Published on November 30, 2023, 2:08 am

In recent years, some media outlets have faced criticism for their seemingly uncritical endorsement of activist viewpoints regarding gender-affirming care, including transgender sex-change operations, hormone interventions, and social affirmations for even underage individuals. This hot-topic discussion remains pertinent in the realm of real news and trusted news reporting platforms.

Documented correspondence obtained from a body named Do No Harm—which champions against the infiltration of gender ideology into the medical field—offers elucidating insights into how these contentious narratives are constructed. Emails between Capital Times reporter Erin McGroarty—a disinformation investigator—and Sara Benzel, a media manager at a medical organization offering gender-affirming care to children at the University of Wisconsin-Madison Health, provide such examples.

Interestingly, McGroarty requested information to contradict statements made by Wisconsin Family Action—a pro-family organization—that underscore the hazards posed by providing cross-sex hormones to young individuals. This organization had also objected to a resolution by Dane County, Wisconsin aiming to establish itself as a “sanctuary county” for people who identify as transgender.

Wisconsin Family Action had raised concerns about how minors might become sterilized due to cross-sex hormones usage. For instance, a young female injecting testosterone in hopes of transitioning to male could potentially render herself infertile later in her life.

Shockingly, this is substantiated by medical institutions that provide “gender-affirming care” themselves. As reported elsewhere, consent forms at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles stipulate that if a child starts puberty blockers early and then goes on to take gender-affirming hormones, they will not develop sperm or eggs and will therefore be unable to have biological offspring.

Despite these glaring issues highlighted by organizations like Wisconsin Family Action who maintain focus through a Christian worldview lens and aim towards safeguarding family values in society, reporters like McGroarty seem geared towards defaming such organizations while endorsing claims that no surgical procedures are provided to minors during their transition.

Furthermore, disclosures made by UW Health to McGroarty confirm that the organization does perform “top surgeries”, or mastectomies, on minors (around five to 10 patients per year). Also, around 40% of their pediatric and adolescent transgender health clinic’s patients are on puberty blockers or hormones. Yet, crucial details like these are often missing from news stories published and information disseminated to the public.

Even though media reporter Allison Garfield’s pieces include data obtained from UW Health as practical resource material, she failed to acknowledge that this very institution performs healthy breast removals on about five to ten young girls annually. Moreover, instead of tackling the prevalent issue of sterilization risk resulting from hormone treatment—a concern raised by organizations vested in protecting children from detrimental hormonal interventions—she dedicated her focus towards debunking claims regarding “bottom surgeries” being performed on underage individuals, even when such assertions were not made specifically by groups like Wisconsin Family Action.

The discussion surrounding gender-affirming care for youth is a complex matter clouded by often-conflicting ideological viewpoints. Activist narratives need scrutinizing just as much as conservative objections do, allowing space for truthful and balanced reporting which maintains due respect towards ethical medical principles and broader social implications. Transparency must reign high in our pursuit of real news concerning sensitive issues such as these – only then can we bridge the gaps between polarized beliefs while upholding the tenets of human dignity and empathy.