The Human Wrongs Campaign

A press release designed to confuse

The Human Rights Campaign (HRC) in the US prides itself on “leading the fight for LGBTQ+ rights.” Like all legacy gay rights organizations, after same-sex marriage was achieved (in the US in 2015), it abandoned its original constituency and pushed the new, meaningless definition of homosexuality as “same-gender attraction.” To those who thought that “gender” was still being used as a polite synonym for “sex,” the change seemed insignificant. To many veteran gay rights activists, however — especially lesbians — it was clear the movement that we had driven for years was being trashed. The idea that sexual orientation is based on how the other person defines himself or herself is obviously rubbish. Frankly, anyone who thinks that’s how sexual attraction works has never experienced sexual passion.

To disguise its betrayal of gays and lesbians, the HRC has adopted Genderspeak, an opaque language that sounds lovely and inclusive to everyone with no knowledge and not much interest in the subject matter, but which is painful to people who still care about gay rights. Its press release on the Skrmetti case, in which oral arguments are being heard before SCOTUS today, is a classic example. Here we go:

The heading is “Backgrounder: How the First Supreme Court Case on Transgender Medical Care Could Impact the State of Healthcare and LGBTQ+ Rights Across the Country.”

The case actually focuses on whether Tennessee’s Bill to ban puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones for minors is constitutional. The HRC’s heading starts by assuming that these drugs can be described as “medical care,” which is precisely in dispute. Opponents argue that these drugs cause demonstrable harm while the evidence of any long-term benefits is of very poor quality. The reference to “transgender medical care” takes for granted that some minors are transgender and others are not. This is demonstrably false, since more and more detransitioners are coming out every day to express their regret and to say in particular that they mistook their lesbian or gay sexual orientation for a “gender identity” issue. The phrase “the state of healthcare” is empty hyperbole based on the same assumption — that the drugs at issue are “healthcare.” And as for “LGBTQ+ Rights” — that is a particularly nasty bit of propaganda. If we stop medics prescribing harmful drugs to LGB teens, we are protecting their rights, not undermining them.

The press release continues: “Oral arguments for US v. Skrmetti will be heard on December 4th; case could determine the constitutionality of Tennessee's ban on affirming healthcare for transgender youth.”

Aside from the propaganda already identified in the heading, we get another bit of Genderspeak: “affirming healthcare.” If a girl states firmly that she is a boy, “affirming healthcare” means “affirming” that lie and prescribing drugs that will help to turn her secondary sex characteristics into those of a boy. She will get a deep voice and beard growth. The HRC takes it for granted that this is the right approach. “Affirming” sounds loving and caring, but this is the opposite. Teenage girls have numerous reasons for wanting to try to escape from womanhood, and they need appropriate, compassionate care and therapy, not drugs or surgery.

Further down the page we get a statement from HRC President Kelley Robinson:

“At its heart, this case is about human dignity. Transgender youth are not political pawns—they are children who deserve compassion, medical care and the same opportunities to thrive as all youth, and their parents deserve the same rights to support their needs as all other parents. No politician should ever be able to interfere in the decisions best made by families and doctors—but that’s exactly what these discriminatory bans allow.

Every child deserves access to healthcare that supports their well-being. Nearly every major medical organization agrees: gender affirming care isn't a political statement; it's healthcare that can prevent depression, reduce suicide risk, and help children thrive. This is about healthcare, plain and simple.”

Protecting children from smoking, drinking, or harmful drugs is not an assault on their dignity. The phrasing in terms of children who deserve compassion etc. is a blatant attempt to depict those who oppose these drugs as uncaring. We know the opposite is true. We get the obligatory reference to “nearly every major medical organization,” when we know that the medical world in the US — where healthcare is client-driven and heavily commercialized — is out of step with developments elsewhere. This is especially true since the publication of the Cass Review, the meticulous, impartial, four-year review that US gender identity activists such as Jack Turban have tied themselves in knots trying to discredit.

The worst lie of all is “reduce suicide risk.” In this troubled population, in which most of the kids involved have several comorbidities, drugs and especially surgery increase suicide risk, rather than reducing it, while most kids who are not given these drugs eventually desist.

The final paragraph of Robinson’s statement is: “The Supreme Court now faces a fundamental question: Will we honor our constitutional promise of equal protection, or will we allow discriminatory laws to systematically marginalize young people?”

It is not “discriminatory” to protect all minors from harmful drugs. And here comes another bit of Genderspeak: “marginalize.” No. All minors certainly deserve “equal protection,” and ensuring that protection is not marginalizing but guaranteeing minors with “gender dysphoria” the same high standard of healthcare as others.

Then we get a number of references to studies that are deeply flawed. A statement from The Williams Institute that “there are more than 300,000 high school-aged (ages 13-17) transgender youth in the United States today, many of whom need gender-affirming care. Stating they “need” these drugs is of course begging the question. The studies reporting supposed benefits suffer from the usual biases of loss-to-follow-up, selective sampling and selective definitions, and do not extend to a 10-year follow-up that would be more informative.

Towards the end, the statement reads, on the possible consequences if Skrmetti prevails:

“Moving forward, states will be further emboldened to treat transgender people differently from non-transgender people.”

Quite the opposite. “Gender identity” is a subjective view that some people have of themselves. They should be treated just as well as everyone else. Which is not an argument for allowing them, differently from others, to indulge in what many view as “self-harm.”

The Human Wrongs Campaign has betrayed the gay and lesbian people it was once set up to serve. As LGB Alliance and others who care about the health and future of “gender non-conforming” minors have consistently maintained: what the HRC and all TQ+ rights organizations call “gender affirming care” is in many cases gay conversion therapy. And no glut of lies and linguistic contortions can disguise it.