[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE DANGERS AND DUE PROCESS VIOLATIONS
OF ``GENDER-AFFIRMING CARE'' FOR CHILDREN
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION AND LIMITED GOVERNMENT
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
THURSDAY, JULY 27, 2023
__________
Serial No. 118-41
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via: http://judiciary.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
53-170 WASHINGTON : 2023
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
JIM JORDAN, Ohio, Chair
DARRELL ISSA, California JERROLD NADLER, New York, Ranking
KEN BUCK, Colorado Member
MATT GAETZ, Florida ZOE LOFGREN, California
MIKE JOHNSON, Louisiana SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
ANDY BIGGS, Arizona STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
TOM McCLINTOCK, California HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
TOM TIFFANY, Wisconsin Georgia
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky ADAM SCHIFF, California
CHIP ROY, Texas ERIC SWALWELL, California
DAN BISHOP, North Carolina TED LIEU, California
VICTORIA SPARTZ, Indiana PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington
SCOTT FITZGERALD, Wisconsin J. LUIS CORREA, California
CLIFF BENTZ, Oregon MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania
BEN CLINE, Virginia JOE NEGUSE, Colorado
LANCE GOODEN, Texas LUCY McBATH, Georgia
JEFF VAN DREW, New Jersey MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania
TROY NEHLS, Texas VERONICA ESCOBAR, Texas
BARRY MOORE, Alabama DEBORAH ROSS, North Carolina
KEVIN KILEY, California CORI BUSH, Missouri
HARRIET HAGEMAN, Wyoming GLENN IVEY, Maryland
NATHANIEL MORAN, Texas BECCA BALINT, Vermont
LAUREL LEE, Florida
WESLEY HUNT, Texas
RUSSELL FRY, South Carolina
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION AND LIMITED GOVERNMENT
MIKE JOHNSON, Louisiana, Chair
TOM McCLINTOCK, California MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania,
CHIP ROY, Texas Ranking Member
DAN BISHOP, North Carolina STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
KEVIN KILEY, California VERONICA ESCOBAR, Texas
HARRIET HAGEMAN, Wyoming CORI BUSH, Missouri
WESLEY HUNT, Texas SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
RUSSELL FRY, South Carolina BECCA BALINT, Vermont
CHRISTOPHER HIXON, Majority Staff Director
AMY RUTKIN, Minority Staff Director & Chief of Staff
C O N T E N T S
----------
Thursday, July 27, 2023
Page
OPENING STATEMENTS
The Honorable Mike Johnson, Chair of the Subcommittee on the
Constitution and Limited Government from the State of Louisiana 2
The Honorable Mary Gay Scanlon, Ranking Member of the
Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government from
the State of Pennsylvania...................................... 3
The Honorable Jerrold Nadler, Ranking Member of the Committee on
the Judiciary from the State of New York....................... 5
WITNESSES
Paula Scanlan, Advisor, Independent Women's Forum; Former
University of Pennsylvania swimmer
Oral Testimony................................................. 8
Prepared Testimony............................................. 10
Chloe Cole, Detransitioner, Advocate, Opposes Gender-Affirming
Care for Minors
Oral Testimony................................................. 13
Myriam Reynolds, Licensed Professional Counselor, Registered Art
Therapist
Oral Testimony................................................. 14
Prepared Testimony............................................. 17
May Mailman, Senior Legal Fellow, Independent Woman's Law Center
Oral Testimony................................................. 19
Prepared Testimony............................................. 21
Shannon Minter, Legal Director, National Center for Lesbian
Rights
Oral Testimony................................................. 27
Prepared Testimony............................................. 29
Jennifer Bauwens, Ph.D., Director, Center for Family Studies,
Family Research Council
Oral Testimony................................................. 34
Prepared Testimony............................................. 36
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC. SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
All materials submitted for the record by the Subcommittee on the
Constitution and Limited Government are listed below........... 123
The link for the podcast interview of Dr. Blair Peters, Oregon
Health Science University, Portland, submitted by the Honorable
Mike Johnson, Chair of the Subcommittee on the Constitution and
Limited Government from the State of Louisiana, for the record
Materials submitted by the Honorable Mary Gay Scanlon, Ranking
Member of the Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited
Government from the State of Pennsylvania, for the record
An article entitled, ``No, Washington Did Not Just Pass a Law
Allowing the State to Kidnap and Transgenderify
Children,'' Apr. 19, 2023, The Stranger
A letter from leading medical organizations to Congress
opposing efforts to ban gender affirming care, Jul. 18,
2023
A letter from the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human
Rights, Jul. 26, 2023
An Opinion Dylan Brandt, et al. v. Leslie Rutledge, et al.,
U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas,
Central Division, Jun. 20, 2023
A fact sheet entitled, ``Get the Facts: Gender-Affirming
Care,'' Human Right Campaign
A policy paper entitled, ``Participation of Transgender
Athletes in Women's Sports,'' Women's Sports Foundation
An article entitled, ``How a Campaign Against Transgender
Rights Mobilized Conservatives,'' Apr. 17, 2023, The New
York Times
An article entitled, ``California bill on youth mental health
services distorted on social media,'' Apr. 14, 2023, AP
News
Materials submitted by the Honorable Veronica Escobar, a Member
of the Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government
from the State of Texas, for the record
An article entitled, ``Gender-affirming surgeon speaks at
Jacobs School LGBTQIA+ event,'' Aug. 28, 2023, UBNow
An article entitled, `` `I Don't Want to Live in This State
of Terror Anymore.' Some Families with Trans Children are
Leaving Texas,'' Jul. 24, 2023, Texas Monthly
Materials submitted by the Honorable Becca Balint, a Member of
the Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government
from the State of Vermont, for the record
An article entitled, `` `Social contagion' isn't causing more
youths to be transgender, study finds,'' Aug. 2, 2022,
NBC News
An article entitled, ``Study finds no evidence of social
contagion among transgender youth,'' Aug. 3, 2022,
American Academy of Pediatrics
Materials submitted by the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, Ranking
Member of the Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited
Government from the State of Texas, for the record
An article entitled, ``Map: Attacks on Gender Affirming Care
by State,'' Jul. 13, 2023, Human Rights Watch
An article entitled, `` `A hole in our hearts': Family,
friends mourn murder victim Chyna Gibson,'' Jul. 7, 2021,
NOLA
An article entitled, ``Chyna Gibson Identified As The Fifth
Transgender Woman Killed In 2017,'' Feb. 27, 2017, Vibe
An article entitled, ``Transgender Women Cyna Gibson Killed
in New Orleans,'' Nov. 6, 2017, Human Rights Watch
An article entitled, ``Planned Parenthood Texas Affiliates
and PPFA Move for Decision in Baseless Medicaid False
Clams At Case,'' Jan. 7, 2023, Planned Parenthood
Materials from the Honorable Mike Johnson, Chair of the
Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government from
the State of Louisiana, for the record
A statement from Raheem Williams, Policy Analyst, Center for
Urban Renewal and Education, Jul. 27, 2023
An article entitled, ``FDA sued for concealing information
about children's off-label use of puberty blockers,
cross-sex hormones,'' Feb. 28, 2023, Fox News
An article entitled, ``The Truth About `Puberty Blockers,' ''
Jun. 7, 2023, Wall Street Journal
An article entitled, ``As more transgender children seek
medical care, families confront many unknowns,'' Oct. 6,
2022, Reuters
APPENDIX
A statement from the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, Ranking Member
of the Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government
from the State of Texas, for the record
THE DANGERS AND DUE PROCESS VIOLATIONS
OF ``GENDER-AFFIRMING CARE'' FOR CHILDREN
----------
Thursday, July 27, 2023
House of Representatives
Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government
Committee on the Judiciary
Washington, DC
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:06 a.m., in
Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Mike Johnson
[Chair of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Members present: Representatives Johnson, Jordan,
McClintock, Roy, Kiley, Hageman, Hunt, Fry, Scanlon, Nadler,
Cohen, Escobar, Jackson Lee, and Balint.
Also present: Representatives Gaetz and Greene.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. [Presiding.] The Subcommittee
will come to order.
Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a
recess at any time.
We open our proceedings here with a Pledge of Allegiance,
and I will recognize the gentlelady from Georgia, Ms. Taylor
Greene, to lead us for that purpose.
All. I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States
of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one
Nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for
all.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Thank you.
We welcome everyone to today's hearing on the dangers and
due process violations--
Ms. Scanlon. Point of order.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. --of gender-affirming care for
children.
Ms. Scanlon. I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Yes, ma'am, what's the point of
order?
Ms. Scanlon. It is not the Committee's practice to allow
folks who are not Members of this Committee to sit at the dais
without unanimous consent, and we do not give it.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. I was going to seek that
unanimous consent. The gentlelady from Georgia was here for the
purpose of merely introducing the Republican witnesses. It's
common courtesy among colleagues to allow a Member the
privilege of appearing for that purpose. I'm sorry that you
object to that.
Ms. Scanlon. I'm sorry, too.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. You insist on the point of order?
Ms. Scanlon. I do.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Unfortunately, it's not a
debatable motion or one that is subject to a vote. So, I will
provide the witness introductions after our opening statement.
So, I thank our colleague for her willingness, anyway.
I will recognize myself for an opening statement and we'll
get the hearing going here.
Before I provide a few opening remarks, I'm going to play a
two-minute excerpt of a podcast interview with an individual
named Dr. Blair Peters at the Oregon Health Science University
in Portland.
He calls himself the ``queer surgeon'' and he boosts about
the shocking, fully experimental, irreversible, and life-
altering invasive procedures that he and others are performing
on children to surgical modify their genitals.
I want everyone to hear this in his own words, not mine,
and take special note of the frank admission that no one has
published any studies on these shocking procedures, and they
are, quote, as he says, ``just kind of learning and figuring
out what works.''
Later in this video, he admits to performing, quote, ``huge
reconstructive surgery rearranging anatomy,'' and then,
acknowledges that they know almost nothing about the outcomes
for these children. He says, quote, ``We'll know more in 5-10
years,'' and quote, ``It will be fascinating to see how all
these kids turn out.'' Wow!
With unanimous consent, I will enter the link to this full
video in the record of our hearing because everyone should
watch it. It is absolutely nightmarish and surreal to hear the
description of what these people are doing to the bodies of
young children.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Please play that clip, and I will
say viewer discretion is advised.
[Video played.]
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. So, I'm going to speak the truth
here plainly, and I think the vast majority of the American
people understand and agree with what I'm going to say.
What you have just heard there is a little sample of
barbarism. This is the mutilation of children, and it should be
prohibited by our law.
This so-called ``gender-affirming care'' is anything but
affirming and caring, and the language matters. This is adults
deciding to permanently alter the bodies of children who do not
have the capacity to make life-altering decisions on their own.
Here's some more plain truth that everybody acknowledged
until about five minutes ago. It's been plainly observed and
fully respected by every culture for all recorded history. Sex
isn't something you are assigned at birth. It is a natural,
prenatal development that occurs when every unborn child is in
the mother's womb. No one can surgically free themselves from
this objective and obvious fact of life or free anyone else
from it.
Today, we see adults inflicting unspeakable harms on
helpless children to affirm the adult's own world view: That
gender is somehow fluid; that sex can be surgically altered;
that there are no lasting consequences of all this madness, as
a result of the sex change procedures.
What is even more alarming is that the central tenet of the
transgender movement and its allies is to exclude parents as
much as possible from making decisions about the health of
their own children. Medical professionals and schools
increasingly see parents as, quote, ``transphobic bullies'' who
must be prevented from standing in the way of the medical
sexual transition of their own kids.
We saw this in my home State of Louisiana recently, where
Children's Hospital of New Orleans laughed in the face of a
young girl's parents when they attempted to intervene, as
doctors sought to transition their daughter without their
consent.
To the left, these aren't your children, see. They are the
State's children, and the State should be making the parenting
decisions.
Let's also be clear about something else. Even a parent has
no right to sexually transition a young child. Our American
legal system recognizes the important public interest in
protecting children from abuse and physical harm. No matter how
liberated you may be, you still don't have the legal right to
ignore seatbelt safety laws or minimum driving age laws or
drinking and smoking laws for your kids. No parent has a
Constitutional right to injure their children.
Of course, the reach of radical sexual identity politics
isn't limited to young children alone. We see this extended to
young adults, especially at the university level now. The
modern left applauds men competing in women's college
athletics. We see universities captured by academics advancing
this ideology on students across our country.
Whether it's by scalpel or by social coercion from
teachers, professors, administrators, and left-wing media, it
is an aggressive attempt to transition the young people of our
country. They are doing this psychologically, and now they are
doing it even physically.
Something has gone terribly wrong, and deep down everybody
in this country knows it. Today, we want to shed light on what
this problem is, and hopefully, how we can address the problem.
Contrary to what some of my Democrat colleagues believe,
the scourge of radical gender ideology is very real. The
efforts to cover up what is being done to our children are
extreme, and the science is on the side of what we all know
deep down is morally and ethically right.
I look forward to the testimony from our witnesses, as we
unravel the narratives surrounding this so-called gender-
affirming care.
I now recognize the Ranking Member, the gentlewoman from
Pennsylvania, Ms. Scanlon, for her opening statement.
Ms. Scanlon. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Let's be clear. Congress has no business interfering in
parents' freedom to make decisions about appropriate medical
care for their children. The idea that politicians are more
qualified to judge the medical value or necessity of gender-
affirming care than every major medical organization is absurd.
Holding a hearing to substitute far-right ideologies for
parental judgment exposes the rank hypocrisy of the party
claiming to value individual freedom and small government. So,
here we are before the Subcommittee on the Constitution and
Limited Government.
Make no mistake; today's hearing is not about protecting
children or parents' rights. It's a cynical and, frankly,
dangerous political attack on transgender children and their
families, driven not by science or facts, but by polling and
political strategists determined to mobilize conservative
voters through fear.
So, let's start by setting the record straight. Gender-
affirming care is safe and effective. It is supported by every
major medical association, including the American Academy of
Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, the American Medical
Association, and the American Academy of Pediatrics, among
others, representing over 1.3 million American doctors. It's
just not up for debate.
The partisans who characterize gender-affirming care as
``radical gender ideology'' are just repeating right-wing
talking points to delegitimize critical healthcare. Access to
gender-affirming care is essential to the mental health and
well-being of trans youth. This care is tailored to both the
mental and physical health needs of patients, as well as their
developmental stage in life. The parents and guardians of these
children are involved in every phase of decisionmaking. There's
nothing radical about that.
So, when our Republican colleague allege that gender-
affirming care raises particular dangers or due process issues,
that is fearmongering at its worst--picking on already
vulnerable kids to stir up chaos that they hope to ride to
success at the ballot box, no matter how deceitful or dangerous
those claims are.
As a mother of three, I certainly never found myself at my
children's pediatric appointments wishing for medical advice
from the House Judiciary Committee.
As a Member of Congress, I'm appalled by the weaponization
of our legislative process to inject politicians into the
personal medical decisions of our constituents' lives.
I strongly oppose any effort to impose ultra-conservative
political or religious views on the medical decisions of
American families, whether on matters of reproductive
healthcare or parental decisions to seek gender-affirming care
for a transgender child.
I know that Americans can be trusted to make their own
healthcare decisions without politicians invading their
doctors' offices, and I believe parents and doctors when they
say that gender-affirming care has changed children's lives for
the better, and in many cases even saved those lives.
Parents like the mother of a trans teen from Ohio who
shared her family's story with the Committee, she told us that,
because her 17-year-old trans daughter had access to evidence-
based, medically necessary, gender-affirming care, puberty was
just another phase of a normal and healthy adolescence. She
said, and I quote,
Forcing her to go through the wrong puberty and seeing the
impact on her body and her mental health would have been
agonizing for all of us. I don't understand why we would allow
politicians to make medical decisions for our children.
She is right. Banning access to gender-affirming care would
violate parents' due process rights, and the Federal Courts
agree. They agree that banning gender-affirming care for minors
violates Constitutionally protected parental rights, and that
politicians should stay out of those decisions.
I want to close by reminding my colleagues how much their
words matter. By endorsing falsehoods and bullying tactics,
Members of Congress are helping to promote a culture of
discrimination that has increased violence against trans kids
and their parents. Cynical political opportunists should not be
allowed to use the megaphone of the House Judiciary Committee
to promote cruelty and disinformation, particularly when we
know that it invites discrimination and abuse of trans children
and their families. I must object to this callous and reckless
use of this Committee's time.
With that, I yield back.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. I now recognize the Ranking
Member of the Full Committee, Mr. Nadler, for an opening
statement, if he wishes.
Mr. Nadler. Mr. Chair, today's hearing is an all-time low
for the Republican majority. In my three decades in Congress, I
have taken part in plenty of hearings where I did not agree
with the choice of topic, to say the least, but I am absolutely
disgusted by the Republican majority's bullying, bigoted
framing of an issue that would otherwise be worthy of serious
discussion.
What we are witnessing today is nothing less than a
taxpayer-funded platform for Congressional Republicans to bully
trans-
gender kids who are already some of the most vulnerable members
of our community.
Things are already tough enough for these kids and their
parents. A mental health survey conducted by the Trevor Project
found that transgender youth experience high risk of
depression, anxiety, and suicidal thoughts. It can't help that
they are under siege by Republican-dominated State legislatures
hellbent on passing antitrans bills.
According to the Human Rights Campaign, more than 76 of
these bills have been signed into law, resulting in transgender
youth losing access to lifesaving medical care, comprehensive
and inclusive education, and activities, spaces, and
facilities.
That is why it is so infuriating that Congressional
Republicans are using their megaphone to single out transgender
kids and their parents by labeling their very existence to be a
social problem, practically accusing their parents of being
criminals for seeking safe, lifesaving, mainstream medical
treatment for their children.
The last thing trans kids and their parents need in their
lives is for politicians in Washington to jump on the antitrans
bandwagon, just so that they can fearmonger for their five
minutes of fame.
Let me be crystal-clear. Government should not stick its
nose into a parent's decision to seek gender-affirming care for
their children. Indeed, it is almost comical that the
Republican majority of what they have named the Subcommittee on
the Constitution and Limited Government is holding a hearing,
allegedly, on due process to argue that politicians, not
parents, should make decisions as to what medical treatment is
best for their children.
The legal theory underlying this farcical hearing is bogus,
but you don't have to take my word for it. Every Federal
District Court that has considered the Constitutionality of
State laws banning gender-affirming care has ruled that such
bans violate parents' Constitutional rights. These decisions
were issued by courts in different parts of the country and by
judges from across the ideological spectrum, including three
judges appointed by former President Trump.
I trust parents and medical professionals, not politicians,
to make decisions about their children's health when it comes
to gender-affirming care, and so does the Constitution.
That said, judging from the lineup of witnesses, it appears
that there is no limit to the topics over which Republicans
want to bully trans kids and their parents today. Undoubtedly,
transgender youths' participation in sports will be discussed
because Republicans think it is a winning political topic
point. The facts do not justify the fears that Republicans and
their political allies gin up over the fairness of trans girls
participating in girls' athletic teams, nor the further stigma
it attaches to transgender children.
What recently happened in Utah illustrates my point. Last
year, Republican Governor Spencer Cox vetoed a complete
categorical ban on transgender kids from participating in
athletics matching their gender identity, which the Utah
legislature, sadly, overruled.
In vetoing the law, Governor Cox noted in a letter
explaining his decision that, of the 75,000 high school kids
participating in high school sports in the State, only four--
four--were transgender, but only one transgender student was
playing girls' sports--one out of 75,000.
Governor Cox also noted a study that showed that 86 percent
of trans youth reported suicidality and 56 percent of trans
youths have attempted suicide. Let those numbers sink in for a
moment. A majority of trans youth in this study reported that
they had attempted to kill themselves. Out of 75,000 high
school student athletes in the State, only four were
transgender--an infinitesimally small minority of all high
school students in Utah.
Governor Cox's letter further described a sentiment that I
sincerely wish his Republican colleagues on this Subcommittee
shared. The Governor wrote, quote,
Rarely has so much fear and anger been directed at so few. I
don't understand what they are going through or why they feel
the way they do, but I want them to live. And all the research
shows that even a little acceptance and connection can reduce
suicidality significantly.
Parents of transgender kids want the same things every
parent wants for their kids: To go to school without fear of
bullying; to participate in extracurricular activities like
sports, if they wish, and to be accepted by their peers and
their community.
This hearing will only further put those things out of
reach for those parents and their children. Far from protecting
children, this hearing will only further stigmatize and
endanger them because it sends a message that transgender kids
and their parents do not deserve the law's protection.
To any transgender people or family members who may
watching this hearing, I want to say that Democrats on this
Committee see you; we appreciate you; we value you, and we will
continue to fight for you.
This hearing is a despicable exercise and a contemptible
use of the Subcommittee's time and power.
I yield back.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. The gentleman yields back.
Without objection, all other opening statements will be
included in the record.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. We will now introduce today's
witnesses.
Ms. Paula Scanlan is a spokeswoman and an Advisor to the
Independent Women's Forum and the Independent Women's Voice.
She is a former collegiate swimmer at the University of
Pennsylvania, and she speaks out about what it was like for
girls competing alongside and sharing a pool and locker room
with a transgender woman.
Ms. Chloe Cole is an advocate and someone who has
experienced gender transition procedures. After being diagnosed
with gender dysphoria, she began to transition, and then, she
detransitioned at age 17, and now speaks about her experiences.
Ms. Taylor Greene had wished to note today that she had the
pleasure of meeting and speaking with Ms. Cole last year, when
you bravely spoke out and spoke in support of her bill, the
Protect Children's Innocence Act, in front of the whole Nation
at a press conference. So, thank you for your courage.
Dr. Jennifer Bauwens is serving as the Director of the
Center for Family Studies at the Family Research Council. Her
research focuses on identifying and advancing policies that
will best serve the health and well-being of families and
communities.
Ms. May Mailman is a Senior Fellow at the Independent
Women's Law Center. She previously served as the Deputy
Solicitor General for the State of Ohio.
Mr. Shannon Minter is the Legal Director for the National
Center for Lesbian Rights. The NCLR advocates for lesbian, gay,
bisexual, and transgender people.
Ms. Myriam Reynolds is a Licensed Professional Counselor
and an Art Therapist, and she is the mother of a transgender
son and resides in the State of Texas.
We welcome all our witnesses and we thank you for your time
and appearing today.
We will begin by swearing you in. So, if you would rise and
raise your right hand?
Do you swear or affirm under the penalty of perjury that
the testimony you are about to give is true and correct to the
best of your knowledge, information, and belief, so help you
God?
Thank you.
Let the record reflect the witnesses have answered in the
affirmative.
You all can be seated.
Please know that your written testimony will be entered in
the record in its entirety. Accordingly, we ask you to
summarize that testimony in five minutes.
You have a light system there and you need to push the
button to speak, so we can all hear your voice.
Ms. Scanlan, we will begin with you. You can go first.
STATEMENT OF PAULA SCANLAN
Ms. Scanlan. Good morning. Good morning, Chair Johnson and
Ranking Member Scanlon, and Members of the Subcommittee.
I am Paula Scanlan, a spokeswoman and advisor for the
Independent Women's Forum, and a former NCAA athlete. I am here
today to share my personal story.
I started swimming at a very young age, and by age eight, I
was swimming competitively. By late middle school, I was
devoting at least 20 hours per week to swimming. I gave up
countless Christmas holidays, weekends, and social events to
work toward my goal of swimming Division 1--a dream that came
true when I began swimming for the University of Pennsylvania.
While I am not an NCAA champion, I hold the New England
Independent School League record in the 400-yard freestyle
relay, a record that has stood since March 2017.
In September 2021, Lia Thomas began participating as a
member of the Penn women's team. Lia, formerly Will, had
personal best times in every freestyle event that were faster
than the women's world records.
Once the season began, Thomas was leading the country in
multiple events, while only placing in the top 500 in those
events on the men's team. Thomas later became an NCAA champion
in the 500-yard freestyle, the first NCAA champion in our
women's team history program.
While many of you already know this, what you do not know
is the experiences of the women on the University of
Pennsylvania swim team. My teammates and I were forced to
undress in the presence of Lia, a 64" tall, biological male
fully intact with male genitalia 18 times per week.
Some girls opted to change in bathroom stalls and others
used the family bathroom to avoid this. When we tried to voice
our concerns to the athletic department, we were told that
Lia's swimming and being in our locker room was a nonnegotiable
and we were offered psychological services to attempt to re-
educate us to become comfortable with the idea of undressing in
front of a male.
To sum up the University's response, we, the women, were
the problem, not the victims. We were expected to conform, to
move over and shut up. Our feelings didn't matter. The
University was gaslighting and fearmongering women to validate
the feelings and identity of a male.
As an attempt to voice my concern about the situation we
were forced into, revealing the unjust and unfair treatment, I
wrote an op-ed for The Daily Pennsylvanian, the student-run
newspaper. I approached this from a scientifically, scientific,
statistical perspective where I used my engineering background
to discuss how Y chromosomes cannot be changed by any surgical
procedure or systemic therapy.
This biological fact lends itself to athletic advantages
that cannot be mitigated by lowering testosterone levels, which
are readily apparent in sports competitions and locker rooms.
The Daily Pennsylvanian published my article on the evening
of February 10, 2022. Only a few hours later, my piece was
retracted. I was given no notice, nor reasoning. Again, I was
silenced from my dissenting viewpoint and felt my First
Amendment rights were denied by my university.
This is representative of a greater issue, the destruction
of free speech. Today, any discussion maintaining the sanctity
of women's spaces is labeled transphobic, bigoted, and hateful.
What's bigoted and hateful is the discrimination against
women and the efforts to erase women and our equal
opportunities, dignity, and safe spaces.
One might ask, why do I speak so passionately about issues
that seem hypothetical, or some may perceive as only impacting
a small number of women? This is not hypothetical. This is
real.
I know women who have lost roster spots and spots on the
podium. I know of women with sexual trauma who are adversely
impacted by having biological males in their locker room
without their consent.
I know this because I am one of these women. I was sexually
assaulted on June 3, 2016. I was only 16 years old. I was able
to forgive my attacker, but violence against women still
exists.
Let us not forget the viral #MeToo movement that empowered
female victims to speak up. It cast a spotlight on the
widespread prevalence of sexual assault and abuse, including in
scholarly and educational institutions.
Individuals on this Committee have previously stated
violence against women is all too common. I am grateful for
those Members who have brought awareness to the violence
against women in the past, but, unfortunately, there is still
much to be done.
As a sexual assault survivor, many policies pushed today
completely ignore my experiences and many women like me. I ask
the Members of this Committee, please consider this issue
outside the lens of political affiliations and understand the
true impact of ignoring the realities of womanhood. Future
generations depend on us.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak here today.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Scanlan follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Thank you for being here and for
your courage, Ms. Scanlan.
Ms. Cole, you are next, and you can begin.
STATEMENT OF CHLOE COLE
Ms. Cole. Good morning. My name is Chloe Cole, and I am a
detransitioner.
Another way to put that would be I used to believe that I
was born in the wrong body, and the adults in my life, whom I
trusted, affirmed my belief and this caused me lifelong,
irreversible harm.
I speak to you today as a victim of one of the biggest
medical scandals in the history of the United States of
America. I speak to you in the hope that you will have the
courage to bring this scandal to an end and assure that other
vulnerable teenagers, children, and young adults don't go
through what I went through.
At the age of 12, I began to experience what my medical
team would later diagnose as gender dysphoria. I was well into
an early puberty, and I was very uncomfortable with the changes
that were happening to my body. I was intimidated--I was
intimidated by male attention, and when I told my parents that
I felt like a boy, in retrospect, all I meant was that I hated
puberty; that I wanted this newfound sexual attention to go
away; that I looked up to my brothers a little bit more than I
did to my sisters.
I came out as transgender in a letter I sat on the dining
room table. My parents were immediately concerned. They felt
like they needed to get outside help from medical
professionals, but this proved to be a mistake. It immediately
set our entire family down a path of ideologically motivated
deceit and coercion.
The gender specialist I was taken to, taken to see, told my
parents that I needed to be put on puberty-blocking drugs right
away. He asked my parents a simple question: ``Would you rather
have a dead daughter or a living transgender son?''
That choice was enough for my parents to let their guard
down, and in retrospect, I can't blame them. This is the moment
that we all became victims of so-called gender-affirming care.
I was fast-tracked onto puberty blockers, and then,
testosterone. The resulting menopausal-like hot flashes made
focusing on school impossible. I still get joint pains and
weird pops in my back, but they were far worse when I was on
the blockers.
A month later, when I was 13, I had my first testosterone
injection. It's caused permanent changes to my body. My voice
will forever be deeper; my jawline sharper; my nose longer; my
bone structure permanently masculinized; my Adam's apple more
prominent; my fertility unknown. I look in the mirror sometimes
and I feel like a monster.
I had a double mastectomy at 15. They tested my amputated
breasts for cancer, and I was cancer-free, of course. I was
perfectly healthy. There was nothing wrong with my still-
developing body or breasts, other than that, as an insecure
teenaged girl, I felt awkward about it.
After my breasts were taken away from me, the tissue was
incinerated. Before I was able to legally drive, I had part, I
had a huge part of my future womanhood taken from me. I will
never be able to breastfeed. I struggle to look at myself in
the mirror at times.
I still struggle to this day with sexual dysfunction, and I
have massive scars across my chest and skin grafts that they
used, that they took from my nipples, are weeping fluid today,
and they were grafted into a more masculine positioning, they
said.
After surgery, my grades in school plummeted. Everything
that I went through did nothing to address my underlying mental
health issues that I had. My doctors with their theories on
gender thought that all my problems would go away as soon as I
was surgically transformed into something that vaguely
resembled a boy.
Their theories were wrong. The drugs and surgeries changed
my body, but they did not, and could not, change the basic
reality that I am, and forever will be, a female.
When my specialists first told my parents that they could
have a dead daughter or a live transgender son, I wasn't
suicidal. I was a happy child who struggled because she was
different. However, at 16, after my surgery, I did become
suicidal. I'm doing better now, but my parents almost got the
dead daughter promised to them by my doctors. My doctors had
almost created the very nightmare they said they were trying to
avoid.
So, what message do I want to bring to American teenagers
and their families? I didn't need to be lied to. I needed
compassion. I needed to be loved. I needed to be given therapy
to help me work through my issues, not affirming my delusion
that, by transforming into a boy, it would solve all my
problems.
We need to stop telling 12-year-olds that they were born
wrong; that they are right to reject their own bodies and feel
uncomfortable with their own skin. We need to stop telling
children that puberty is an option; that they can choose what
kind of puberty they will go through, just like they can choose
what clothes to wear or what music to listen to. Puberty is a
rite of passage to adulthood, not a disease to be mitigated.
Today, I should be at home with my family celebrating my
19th birthday, and instead, I'm making a desperate plea to my
elected, my elected Representatives: Learn the lessons from
other medical scandals, like the opioid crisis; to recognize
that doctors are human, too, and sometimes they are wrong.
My childhood was ruined, along with thousands of detransi-
tioners that I know through our networks. This needs to stop.
You alone can stop it. Enough children have already been
victimized by this barbaric pseudoscience. Please let me be
your final warning.
Thank you.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Today is your birthday?
Ms. Cole. It is.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. You're a beautiful, brave woman.
Thank you for being here.
Ms. Cole. Thank you.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Ms. Reynolds, you're next. You
may begin.
STATEMENT OF MYRIAM REYNOLDS
Ms. Reynolds. Good morning.
My name is Myriam Reynolds. I'm a licensed professional
Counselor, a fifth-generation Texan descending from a long line
of conservative Christians, and I'm the mother of a transgender
son.
I am honored to be here today to give my testimony and tell
you the story of my incredible child. He recently became an
adult, and I will still refer to him as a child.
His name is Cameron, and he is 18 years old. He recently
graduated from high school and is embarking on, embarking on
adulthood with a gap year before college.
Cameron told us he was transgender when he was 11 years
old. He was clearly dealing with something, but we didn't know
what it was or how to help him. Then, he told us.
My husband and I had the same instinct to tell him that we
love him, no matter what, and always will be there for him. We
needed--we knew we needed to affirm him from our years in
working with foster youth. We had no idea what to do next. We
were scared. We didn't know anyone who had a trans child. We
had never even heard of gender-affirming care.
I prayed that it was a phase, but already knew that it
wasn't. The signs had been there all along. We just didn't
understand them. We thought he was a tomboy. He refused to wear
anything pink or girlie and was the only girl on the boys'
football team for many years. His best friends were always
boys. There were a lot of signs, looking back.
As parents, all we really want for our children is for them
to be happy and healthy. Prior to receiving gender-affirming
care and socially transitioning, my child was not happy and was
not able to be his true self.
I didn't want him to have to face the struggles of being
transgender, but I did want him to be happy and himself. At
times, I grieved my little girl and felt as if she were gone.
It was hard on me at first, but I was able to put my child's
needs before my feelings and find him the care he needed. I
could see that my child was happier and felt more and more
comfortable the more he was affirmed.
We were living in Colorado at the time, and through some
research, found a comprehensive program at a local hospital
that provided healthcare to trans kids. We found him a
counselor, immediately began trying to provide him with the
best healthcare we could find.
We felt very fortunate to have access to a
multidisciplinary team of professionals who could help us
figure out what options we had for Cameron's healthcare. I
could not imagine having to manage legal restrictions of
medical care, in addition to talking to our extended family,
all while learning ourselves about treatment options and caring
for our child.
Later that year, we decided to move to Texas. We began
researching leading programs in the field of trans healthcare
and were able to find a similar program. We chose to move to a
town based on proximity to the clinic. We knew we needed the
support of experts. We had an appointment scheduled before we
even arrived in Texas or had any idea of our health insurance
coverage.
Our multidisciplinary team at the clinic consisted of
physicians, nurses, social workers, psychologists, medical
students, my son's counselor, the school counselor, my husband
and I as parents/decisionmakers, and my son as a patient.
We filled out many, many surveys and questionnaires.
Myself, Cameron, and his dad were all required to do so. We had
extensive interviews with social workers and psychologists who
had requested a letter from Cameron's previous provider prior
to our first appointment.
The intake process was lengthy and meticulous. The process
was daunting, but I was grateful that the team was so thorough.
I want to make it clear that the care we received was slow,
very thoughtful, provided with the utmost care and
consideration. There was no rush, absolutely no coercion, lots
and lots of double-checking and making sure we were all on the
same page.
At the time, Cameron felt it was all moving too slowly. In
retrospect, we can see clearly that it was the best thing for
us to move so slowly on medical interventions, so we could
properly weigh the pros and cons.
My son was asked at every appointment if he wanted to stop
treatment or if he had any concerns about treatment whatsoever.
Counseling was taking place the entire time. Cameron's
counselor would also meet with the doctor and my husband and I,
before medical interventions were decided on.
The interventions my son has had--with extreme
consideration, consent, and discussion--have been counseling,
first and foremost; puberty blockers, and hormone therapy. We
have not even considered any kind of surgery and my child is
18. If any physician or member of the treatment team had
suggested surgery to us when Cameron was a child, we would have
said, ``No, thank you,'' and immediately gotten a second or
third opinion.
With the benefit of hindsight, I have no doubt that the
healthcare of my son accessed was lifesaving. I am grateful
that we have had access to this incredibly crucial, medically
necessary healthcare for our son without the interference of
our government.
Cameron is thriving now. He is doing better than he ever
has. He has wonderful friends. He is dating a little. He has
spoken out publicly and has the love and support of his whole
family, including two grandparents who are staunch
conservative, Christian Republicans.
We can all see that this is who he is. The grandparents
don't fully understand what being transgender really means, but
they love and accept him.
I'm asking you today to please allow parents the right to
access and consent for healthcare for their children. This
decision should be made with parents, the child, and the
child's medical providers without government interference.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Reynolds follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Thank you, Ms. Reynolds.
Ms. Mailman, you're next. You may begin. Push that button
for me.
STATEMENT OF MAY MAILMAN
Ms. Mailman. I'm May Mailman, Senior Fellow with the
Independent Women's Law Center, the legal advocacy arm of
Independent Women's Forum and Independent Women's Voice. I am
also a mother to my eight-month-old daughter. I am testifying
here today in support of her future, her freedom, and her equal
opportunity.
My fellow panelists have covered the pernicious effects of
gender ideology on children and their futures. I am here to
address another way in which gender ideology destroys women and
girls, and that is by dissolving legal protections for women in
athletics.
Until recently, female student athletes might have thought
that they were protected by Title 9 of the Education Amendments
of 1972, and they were. That's because Title 9 is very simple.
It prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in programs run
by schools that accept Federal money, and that's, basically,
all of them, and those programs include sports.
Title 9 recognizes that providing equal opportunity for the
sexes can mean recognizing inherent differences between the
sexes. That's why the Title 9 statute explicitly allows schools
to provide different living arrangements for the sexes. So,
too, in sports.
In introducing Title 9, Senator Birch Bayh explained that
Title 9 would not require sticking women on men's football
teams. That's why Congress explicitly asked that the initial
Title 9 regulations include, ``reasonable provisions
considering the nature of particular sports.''
So, for 50 years, the Title 9 athletics regulation has
explicitly permitted sex-based teams, ``where selections for
such teams is based on competitive skill or involves a contact
sport.'' Importantly, the regulations also require that schools
must provide equal opportunities for members of both sexes.
Unfortunately, in April of this year, the Department of
Education proposed a rule that, if adopted, would flip Title 9
on its head. The proposed rule would modify the athletic
regulation to let schools compete on teams consistent with
their gender identity, unless a particular school can
demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Department of Education
that this policy would be too unfair or unsafe. In other words,
women are no longer granted female sports teams as a given. We
have to prove that we need it.
Of course, we do need it. Studies show that even
testosterone suppression cannot eliminate the male advantage--
except schools are not to be allowed to say that, as a general
matter, post-pubescent biological males playing women's sports
puts female athletes at risk of injury and losing playing time,
medals, and privacy. No, schools are going to have to prove to
Federal bureaucrats that allowing a biological male on a
women's team would be unfair or unsafe in this particular sport
with respect to these particular athletes.
No school is going to want to take on that litigation risk.
So, schools are going to allow biological males to compete on
women's sports. This will directly and overwhelmingly harm
female athletes who are far more likely to be displaced by a
male athlete, than vice versa, and far more likely to face
risks in private spaces like locker rooms.
Even if it were a good idea to reduce educational
opportunities for women like this, the Department of Education
may not do so unless this body has authorized it, but Congress
has done no such thing.
The Department of Education says that the Supreme Court's
decision in Bostock v. Clayton County means it can pretend that
Title 9 addresses gender identity, but the Department of
Education is wrong. In Bostock, the Supreme Court said that
Title 7 of the Civil Rights Act prohibits employers from firing
someone just because they are transgender. The decision says
that an employee's sex is not relevant to the selection,
evaluation, or compensation of employees.
Athletes in education, however, is governed by a different
law, Title 9. When it comes to athletes, sex is not only
relevant, but also often dispositive. As superstar Serena
Williams said, ``Men's and women's tennis are completely
different sports.''
We live in a Nation of laws and not bureaucratic command.
That means the Department of Education must find its
authorities in the laws that this legislative body has
considered and passed. It may not use gender ideology to twist
a simple antidiscrimination statute into a statute that reduces
opportunities for women.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Mailman follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Thank you, Ms. Mailman.
Mr. Minter, now you may begin.
STATEMENT OF SHANNON MINTER
Mr. Minter. Thank you.
My name is Shannon Minter. I am the Legal Director of NCLR.
It's a legal organization that represents LGBTQ people.
In my 30 years with NCLR, 20 years as its Legal Director,
I've represented many transgender young people in cases
involving discrimination and harassment in schools, in the
child welfare system, the healthcare system, other areas.
Recently, I've been involved in Federal challenges to State
laws that ban medical care for transgender younger people and
completely banned them from school's sports.
I really appreciate the opportunity to address this
Committee.
Parents should have the freedom to make healthcare
decisions for their transgender children. Parents want what's
best for their children. Americans differ about a lot of
things, but there is one point on which we strongly agree, and
that is that parents, not the government, are best situated to
make medical decisions for their own children.
There's a lot of misinformation about transgender children,
youth, and adolescents. Gender dysphoria is very rare, less
than one percent of the population. Most people in this country
don't know a transgender person, much less have they met
parents with transgender children.
For most people and most legislators, this seems like a new
issue, but medical care for transgender adolescents has been
available for more than 20 years. The very same medications
being prescribed for transgender youth have been prescribed for
other young people for other conditions for more than 40 years.
There is a substantial body of research that shows these
treatments work; they improve mental health outcomes, quality
of life, social relationships, and family relationships. They
dramatically reduce suicidality. One Federal judge, after a
full trial, said there is now extensive clinical evidence
showing excellent results for these treatments.
The medical standards for these treatments, as has been
noted, have been endorsed by every major medical association in
this country: The American Medical Association, the American
Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychological Association,
and many more.
These standards, they're evidence based. They require a
rigorous, multidisciplinary assessment before diagnosing the
child with gender dysphoria. They take a conservative approach
to treatment.
Those standards have been in place for a long time. They
are not new. What is new is this recent massive overreach by
State lawmakers to ban medical care for transgender youth.
These laws, these recently passed State laws, they prevent
doctors from doing their job. They prevent parents from getting
the medical care that their children need.
That is why every Federal District Court, all six of them,
after hearing all the evidence, have concluded these bans
violate parents' rights. They violate equal protection. The
claims they put forward to justify, justify the bans have no
basis.
These decisions, as has been noted, have been issued by a
wide range of judges: Arkansas, Alabama, Florida, Indiana,
Kentucky, and Tennessee. In every case, the State officials
supporting these bans had every opportunity to back up their
false claims with actual evidence. In each case, they have
failed.
These bans pose a serious threat to the health and safety
of transgender young people across the country, and I urge the
Members of this Committee to reject any Federal attempts to
replicate that harm.
As a transgender person myself, I have benefited from
decades of access to healthcare, legal equality, support. I've
been able to marry, have a family, pursue a career, participate
in my local church, and community.
It is very disheartening to see the protections that have
given me and other transgender people so many opportunities to
thrive and to succeed now just being needlessly taken away from
young people.
Healthcare bans conflict with medical expertise. They rob
parents of their right to make decisions for their children.
They have devastating consequences for young people's lives.
Decisions about children's medical care should be made by
the parents who love them, not by politicians who know nothing
about a child's life or history or circumstances, and who won't
be the ones having to watch a young person they love suffer the
devastating consequences of going without needed medical care.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Minter follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Thank you, Mr. Minter.
Dr. Bauwens, last, but not least, you may begin.
STATEMENT OF JENNIFER BAUWENS
Ms. Bauwens. Chair Johnson, Ranking Member Scanlon, Members
of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to speak
with you today.
My name is Dr. Jennifer Bauwens, and I'm a licensed
therapist, clinical researcher, currently serving as the
Director of the Center for Family Studies at Family Research
Council.
Based on over 25 years of experience as a clinician
providing trauma therapy to children, and as a researcher
investigating the psychological effects of trauma stress, I'm
here to express my concern about what has been termed gender-
affirming care.
I've considered it a privilege to practice, research, and
train future clinicians, and be a part of a discipline aimed at
protecting and bringing healing to the most vulnerable in our
society, which are children. When it comes to gender transition
procedures, my field is not operating as a helping profession.
Instead, it is actively causing harm.
Historically, children have been treated as a special and
vulnerable class in the psychological and research fields.
Caution has been applied to children, in light of the fact that
they do not have the neurological capacity to understand
lifelong decisions.
Professional and research ethics tell us that we should
proceed very cautiously with regards to interventions for
children when empirical evidence is weak or the research
methods are in the early phase, as with this case. We should
avoid interventions that pose unnecessary risks, particularly
when the symptoms are known to change with maturation.
Risk avoidance is not what's happening with gender
transition procedures. Instead, we have too many cases like
Mike. Mike was nine years old when he first saw a gender
therapist. I was deeply saddened when I read his gender
therapist's case notes, where it was reported that Mike
couldn't distinguish between fantasy and reality.
Instead of investigating these symptoms, the therapist
wrote in the treatment plan, which included puberty blockers,
guidance on social transition, and education for future
hormonal and surgical procedures. This treatment plan was
enacted without regard for this child's known diagnoses of
autism, possible OCD, and possible parental diagnoses which
were reported in the case notes.
Mike is just one example of how so-called gender-affirming
care is in direct opposition of knowledge, of our knowledge
regarding development and our understanding of good research
and treatment. There are many reasons why I have concerns, but
I will just share a few with you:
(1) These interventions are being endorsed based on
consensus, not evidence. In the case of gender-affirming care,
the term ``evidence-based'' does not mean that this practice is
standing on the merits of solid research findings addressing
gender dysphoria. Instead, it refers to a vote by those who are
ideological supporters of the practice. Compared to other
psychological disorders found in the DSM-5-TR, gender dysphoria
is currently being treated with the most invasive, invasive
interventions connected to a psychological issue with the
lowest quality of evidence to support that practice.
(2) The success rates of nonintervention for gender
dysphoria for children already exceed what most psychological
interventions have. In most cases, 85 percent or more of those
experiencing gender dysphoria will desist if they are left
alone. This is a higher rate than most well-established and
researched psychological interventions. With success rates this
high, it is actually unethical to intervene.
(3) The research and practice around this issue does not
properly account for competing diagnoses and variables. So, in
one example, a report from the UCLA Williams Institute found
that 45 percent of transgender-identifying people reported
childhood sexual abuse.
As a trauma clinician, I can tell you that, when someone
experiences sexual trauma, it is not uncommon for that person
to hate parts of their body or want to get rid of those aspects
of themselves that made them vulnerable to abuse.
(4) It is often claimed that a failure to provide these
interventions increases the risk for suicide. This approach is
actually unethical and it's a clear departure from the practice
of empowerment and self-management, which are important goals
of mental health practice.
This claim is, also, not supported by the literature.
Despite years of empirical study, there is no definitive
understanding of the etiology in the suicide literature.
(5) After review of the literature, other countries have
actually backed away from gender transition procedures, and the
list now includes the United Kingdom, France, Finland, Norway,
Australia, and Sweden.
(6) Gender-affirming care has created a monopoly on
treatment options, as it demands that it is the only way to
treat gender dysphoria. By comparison, we can look at Cochrane
Collaboration, for example. There are 245 meta-analytic reviews
of varied treatment options for depression. Yet, when it comes
to gender dysphoria, there is only one path currently
prescribed to help someone, and that's to become someone else.
Researchers and clinicians should be innovating solutions
to heal the stress, not coercing kids onto a path that tells
them that they need to remove or change physical parts of who
they are to be whole. This is why I'm calling on you to act on
behalf of children.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Bauwens follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Thank you.
I'm sorry for that buzzer background noise. It didn't
rattle you at all.
We will now proceed under the five-minute rule with
questions, and the Chair recognizes, first, the gentlewoman
from Wyoming for five minutes.
Ms. Hageman. First, I want to say thank you for being here.
You are four incredibly brave women and you're my heroes.
You have been willing to put yourselves out there to
address something that many people want you to stop talking.
They want to prevent you from talking. Don't listen to them.
Make sure that you continue to use your voice to educate us, to
educate the American people, because these children are worth
saving.
Dr. Bauwens, I want to thank you for being here.
In your testimony, you reference what I think is one of the
more important points in this debate, in that children are
treated as special and a vulnerable class in the psychological
and research fields. You reference the experience at Tuskegee.
To me, the important takeaway here is that controversial so-
called healthcare practices, treatments, and experience have
not always withstood the test of time.
Outside of your reference, I think of how lobotomy was once
a form of care we wouldn't even consider today and, in fact,
has been banned in countries throughout the world.
In this debate, I have wanted to replace the misleading
terminology ``gender-affirming care,'' especially as it relates
to children.
(1) It replaces the biological reality of sex, and
(2) It falsely suggests that, using term ``affirming,''
that there is anything good going on here.
There are only two sexes. Boys are girls--or boys are boys
and girls are girls, and one cannot become the other.
In fact, and especially when it comes to children, it seems
to me that gender-affirming care is better described as
``sexual lobotomy.'' It is treatment that is fundamentally and
permanently--that fundamentally and permanently alters the
sexuality and medical and psychological well-being of these
patients. It causes irreversible sterilization and serious
long-term medical complications and long-term reliance on
pharmaceuticals.
These treatments and surgeries are controversial medical
practices that seek to change a person in a manner which is not
actually achievable, and they will not withstand the test of
time.
Dr. Bauwens, are there medical professionals in the United
States and abroad already rejecting these surgeries as any form
of serious medical care?
Ms. Bauwens. Yes. Thank you for your question--or your
question.
We are seeing an increase of medical professionals speaking
out. Just this past week, there were 21 doctors that came out
and said, ``We are very concerned about this.''
The AAP, American Academy of Pediatrics, was referenced
earlier. Eighty percent of their membership has been asking for
a review of the literature, and they've been denied that review
by the upper echelon. So, there are--and I've listed many other
countries--there are people who are standing up because they're
seeing the harms done to these kids like Chloe Cole.
Ms. Hageman. Can you discuss why referring to these
treatments as lifesaving treatment is so extremely misleading?
Ms. Bauwens. Yes. It's misleading for a number of reasons.
Because, for one, the whole impetus of the scientific method is
that we're discovering things. We're supposed to be in a
process of, ``Isn't this the right approach, or not?''
This whole discussion about saying that it's lifesaving
automatically says there's no room for discussion; there's no
room for scientific inquiry because the science is settled,
which it's an amazing statement because the suicide literature
has been around far longer than the transgender literature, and
the suicide literature is not conclusive.
So, we have where the right hand doesn't know what the left
hand is doing in this case.
Ms. Hageman. It seems to me what we've been living through
for the last couple of years is a government that wants to
suppress any type of speech that it disagrees with. We're
seeing that with the industrial censorship complex that we've
been talking about.
It seems--it appears that's exactly what's going on here.
They want to stop the debate because they know that they can't
win it.
Dr. Bauwens, my last question is, what is the success rate
of sex change operations?
Ms. Bauwens. Well, we have--it's hard to find longer-term
data with children. What the data that we do have, which is
probably the most reliable data point available, is from the
Swedish study. It looked at over 10 years, which is really
important because regret doesn't just happen a year after some
sort of transition. What you see is a suicide rate that's
associated with 19 times higher than the general population.
Ms. Hageman. Well, actually, there is a zero percent--
there's a 100 percent failure rate for sex change operations,
isn't there, because it's not possible to change your sex?
Ms. Bauwens. That's right.
Ms. Hageman. A hundred percent failure rate for these
procedures?
Ms. Bauwens. That's right, you can't change your sex.
Ms. Hageman. Thank you, and I yield back.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Thank you.
The gentlelady yields back.
The Chair recognized the gentleman from New York for five
minutes.
Mr. Nadler. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Minter, a Federal court has stated that, quote,
Under the WPATH standards of care and Endocrine Society
guidelines, before puberty, treatments focused on support for
the child and family. Some prepubertal children may socially
transition. No medical interventions are indicated or provided
for the treatment of gender dysphoria in prepubertal children.
Do you understand this to be a correct statement?
Mr. Minter. Yes.
Mr. Nadler. Talk to the mic. Yes.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. It's actually not--is the button
red? Sorry.
Mr. Minter. OK, there you go. My apologies.
Yes, sir, that is 100 percent correct. Before puberty,
there are no type of medical or medication interventions
whatsoever. We're talking about transgender adolescents who's
hit puberty and who would be eligible to be considered, when
it's medically appropriate.
Mr. Nadler. Thank you.
What does the Federal court mean in saying that, quote,
``No medical interventions are indicated or provided for the
treatment of gender dysphoria in prepubertal,''--actually, you
just answered that.
What does the Federal court mean in saying that, ``Some
prepubertal children may socially transition.''?
Mr. Minter. Yes, the only type of medical support or
support offered to a transgender youth before puberty is to
just let them be who they are. I can't stress enough; this
isn't about kids becoming someone they're not. This is about
kids being who they are. So, just allowing them to live with a
name, clothing, et cetera, that reflects who they really are.
It's remarkable; they found that when--research has found
that, when children are supported in that way, they are
indistinguishable in terms of their mental health outcomes from
nontransgender kids. They're just as healthy and really thrive
when they get the support, that simple support that they need.
Mr. Nadler. Thank you.
Mr. Minter, what have courts said about laws that restrict
transgender individuals' access to medically necessary care?
Mr. Minter. That they severely burden parents' fundamental
rights to make medical decisions for their own children, and
that they're blatantly discriminatory; that they violate the
guarantee of equal protection, because they do something that
has just never been done before in this country, which is
single out a particular group of people, transgender young
people to deny them medical care.
Mr. Nadler. Thank you.
Mr. Minder, a Federal court has stated that, quote,
The risks of gender-affirming medical care are not
categorically different than the type of risks that other types
of pediatric healthcare pose. For many adolescents, the
benefits of treatment greatly outweigh the risks.
Do you agree with this statement?
Mr. Minter. Absolutely.
Mr. Nadler. What are the benefits of receiving gender-
affirming care?
Mr. Minter. They're enormous. They produce positive mental
health outcomes for these young people. They dramatically
improve their quality of life. They do better in school. They
develop positive social relationships. We heard that with Ms.
Reynolds' testimony. Their relationship with their family
improves. Their gender dysphoria is alleviated, and any
depression, anxiety, suicidality is dramatically reduced.
There's a study from 2022 that found a 73 percent reduction in
suicidality among kids who had received this treatment.
Mr. Nadler. Ms. Reynolds, thank you very much for being
here today.
Is there anything about you, your son, and other families
like yours that you think this Subcommittee and the American
people should know?
Ms. Reynolds. I would like to just add one thing, if I
could. That is, with the sports debate, I just want to share my
son's process was with that.
So, as I mentioned, he was the only girl on the boys' team
for many, many years when he was a child. When he transitioned,
he completely dropped out of playing sports altogether. So,
that left a big hole in his life. That's nothing that he did
anymore, and it was because he felt the pressure from all this
kind of political discussion around this, and dropped out
completely. I think that story is probably way more common than
the isolated cases.
Mr. Nadler. Thank you.
Mr. Minter, what would you say about what we heard from Ms.
Cole about her experience with gender care and her unfortunate
experience?
Mr. Minter. I thank her for sharing that story.
How I'd respond, the most important thing to understand,
that story is the exception, not the rule. The vast majority of
young people who receive these treatments are getting them
after careful assessment and because they really need them.
This has actually been studied. We know that 98 percent of
young people who receive these treatments continue to receive
them into adulthood. What that reflects is the care behind
these standards of care and the assessment process, and the
care with which gender specialty clinics in this country are
providing this care.
Mr. Nadler. So, she is part of the two-percent?
Mr. Minter. Apparently so.
Mr. Nadler. Thank you.
My time is expired. I yield back.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. The gentleman is out of time.
Thank you.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California for five
minutes.
Mr. McClintock. I wonder, first, if Ms. Cole would like to
respond to that.
Ms. Cole. I didn't see a trans-identifying child who had a
positive outcome with their transition.
The reason why most children who are affirmed continue on
in transition, either as adolescents or as adults, is because,
once you've either socially transitioned or gone on blockers,
or started the other interventions, like surgery or hormones,
it's incredibly difficult to go back. The social ramifications
are--
Mr. McClintock. So, it's irreversible and they have no
choice at that point, is what you're saying?
Ms. Cole. In every single way.
Mr. McClintock. There are two aspects to the question. Let
me dispose of the first one involving sports, the fairness of
allowing biological males to compete against females in sports.
The second is a more complicated one, whether children should
be subjected to irreversible transgender surgical or chemical
procedures at all.
Ms. Scanlan, can you tell me if a female claiming to be a
male has ever dominated in men's sports?
Ms. Scanlan. No. Actually in my league, there isn't two
instances where the female athlete transitioned to the men's
side.
Mr. McClintock. So, this is very much a one-way street.
Ms. Scanlan. Yes.
Mr. McClintock. It is biological males competing against
women dominate those sports. There is not a case of a
biological female going transgender and dominating a male
sport. Am I correct?
Ms. Scanlan. Yes, you're correct. It's obvious that would
be the case because--
Mr. McClintock. In this case, it is simply--this is an
attack on the integrity of women's sports. I wonder why my
Democratic colleagues who often posture as feminists can't see
this plain truth.
Ms. Scanlan, what would be wrong with simply allowing
transgender men and women to compete in their own sports
competition while we preserve the fairness of women's sports?
Ms. Scanlan. Yes, I believe all individuals should have a
right to play sports. I think sex-based categories make the
most sense.
Mr. McClintock. So, transgender males should be allowed to
compete with other transgender males in their own sports
category. Nobody's got a problem with that, I think.
Ms. Scanlan. Yes. If that's what governing bodies decide is
a fair solution, then I'm for that. I believe that female
sports should be protected, and female sports teams should be--
Mr. McClintock. Now, the more weighty question is who
should make the decision to subject a child to such a procedure
on behalf of that child?
Ms. Scanlan. Nobody.
Mr. McClintock. Well, long before governments existed,
there were mothers and fathers who had children. So, the family
is the most fundamental governing unit. It's established by
nature itself. So, I think it therefore follows that parents
have a fundamental natural right to raise their children
according to their own best judgment.
It can't be absolute, of course. You can't kill them. You
have to feed them and clothe them and shelter them. Society has
a role to play in being sure that you do. It is intrusions into
the decisions of parents over the raising of their children.
That needs to be very cautious, very limited, and very humble.
Now, the Ranking Member, in her opening statement, makes
this point, once you strip all of the partisan rhetoric. It
seems to me there are two issues here. The first is the effort
in States like California to bypass parent's judgment and
subject their children to transgender procedures against the
parent's judgment or even to hide this from the parents. That
is going on in California right.
So, I want to be sure I understood the Subcommittee's
Ranking Member correctly. It sounded like she, too, opposes
government replacing parent's judgment over the decision on
transgender procedures for their children. Am I correct on
that? Am I correct on that? I yield to the gentlelady to
answer.
Ms. Scanlon. I'm sorry. I was--
Mr. McClintock. It sounded like you opposed government
replacing parent's judgment over the decision of transgender
procedures on their children. Am I correct on that?
Ms. Scanlon. What I said was that parents have the ultimate
right to make the decisions concerning appropriate medical care
for their children.
Mr. McClintock. Then I think we're in agreement. We can
take that off the table. Both parties oppose the government,
any government, making decisions over whether a child will be
subjected to transgender procedures contrary to the wishes of
the parents. Do I understand that correctly?
Ms. Scanlon. I believe that is generally the legal
standard, yes--
Mr. McClintock. OK. That's great. Then we need to take it--
Ms. Scanlon. --over what is appropriate apparently.
Mr. McClintock. If both parties support a law that forbids
performing these transgender procedures on a minor without the
full and informed consent of the parents, then Mr. Chair, I
believe we should advance such a bill right away. I think that
would address the fears that I hear from a lot of parents that
their desire to protect their child is at risk from various
State governments like California who are trying to usurp that
decision. We have complete agreement on that.
Ms. Scanlon. I think you are mischaracterizing the complete
agreement.
Mr. McClintock. Well, I thought we had just arrived at that
agreement until it comes down to actually doing it and then you
seem to have a change of heart. Mr. Chair, let's put that to
the test. I see I'm out of time. I think the sooner we move on
that the better.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. A very keen observation. The
Chair now recognizes Ms. Balint, the gentlelady from Vermont.
Ms. Balint. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to start by saying
these issues are typical for most Americans to talk about. I
want to bring us back to the basic dignity and humanity of all
Americans full stop.
Ms. Reynolds, I really appreciate you being here today. I,
too, am a parent. I know that I would do anything that I could
to get my children the care that they need. Implied in what
you've said is that journey was not always easy for you.
I'm wondering if we could bring it back to the experience
of real parents, real Americans right now who are trying to
wrestle with these issues. Just tell us a little bit more, if
you could, about your experience of trying desperately to get
your child to support that you felt like they needed, and you
didn't always know what that was.
Ms. Reynolds. So, when my child came out as transgender
there was not sort of the hysteria that there is now about
this. So, there was not a lot of information. We didn't know
anyone. We didn't know other parents. We didn't know other
kids.
So, if you can imagine late nights on the internet trying
to find any information. Lots and lots of tears, lots and lots
of discussions with my husband, what are we going to do? How
are we going to support our child. Then we sort of put to the
test the social transition. Then we spoke with experts, right?
We took our time, and we learned, and we grew. As our child
matured, that sort of changed things, too. It was painful. I
don't want to--I sort of don't want to focus on the negative of
all this, but it was extremely painful for us. It wasn't an
easy choice. It wasn't anything that we took lightly. We took
this extremely seriously. We were trying to get it right.
Ms. Balint. So, is it fair to say that you tried to put the
needs of your child at the center of all the decisions that you
were making, difficult decisions in the face of a lot of
stigma, and a lot of misunderstanding, and you said recently,
the hysteria around this. Does the added stigma make it more
difficult for parents in this situation to have the courage to
stand up for their children? Like what is that when you feel
like you are trying desperately to do the right thing, and
you're hearing all these voices that you are not being a good
parent?
Ms. Reynolds. It's absolutely heartbreaking actually. I've
spent my entire career trying to help people, particularly
children. That is what I do. To sort of be looked at as a child
abuser or an indoctrinator or something like that, it's
extremely painful and just adds a whole other layer to this. It
feels very hateful and divisive.
Ms. Balint. I really appreciate you saying that because I
think there are a lot of parents across the country right now
that are trying their level best to do right by their children.
This kind of heightened hysteria around this issue is making it
very difficult for them to do that. So, I wanted to bring this
hearing back to basic humanity and dignity because I feel like
we have gone astray. That's the first thing I want to say. So,
thank you for being here.
For Ms. Cole, I also want to thank you for being here. I am
very sorry you feel like you didn't get the care that you
needed and deserved.
Ms. Cole. Thank you.
Ms. Balint. You're welcome. Mr. Minter, if you could talk
to us about gender-affirming care, what does that look like for
young kids? What are we talking about when we talk about
gender-
affirming care for young children?
Mr. Minter. For young children, we are simply talking about
parental love and support, not trying to change the child,
recognizing that the child is transgender, and allowing them to
be who they are, and encouraging others, family members, to do
the same. It's really just loving and supporting a child.
Ms. Balint. I really appreciate that. Again, let's get back
to the basic humanity and dignity of all. The last thing I want
to say, in his opening statement, the Chair said, ``there is no
such thing as gender assigned at birth.''
I just want to be on the record here as standing up for the
5.6 million Americans who are in intersex. Actually, that is
exactly what the experience that they had was they were having
their gender assigned at birth, and they are Americans, too.
They are trying to navigate this.
There are atypical chromosome patterns, gonads and
genitals, that do not fit typical binary notions of male and
female. That does not make them less American or less
legitimate or less worthy of dignity and respect. I yield back.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. The gentlelady yields back. The
Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Hunt.
Mr. Hunt. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you brave ladies
for being here today. I greatly appreciate it, and I admire
your bravery in these times. Many of my colleagues on the left
like to discuss gender-affirming care and claim that puberty
blockers and hormone therapy and sex reassignment surgery are
the only ways to treat gender dysphoria.
Once a child expresses a feeling of gender dysphoria,
instead of questioning the root cause of that feeling, that
child will more likely than not be on a fast track to gender
reassignment surgery, or otherwise known as genital mutilation.
I want you to imagine something. What if we affirmed every
thought that our children have? I would like to show you a food
pyramid. Now, I know what you are thinking. This is not the
FDA's approved food pyramid although many of you probably wish
it was.
This is the food pyramid according to my four-year-old and
my two-year-old daughters. By the way, in the Hunt house, we
don't do Ben and Jerry's. It's Blue Bell only. If my children
had their way, they would have ice cream for breakfast, lunch,
and dinner, and for every single meal in between. Oh, the
wisdom of children.
In the same country, we know that children are mature
enough to make adult decisions that will impact the rest of
their lives. That is why we have parents. Children cry for ice
cream, but as parents, we have the wisdom to know that ice
cream is not in their best interest, particularly their long-
term interest.
I want to thank my parents, Willie and Diane Hunt. They had
three children. All of us three went to West Point. All three
of us served our country. All three of us earned multiple
master's degrees from Ivy League schools. Do you know why?
Because my parents did not give in to the thoughts of an
adolescent Wesley Hunt.
I am a United States Congressman because my parents didn't
listen to me when I was eight years old. They raised us. They
cared for us. They taught the ways of being successful people.
As an adult, you can do whatever you want with your body
and with your own money. You are mature. You are fully grown.
You can make adult decisions.
I am a combat veteran. I fought for the right for you as an
adult to make your own decisions. In my opinion, children are a
different story. It is our obligation to protect them.
When it comes to gender dysphoria in children, many in the
American medical establishment have absolutely lost their
minds. A child will tell their parent they have thoughts of
gender dysphoria, and the parent may take that child to a
doctor. The doctor, instead of questioning the root cause of
the dysphoria, will instead affirm the child's thoughts and
proceed with gender-affirming care.
Is many of my colleagues on the left want you to believe,
there isn't widespread agreement on how to treat gender
dysphoria. I can assure you that child mutilation is not the
answer. In fact, Finland, Sweden, France, and the UK, are
reversing course and asking questions. In the UK, their only
national gender clinic for children shut down last year by
court order, what do their doctors know that our doctors don't?
I am sorry we are here right now. I am sorry, Ms. Cole. We
failed you. Ms. Scanlan, my daughters are going to watch this
because you have become their new hero. I can assure you that
my four-year-old and my two-year-old daughters will not change
in front of biological men. This is ridiculous.
I don't care what party you are a part of. If you think
that we are all equal and the same biologically, you have
literally lost your mind. When my two daughters work hard in a
sport, work hard in their craft to be the best that they can be
among other women, they will compete against other women. I owe
Victoria and Olivia and every other young lady in this country
that.
If you think I am wrong, I am not the problem. I can assure
you. We have an opportunity in this country to get this right
in 2024, so we can stop all this foolishness. I cannot thank
you ladies enough for bringing this up. I apologize that we
live in America when this is happening. Thank God for the
American spirit fire and thank God for brave women like you,
because it's brave women like you that are going to turn the
tide so that future women won't have to suffer in the same way
that you have. God bless you.
Thank you so much for being here. I yield back the rest of
my time.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Thank you. The gentlemen yields
back. The Chair next recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee,
Mr. Cohen.
Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Chair. First, I would like to
quote Judge Moody from Arkansas, a Federal judge. He said,
The diagnosis of gender dysphoria is made by a clinician who
assesses whether a patient meets criteria based on a clinical
interview, the clinician's observations of the patient, and the
reports of the minor's parents.
This is how diagnosis of other mental health conditions are
generally made.
Gender dysphoria is a serious condition that if left
untreated can result in other psychological conditions
including depression, anxiety, self-harm, suicidal behavior,
and impairment of functioning.
So, these things need to be discussed and determined in a
scientific manner and a logical manner, not emotion, not
behavior and attitudes that appeal only to voters in trying to
gain votes at the ballot box. This should be done responsibly.
Transgender people have been around for a long time. They
have rights, and they need to be respected. I read Ms.
Scanlan's testimony. I wasn't here to hear it, and I think Penn
didn't deal with your situation like they could have and should
have in putting up some type of different barriers in the
women's area of the locker room, but that's another issue.
Things should be dealt with in a different way.
This is an easy way for people to try to get points. Pick
on a minority group that is the most minority and least
understood in our country. It's gone on for centuries. A
hundred years ago, it was African Americans. Later it was
Hispanics, then it was gay people, and now transgender people.
Find a group that is not understood and is easy to use to gain
political power. If it is bad for politics, it is bad for
people, you should use science.
Parents have rights in raising their children. Athletes
have rights. There is a connection. We need to figure out the
right answer. To get the right answer, we need to ask the
medical association and the psychiatric association to choose
the people that come before us to testify and give us their
opinions on the right way to deal with this issue. Not each
group picking people that are favorable to them to put out
divergent issues, but people who are experts based on the AMA,
the American Psychiatric Association, and maybe another
association similar where they pick the witnesses and send them
to us to talk about the issue and to suggest a response that
would be both fair to the transgender's parent, the transgender
child, and the society at large.
The Republicans didn't want vaccines and face masks, and
they argued that parental rights were sacrosanct then, and
parents had a right to direct healthcare decisions for
children. Well, a lot of people died, tens and hundreds of
thousands of people died because they didn't get vaccinated.
Gender-affirming surgery, the Republicans think the
government should make these sensitive decisions. It's not
necessarily the case.
They also believe Americans only have access to healthcare
if their healthcare match Republican radical beliefs.
Republicans fought against the Affordable Care Act. They fought
and refused to expand Medicaid in States leaving millions
without healthcare coverage, 120,000 in my State, Tennessee not
getting healthcare coverage when the Federal Government would
have funded.
They passed countless abortion bans depriving women of safe
reproductive healthcare. They spread misinformation to try to
undercut medical experts during the COVID pandemic,
particularly in Florida. Now, they are trying to limit gender-
affirming care for transgender youth. Limiting access to
healthcare, wedging the right-wing ideology into the exam room,
and substituting their personal beliefs for the professional
judgment of doctors, they are causing needless suffering.
In the past two Congresses, I Chaired this Subcommittee.
When the Republicans took control, they changed the name, which
used to be the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties
Subcommittee. They changed it to Constitution, I imagine with a
small c, and limited government. Civil rights and civil
liberties were out the window.
I was disappointed, not totally surprised, that civil
rights and civil liberties were removed. What I didn't
understand, is how this has anything to do with limited
government. This does not have to do with a limited government.
There is nothing limited about asserting the preferences and
beliefs of Federal legislatures into individual healthcare
decisions about young people. It is intrusive, and it is
dangerous. I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. The gentleman yields back. The
Chair now recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina. First,
seeking unanimous consent to allow the gentleman from Florida,
a Member of the Full Committee, to participate and have the
time waived to him for the Subcommittee proceeding.
Mr. Nadler. Mr. Chair, I object. I withdraw the objection.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Thank you. Thank you. The Chair
recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Fry.
Mr. Fry. Mr. Chair, I would like to yield my five minutes
to the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Matt Gaetz.
Mr. Gaetz. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Ms. Scanlan,
we just heard my Democratic colleague, Mr. Cohen, say that your
circumstance could have been fully resolved if we would have
just had some barriers up in the women's showers. Do you think
that this is a sufficient way to resolve what we are dealing
with here?
Ms. Scanlan. I think by Representative Cohen admitting that
we need barriers acknowledges there are biological differences
between men and women. By acknowledging that we need to have
private spaces that are separate from each other, why can't we
just use the locker rooms that we have always used, the men's
and the women's locker rooms? If you are acknowledging that we
need protection and privacy from these men, then you are
acknowledging that the locker rooms we have always used are the
correct ones.
Mr. Gaetz. My next question is for Shannon Minter. Are you
familiar with the changes in law recently in Washington State
regarding transgender youth?
Mr. Minter. Yes.
Mr. Gaetz. As I understand it, it used to be the case in
Washington State that if a youth showed up at an emergency
shelter, there was a legal requirement to notify the parent
within 72 hours in the absence of some abuse or neglect. Is
that your understanding of what the law was then?
Mr. Minter. I believe that is correct.
Mr. Gaetz. Then the law changed where now in Washington
State if someone shows up to one of these shelters who is a
minor and says that their parents don't agree with them
changing their gender that the shelter no longer has to notify
the parents within 72 hours and can instead notify a government
authority. Do I have that right?
Mr. Minter. The parents will be notified. There is no
question about that. This simply allows for a delay to allow
them to investigate to make sure this child is going to be
safe. There is no question that the parents will be notified.
Mr. Gaetz. How long should parents have to wait not knowing
where their child is, while a government process is playing out
to make a gender determination?
Mr. Minter. There is no reason to treat these situations
with transgender young people who may be in danger or at risk
of abuse at home any differently than we would treat any other
child where we would have reasonable basis to worry about that
and to investigate that.
Mr. Gaetz. It does treat them--
Mr. Minter. A short delay to protect the safety of young
people is always--
Mr. Gaetz. Hold on. How long is the delay? How long do you
want a parent not knowing where their kid is, because the kid
says they want to change their gender? Just tell me how long a
delay you think is appropriate?
Mr. Minter. I want authorities to treat these kids with the
same care they treat all other children.
Mr. Gaetz. That's--
Mr. Minter. It will be a short delay, and the parents will
be notified.
Mr. Gaetz. Hold on now because--well, you won't tell us how
long a delay. So, if you are watching this, just imagine you
are that parent, and you don't know where your child is. The
law now says there is a 72-hour period where the shelter has to
notify you. That 72-hour period for any child of any gender or
any circumstance is a period to investigate whether there is
abuse in the home. Beyond that, beyond 72 hours, you have got
to tell the parent.
So, it is really important to understand here what the
proponents of radical gender ideology want. They want to stand
between a parent and a child on these important decisions. I
don't think it is abuse if a parent says, I am not going to get
my child gender blockers.
It is odd to hear you advocate for the law because just
moments ago, in testimony, you said, and I wrote it down,
``parents have a fundamental right to make healthcare decisions
regarding their children.''
If in Washington State today, the parent makes the decision
that they are not going to provide that gender affirming care,
what it does it unlocks for the government a window of time to
keep the child away from the parent and to not tell the parent
where the kid is.
Participant. Murderer.
Mr. Gaetz. Oh, please. Get over yourself. What's terrible
is when you have this incongruent desire of the government to
restrain the ability of parents to parent. I can only imagine
the terror that a parent must go through not knowing where
their child is. So, I think that is really challenging.
We have also seen in the State of Alaska, Title IX, which
was established for girls' sports to be used as a justification
to socially transition a child against their wishes. Ms.
Scanlan, as a beneficiary of Title IX, as a female athlete, do
you think Title IX should be used in that way?
Ms. Scanlan. Absolutely not. Swimming did a lot of really
good things for my life. I am a sexual assault survivor, and
swimming was the only things that I had to keep me going when I
was struggling with that. To think about young girls that are
not going to be given those same opportunities because Title IX
is being reworked and rewritten for these new people that have
different definitions of what a woman is.
Mr. Gaetz. Yes. I am against transitioning children against
the will of their parents, and I am against transitioning Title
IX away from an asset for women's sports through this strange
social justice cause that is deeply misguided. Thank you, Mr.
Chair, I yield back.
Ms. Scanlon. Mr. Chair, I seek unanimous consent to
introduce into the record an article entitled, ``No, Washington
Did Not Just Pass a Law Allowing the State to Kidnap and
Transgenderify Children.''
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Without objection.
Ms. Scanlon. Thank you.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. The Chair now recognizes the
gentlelady from Texas, Ms. Escobar.
Ms. Escobar. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Before I begin my
questioning, I have to say this has been so deeply disturbing
on a number of levels. What we have seen today is what we have
been seeing this entire Congress, which is an effort by my
Republican colleagues, and indeed some of the more extreme
voices in the Republican party, to keep Americans on a
treadmill of rage. Whatever the latest issue is that they want
people to be angry about, they do their best to keep Americans
on a treadmill of rage.
They get their Fox or Newsmax or whatever right-wing media
outlet of the moment is, they get their viewers. They get a
clip from this hearing that gets displayed, it gets put on
Twitter, and they make money. That's what all this is all
about, unfortunately.
I would like unanimous consent to enter into the record a
couple of articles. The first is, ``Gender Affirming Surgeon
Speaks at Jacobs School Event,'' dated June 9, 2023.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Without objection.
Ms. Escobar. That article, we saw a clip earlier of Dr.
Blair Peters. Had Dr. Peters actually been here, he could have
helped dispel some myths. In fact, in the article you will find
Dr. Peters saying very explicitly transgender kids do not get
surgery, Dr. Peters said, ``directly refuting a key talking
point for those trafficking in antitrans rhetoric.''
The other article I would like to enter--I would like
unanimous consent, Mr. Chair, to enter into the record, is an
article entitled, ``I Don't Want to Live in this State of
Terror Anymore. Some Families with Trans Children are Leaving
Texas.'' If I could have unanimous consent to enter that into
the record.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Without objection.
Ms. Escobar. Thank you. Mr. Minter and Ms. Reynolds, thank
you for being here to dispel some of these myths and to fight
back against this effort to keep Americans on this treadmill of
anger and rage.
I would also--Ms. Reynolds, I want to apologize to you. One
of my Republican colleagues made some really demeaning and
belittling comments meant to humiliate and minimize the parents
of trans children by comparing the very difficult, painful
journey, and conversation with children about transitioning to
allowing kids to eat ice cream all day every day. So, I want to
apologize on behalf of what happened. I want to congratulate
you for your courage to speak on behalf of your child and other
children.
I would like to ask you, Ms. Reynolds, I entered into the
record this article about Texas. Texas has been a very hostile
State to vulnerable populations. Can you tell me--and I
listened very carefully to your journey. Can you tell us what
happens when the government marshals all its energy and
resources to harm families like yours?
Ms. Reynolds. It is absolutely terrorizing is what it does.
It is very--it creates another level of stress. I really can't
even underState that, overState that. It is terrorizing. It
really is.
It is extremely stressful. It is extremely distracting. It
produces all kinds of fear. I would have left Texas already if
that were something that was financially feasible for my
family, and it is not. My career is in Texas. My children are
established there. They have their friends. They have their
schools. They are there. We are here.
Because of this, I would have been a political refugee to
another State if I could afford to do that. So, we have no
choice but to try to at least tell our story and see if anybody
can hear sort of something a little more rational, something a
little more like what families like mine are experiencing.
Ms. Escobar. Thank you so much, Ms. Reynolds. I would be
remiss if I didn't say, if Congress really wanted to protect
children, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would
have joined with us in passing robust comprehensive gun
violence prevention legislation. That would truly protect
children. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. The gentlelady yields back. The
Chair recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. Kiley.
Mr. Kiley. I yield back to the Chair.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Thank you for yielding the time.
Dr. Bauwens, can you define what gender dysmorphia is?
Ms. Bauwens. Dysmorphia or dysphoria?
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Well, there are two different
terms?
Ms. Bauwens. Yes. So, gender dysphoria is a diagnosis in
the DSM, which is what we are talking about, I think.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Yes. So, is it increasing among
our children now, this gender dysphoria?
Ms. Bauwens. Yes, yes. The diagnosis has increased. I
believe even from 2021 to current, there was like a 40 percent
increase. The other thing is that we have also had a
proliferation of gender clinics. So, 10 years ago, there was
just maybe a few. Now, all of a sudden there are tons of gender
clinics with a really steep curve of surgical markets expected
to increase.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. So, do you think social media has
any role in this increase in gender dysphoria?
Ms. Bauwens. Absolutely. We know that kids are being
influenced. I have a list of--there are 40,000 subscribers to a
detransi-
tioning site. I have a list of people who are willing to
testify, not to mention those who are silent. I'm sorry. What
was the question again?
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Well, just about the role of
social media and the influences there.
Ms. Bauwens. Social media, yes. So, social media,
especially with this age cohort has a very important role. The
unfortunate thing, and which is actually the compassionate
thing, would be if we were to begin to research why is there
such an increase in diagnoses of gender dysphoria, and not just
our pat answer of more people feel comfortable coming out.
Why has the demographic flipped from mostly biological
males experiencing gender dysphoria to biological females? So,
we don't have answers to those questions, and yet we are
plowing ahead with these procedures anyway.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Well, the evidence seems to show
that there is sort of a rush to force gender transition or sex
change procedures on children. Are we imagining that, or do you
think that's actually happening?
Ms. Bauwens. No, I don't think we are imagining that. I
wish that some of the experiences that we have heard reported
today were accurate for the population as a whole, but that is
not what we are seeing. You can go on Planned Parenthood's
website and see that if you want a testosterone or estrogen
prescription, you can go there and get it in an hour. You you
don't have to go through a rigorous assessment.
I think if we had those markers in place, then you would
see kids not running toward this kind of transition because I
think the number is around 78 percent come to a clinical
setting with at least three other--or at least some kind of
diagnosis other than gender dysphoria.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. I think it is an obvious fact
that there are some industries that stand to benefit
financially from all these procedures and all this
experimentation. Are you aware of European nations putting a
pause on gender transition procedures for minors?
Ms. Bauwens. Yes. I think that is the issue that we are
asking for. This is the compassionate issue. Let's review the
literature.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Yes.
Ms. Bauwens. Let's review, what does the science actually
say? Not just from people who are supporters, either way, but
what does the science say? Then what we are seeing is where
countries, like the UK that shut down the Tavistock Clinic, you
are seeing other countries like Finland, Norway, et cetera,
that once they actually look at the science that is used to
support these procedures, they back away from it because the
evidence is actually very weak.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. There are no reliable studies on
long-term effects. We don't know.
Ms. Bauwens. The longest one we have is Sweden because it
goes 10 years. The reality is that a lot of people don't
experience regret until like five-seven years after they have
gone through these procedures.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. I will have more time for
questions for the panel. I know Ms. Cole is about to hit that
button. I am coming back to you because I will have more time.
I just want to note that on May 13, 2021, a Subcommittee
Member here on the Judiciary, our colleague, Ms. Sheila Jackson
Lee who walked in the room, I am going to quote because you
said, I think it is up on the screen there, in essence, ``the
brain doesn't fully mature until at least 25 years old.'' Does
that tell us about high school students, middle schoolers and,
yes, young people who make rash or irreverent or spontaneous
decisions? Should that be their life? Now, admittedly she was
saying this in the context of a criminal Subcommittee hearing.
I think that is a truism. I think she stated an obvious fact
that everybody should acknowledge.
Unfortunately, I am out of time. I will have some more in a
bit. The Chair now recognizes Ms. Jackson Lee. How about that
introduction?
Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Johnson, thank you for giving me that
gift. You are absolutely right. That hearing, if I might quote
it specifically as the Chair of the Committee, it was made
during a Committee hearing entitled, ``The Juvenile Justice
Pipeline and the Road Back to Integration.''
The idea, Ms. Reynolds and Mr. Minter, was to save lives
from young people being incarcerated for life. It was the
individual young person making rash actions that would draw
themselves into criminal life or criminal acts should that be
the rest of their life.
So, let me not step away from the idea that we want to save
lives in many instances. Let me get to the point of this
hearing since that was not relevant to this hearing, and it was
on a completely different topic. Let me get to this point. Let
me apologize for a hearing that frightens me.
I have dealt with this issue for decades. I dealt with a
young man named David Ritcheson, who was a gay young man, a
young, young, young man, who in the place he lived, Texas, his
life was not affirmed. He lived in a skin of concern and fear
and, ultimately, he was sodomized. We introduced legislation of
the David Ritcheson Anti-Hate Legislation because as a gay
young man who lived life differently, he was not affirmed.
Ultimately, even though he got past this case, he ultimately
committed suicide.
So, let me, as I begin my questioning, tell you how fearful
I am that the intervention of this Committee on issues of
private healthcare determination frighteningly label the trans
community in a way that someone is being intimidated in fear
and concern for their life or their personal thinking is that
they are not worthy. They are not entitled to good healthcare
and that their life is not worth it.
I insist on pronouncing today, your life is worth it. Your
son's life is worth it. Your daughter's life is worth it
however they are transitioning and as they live their life. I
plead and beg for those who might be listening know that we do
not believe that this is a question for this Committee. It is a
question for healthcare, for your parent or loved one or
guardian and as well your personal determination.
I will not pretend to be a scriptured person. I am not
ordained. I am not in any leading religious organization as a
religious leader, but I have spoken to persons who lead. They
have given me no evidence that this issue speaks to anyone's
religion.
Again, I don't pretend to know every aspect of everyone's
faith. In this country, you practice as you desire. I will not
sit here and allow the trans community to be abused or in
essence to be rejected. For someone somewhere, let me say your
life is worthwhile.
Mr. Minter, let me provide you with a question very
quickly. My time is short. The due process clause of the 14th
Amendment forbids States to deprive any person of life,
liberty, or property. The Supreme Court has stated this clause
includes a substantive component that provides heightened
protection against government interference. What does this mean
to the interests of parents in the care and custody and control
of their children is important. Please give what this means to
you as you lead out in this community.
Ms. Reynolds, please let us know what this meant to you for
your son, for his coming together and how you needed the
support of your community, your surroundings, and how important
this is for the trans.
Let me go to Mr. Minter, please. I would ask the Chair for
his indulgence as I had to respond to his commentary. Yes, Mr.
Minter.
Mr. Minter. Thank you so much for your statement of support
for this community. Kids need to hear that. Yes, these State
bans are an unthinkable intrusion on the traditional, deeply
rooted authority of parents to make medical decisions for their
own children, who are talking about obtaining established care
through parents who know there is an effective treatment. They
see their child suffering. To have the government come in and
say, no, you cannot obtain this healthcare for your children is
a shocking violation of parent's rights.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Psychologically, Ms. Reynolds, if you can
just bring it home to us what it really means and to somebody
who is not in this room that might be seeing what's going on
here.
Ms. Reynolds. I just want to highlight how incredibly
difficult all this was. This was, again, nothing that we
arrived on easily. There was nothing, nothing impulsive about
any of this decision. It was made collaboratively with a team
of trained professionals.
There was a ridiculous amount of assessment that happened
prior to that. This is not just some kind of fly by night, my
kid said this one day, and this whole thing launched. That is
not how this went down. It was very, very, very careful.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Are others impacted by listening to this--
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. The gentlelady is out of time.
Ms. Jackson Lee. --quickly, can you just say what impact
hearing that they are not affirmed?
Ms. Reynolds. It is devastating.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. The gentlelady is out of time.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I yield back. Thank you.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Thank you. The Chair yields next
to the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Roy.
Mr. Roy. Thank you, Chair. I thank the witnesses for being
here. Ms. Scanlan, is Lia Thomas a man or a woman?
Ms. Scanlan. Lia Thomas is biologically male.
Mr. Roy. Did the University of Pennsylvania attempt to
silence or sensor you or any of your teammates when the news
broke about a member of the team, the swim team, would be
joining your female swim team?
Ms. Scanlan. We had already known at this point that Thomas
would be joining our team. The university advised us to seek
counseling if we objected.
Mr. Roy. Did they try to silence you all in terms of
voicing your opinions?
Ms. Scanlan. Yes. In fact, I wrote an opinion piece for the
school newspaper that was quickly retracted because it was too
offensive to be written and published.
Mr. Roy. Offensive that you were concerned about a
biological male competing against you and undressing in a
locker room with you and others? That would be ``offensive''?
Ms. Scanlan. Yes.
Mr. Roy. What steps did the University of Pennsylvania take
to platform Lia Thomas over you and your female teammates?
Ms. Scanlan. The University of Pennsylvania nominated Lia
Thomas for NCAA Woman of the Year. In fact, I found this to be
very offensive because there are plenty of other female
athletes at the University of Pennsylvania that are very strong
and very worthy of that nomination.
Mr. Roy. Are you familiar with the International Swimming
Federation?
Ms. Scanlan. Yes.
Mr. Roy. Do you consider it to be some bastion of right-
wing conspiracy or somehow a conservative right-wing
organization?
Ms. Scanlan. No.
Mr. Roy. Did the International Swimming Federation ban Lia
Thomas from competing at the 2024 Paris Olympics?
Ms. Scanlan. Yes. The governing body of swimming put in
laws to say that individuals that have gone through male
puberty are not permitted to compete in women's competitions.
Mr. Roy. So, a question for you, Ms. Cole, and first, thank
you for being here. I have heard some of my colleagues on the
other side of the aisle use words like this frightens me, this
hearing. They are frightened by us having a hearing, in which,
you are able to speak to the world about what you have gone
through.
I have heard colleagues on the other side of the aisle say
life is worth it in the context of pushing a particular world
view and saying life is worth it. I would just ask to say that
I just want to make sure that you know, like from our
standpoint, that your life is worth it. That the people that
have gone through this, that your lives are worth it.
I have wondered if you would like to comment on the worth
of your life, the social pressures, and the pressure placed on
you to pursue a path that you now believe was not the correct
path.
Ms. Cole. I think we are on the same page here, that
everybody's life, the right to happiness, is worthy. That is
what we are all fighting for even if we don't necessarily agree
on what that means.
If I may ask, would I be able to address another witness?
Mr. Roy. Through the Chair, you may. So, you may speak to
me and reference any other testimony you wish to.
Ms. Cole. OK. Well, Ms. Reynolds--
Mr. Roy. You can direct it to me and say that what Ms.
Reynolds talked about, you want to respond to and go ahead.
Ms. Cole. Well, I understood that Ms. Reynolds is scared
for her child. I just want to set the record straight that I
don't hate her. I don't think anybody in this room hates her.
In fact, I see my own mother and my own father in her. That
clearly, she really loves her child, and she is doing the best
with what she has been given, and unfortunately it is not much.
For that I am sorry. I mean, I think every parent deserves the
utmost grace and guidance with how to help their child.
With that being said, I don't wish for her child to have
the same result as I did. I don't wish for anybody to regret
transition or detransition because it is incredibly difficult.
It comes with its own difficulties, and it is not easy. I hope
that her child gets to have a happy and fulfilling adulthood,
however that may look like.
Mr. Roy. Well, thank you for that, Ms. Cole. I think that
was heartfelt. I know that a number of us share your view.
One last question as my time is winding down, do you
believe that the American healthcare system failed you?
Ms. Cole. On every single level.
Mr. Roy. Thank you.
Ms. Cole. My doctors and systemically.
Mr. Roy. Thank you for being here. I yield back.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Thank you. The gentleman yields
back.
Ms. Balint. Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent to enter
into the record two articles, first, ``Social Contagion Isn't
Causing More Youth to be Transgender,'' that is NBC News,
August 2, 2022, and, ``Study finds No Evidence of Social
Contagion Among Transgender Youth,'' August 3, 2022, American
Academy of Pediatrics.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Without objection. Another?
Ms. Jackson Lee. Yes, Mr. Chair. Thank you. ``Human Rights
Watch Attacks on Gender Affirming Care by State,'' but I just
want to show this map and just indicate how personal I think
these decisions are. Ms. Cole has indicated how personal it is,
and you have, too, Ms. Reynolds, thank you. Unanimous consent.
Also, ``A Hole in Our Heart. Family and Friends Mourn
Murder Victim Chyna Gibson'', another unanimous consent.
``Chyna Gibson is the fifth transgender woman killed in 2017.''
This is related, and I am introducing the ``Chyna Gibson Stop
Murdering Trans Today and Planned Parenthood, Texas Affiliates
and PPFA Move for Decision in Baseless Medicaid False Claims
Act,'' particularly, attacked because of their work in trans
affirming healthcare. I ask for unanimous consent for those to
be placed into the record, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Without objection.
The Chair now recognizes the Ranking Member, Ms. Scanlon,
for five minutes.
Ms. Scanlon. Thank you. Thank you to our witnesses. We
appreciate you being here to share your experiences and help
everybody understand both the very personal stories that are
implicated in this issue as well as some of the political
agendas that are being pushed.
It is remarkable that our majority colleagues were not able
to find any medical professionals to back their claims in
today's hearing other than an edited video of someone who
actually has refuted their conclusions. Much of what we have
heard today really is playing to and from some of the furthest
extremes of right-wing ideology and fearmongering.
Mr. Minter, our colleagues and witnesses have expressed
concern about the participation of transgender students on
athletic teams aligning with their gender identities even while
conceding several times now that to the extent this is a
concern in competitive athletics, the athletic governing bodies
are addressing this issue for competitive athletes. Can you
further comment?
Mr. Minter. Yes. Transgender students, transgender girls
and women have been playing on sports teams for a long time
now. Only recently has this become weaponized as a political
issue.
Sports associations, high school athletic associations,
governing sports bodies, and local school districts have long
been able to deal with this issue as they should by looking at
relevant factors like age, sport, level of competition, and
individual circumstances.
This is a classic solution in search of a problem. The real
problem, if there is one, is the one Ms. Reynolds identified,
which is still so difficult for transgender kids to participate
at all or to receive any encouragement and support.
Ms. Scanlon. Right. That has been one of the primary
concerns that we have been hearing from families as they have
kids who just want to be kids and participate in sports and
because of the weaponization of this issue, it has become a
problem. So, thank you for that.
We have also heard conservative lawmakers and activists
argue that bans on gender-affirming care are necessary to
protect minors with many labeling gender-affirming treatments
experimental. As we have seen here today repeatedly
deliberately confusing gender-affirming care with gender
transition surgery. Can you speak to that issue?
Mr. Minter. Again, surgery is an adult treatment. That is
not what we are talking about with children and youth. There
have been now six court cases, including two complete full
trials, where these States have had the opportunity to
substantiate the claim that this treatment is experimental.
They have no evidence of that.
Again, courts across a wide of variety of judges have
concluded that this is not experimental care. It is well-
established. It is well-founded. There is extensive clinical
research showing the benefits. This is just what ordinarily
happens in our healthcare system, which is parents with their
children and their healthcare providers making reasonable
medical decisions to help their own children.
Ms. Scanlon. Thank you. If you had about 30 seconds to
address any additional concerns, what would you say?
Mr. Minter. The UK still provides healthcare to transgender
young people. They shut down the one clinic that used to
provide all the care to open up multiple regional clinics to
serve more children.
The Swedish study has been referred to here, a number of
times today. It is so important. That study lends zero credence
to the notion that these treatments are not effective. The
author of that study has repeatedly expressed great distress at
the way her study has been misrepresented. She strongly opposes
bans on healthcare for transgender youth.
Ms. Scanlon. Thank you. We have heard a lot of
misinformation probably firmly held personal beliefs, but that
may be at odds with the facts. So, I want to correct some of
that for the record, Mr. Chair.
I would seek unanimous consent to enter the following items
into the record. A letter from leading medical organizations to
Congress opposing efforts to ban gender affirming care.
A letter from the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human
Rights in support of laws and policies that promote
transgender, nonbinary, and intersex people from
discrimination.
An Opinion by the U.S. District Court in Arkansas which was
later affirmed by the 8th Circuit Court, which has a very
complete assessment of the legal and factual basis for this
discussion. It found a statewide ban on gender-affirming care
to be in violation of the 14th Amendment.
A human rights campaign FAQ on gender-affirming care for
anyone who has questions about what is actually going on.
A policy paper from Women's Sports Foundation entitled,
``Participation of Transgender Athletes in Women's Sports.''
I'm almost done.
A The New York Times article entitled, ``How a Campaign
Against Transgender Rights Mobilized Conservatives.''
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Without objection.
Ms. Scanlon. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Thank you. The gentlelady yields
back. The Chair recognizes the Chairman of the Full Committee,
Mr. Jordan.
Chair Jordan. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Ms. Scanlan, the
Ranking Member just said this is simply about letting kids
compete and that the sport's governing bodies are addressing
this.
So, I would just ask you two questions. Is Lia Thomas a
kid?
Ms. Scanlan. No.
Chair Jordan. Is the NCAA appropriately and in the right
way in your judgment addressing the situation?
Ms. Scanlan. They did not during our season. They said that
Olympians deserve protections, but collegiate level athletes,
grassroot level athletes, middle schoolers, and high schoolers
did not deserve those same protections.
Chair Jordan. So, in your judgment, the Chair calling this
hearing is not waste of time as the Ranking Member said. We are
trying to get to the bottom of a real concern that is impacting
all kinds of young ladies who participate in collegiate
athletics.
Ms. Scanlan. Yes. I would like to say that while there has
been a lot of notions that this is such a minority group of
people, this one transgender athlete, Lia Thomas, affected
hundreds of girls.
There were hundreds of girls at the NCAA championship that
were in tears over the situation, whether it be getting bumped
out of their spots in competition, failing to qualify for the
meet or having to change in the locker room next to a 64"
biological male. This not a minority group that is being
affected by this.
Chair Jordan. Well, I thank our witnesses for being here
today, and I thank the Chair for his work. I yield to the
Chair.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Thank you for yielding. A quick
question for Mr. Minter. You, yourself, transitioned at age 35
and not as a child, correct?
Mr. Minter. That is correct. I wish I had been able to do
so earlier.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. All right. Ms. Cole, I want to
thank you again for being here today and for sharing your
powerful testimony, especially on your 19th birthday. That has
been very helpful to us.
Ms. Cole. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. I want to acknowledge what you
said earlier, tearfully, as appropriate. Everyone here, as you
said, our hearts go out to everybody, the families, everybody
affected. We are trying to strike the right balance. We do
believe Congress has a role here. I appreciate your testimony
for providing evidence of that.
I wanted to ask you first about your parent's involvement
in your transition process, and then ask you about some of the
hormone treatments you underwent because I think all that is
important.
First, were you or your parents informed of the long-term
effects of the procedures and hormones that you were subjected
to?
Ms. Cole. We had consent forms with a list of some of the
side effects. We did do consultations where we did speak about
some of them. It was in very vague terms. As a child, it was a
lot for me to process because I was perfectly healthy. Children
tend to think that they are invincible, that nothing can get
them. With all these things being listed, it was hard to know
which of these things I would experience.
Most of the side effects that I experienced, most of the
ones I am experiencing today actually, were not even listed on
this form, so I had no idea. Children just don't know what
permanence is because they have only been in the world for so
many years.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. It is an important legal
principle that we have informed consent, fully informed
consent, for life altering medical procedures. Are you then
suggesting that it was not really fully informed consent?
Ms. Cole. No matter how much information they would have
given me as a child, I just would not have been able to consent
to this. My parents were required to sign off on these. It was
under duress. I don't think there was really consent. It was
coercion. They were told--they were given the false dichotomy
of either your child transitions or she dies, but transitioning
almost killed me.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. The evidence suggests that this
is a common practice, regardless of what has been said here
today. There are some other things that are very disturbing.
One aspect of the current child movement about this sex change
movement that is particularly pernicious is the so-called off-
label medications. One that is well-known is leuprolide
acetate, which is commonly known as Lupron, to chemically
altering boys and girls, not by surgery, but chemically--
Ms. Cole. Yes.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. --it is the same thing. There is
a long list of pharmaceutical drugs that medical personnel
across the country are using to, for example, shut off the
testosterone production in young boys to make them more
feminine looking or to shut off the estrogen production in
young girls to make the more masculine looking. So, I am going
to say for the record, post-hearing, we have five days I will
enter some of the articles that detail a list of these chemical
drugs being used on children for purposes that are not approved
by the FDA.
Ms. Cole, was one of those puberty blockers that you
prescribed Lupron?
Ms. Cole. Yes, I was put on Lupron.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. What was the purpose of that in
your hormone treatment?
Ms. Cole. Just to stop the natural production of my
hormones to make way for the exogenous testosterone.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Does it concern you as it does us
that some pharmaceuticals are being used to chemically mutilate
some children today that were never explicitly approved for
that purpose by the FDA?
Ms. Cole. Incredibly so.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. To my knowledge, there is
currently no effort underway by the FDA to explicitly approve
these pharmaceuticals for a child for these purposes.
Ms. Cole. They shouldn't.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. They shouldn't. The time has
expired for the time that was yielded to me. I thank the Chair.
Now, I recognize myself for my five minutes finally. So, I will
keep going here.
The last time I checked, it was still illegal under Federal
law to use FDA approved pharmaceuticals for an underapproved,
or off label use and yet we are seeing that very commonly in
this field.
Ms. Cole, do you find it concerning that medications that
were used on you or on countless other children across the
country for a reason contrary to the original purpose they were
approved for--you said that is something that concerns you,
disturbs you, shouldn't be allowed, right?
Ms. Cole. Very much so.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Ms. Mailman, let me go to you.
There has been a lot of talk here in the recent few minutes
about legal precedents, et cetera. I saw you sort of biting
your lip as some of that was presented. I will give you a
moment here to refute any of that or to respond to it if you
will.
Ms. Mailman. Right. Well, we have heard a lot about the
parent's rights to put drugs into their kids, which the 6th
Circuit has just very recently said that there is no Supreme
Court case that extends this idea of parental rights to a
general right to receive new or experimental drug treatments.
In general, this idea of substantive due process would
strip people, would strip parents, would strip voters, and
would strip doctors of a say and push all those decisions into
our courts, which are not medical experts.
So, as the 6th Circuit also recently said,
Life tenured Federal judges should be wary of removing a vexing
and novel topic of medical debate from the ebbs and flows of
democracy by construing a largely unamendable Federal
constitution to occupy the field.
So, that is what people are asking for. They are asking for
judges to create medical law rather than voters informed by
medical science.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. That's right. I think you have
touched on a really important issue here, and it is one that
has been discussed a little bit today, and that is, as Mr.
McClintock said eloquently, ``we are conservatives. We are
limited government conservatives,'' right?
We obviously recognize that parents have a natural and
fundamental right to the upbringing of their children, to make
decisions with regards to their care, custody, and control. At
the same time, our legal system in this country, our law, does
not allow a parent to physically or mentally abuse or harm a
child, right?
So, what we are all trying to do here in a very reasoned
way is to strike the balance, to make sure that we are not
doing life-altering harm to young people who are not prepared
for that.
In some of the States, like in California, Mr. McClintock's
home State, they are pushing the parents out of the room. They
are doing this without their consent. That is alarming, and it
should be obviously unlawful.
Let me switch the subject here. If doctors are using
chemical castration drugs in an off-label fashion that is for a
purpose other than what they were approved for by the FDA,
should doctors face legal consequences? What do you think about
that?
Ms. Mailman. So, that is subject to medical malpractice
charges. Also, States regulate the practice of medicine. So,
States are perfectly entitled to regulate what drugs that
people can access themselves. If you can regulate what people
can access themselves, obviously that would confer to the child
as well. Unfortunately, I think you are seeing this movement
that States should not be able to regulate the practice of
medicine and somehow Federal judges should.
Absolutely, medical practice suits should be available
here. Unfortunately, you've seen the politicization of medical
associations creating standards that are then informing
doctors. So, I think that what this body could and should do is
make sure that there is research, that there is science that
are informing States so that their medical boards can make
better decisions.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. That's well said. Early in my
legal career, I did medical malpractice defense was one of the
areas. The medical standard was a big thing. We had medical
review panels in the State of Louisiana, as most States do, and
they would look to the medical standard. If the standard itself
is not fully informed by studies that back it up, we have a
broadscale concern here.
Can you define quickly, changing subjects, what a sanctuary
is in the context of gender transition procedures for children?
Ms. Mailman. So, California has bragged that it is a
sanctuary State as far as gender transition for minors. It has
SB-107. There a copycat bill being introduced in other States,
and it has two main provisions.
First, is that if a child goes to California to have a
gender procedure, the California courts will take over the
custody proceedings. So, one parent can take a child away from
the other parent and then the California court can assert
jurisdiction. That's one provision.
The second provision is that in California, they will not
give over any medical information if it relates to another
State's transgender procedure laws. So, California is priding
itself on ripping families apart when you would think that if
they have 170,000 homeless people living in the State that they
would focus on the benefits and improving the lives of
Californians.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. That is very well said. In seven
seconds, I can't do any justice to any of you asking another
question. I want to thank you all sincerely. This is an
important hearing. It was not an easy one for anybody, but it
is a really important issue that we have to wrestle with on
both sides of the aisle and in every State across the country.
Many legislatures are doing that right now. In my view, some
are doing some really important work.
So, we have to determine what we are going to do at this
level. So, your testimony, all of you, your testimony today was
valuable for that purpose.
This concludes--
Ms. Scanlon. I have one--
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. One more, one more.
Ms. Scanlon. I have one more UC. Thank you. An article
entitled, ``California Bill on Youth Mental Health Services Has
Been Distorted on Social Media,'' discussing the fact that
California law does not authorize gender-affirming surgeries
without parental consent.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. I am going to defer to the wisdom
of my witness, but without objection, we'll admit that for the
record.
This concludes today's hearing. We thank our witnesses for
appearing today. Without objection, all Members will have five
legislative days to submit additional written questions for the
witnesses or additional materials for the record. Without
objection, this hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:17 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
All materials submitted for the record by Members of the
Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government can
be found at: https://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/ByEvent
.aspx?EventID=116284.
[all]