Child abuse or health-care?

By Deacon Mike Manno

(The Wanderer) – In today’s highly polarized society it seems that it is almost impossible for Americans to agree on anything, no matter how reasonable the answer sounds. Playing out in Texas is a case in point where there seems to be no consensus over whether genital mutilation of children is abuse.

As many of you know who have followed this column, or my radio program, the issue of “gender reassignment” continues to bedevil the body politic, and rarely is the issue examined as a question of biology and mental health. Over and over again we have reported on situations in which children, sometimes very young children, are being manipulated by adults around them for political or social reasons.

Unfortunately these situations keep cropping up and they usually follow the same pattern: Children are exposed to some type of transgender reading or discussion in school and as a result at least one of the little darlings, after being told that they can be whatever sex they want, will begin to raise questions about their own gender identity, only to be encouraged to explore their feelings, usually with a counselor who specializes in such matters, and who will “affirm” the child’s feelings and suggest that they not tell their parents immediately.

If and when the parents are informed, they are usually told that their bundle of joy is now a bundle of sexual confusion which could lead to depression and suicide. The parents are basically told that if they do not act immediately their untreated child will be in grave danger and the state might have to intervene and remove junior from his home. A pre-determined “specialist” is recommended to the parents with the warning that failure to act could result in criminal charges for child endangerment.

Obviously not all such cases follow the exact pattern above, but while there are differences in how each case is treated, this provides a fairly typical outline of what happens in these situations. Of course, where a child manifests a real problem and the parents and school handle the situation appropriately, the issue never surfaces and folks like me never hear of them.

As we look at this issue, however, we must understand there is a recognized mental health issue with gender dysphoria. That should not be up for debate. Unfortunately of late, people suffering from gender dysphoria are no longer given the help they need and, instead, are being mainstreamed into society as if their condition was akin to a mild personality quirk.

Thus, too many children are being rushed to physicians and mental health professionals who are all too quick to provide “gender-affirming health care,” which by its name reveals no attempt to find out what is creating a kid’s problem but only seeks to affirm his choice of identity.

Two local instances come to mind. One was told to me by a parent of a college student studying to be a social worker. The teaching point was to take “questioning” students to clinics where gender-affirming therapy, and sexual reassignment surgery can be performed.

Now I’m not a physician, but it seems to me the first step should be a little probe into what is causing the problem rather than jumping right into a major psychological and possible surgical makeover for the patient. But alas, that’s not happening, which leads me to my second observation: There is a kid locally who attends high school as — hold on to your hats — a cat. Where are our competent mental health professionals?

Of course I have to admit that my profession has something to do with the problem: Parents with lawyers can make unreasonable demands.

Anyway, going back to where I started this column, in Texas the attorney general, a man named Ken Paxton, last month released a 13-page legal opinion that certain forms of “gender-affirming health care” could be considered child abuse. He noted that certain puberty-blocking drugs, among others, as well as surgery causing genital mutilation of minors could be criminally actionable.

His opinion also notes that minors are legally incapable to give consent to such medical decisions which leaves the onus on the parents.

Paxton implied that moving too fast to a surgical response flies in the face of recent studies that show up to 98 percent of youths with childhood-onset general dysphoria are resolved naturally with the child returning to his biological identity. He cited studies that show that a high rate of young women (under 21), now sterilized by the procedure, regret their surgical decision at a much higher rate than those who elected the procedure later in life.

Also noted in Paxton’s opinion was the connection between the gender transition procedure and the drugs used with sterilization of the children involved. Citing a Supreme Court case which called procreation a basic right (Skinner v. Oklahoma, forced sterilization of a habitual felon, 1943), Paxton noted that the minor involved in such cases not only cannot legally give consent to the treatment, but cannot consent to waiving his right to reproduce.

In Texas the state is now investigating parents’ involvement with their children’s gender-affirming treatments. One such investigation has been stopped by a court order, which Paxton is challenging in an appeals court.

The president has even weighed in, issuing a statement clearly on the side of the transgender community and directing the Department of Health and Human Services to protect such children and “putting the state of Texas on notice that rather than weaponized child protective services against loving families, child welfare agencies should instead expand access to gender-affirming care for transgender children….

“In the United States of America, we respect the rights and dignity of all families. Transgender children bring fulfillment to their parents, joy to their families, and are made in the image of God,” he said.

This, of course, is not an argument that will go away soon. But remember, this is about our children and what is best for them; that is, after all, the primary duty of their parents, and only belongs to the state by default. But that responsibility requires the decision-makers to consider the full impact of the choices they make for their little ones and not to get swept up in a pseudo-intellectual argument that tends to conveniently follow New Age sociological trends than tried-and-true bedrock principles that have come down to us from antiquity.

Of course, this is not to denigrate those whose backgrounds, lifestyles, or mental or emotional make-ups have made them susceptible to this new plague. They should be helped which doesn’t mean we ignore biological realities and just give them a pass.

 That is condemning them to a lifestyle they don’t deserve which could be avoided.

(You can reach Mike at: DeaconMike@q.com and listen to him every Thursday mornings at 9:30 CT on Faith On Trial on IowaCatholicRadio.com.)