Lost in Translation – Splice Today

With Biden's victories on transgender issues comes inevitable backlash from anti-trans activists.

President Joe Biden is already proving to be a better friend to the LGBTQ community than his predecessor. During his first week in office, Biden issuedan executive orderextending federal LGBTQ protections, reversedTrumps trans military ban, and includedgender-neutral pronouns and honorificson the White Houses contact page.

With these victories came the inevitable backlash. Abigail Shrier, author of the controversial bookIrreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters,denounced Bidens executive order on Twitter, claiming that it unilaterally eviscerates womens sports. Other self-described gender critical (i.e., anti-trans) feminists agreed, creating the hashtag#BidenErasesWomento voice their opposition. Meanwhile, at least 14 states have introduced aslew ofanti-trans bills. Contrary to what lawmakers and gender critical feminists say, its not about protecting women and children. Its an organized effort to legislate trans bodies based on misinformation, ignorance, and bigotry.

Earlier this year, Montana lawmakers introducedHB 113, which wouldvebarred health care professionals from providing gender-affirming services to trans adolescents such as puberty blockers and hormones. The bill died on its third reading in anarrow 51-49 voteon January 26 after five Republicans who initially supported HB 113 changed theirminds. Similar bills inUtah,Alabama,Missouri,Texas,Mississippi,Indiana, andNew Hampshireare still on the table.

The argument supporting these bills is the same that Shrier makes in her book, which is that providing puberty blockers and hormones to minors can cause a lifetime of damage. The facts are more nuanced. According to the MayoClinic, puberty blockers dontchange an adolescents body permanently. Instead, theMayo Clinics websiteexplains, it pauses puberty, providing time to determine if a child's gender identity is long lasting. If a child decides not to continue medical transitioning, normal development will resume once the child stops taking puberty blockers.

Atalking point among anti-trans activists is that 70 to 80 percent of adolescents diagnosed with gender dysphoria eventually grow out of it, or desist. The exact numbers are hard to pin down. A2008 studyfound that 61 percent of children with gender dysphoria desisted by the age of 29, while a2019 studyfound that about 10percent desisted within 18months of seeking treatment. The 80 percent number comes from a2013 study whichinitially reported that out of 127 Dutch children who sought gender-affirming health care at a clinic, 47 of them still went to the clinic as adolescents, while 80 of them stopped. It was initially reported that the 80 desisted, but asJame M. CantorandJesse Singalrespectively point out, only 56 of the 80 said they desisted, while the rest didntrespond to the researchers questionnaires. The actual study says 54 percent desisted, not 80.

Cantor and Singalwhovebeenheavily criticizedfor theirviews on trans issuesconclude that most children who initially report having gender dysphoria eventually grow out of it. Even if this is true, making gender-affirmingcare for children illegal isntthe solution. A study published inPediatricslast year shows that having access to puberty blockers in adolescence reduces the risk of suicidal thoughts in transgender adults. Is it worth risking the lives of trans kids who legitimately need puberty blockers and hormones because a few might later change their minds?

While Montanas HB 113 has been defeated,HB112remains. Known as the Save Womens Sports Act, the bill seeks to ban young trans girls from competing in girls sports. This is the latest example of an ongoing debate; the main argument against including trans women in sports is that since trans women naturally produced testosterone for a significant period before undergoing hormone replacement therapy (HRT), they have an unfair physical advantage over cis women. Once again, the truth is more complex.

Medicalphysicist Joanna Harper, whosalso an athlete and a trans woman, publisheda study in 2015that looked at run times for eight trans distance runners over a seven-year period, and found littledifference from cis runners times. Likewise, a2017 literature reviewfound no direct or consistent research that proves trans women have an unfair physical advantage. However,a 2019 studyshows only modest changes in muscle mass in trans women after a year on estrogen, as did amore recent studythat looked at the athletic abilities of trans women serving in the Air Force.

It's still no excuse to outright ban trans women from sports because rules can be adjusted. Dr. Timothy Roberts, who led the most recent study, toldNBC Newshe suggests making it so trans women athletes have to be on HRT for at least two years instead of the International Olympic Committees current one-year rule.Even then, Robertspointedout that many cis female athletes have physical advantages over others. We have a lot of elite female athletes who tend to be tall and thin with slender hips, he said, and we're not outlawing them.

HB 112 and HB 113 are just the latest attempts to banish trans women from public life. Like bathroom bills, these new bills perpetuate the ideathat the trans rights movement seeks to harm women andchildren. No evidence supports this; trans people, for the most part, just want to live their lives in peace with full bodily autonomy like everyone else.

View post:
Lost in Translation - Splice Today