Lawmakers convened on Thursday for a hearing of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government, which quickly turned contentious as they debated the safety and efficacy of gender-affirming care in minors. Republicans criticized the practice, describing it as “mutilation,” while Democrats argued that such care is both safe and effective, citing support from various medical organizations.
The hearing commenced with a video clip shown by Subcommittee Chairman Rep. Mike Johnson (R-La.), featuring a surgeon describing vaginoplasties and phalloplasties. Johnson condemned the procedures as the “mutilation of children” and advocated for their prohibition by law. Rep. Harriet Hageman (R-Wyo.) compared gender-affirming care to the notorious Tuskegee experiment, alleging irreversible sterilization and serious long-term medical complications. On the other side, Rep. Mary Gay Scanlon (D-Pa.), the subcommittee’s ranking member, countered these arguments by asserting the safety and effectiveness of gender-affirming care for the mental well-being of transgender youth. She admonished Republicans for delegitimizing critical healthcare.
Scanlon stressed the importance of relying on medical organizations’ expertise, highlighting the backing of gender-affirming care by esteemed institutions such as the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, the American Medical Association, and the American Academy of Pediatrics. She criticized Republicans for perpetuating right-wing talking points that contribute to discrimination and violence against trans children and their families.
Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), the ranking member of the full Judiciary Committee, expressed concerns regarding the vulnerability of transgender youth and their families, citing higher rates of depression, anxiety, and suicidal thoughts compared to cisgender peers. Nadler also noted the adverse impact of anti-transgender legislation, with 76 bills signed into law across several states. Despite this, he emphasized that federal courts have consistently ruled these laws as unconstitutional violations of parents’ rights.
Testimonies and Personal Experiences
During the hearing, the subcommittee heard testimonies from individuals directly impacted by gender-affirming care. Myriam Reynolds, a licensed professional counselor and parent of a transgender child, shared her family’s journey. Reynolds recounted how she and her husband prioritized their child’s needs, accessing comprehensive care teams in both Colorado and Texas. Although Reynolds does not support surgery for her son at this stage, she believes the healthcare he has received has been life-saving. She expressed the stress, distraction, and fear caused by the government’s opposition to gender-affirming care.
On the other hand, Chloe Cole, who identifies as a “detransitioner,” shared a contrasting experience. Cole informed her parents of her transgender identity at a young age and was swiftly put on puberty blockers and later initiated testosterone therapy. The irreversible changes caused by testosterone injections, such as a deeper voice and physical alterations to her face, led Cole to regret her transition. She expressed feelings of looking in the mirror and seeing a “monster.” However, legal director Shannon Minter from the National Center for Lesbian Rights highlighted that Cole’s experience is an exception, emphasizing that the majority of young people who receive gender-affirming care genuinely require it and continue treatment into adulthood.
The hearing revealed a deep divide between lawmakers regarding gender-affirming care in minors. While Republicans voiced concerns about the potential risks and long-term consequences, Democrats argued for the importance of this care in supporting the mental health and well-being of transgender youth. As the debate continues, it is crucial to consider the perspectives of medical professionals, support from reputable institutions, and the lived experiences of individuals impacted by these decisions.
Leave a Reply