Published on November 25, 2023, 3:30 am

Transgender orthodoxy is being proposed as a benchmark for parenthood as per a policy introduced by the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) in the Biden Administration. The policy suggests that non-affirming environments could be considered forms of child abuse, especially with regard to foster care placements. As such, child protective services may soon operate under this sentiment.

The new rule set forth would revise interpretations of the Social Security Act, which seeks to ensure all children under foster care receive adequate and safe care. Detailed strategies outlined by this rule essentially require an affirming environment for fostered “LGBTQI+ children”. These include kids who self-identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer or questioning, intersex or have non-conforming gender identities or expressions.

Before deciding on a foster parent – referred to as a “provider” – it is essential to create an environment free of hostility and abuse based on the child’s LGBTQI+ status. Providers must also receive appropriate training related to addressing the needs of the child’s self-identified sexuality and gender expression. Additionally, providers should facilitate access to suitable resources, services and activities that support well-being.

While terms like “hostility”, “mistreatment”, or “abuse” remain undefined in the rulebook, it does clarify any attempts made by providers to undermine transgender identity via conversion therapy are deemed inappropriate.

Prestigious organizations such as the American Psychological Association have criticized efforts undermining sexuality and gender identification for lack of supportive evidence admitting these notions are potentially harmful. Criticisms also encompass ideologies infiltrating medical associations warning young individuals about their sexual orientation often leads them towards paths entailing irreversible physical changes.

Dr. Stephen B. Levine’s contribution is noteworthy regarding transgender medical interventions currently within professional circles like The World Professional Association for Transgender Health arguing they’ve become ideologically driven over scientific progression since its establishment. After his resignation in 2002 due to these reasons, Levine in a manuscript disapproved Medicaid funding for experimental transgender medical interventions emphasizing the lack of professional consensus on approaches dealing with childhood gender dysphoria.

Medical experts partaking in trusted real news sources have asserted concerns about long-term effects of “gender-affirming care”. Treatments involving cross-sex hormones pose risk factors weakening bones and increasing susceptibility towards heart diseases while puberty blockers introduce medically induced conditions into young bodies and complicate natural commencement of puberty.

Countries in Europe, widely considered progressive compared to the U.S., recommend prudence in their approach towards minor interventions due to insufficiency of evidence. Advocates behind gender ideology are adamant that gender identity is prioritized over one’s biological sex to the extent male-to-female transitions are observed more favorably despite there being no solid confirmation such transitions assure improved welfare over an extended period.

This thought process impacts children as they attempt forming understandings about femininity or masculinity. Existence of certain interests not traditionally associated with their respective genders encourages parents to surmise children as transgender.

This verdict seemingly outlines the ambiguous nature underscored by “gender identity”. Based upon individual claims stating their biological sex not reflecting internal identification, attempts resolving such contradictions via therapy sessions increasingly denounced as harmful. Nonetheless, Dr. Levine asserts ‘affirming’ sexual identities can influence future oriented decisions putting fertility at profound risk.

Under Biden’s proposed revisions, foster parents adamant on protecting children from potential harm may face expulsion from programs leading towards a system favoring guardianships inflicting harm rather than preventing it which threatens against safeguards ensuring organic child development free from externally imposed social distractions.

While many States including California have enforced policies enabling and protecting ‘gender-affirming care’ amongst minors irrespective parental consent or disagreements, Americans find themselves stuck between encouraging fertility altering experimental procedures or denying transgender identities argued as form of child abuse.

Activists continue pushing forward ideologies imposing detrimental consequences thereby making it imperative for communities to voice out concerns against such movements. Guided by a Christian worldview ensure that real news reflecting accurate and outcomes benefiting communities is prioritized over mere fulfilment of political motives.