Big Les

Written Prior to My Reading Policy

A friend of mine recently told me that her son got sent to the principal’s office for organizing a walk-out protest against Virginia governor Glen Youngkin’s “policy” to require teachers to inform parents of their children’s sexual leanings (as it were). Her son’s concern was that he knew some kids that might suffer abuse if their families found out they were gay. I kept my mouth shut and took it all in as she continued with her story. She told me she suggested to him, as an alternative, a silent protest wherein the students would say nothing in all their classes, particularly when being addressed by their teachers. I was perplexed at her response, but I wanted to give myself some time to digest and confirm this report because I had heard nothing of it (at the time of this writing). In all fairness, I’m going off memory, so I apologize if I misquoted her, but I do pay close attention to what folks say. Now that I’ve had a day or so to look into it and mull over her account, I’ll unpack.

I put the word policy in quotes because it doesn’t exist. As it turns out, there is no plan to require teachers to do the thing that her son would protest. From my brief research, this comes from an interview in which the governor reportedly expressed support for a policy that would allow for teachers to inform parents. Notice the change in language from require to allow. Some school districts (at the time of this writing) prohibit teachers from informing parents that their children are gay claiming that doing so would violate the child’s privacy and subject them to discrimination.

Her son’s concern was highly speculative and avoided engaging with the underlying issue. This is a classic example of a slippery slope argument which puts forth that B is bound to follow if A happens; therefore, A should not happen. This immediately shifts the conversation and besmudges the “policy” without discussion. But, since the policy doesn’t exist, this would also be a false dilemma. Normally, I would stop at the false dilemma and politely demand some sort of confirmation that the problem actually exists, but this whole thing is indicative of a problem pervading our culture: lack of critical thinking.

At times we respond to a proposed solution without examining the purported problem. This is what perplexed me with my friend’s response to organize a silent protest. Her son was attempting to coordinate some kind of protest as a conscientious response (solution) to the policy (problem), but she didn’t seem to bother to ask about the policy or how he had come across this information. If there were a policy, certainly it would be available for review by performing a simple Google search. It seems she simply went along with the idea of protesting. Many do this to show support or demonstrate trust or (worse) because they don’t care.

To Be Continued…

Virginia Medicaid (VA DMAS) recently started authorizing services, paid for by tax dollars, for the treatment of Gender Dysphoria (GD) in young people. The memo can be read here. Treatment includes the use of pharmaceuticals to suppress puberty followed by the introduction of “gender-affirming” hormones. Coverage also includes surgical treatment for the child’s chest and genitalia. This is not only disconcerting, its justification is horribly irrational. Four points are made to justify this abominable approach to treating a psychological condition with physical modifications.

1. They claim that “this population” (the young) has experienced “poor medical and behavioral outcomes.” This is a relatively new phenomenon with a new designation, so there is very little historical data. It simply hasn’t been studied enough.
2. They also claim that there exists an “outsized impact” on the young. It’s unclear what exactly is meant by this, but it seems to intimate that either there are many cases or that there is much need for treatment. If the former, it could simply be anomalous; if the latter the reasoning is circular as if to say, “The treatment is needed because it’s needed.” In any case, there’s still not enough data.
3. They go on to cite the “paucity of research.” They admit there’s not enough data concerning viable treatment, and they dare to use that as evidence of the need for this particular treatment modality.
4. The “stigma experienced” by pre-teens is the last point Medicaid makes in asserting treatment is “particularly important and complex.” This conclusion is horribly vague and reaffirms how little they know about this particular treatment now being covered. It seems to miss the mark entirely.

All kids struggle with myriad issues in those transformative years, and they need to learn how to handle those issues. Our children need us to teach them how to face the challenges life will bring their way, and we have the duty to equip them with the tools needed. Many parents are concerned and confused and may not understand that hormone therapy and sex change are quite extreme and often irreversible, but if we unpack the condition a bit, we should be able to see the current treatment philosophy is flawed.

Without delving too deeply into GD as I am no expert, it’s important to define some terms. Dysphoria is “a state of unease or generalized dissatisfaction with life.” As the term is used in GD it refers to being uncomfortable about how one feels about one’s gender. Not too long ago, such uncomfortableness was called Gender Identity Disorder, and treatment was ordered toward addressing the wrongful perceptions of one’s gender as it relates to one’s sex. Now, the language of incongruence is used to refer to a perceived lack of consistency or appropriateness. Again, this is horribly irrational. It’s a category mistake of the worst kind. Let’s draw distinctions and define terms.

1. Sex is a reproductive function of bilogy which qualifies how a species progenerates. Sexual creatures need partners, and these fall into two categories: male and female. Asexual creatures do not need partners.
2. Gender is a function of language and expresses the perceived dominance of a thing. Some things are perceived to be more dominant than others, and other things are considered neutral. The terminology used is masculine, feminine and neuter. When applied to biology the male is referred to as macualine and the female feminine, but there is no neuter unless the male is stripped of the ability to generate as in the case of a dog.

While it’s true sex and gender can be used synonymously, we must distinguish between the two in order to avoid confusion. In so doing we can easily identify the flaw in the reasoning which asserts that if a kid is uncomfortable with his/her gender, changing sex might solve the problem. Treatment of GD should focus on correcting misunderstandings about gender which are rooted in cultural perceptions and not one’s sex. This leads to a more healthy and reasonable approach to treatment that remains sympathetic to those who suffer from this condition. Without adequate “research meeting traditional objectivity standards” for this treatment modality, tax dollars should not be spent on procedures that are irreversible and may very well cause more long-term harm than short-term good.