The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has issued a “clarification” about the “non-enforceability” of language in a Biden era final rule which implies that gender dysphoria may be a disability under U.S. civil rights law. The clarification of Biden’s “Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance” notes that because the language in question was not in the regulatory text of the rule itself, “it does not have the force or effect of law.” Nevertheless, because of the confusion caused by the language, HHS set out to clarify “and emphasize that such language is not, and never was, enforceable.”
The Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee (HELP) is calling on the World Professional Association for Transgender Health to provide information about how it is working to conform with the administration’s EO preventing federal funds from being used to help minors access sex-trait modification procedures. HELP is also renewing inquiries into WPATH’s guideline development process, requesting documents about the studies that informed their recommendations, their organizational structure, and potential conflicts of interest among guideline contributors. The committee has also probed WPATH on why it continues to promote “affirming care,” despite the very low-quality evidence for benefits.
Shortly after announcing a similar investigation into the state of California, the U.S. Department of Education has announced an investigation into the Maine Department of Education for potential violations of the Family Educational Rights Privacy Act (FERPA). The U.S. DOE argues in its press release that “dozens of Maine school districts are violating or misusing FERPA by maintaining policies that infringe on parents’ rights.” Specifically, policies which allow schools to create “gender support” plans for trans-identified youth, but simultaneously “claim those plans are not education records under FERPA and therefore not available to parents.” “Parents and guardians have the right to access their child’s education records to guide and safeguard their child’s mental, emotional, and physical well-being. Any policy to the contrary is both illegal and immoral” Secretary of Education Linda McMahon said in a statement.
Last Friday, the Colorado House approved two controversial bills with implications for the trans-identified, House Bill 25-1309 and House Bill 25-1312. HB 25-1309 would codify into state law state public health recommendations about medical coverage for “affirming care,” making it illegal for insurers to deny or limit coverage if a doctor determines it is “medically necessary.” This would apply to children and adults alike. “If you’re an adult, make your own decision. But for the love of humanity, protect the children who don’t understand that these things are not FDA approved or haven’t been reviewed by any research. Let these children go through puberty” Rep. Brandi Bradley remarked. Meanwhile, HB25-1312 would add protections for trans-identified people in schools and courts, by making “deadnaming” and “misgendering” a form of “coercive control” with massive implications for child custody decisions. According to Colorado News, the bill would also “label deadnaming and misgendering as discriminatory acts under the state’s anti-discrimination law.”
In City Journal, Colin Wright elaborates on the issues with Colorado’s HB25-1312. Wright argues that the proposed law would “mandate speech, codify a radical ideology into law, and weaponize family courts to enforce compliance.” Wright rebuts many of the assumptions built into the law, for example the notion that “social and medical affirmation” is a form of “suicide prevention,” a claim which is continuously undermined by the findings of systematic reviews. While the law presupposes that social affirmation is a “benign and cost-free intervention,” Wright dismantles this argument by drawing on the historical desistance literature and explaining how social transition may alter a child’s identity development, potentially crystallizing a cross-sex identity and making a medicalized treatment pathway more likely.
According to documents obtained by the Daily Signal, under the Biden administration the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights (OCR) frequently consulted with left-leaning activist organizations on the administration’s Title IX rule, which redefined sex to include “gender identity.” According to the communications acquired, between April 2023 and April 2024, the Office of Civil Rights met with activist groups quarterly, including the ACLU and Human Rights Campaign. Notably, OCR did not meet with conservative organizations or parental rights groups. “It’s not surprising that the Biden Department of Education’s Title IX re-write was so controversial that even they had to walk back parts of it when considering the outside special interests they looked to for advice,” Michael Chamberlain, director of the nonprofit Protect the Public’s Trust, told the Daily Signal in a statement Thursday.
After two Chicago gender clinics announced that they would halt “affirming” surgeries in response to Trump’s EOs, families are calling on Illinois’ Attorney General to force their hands by enforcing Illinois Civil Rights law, which prohibits discrimination because of “gender identity.” Attorney General Kwame Raoul has angered families, however, by stating that “I don’t look at Lurie or Northwestern as a bad actor here…You can’t (be) said to be acting discriminatory when the federal government is holding a gun to your head.” In response, dozens of activists, families and students have written to the AG’s office asking them to enforce Illinois law.
In a dispute over the appropriateness of “affirming care” for their child, an Australian judge granted a skeptical father sole parental responsibility. After determining the child was not dysphoric but simply “exploring gender,” judge Andrew Strum issued orders preventing the boy from returning to a gender clinic, and from receiving cross-sex hormones and puberty blockers. In the ruling, the judge went on to dismantle several claims parroted by activists, including the claim that “gender identity” is immutable. The judge found the expert testimony in support of “gender identity” wanting. “Neither of those experts were able to point to any empirical or substantive basis for their opinion but, rather, only to anecdotal reports from transgender adults about their experience of their gender identity. Further, neither expert was able to point to any other aspects of human identity that are similarly said to be immutable” the judge wrote in his ruling. He also noted that gender clinics and “affirming clinicians” tend to downplay the risks of treatment while overstating the evidence of benefits, raising concerns that “[the child] and parents are not receiving/and will be unlikely to receive accurate information from clinicians to enable them to make true informed treatment decisions.”
Joseph Figliolia
Policy Analyst
News