A recent hearing before the House Judiciary Committee on “due process violations and gender-affirming care” has shed light on the experimental nature of “gender-affirming” medical procedures. During the hearing, Rep. Mike Johnson showed a video interview with Dr. Blair Peters, a surgeon who performs transgender surgeries at Oregon Health & Science University. The interview, which resurfaced on social media, reveals the radical and unstudied nature of “gender-affirming” surgeries.
Dr. Peters specializes in gender-reassignment surgeries, particularly in the genital area. The surgeries aim to reconstruct a patient’s genitals to align with their gender identity. This involves performing vaginoplasty for boys who identify as girls and phalloplasty for girls who identify as boys. The interview also discusses “non-binary” surgeries, which aim to create a combination of male and female genitalia to combat the perceived binary bias in society.
However, these surgeries pose significant risks and complications, as acknowledged by Dr. Peters. The long-term effects of these procedures, especially on minors, remain unknown. Despite the experimental nature and potential harm to patients, gender ideologists advocate for the freedom of self-actualization to redefine gender and break down the man/woman binary system.
The concept of gender identity relies on the gender binary, rooted in the objective categories of male and female. Yet, proponents of gender ideology argue against this binary, claiming there are more than two genders. This challenges the fundamental truth that every human person is either male or female. Nonetheless, the “gender-affirming” medical field is catering to this non-binary ideology, disregarding facts, reality, and scientific understanding.
One of the most concerning aspects is that children are subjected to these experimental surgeries. Minors who undergo genital surgeries face painful recovery, sterility, incontinence, and other long-term consequences. The ability of children to make certain choices is generally limited due to their immature emotional and mental capacities. Allowing permanent mutilation of healthy bodies through experimental surgeries is inconsistent with existing laws that define the age of majority.
The House Judiciary Committee hearing highlights the precarious nature of gender ideology. The push for “gender-affirming” care disregards the risks and lacks proper scientific understanding. It is crucial to take a careful and critical approach to the concept of gender and the medical procedures associated with it.