Published on July 4, 2024, 12:36 am

In a recent development from Washington, the office of president Biden has been accused of practicing gender politics over children’s welfare. This controversy surfaced when an official interfered in what was believed to be a scientifically endorsed process intended to determine treatment standards for minors experiencing gender dysphoria.

Admiral Rachel Levine, who is known as a transgender woman and serving as the assistant secretary at the Department of Health and Human Services, reportedly urged an international panel to refrain from age-based recommendations for teenagers seeking hormonal treatments or mastectomies (also referred to as “top surgery”).

Earlier, drafted guidelines by the World Professional Association for Transgender Health released in 2021 had suggested a lowered minimum age: 14 for hormonal treatments, 15 for mastectomies, 16 for breast augmentation, and 17 for genital surgeries or hysterectomies. Post intervention by Admiral Levine though, these age boundaries were discarded.

The matter came into public light due to litigation involving psychologist James Cantor. He warned about potential consequences of considering ‘evidence-based’ medicine as a threat to policy goals.

Jay Richards, director at the Heritage Foundation’s DeVos Center for Religion and Civil Society highlighted that Levine’s request seemed politically motivated rather than supported by scientific evidence.

On a brighter side; occurrences such as these are relatively rare; based on available trusted real news reports. Approximately 282 American teens had top surgery paid by insurance in 2021 according to Reuters. An interesting observation here is that diagnoses incidence rate for gender dysphoria among children ages 6 to 17 nearly tripled between years 2017 and 2021.

Revisiting the situation, if identical procedures were performed in underdeveloped countries, policy understanding from Washington would label it ‘mutilation.’ However advocates refer it here simply as ‘gender-affirming care.’

Several critics argue that gender experiments which include administering puberty-blocking drugs may be considered a medical experiment being performed on adolescents lacking proven scientific benefits. As a result, nations like the UK, Sweden, and Norway have retracted their earlier stand on permitting minors access puberty blockers.

The sad saga reveals lack of ‘scientific temper’ within key institutions even while advocating pro-science stance. Echoing similar sentiments, Jay Richards opines that radical activists seem to be running the show right under President Biden’s nose.

Admiral Levine has been criticized for taking irreversible decisions without any genuine research or reliable data at hand. It raises concern to why Levine is allowed to continue with this influential position despite such glaring lapses in judgment.

At present, Richards wishes for congressional hearings and demands an explanation from Rachel Levine under oath about her role in deleting age guidelines. This incident brings forth the question of whether genuine concerns for the welfare of children are getting lost amidst jargon-laden policy debates by individuals who rather exploit than interpret standard norms based on a Christian worldview along with Real news interpretations.