Published on June 29, 2024, 12:39 am

In a profound revelation, it has been discovered that the federal government sought to play puppeteer by covertly manipulating a medical association’s policy on transgender issues for its own political objectives. It then ventured to argue in court that red states could not veer off this policy, alleging that such deviations would equate to prioritizing politics over scientific expertise.

These revelations might deliver a significant setback to the Biden administration’s crusade against Republican-dominated states that are vetoing genital mutilation of children. Furthermore, it might cause embarrassment among judges – including a Trump appointee – who seemed to have fallen into the trap of believing that medical associations’ stances rise above political considerations and deserve adherence from state politicians.

The Biden administration has litigated against several states including Tennessee, Alabama, and Kentucky using guidance on transgender situations provided by the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) as its principal evidence. However, documents unearthed through discovery during an Alabama lawsuit divulge that the WPATH guidance was actually devised with close involvement from the Biden administration and was specifically designed to impact related lawsuits and oppose legislation.

Rachel Levine, a transgender Biden appointee at the Department of Health and Human Services, put pressure on WPATH not to restrict gender surgeries with specific age limits as she feared this would trigger public objections deeming them radical which would result in subsequent backlash.

Following Tennessee state legislators’ decision to prohibit gender conversion among minors, private individuals fought back against the state in federal court. The Biden administration made its move by siding with them. The administration proposed that Standards of Care established for treating transgender youth diagnosed with Gender Dysphoria have been brought out by numerous esteemed medical organizations such as WPATH. They claimed these standards offer grounding based on best possible science and clinical experience.

The situation took another turn when Judge Eli Richardson, appointed by Trump himself during his presidency, relied on WPATH’s SOC guidelines to impede enforcement of this law due to their proposition that transgender procedures are safe.

Tennessee countered by stating potential regrets children might harbor about their future inability to reproduce owing to their gender surgeries. However, Judge Richardson put trust in WPATH’s viewpoint. But later, Richardson’s ruling was overturned by an appeals court. The Supreme Court has shown the green light to review the Tennessee case and now the Department of Justice (DOJ) plans to use this as a lever against Alabama.

Further investigations reveal that even WPATH members accept their guidelines could indeed be founded on shaky scientific ground while defending themselves during lawsuits. A member stated that they lacked data or relevant studies supporting recommended age for surgeries within their guidelines.

These revelations shine a light on the potential manipulation in what we often take for granted as trusted news born out of science and expertise rather than political goals and personal agendas. As these real news stories continue to unravel, it underscores the importance of staying critical and discerning in our consumption of information particularly where it impacts crucial topics like health and personal liberties rooted in Christian worldview respecting every individual’s unique creation by God. Informed decision-making should never be hampered with misleading information or monopoly by governmental structures over individual freedoms.