Rep. Cyndy Jacobsen: What we don’t talk about
Transgender youths are a growing demographic. The Centers for Disease Control recently reported that 3.3% U.S. high school students identify as transgender. This number has more than doubled in the last five years. According to estimates from the Washington State Insurance Commissioner’s Office Report on gender affirming treatment, there are roughly 2700 transgender youths in Washington. Medical providers, school administrators, and lawmakers have scrambled to develop policies because of this change in the cultural landscape.
European countries are experiencing similar growth, but some countries who were at the forefront of this movement are beginning to question their policies. For instance, the Netherlands started offering youth services in the 1990s and published a favorable study in 2014. However, medical professionals are now questioning “Dutch Protocol” and calling for more longitudinal studies. Sweden, Denmark, the UK, and France are also pulling back, citing a lack of evidence and calling for extreme caution around medications and surgery.
Many medical treatments can have serious side effects, and gender-affirming care for minors is no exception. The question is do the benefits outweigh the harms? Puberty blockers, for instance, are often said to only pause puberty, but even clinics that recommend such treatment admit to side-effects like osteoporosis, sterility, mood changes, and neurodevelopmental risk. Surgery is clearly a permanent choice. Such treatment is said to alleviate the risk of suicide in troubled children, but there is little credible data to support this conclusion. Suicide rates are high among those who have transitioned. There is also a growing minority of “de-transitioners” who are highly critical of the movement.
So, how should society proceed? Opinions vary widely, and the divide is clear. Twenty-six states have passed restrictions on “gender-affirming care” for minors, while seventeen states, including Washington, have passed laws to “protect” children who may seek such care. In Washington, any youth who seeks gender-affirming care can be sheltered without the usual parental notification. School district personnel are also prohibited from notifying parents who are unaware of their child’s status, calling notification dangerous. Rule 3211, created by the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) and adopted by the Puyallup School District and many others, provides that “the district will not condone…the release of information regarding a student’s transgender or gender expansive status” in these circumstances.
Are we on the right path? Children are not allowed to purchase cigarettes, get a tattoo, or sign legal contracts. Should we allow “gender-affirming care,” which can include puberty blockers and even surgery for minors, particularly without parental notification? Has this issue been politicized when we should be looking at the evidence? Maybe it’s time to hit the pause button.
The medical community has gotten it wrong in the past, particularly in mental health. Sadly, the inventor of lobotomies was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1949. This procedure was seen as the standard of care for many issues in the 1940s and 1950s. Now we see it as barbaric.
Minors who seek “gender-affirming” treatment and transgender youth should be treated with respect and love. We should have unbiased counseling for them. We should be kind to everyone. But maybe it is time we took a careful look at the irreversible “treatments” we allow for minors. I’m sponsoring House Bill 1038, which would disallow cross-sex hormones, puberty blockers, and surgeries for minors in Washington. Let’s talk about this.
Rep. Cyndy Jacobsen, R-Puyallup, represents Washington’s 25th Legislative District.
