Government inadvertently admits lack of evidence for ‘gender affirming care’ in minors
Richard Levine’s Troubling Stance on Gender-Affirming Care for Minors
When Richard Levine, now known as Rachel Levine, was nominated for the position of Assistant Secretary for Health, he faced tough questions from Republican Senator Rand Paul. The senator wanted to understand why Levine, as a medical professional, would support the idea of genital mutilation in the name of “gender affirming care” for minors.
That’s just a portion of the whole exchange. In the full clip, Levine evades the question multiple times. He just repeats the same rehearsed answer: He says that he’s more than happy to stop by Paul’s office at some later date to explain the “complex” science behind mutilating children. They go back and forth until Paul finally has to give up. And then at the end of it, as you saw, Democratic Senator Patty Murray from Washington congratulates Levine on his “thoughtful and medical informed” answers to Paul.
It’s hard to believe that just a decade ago, this would have been seen as a dark comedy sketch rather than a real-life scenario. Levine’s support for child castration should have disqualified him from holding any public office, let alone becoming a senior official in the Department of Health and Human Services. However, Democrats and even some Republicans, like Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski, saw no issue with Levine’s stance and voted to confirm him.
The Lack of Evidence for Gender-Affirming Care
Senator Paul was not misrepresenting Levine’s position. In fact, emails uncovered by Megan Brock revealed that Levine actively sought data to support “gender-affirming care” for minors during his time as the Secretary of Health in Pennsylvania. Levine reached out to Nadia Dowshen, co-founder of a gender clinic, asking for references on gender confirmation surgery for young people under 18.
In response, Dowshen admitted that while there was no existing literature, these surgeries were indeed happening. This exchange clearly shows that Levine was willing to proceed with these procedures despite the lack of medical evidence.
Levine has consistently relied on the consensus of self-appointed medical experts and associations to defend his position. However, when pressed for evidence, the Biden administration could only produce a two-page brochure titled “Gender-Affirming Care and Young People.” This brochure makes false claims about the reversibility of puberty blockers and cites a single study that does not prove causation or address long-term psychological effects.
It is concerning that the burden of proof has been placed on those who oppose child castration, while those in favor have provided little to no solid evidence. The emotional manipulation tactics used by trans activists are losing their effectiveness as more people demand concrete data to support these procedures.
Ultimately, it is clear that the Biden administration and the medical establishment have embraced “gender affirming care” without a strong evidentiary basis. This is not only harmful to children but also undermines the credibility of those who support these procedures.
Trans activists continue to rely on emotional manipulation and hyperbolic claims to silence opposition. However, it is time to question their credibility and demand real evidence before subjecting children to irreversible procedures.
What evidence does Richard Levine provide to support his stance on gender-affirming care for minors?
Richard Levine’s Troubling Stance on Gender-Affirming Care for Minors
When Richard Levine, now known as Rachel Levine, was nominated for the position of Assistant Secretary for Health, he faced tough questions from Republican Senator Rand Paul. The senator wanted to understand why Levine, as a medical professional, would support the idea of genital mutilation in the name of “gender affirming care” for minors. That’s just a portion of the whole exchange. In the full clip, Levine evades the question multiple times. He just repeats the same rehearsed answer: He says that he’s more than happy to stop by Paul’s office at some later date to explain the “complex” science behind mutilating children. They go back and forth until Paul finally has to give up. And then at the end of it, as you saw, Democratic Senator Patty Murray from Washington congratulates Levine on his “thoughtful and medical informed” answers to Paul. It’s hard to believe that just a decade ago, this would have been seen as a dark comedy sketch rather than a real-life scenario. Levine’s support for child castration should have disqualified him from holding any public office, let alone becoming a senior official in the Department of Health and Human Services. However, Democrats and even some Republicans, like Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski, saw no issue with Levine’s stance and voted to confirm him. The Lack of Evidence for Levine’s Stance One of the most troubling aspects of Levine’s position on gender-affirming care for minors is the lack of evidence to support his beliefs. While he claims his views are based on “science,” there is a distinct lack of scientific research that demonstrates the long-term safety and effectiveness of such procedures for children. In fact, many medical professionals argue against early gender transition interventions for minors. The American College of Pediatricians, for example, asserts that “puberty is not a disease and should not be treated as such.” They emphasize the importance of providing psychological support and counseling for young individuals experiencing gender dysphoria, rather than resorting to irreversible medical interventions. Additionally, studies examining the long-term outcomes of gender transition in children are limited and inconclusive. The impact on their physical, social, and psychological well-being is still not fully understood. Without solid evidence to support the effectiveness and safety of gender-affirming care for minors, it is irresponsible to endorse such procedures. Ethical Concerns Levine’s position also raises significant ethical concerns. Minors lack the cognitive capacity to fully comprehend the implications of gender transition and the irreversible nature of the procedures involved. They rely on adults, particularly medical professionals, to guide them in making informed decisions regarding their health. Performing irreversible surgeries on minors for the sake of “gender affirming care” disregards the potential for regret or the possibility that their gender dysphoria may resolve naturally over time. It is crucial to prioritize their long-term well-being by providing appropriate psychological support and counseling, rather than rushing into potentially harmful medical interventions. The Role of Politics Levine’s nomination and subsequent confirmation highlight the increasingly politicized nature of healthcare decisions. Rather than considering the scientific and ethical implications, Levine’s stance on gender-affirming care for minors appears to align with certain political ideologies, leading to his approval by some lawmakers. This politicization of healthcare decisions undermines the critical role of scientific evidence and ethical considerations in policy-making. It creates a situation where potentially harmful practices can be endorsed and implemented, potentially putting the well-being of vulnerable individuals, such as minors experiencing gender dysphoria, at risk. Conclusion Richard Levine’s troubling stance on gender-affirming care for minors raises serious concerns regarding the lack of evidence supporting such procedures and the ethics involved. Sound medical practice should be guided by scientific research and prioritize the best interests of patients, especially when it comes to interventions that have lifelong consequences. It is essential to encourage open and informed discussions on these matters, ensuring that medical decisions are grounded in evidence-based practices and ethical considerations rather than political ideologies.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases
Now loading...