RFI took action this week at both the federal and state levels to oppose medical procedures for children that deny, and aim to alter, their sex. Such procedures, RFI argues, harm children and are grounded in ideology rather than reality. And in an increasing number of cases, state governments have punished parents who refused to allow their children to be subject to them.

On Tuesday RFI submitted a comment to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), a part of the Department of Health and Human Services, in support of CMS’s proposed rule that would prohibit the use of Federal Medicaid dollars to fund so-called “gender affirming” procedures for children under 18 years old. (For more background on this proposed rule, see this explainer from the Ethics & Public Policy Center.)

In our comment, submitted by Ismail Royer, RFI’s Director of Islam and Religious Freedom, we stated that the proposed rule is sound because it “rejects harmful ideology and embraces truth and reason.”

Specifically, we noted two truths underlying the proposed rule: (1) It is the duty of the physician to heal and not harm the patient; and (2) Children are harmed when their healthy bodies are destroyed, including by the disruption of the natural process of sexual maturity.

As to the second point, we observed:

An individual human being’s sex, a created and thus inherent trait, is self-evidently not a disease requiring treatment. So when physicians remove healthy breasts or a healthy uterus, when they prescribe drugs that interrupt the natural process of sexual maturity, they do not heal patients, they harm them.

Federal agencies are required by law to give the public an opportunity to participate in the regulatory process by publishing proposed regulations like this one and giving meaningful consideration to public comments. Read RFI’s full comment here.

Also this week, Royer testified before the Maryland General Assembly in favor of a bill, HB 679, that would prohibit physicians from prescribing cross sex hormones to minors for the treatment of gender dysphoria, which refers to an experience of psychological distress over one’s bodily sex. 

In his testimony, Royer explained:

It is argued that children with confusion about their “gender identities” receive mental and emotional health benefits from the destruction of their healthy bodies. Whether there are any such benefits, and whether they outweigh the harm, is far from clear. And even if mental health benefits could be demonstrated, the destruction of a child’s healthy body can never rightly serve as the treatment for a disorder that is psychological in its nature and origin.

Watch Royer’s oral testimony here and read his written testimony here.

The proposed legislation, introduced by Delegate Lauren Arikan of Harford County, has bipartisan support and comes as the case for medical interventions to treat gender dysphoria in minors has begun to unravel. Last month, a New York jury awarded two million dollars in damages to a woman who sued her doctors for malpractice after undergoing “gender transition” medical treatment as a minor.

Serious reflection on the issues surrounding this bill has led countless people in the last several years to question basic premises of the “transgender” movement. What gender even means if disconnected from sex remains ambiguous at best. Why a person’s experience of intense dissonance between his mind and his body should point to forms of “treatment” that change his body rather than changing his mind is not at all clear and yet is presumed by this movement rather than rigorously contended for. These major philosophical deficiencies anticipate, and must be coupled with, the profound harms of the medical “treatments” that have emerged from this movement.  

Recognizing the nature and dignity of the human person in a way that challenges the entire “transgender” paradigm is possible unaided by religious convictions about a purposeful God who designed us. It is also the case, however, that people of faith have been the ones who, grounded in such convictions, have recognized the perils of “transgenderism” most clearly and publicly. People of faith have led the way in opposing: (1) the idea that rejecting healthy aspects of one’s body can lead to human flourishing, and (2) the notion that one’s disposition along these lines should be abetted by the field of medicine. Royer is counted among them, and he has led numerous efforts defending Christians, Muslims, Jews, and others, especially in education and healthcare, in instances where this ideology has been imposed on them, including in cases involving children.