Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Disinformation underlies bans on care for transgender adolescents

Close-up of hands holdering vials of medicine

A Mississippi transgender teen holds a supply of testosterone medication.

Rory Doyle for The Washington Post via Getty Images)

Sheridan is a member of the board of Lawyers Defending American Democracy. He previously served as president of the Rhode Island Bar Association.

In the past three years, 23 states have passed legislation that prohibits physicians and other health care providers from providing gender affirming health care to transgender minors. These laws constitute an extreme, unprecedented attack on transgender adolescents, their families and the medical providers who care for them.


Criminalizing accepted medical treatments irresponsibly interferes with the patient-physician relationship and will eliminate the rights of parents to support their transgender children. Worse, prohibiting necessary health care for transgender teens will result in needless suffering and, possibly, suicide. Finally, the National Institutes of Health has noted that these laws are premised on false, unfounded medical claims and assumptions that have been vigorously opposed by virtually every major medical organization in the country, including the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Psychiatric Association.

These cruel laws are grounded in disinformation and bias. They are built on falsehoods that ignore research and facts, and only bring harm to an already vulnerable community.

Gender dysphoria is not, as some legislators contend, a contemporary fad and should not be casually dismissed. Rather, it is a clinical condition marked by distress caused by a discrepancy between a person’s gender identity and that person’s gender assigned at birth, or the gender society perceives them to be. This incongruence can lead to clinically significant distress and impair functioning in many aspects of a person’s life. If not properly treated, gender dysphoria can result in debilitating depression, anxiety, eating disorders, substance use, self-harm and suicide.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

The widely accepted view of the medical community is that gender-affirming care is the appropriate treatment for adolescents experiencing gender dysphoria. Gender-affirming care is care that supports a child or adolescent as they explore their gender identity — in contrast with efforts to change the individual’s gender identity to match their sex assigned at birth. There are multiple, well-established, evidence based clinical protocols for the treatment of gender dysphoria.

Gender-affirming medical interventions for adolescents, including, for example, puberty blockers, are only recommended if numerous, specific clinical conditions are documented. Puberty blockers delay irreversible pubertal development until adolescents are old enough and have had sufficient time to make more informed decisions about whether to pursue further treatments. Contrary to the “legislative findings” in many of these state laws, puberty blockers are not “unproven,” “harmful” or “experimental.” Puberty blockers have been prescribed by pediatricians and endocrinologists for over 30 years to treat precocious or early onset of puberty. The efficacy, safety and side-effect profile of puberty blockers are well established. They are also, despite claims to the contrary, “fully reversible.”

Gender affirming surgical interventions are generally not recommended for transgender adolescents. A comprehensive, multiyear study confirmed that such interventions for transgender adolescents are rare.

Finally, many of the states that have enacted these bans have done so with an express finding that a “substantial” or “large” majority of children who experience distress identifying with their biological sex come to identify with their biological sex in adolescence or adulthood. This is simply not true. An NIH survey found that only 8 percent of transgender respondents reported they had temporarily or permanently detransitioned at some point and the majority did so temporarily.

The adverse consequences of these laws are clear, direct and deeply concerning. Decades of research has confirmed that transgender adolescents are at a heightened risk for anxiety, depression and suicide. A recent study conducted by the NIH found that 56 percent of transgender youth reported a previous suicide attempt and 86 percent reported suicidality. Numerous studies have also consistently demonstrated that gender-affirming interventions significantly reduce the incidence of depression and suicide for transgender and nonbinary youths. Despite this evidence, an estimated 38 percent of all transgender adolescents in America now live in states which restrict their access to medical care critical to their well-being.

A thriving democratic society requires leaders to openly debate and engage the public in discourse based on facts and science. We should seek to eliminate, not create, laws that marginalize or scapegoat selected members of society. And respect for individual autonomy in matters that involve deeply personal choices distinguishes a democracy from societies in which those with power determine how individuals and families should live.

Laws that deprive transgender adolescents, their parents and their medical providers of the freedom to make informed decisions with respect to safe, evidence based clinical care contravene these fundamental principles.

Read More

Project 2025: The Department of Labor

Hill was policy director for the Center for Humane Technology, co-founder of FairVote and political reform director at New America. You can reach him on X @StevenHill1776.

This is part of a series offering a nonpartisan counter to Project 2025, a conservative guideline to reforming government and policymaking during the first 180 days of a second Trump administration. The Fulcrum's cross partisan analysis of Project 2025 relies on unbiased critical thinking, reexamines outdated assumptions, and uses reason, scientific evidence, and data in analyzing and critiquing Project 2025.

The Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, a right-wing blueprint for Donald Trump’s return to the White House, is an ambitious manifesto to redesign the federal government and its many administrative agencies to support and sustain neo-conservative dominance for the next decade. One of the agencies in its crosshairs is the Department of Labor, as well as its affiliated agencies, including the National Labor Relations Board, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.

Project 2025 proposes a remake of the Department of Labor in order to roll back decades of labor laws and rights amidst a nostalgic “back to the future” framing based on race, gender, religion and anti-abortion sentiment. But oddly, tucked into the corners of the document are some real nuggets of innovative and progressive thinking that propose certain labor rights which even many liberals have never dared to propose.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Keep ReadingShow less
Preamble to the U.S. Constitution
mscornelius/Getty Images

We can’t amend 'We the People' but 'we' do need a constitutional reboot

LaRue writes at Structure Matters. He is former deputy director of the Eisenhower Institute and of the American Society of International Law.

The following article was accepted for publication prior to the attempted assassination attempt of Donald Trump. Both the author and the editors determined no changes were necessary.

Keep ReadingShow less
Beau Breslin on C-SPAN
C-CSPAN screenshot

Project 2025: A C-SPAN interview

Beau Breslin, a regular contributor to The Fulcrum, was recently interviewed on C-SPAN’s “Washington Journal” about Project 2025.

Breslin is the Joseph C. Palamountain Jr. Chair of Political Science at Skidmore College and author of “A Constitution for the Living: Imagining How Five Generations of Americans Would Rewrite the Nation’s Fundamental Law.” He writes “A Republic, if we can keep it,” a Fulcrum series to assist American citizens on the bumpy road ahead this election year. By highlighting components, principles and stories of the Constitution, Breslin hopes to remind us that the American political experiment remains, in the words of Alexander Hamilton, the “most interesting in the world.”

Keep ReadingShow less
People protesting laws against homelessness

People protest outside the Supreme Court as the justices prepared to hear Grants Pass v. Johnson on April 22.

Matt McClain/The Washington Post via Getty Images

High court upholds law criminalizing homelessness, making things worse

Herring is an assistant professor of sociology at UCLA, co-author of an amicus brief in Johnson v. Grants Pass and a member of the Scholars Strategy Network.

In late June, the Supreme Court decided in the case of Johnson v. Grants Pass that the government can criminalize homelessness. In the court’s 6-3 decision, split along ideological lines, the conservative justices ruled that bans on sleeping in public when there are no shelter beds available do not violate the Constitution’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.

This ruling will only make homelessness worse. It may also propel U.S. localities into a “race to the bottom” in passing increasingly punitive policies aimed at locking up or banishing the unhoused.

Keep ReadingShow less
Project 2025: A federal Parents' Bill of Rights

Republican House members hold a press event to highlight the introduction in 2023.

Bill O'Leary/The Washington Post via Getty Images

Project 2025: A federal Parents' Bill of Rights

Biffle is a podcast host and contributor at BillTrack50.

This is part of a series offering a nonpartisan counter to Project 2025, a conservative guideline to reforming government and policymaking during the first 180 days of a second Trump administration. The Fulcrum's cross partisan analysis of Project 2025 relies on unbiased critical thinking, reexamines outdated assumptions, and uses reason, scientific evidence, and data in analyzing and critiquing Project 2025.

Project 2025, the conservative Heritage Foundation’s blueprint for a second Trump administration, includes an outline for a Parents' Bill of Rights, cementing parental considerations as a “top tier” right.

The proposal calls for passing legislation to ensure families have a "fair hearing in court when the federal government enforces policies that undermine their rights to raise, educate, and care for their children." Further, “the law would require the government to satisfy ‘strict scrutiny’ — the highest standard of judicial review — when the government infringes parental rights.”

Keep ReadingShow less