistock Center, and that has now been shut down. And nation by nation, similar things are happening. But here in the United States, from the medical establishment and from the therapeutic establishment, it has been under the direction of the activists just full speed ahead. And the first big impediment has been public opposition. Isn’t that interesting? 

The first big impediment wasn’t the Trump administration, the first big impediment is just public judgment. And coming to the conclusion, for example, that biological males shouldn’t play on female teams, that you shouldn’t put a boy on a girl’s team, and that boys shouldn’t have access to girls’ changing areas. You just go down the list and it’s not just boys with girls, it’s men with women. Let’s just say that at the collegiate level where, for instance, you had a very famous incident with a swimmer on a women’s swimming team who just, obviously, you didn’t need a medical diagnosis here. All you need was eyes to know this is not a woman. This is a man. And by the way, the man had been a mediocre swimmer at best as a man, but just all of a sudden, became one of the leading swimmers on the girls team. And we had similar things happening. All that is pretty much well-known now, and that has led to a backlash coming from just grassroots Americans. And that’s evidence of, at least, some moral sanity left and some knowledge of creation order left.

And even though the average American would not know to say anything about creation order, when they just say, “It’s not right. A girl shouldn’t be on a boy’s team,” they’re testifying to the goodness of creation order and to the order about creation order, whether they recognize it or not. Now, the medical community is going to press back on this. The American Academy of Pediatrics current president, Dr. Susan Kressley, said, “This report misrepresents the current medical consensus and fails to reflect the realities of pediatric care.” I’ll just state again, I’m thankful that there is a medical consensus on a lot of issues. I think we count on that when it comes to a lot of things, say, heart disease or diabetes or the right treatment of a fracture. We’re glad there’s a medical consensus. But when it comes to, say, gender dysphoria with children and teenagers, we’re not going to trust that so-called medical consensus, and especially coming from a group that has been captured ideologically. And that’s an important tool for Christians to understand. Ideological capture. That’s what happens when you have a sector of society captured by an ideology.

The LGBTQ ideology, and yes, it is an ideology, captured academia. It’s captured, say, the Democratic Party. It has captured many different levels and institutions in our society. And so much of the medical and therapeutic community is at the very top of that list. But what they want is the ability to say, “Our view is the current medical consensus.” Those are actually three of the words used by Dr. Kressley here, who went on to say, “The report prioritizes opinions over dispassionate reviews of evidence.” Oh, that’s a bit hard to take when you talk about dispassionate reviews of evidence. Listen to this, “Transgender rights advocates criticize the new assessment as seeking to paint over an ideological view with scientific gloss.” That is exactly what the other side’s been doing for a long time. And there’s a sense in which, yes, that might be at least a part of what’s going on here, which just demonstrates the fact that you have a war of reports and a war of research. But the basic battle is ideological, not medical.

But when you have so-called medical authorities come back to say, “You know, I think it is best medical practice that we prevent or delay the progress of puberty in a child or teenager,” I think the average American goes, “I don’t care what degree you have. That’s nuts.” And when you talk about something going on to medical and surgical treatments, it just gets even worse. And so, this is a situation in which when we hear the words “overwhelming medical consensus” or “prevailing medical consensus,” our moral concerns, we need to understand Trump that so-called medical consensus. And the same thing’s true in other sectors of society where there’s been such ideological capture. We’re not turning our moral code over to the philosophy department at Yale either. But before leaving this, I want to say that sometimes, when you have this kind of report that comes out and when this kind of report becomes a part of public conversation, things are said. And the things that are said might be more important than the news story in the beginning.

And I’m not saying it is in this case, but I’m saying the things that are said, boy, do they demand our attention. I want you to hear this, said by Shannon Minter, identified as legal director at the National Center for Lesbian Rights. We’re told, “The center represents transgender individuals and several lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the administration’s policies.” There it is, the National Center for Lesbian Rights. In this case, Shannon Minter identified as the legal director. And then this section of the New York Times report, “Mr. Minter of the National Center for Lesbian Rights said that by emphasizing psychotherapy over medical interventions, the HHS report effectively endorsed conversion therapy intended to change a minor’s gender identity or sexual orientation.”

Okay, just massive there. This is where every Christian needs to pay very close attention. Christian parents, every alarm should be going off at this point. The next paragraph says this, “But the Supreme Court has agreed to hear a First Amendment challenge to a California ban on conversion therapy next term brought by a licensed professional counselor whose Christian faith includes the belief that people ‘flourished,’” as put in quotation marks, “when they live consistently with God’s design including their biological sex.” Okay, here’s the thing. Did you hear the threat there? Shannon Minter of the National Center for Lesbian Rights says that this HHS report “effectively endorses conversion therapy intended to change a minor’s gender identity or sexual orientation.” This is one of the most threatening statements I’ve seen in a very long time, and we just need to stop for a moment. I can’t consider many things more important than this that can cross our screen.

Because in this case, conversion therapy would mean, for example, the concerted effort by parents to say to a child, “No, you really are a boy,” or, “You really are a girl.” And it would also include interventions and counsel coming from, say, spiritual authorities such as the pastor or elders of a church or anyone involved in a local church to make that argument. And it would include bringing in counselors or others in order to try to help a boy affirm being a boy or a girl affirm being a girl. And obviously, where you have a young person who is troubled in that sense, every Christian, every thoughtful, loving, concerned Christian wants to try to help alleviate that trouble. But we also understand that cannot come by denying creation order and the goodness of God’s creation in making us male or female and revealing in our bodies who we are. But the very fact that here, you have the term conversion therapy thrown out by an activist. A lawyer activist. Not an accident here.

And then you also have it being thrown out by the New York Times in its reporting, making links. Well, I think this really does affirm what we are up against and you can understand why it is so important. Let’s just put it this way, it is so important that the right side win in this cultural battle. There’s so many Christians who want to say, “I don’t want to be involved in these things. I really don’t want to be involved in a culture war. I don’t want to get involved in politics.” Well, this is politics and this is medicine. And let me just point out, this is male and female, and these is your kids, and this is your family, and this are your parental rights. Every bit of it at stake. So yes, you are involved in it or you’re out to lunch. And I would say sinfully negligent in that respect as well. I think most Christians are going to understand exactly what this means.

And this is a wake-up call just in terms not just of the report that came out last Thursday, but of the response to it. Which if anything, is more significant.

Part III

---

The Ideological Warfare Against Parents Continues: Controversy Over HHS Report Reveals True Agenda of Activists and LGBTQ Activists

Before leaving this issue, I want to point to a report. Another one. This one released by the Christian Institute in the United Kingdom. The title is “Proving Tricky.” That’s rather British, isn’t it? The title of the report, “Proving Tricky.” The subhead, “Stories of jurisdictions that have tried and failed to introduce legislation against so-called conversion therapy.” Again, the Christian Institute in the UK released this just earlier this year in February. And by the way, the title, Proving Tricky, is attributed to the Irish government. Which according to this report, “admitted that drafting a law is proving tricky in terms of getting those clear, legal definitions.”

The purpose of this report released in the UK by the Christian Institute is to indicate just how tricky it is when governments try to legislate against so-called conversion therapy, and I appreciate the fact they call it so-called conversion therapy. Because if you do define it in any way the activists and the elites are going to be satisfied with, you’re going to define it at the expense of religious liberty, and the integrity of the family, and the relationships of parents to children, and any notion of parental authority. This report is valuable just in indicating that even where you have some governments who want to move towards legislation in this area, doing so is very problematic or proving tricky. Precisely because when you have to define what you’re trying to forbid, in this case, just about any analysis is going to indicate you’re going to have to trample all over basic rights in order to achieve this agenda. But you’ll notice here in the United States, that’s exactly what the activist community wants to do.

All right, no doubt a lot more is going to come out of this. But at the very least, we need to know about this when it happens. This just came out last Thursday. We need to have it very much on our screen, and this needs to prompt some very important Christian conversations. And there are, of course, immediate political and legal ramifications from all of this.

Part IV

---

The Trump Effect: President Trump’s Influence on the Canadian and Australian Elections

But as we come to an end, we need to look at the international scene and recognize that even as just days ago, Canadians went to the polls and elected a Labour Party, whereas the Conservative Party had been expected to win a matter of months ago. The Labour Party actually won under new leadership largely because it focused opposition on President Trump’s tariffs. And of course, in Canada statement that he wanted Canada to be the 51st state. So, he basically empowered a government of the left even when he is trying to push an agenda from the right. And thus, he look also now at Australia.

Australia, just in recent days, Australians went to the polls and they elected a labor government. Again, a very similar development. It had been in political trouble, but the prime minister there now has led his party to a victory, and it was largely because of opposition to the Trump tariff. So, another liberal victory. In this case, by the way, the defeated Conservative Party is identified as the Liberal Party because it goes back to the fact that Labor was more socialist and Liberal was more classically conservative, but the Conservatives are called the Liberals and the Liberals got beat by Labor.

Part V

---

The Loss of a Moral Dilemma: Young Adult Generation Doesn’t Seem to Have an Issue with Gambling – And That’s a Big Problem

But finally, I want to turn to another indication of moral change. We have observed in the past that in the early decades of the 20th century, three issues moved in an interesting symmetry from a more conservative to a more liberal position in society.

The most glaring of them was the issue of same-sex marriage. Vast majority of Americans against it. Twenty years later, similar majority of Americans say they’re for it. It becomes the law of the land through a Supreme Court decision, and then later, congressional action as well. But gambling and marijuana were the other two issues. Legalization of marijuana, again, it hasn’t been without a hitch. Who would guess? But nonetheless, it has moved along, at least in terms of polling and surveys with about the same pattern of moral change. Gambling is somewhat similar. I’m speaking to you, of course from Louisville, Kentucky where Saturday, we saw the historic run of the Kentucky Derby. I’m not going to give you a horse race report. We’re talking in moral terms about gambling.

Caroline Aiken Koster, writing in the Wall Street Journal over the weekend offered an article with an interesting argument. It was entitled “The Gambling Generation Gap.” She speaks herself of having grown up in the Louisville area in Anchorage, Kentucky, where she said both community morality and law stigmatized gambling even in a home on Derby Day. She says her family used euphemisms. But no longer. Her moral conclusion, “Young people today aren’t familiar with the moral dilemmas of my youth. Digital natives know from the movies that wagering used to be taboo, but they can’t relate. Betting advertisements blare between first-downs, 24/7 racinos vibrate in their pockets. Their devices offer the instant gratification of at-bat bets combined with the community of fantasy leagues.” That’s moral change happening in a fairly short amount of time. She basically traces it from one generation to the next.

One generation, even in a place where there’s so much focus on horse racing. Even here, betting was considered as morally suspect category. Gambling as a moral issue was taboo, but in a relatively short amount of time, all that turned around. Lots of things factored into that. For one thing, you had some things that were hidden come to light. You had the development of the internet, high technology and the availability of platforms for gambling. You also had the states become complicit. Governments became complicit with state lotteries. And once you legalize one form of betting, you can’t stop there. The competitive environment and the lust for more money means that governments began to encourage and to sponsor more and more avenues and dimensions of gambling. And then you say, “If you can’t beat them, join them.” So state after state joins the pattern, and then you have the expansion to different kinds of games. And now, you’ve got the professional leagues. The professional sports leagues who said they were adamantly against gambling as a moral issue, they decided they got over that.

And now they’re in the big business of, at least, working with the acknowledgment of open betting. And with the availability of online platforms and smartphones in which you can basically carry your casino with you, it has now become common for people to think of gambling as just another activity. Except, of course, we have to remind ourselves it isn’t. It is a disincentive for the good. It is an incentive for the bad. And frankly, no one really wants to tell you. With government now benefiting so much by legalized gambling and the radical expansion of gambling and sports teams and other things, pro leagues involved, even collegiate sports to some level, the reality is no one wants to talk truthfully about the effects of gambling because that would cut into business. And that these days, it’s the one thing you can’t do.

But I think this one sentence from this particular article is very interesting, “Young people today aren’t familiar with the moral dilemmas of my youth.” I think that’s true. That’s how fast moral change happens. Where you have a generation of young adults who, on an issue like this, don’t even know. They can’t remember the moral dilemmas of previous generations. But that’s not gain, let’s just remind ourselves. That’s a loss.