3 untrue Leftist claims on trans surgeries for minors
Comedian and political commentator Bill Maher recently was a guest on the liberal political podcast "Pod Save America," where he engaged with host John Lovett, a former Obama White House staffer, on a wide-ranging conversation. Things shifted dramatically when Lovett steered the discussion toward the controversial topics of transgenderism and “gender-affirming” surgeries for minors, leading to an increasingly awkward exchange. As Maher struggled to articulate his position, the tension culminated in his abrupt departure from the show.
In this piece, I plan to outline three critical points from their discussion:
1. The claim that there are more than two sexes
2. The conflicting data surrounding “gender-affirming” surgeries
3. Lovett’s provocative comparison of these procedures to life-saving open-heart surgery
My hope is that you will gain a deeper understanding of how the Left presents its evidence to promote more “gender-affirming” treatments for minors, enabling you to confidently engage in conversations with those who want to harm our children with these life-threatening procedures.
Get Our Latest News for FREE
Leftist claim #1: There are more than two sexes
Many on the Left love to claim that human biology allows for more than two sexes. Bill Maher, when presenting his position, said to Lovett that sex “is more complicated than just two sexes.” He further argues his point by mentioning individuals who feel they are in the wrong body as evidence. However, this perspective of there being more than two sexes, male and female, reflects a profound misunderstanding of biological realities. Functionally, we are sexually dimorphic as human beings, and there are only two reproductive roles — male and female — clearly defined by biological markers such as chromosomes, reproductive organs, and hormonal profiles. Intersex conditions, often cited to challenge this binary, are disorders of sexual development. They do not in any way serve as evidence of a “new” sex. Intersex is a biological anomaly (less than 0.02% of the population), but not separate, distinct biological sexes.
Leftist claim #2: “Gender-affirming” treatments help kids
As the two got deeper into their discussion on transgenderism, Lovett asserted that “gender-affirming” treatments are genuinely beneficial for kids experiencing gender dysphoria. In response, Maher referenced a study by Dr. Johanna Olson-Kennedy on this topic but chose not to disclose her findings because they did not support her claims that “gender-affirming” treatments were actually beneficial for children.
On the website “Growing Up Transgender,” the counterargument is that science is continually evolving. Therefore, any research that is several years old is considered outdated and should not be taken seriously. The blog argues that new data consistently emerges suggesting that "gender-affirming” treatments are beginning to demonstrate the benefits of puberty blockers, and that mental health improvement should not be a metric used to determine whether treatments to alter a young person’s body are necessary.
The reality is that there are no solid studies conducted on transgender youth that overwhelmingly show they are better off mentally, physically, and psychosocially after undergoing puberty blockers or cross-sex treatments, or after undergoing medical transitions.
Several years ago, the Karolinska Institute in Sweden revised its initial findings, stating that after reanalyzing the data, "gender-affirming” surgeries (or “sex change” operations) actually did not demonstrate any mental health improvements among patients years later. In fact, many post-operative patients experience increased suicidal ideation, an increase in mental health issues, and require more psychiatric care.
The American College of Pediatricians strongly refutes the notion that transitional treatment is a healthy or beneficial approach for children by stating, “Puberty blockers may actually cause depression and other emotional disturbances related to suicide. In fact, the package insert for Lupron, the number one prescribed puberty blocker in America, lists “emotional instability” as a side effect and warns prescribers to “Monitor for development or worsening of psychiatric symptoms during treatment.”
In addition, the Cass Review in the United Kingdom pointed out some serious issues and a noticeable shortage of solid evidence backing the safety and effectiveness of gender transitions for young people. Because of this, several European countries, such as Sweden, Finland, and the U.K. itself, have opted to tighten their guidelines or even pause some gender-related medical treatments for minors.
Neglecting the long-term impacts of so-called “gender-affirming” treatments, including cross-sex hormones and puberty blockers, is, frankly, a form of child abuse.
Manipulating a young and developing body, paired with the spread of misleading ideology, doesn't actually help mental health; instead, it inflicts long-lasting damage. Children are at a critical and formative stage of their lives, not only regarding cognitive development but also in learning to navigate the significant changes occurring in their bodies and understanding the complexity of sexuality and their identity fully.
Children are vulnerable, and it is our responsibility to protect them from the culture wars that aim to strip away their true identity in God. As young people mature into responsible adults, our ethical duty is to ensure they develop into their true potential, as God intended.
Leftist claim #3: “Gender-affirming” surgeries are necessary to save lives
After listening closely to the conversation about transgender issues between Lovett and Maher, I was surprised when Lovett, defending “gender-affirming” surgery, compared it to open-heart surgery. He stated, “There are also really important surgeries that people get for their heart, and they go wrong, and somebody dies, and nobody says we must stop the cardiologists.”
There are several problems with Lovett’s analogy. The claim that “gender-affirming” surgery is similar to open-heart surgery ignores the critical differences between them. Open-heart surgery is usually performed to treat severe, life-threatening conditions, with the goal of either saving a life or significantly improving health. In contrast, “gender-affirming” surgery is elective and aims to align a person’s physical appearance with their gender identity.
“Gender-affirming” surgery alters the body’s original anatomy in ways that may not align with its functionality. The actual surgery — elective surgery — is often performed based solely on feelings related to gender identity and can lead to irreversible surgical changes that some may later regret.
Someone who undergoes open-heart surgery doesn’t look back and regret the procedure if it saved their life. However, there is no medical or scientific data that proves unequivocally that undergoing a “sex-change” operation was necessary to save the transgendered person from dying.
Therefore, equating these two types of surgeries is a false analogy and misleading.
In closing, we must acknowledge the seriousness of protecting our children's innocence and vulnerability regarding the troubling issue of transgenderism. This isn't just a matter of differing opinions; it's about genuinely safeguarding our kids from making decisions about their bodies that they aren't ready or mature enough to make.
My hope is that you won't stay silent about this moral concern but that you will courageously — and compassionately — speak out against those promoting harmful treatments for minors, standing strong in defense of those who cannot defend themselves.
Jason Jimenez is the founder and president of Stand Strong Ministries and is a respected Christian-worldview speaker, and faculty member at Summit Ministries. He is the best-selling author of Hijacking Jesus: How Progressive Christians Are Remaking Him and Taking Over the Church, Challenging Conversations: A Practical Guide to Discuss Controversial Topics in the Church, and Parenting Gen Z: Guiding Your Child through a Hostile Culture.
