The ongoing debate over “gender-affirming care” has reached alarming levels, prompting questions about its true nature and consequences. Critics are increasingly vocal about what they see as a toxic culture that endorses harmful practices. This concern is highlighted by tragic events, including the recent shooting at a Minneapolis Catholic school by a trans-identifying male. Such incidents, which represent a disturbing trend among those who identify as transgender, should not be ignored.
Since 2018, there have been numerous attacks committed by individuals identifying as trans. Some argue that mainstream media conveniently overlooks these facts, leading to a skewed public perception. For instance, the alleged assassin of a prominent conservative, who was involved with a trans-identifying individual, exemplifies the deeper issues at play. As more people detransition and share their harrowing experiences of emotional and physical trauma, the narrative surrounding gender-affirming care is beginning to shift.
One disturbing case is that of the shooter from Minneapolis. According to his manifesto, he expressed a desire to detransition but felt societal pressure to conform to gender identity expectations. This illustrates the intense stigma and shame young individuals may face when expressing doubts about their identities. Instead of supporting their exploration of these feelings, the medical community often pushes for affirmation of what may be confusion, claiming that failing to do so could lead to dire consequences such as suicide.
Today’s medical approach often leads to immediate prescriptions for puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones, accompanied by alarming narratives that ignore potential long-term effects, including infertility and osteoporosis. These treatments are presented as simple pauses in development, yet they involve significant risks. The so-called kindness behind this approach is misleading; it may be masking cruelty rather than compassion.
The distinction between societal empathy and biblical compassion is profound. Empathy tells a troubled child that they must undergo a perilous medical regimen to be accepted, while true compassion affirms that they were created as they are. It means walking alongside them in their journey toward understanding rather than enabling harmful choices.
Recent lawsuits filed by young women, such as Chloe Cole and Prisha Mosley, underscore the rush to affirm without adequate mental health evaluation beforehand. To date, 28 lawsuits have targeted medical providers engaged in gender-affirming care, some of which allege wrongful death and malpractice. This raises critical concerns about the priorities of practitioners who profit from procedures that fundamentally alter children’s bodies before they reach adulthood.
Interestingly, the American Medical Association (AMA), which represents physicians, has taken a stand opposing restrictions on gender-affirming care for minors. Despite the serious implications and a community that is increasingly skeptical, AMA leadership continues to push for expansive access to these treatments. Questions are being raised about the motives behind this push, especially given the financial gain enjoyed by pharmaceutical companies from hormone treatments.
Meanwhile, the current administration has sought to protect children from experimental treatments related to gender identity, underscoring the need for research into the implications of such interventions. Serious studies are warranted regarding the effects of cross-sex hormones, particularly when used alongside other medications. When a marginalized demographic accounts for a sizeable percentage of mass shootings, the discussion becomes urgent. The fact that 27 states have enacted protective laws indicates a growing recognition of the potential dangers of gender-affirming care.
Counterproductive measures, such as banning conversion therapy in many states, limit alternatives for those struggling with gender identity. It prevents youth from accessing needed mental health services that could guide them through their confusion. Disturbingly, the elimination of options for genuine counseling raises ethical concerns about the treatment of children grappling with these complex issues.
Lastly, it’s essential to reframe the narrative surrounding gender identity support. Young individuals questioning their gender should receive compassionate care that acknowledges their struggles while guiding them toward healthy, truthful understandings of themselves. Offering real mental health counseling that honors their inherent worth, and reminding them they are created precisely as they should be—whether male or female—becomes paramount. The focus should shift from appeasing their confusion with drugs or surgeries to inviting them on a journey of healing that respects their true identity.
"*" indicates required fields
