A federal court in California has issued a decisive ruling that cuts through the fog of ideology and reasserts a truth as old as Scripture itself: parents are not optional in the lives of their children. In striking down “gender secrecy” policies in public schools, Judge Roger Benitez affirmed that neither the state nor school bureaucracies have the moral or constitutional authority to hide a child’s struggles from those entrusted by God with their care.
This case also exposes a troubling political and moral contradiction. Rob Bonta, California’s Attorney General—widely seen as positioning himself for a future gubernatorial run—defended these secrecy policies by arguing that parents must be excluded “for the child’s protection.”
The court rejected this premise outright, noting that it presumes parents are the primary threat to their own children.
From a Christian perspective, this logic is deeply inverted. Scripture consistently affirms parents as the primary moral guardians of children, not the state. A government that trains children to withhold intimate truths from their parents is not practicing compassion; it is undermining trust at the most foundational human level.
The irony here is impossible to miss. Progressives rightly condemned the Catholic Church for decades for fostering cultures of secrecy that isolated children from parental protection and allowed harm to flourish. Yet many of those same voices now defend gender secrecy in public schools—policies that likewise instruct children to conceal sensitive information from their parents. Secrecy was once understood as a danger. Now it is celebrated—so long as it serves an ideological end.
Judge Benitez ordered California to include the following statement in all relevant materials:
Parents and guardians have a federal constitutional right to be informed if their public school student child expresses gender incongruence. Teachers and school staff have a federal constitutional right to accurately inform the parent or guardian of their student when the student expresses gender incongruence. These federal constitutional rights are superior to any state or local laws, state or local regulations, or state or local policies to the contrary.
This ruling restores moral clarity. Care for children and respect for parents rise or fall together. When secrecy ends, truth—and genuine protection—can finally begin.
In a striking and carefully argued Newsweek editorial, bioethicist Moti Gorin and psychiatrist Kathleen McDeavitt urge liberals to reconsider their assumptions about pediatric “gender-affirming” medical care. Their appeal is unusual not because it is partisan, but because it is not: both authors identify as liberals and were contributors to the recent review issued by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services titled Treatment for Pediatric Gender Dysphoria: Review of Evidence and Best Practices.
The authors begin by acknowledging widespread distrust of HHS—especially among progressives after years of controversy surrounding public health institutions. But they argue that skepticism should not excuse disengagement, particularly when the evidence concerns vulnerable children.
Their central claim is straightforward: many organizations and professionals trusted by the political left have embraced a medical model for pediatric gender distress that is not supported by strong scientific evidence.
A Fragile Foundation for a Sweeping Medical Practice
The editorial traces the origins of today’s “gender-affirming” approach to a small and methodologically weak Dutch study involving just 70 adolescents. Most of the participants were same-sex attracted, and all who proceeded to medical transition were rendered sterile. One patient died from surgical complications, others were excluded from analysis due to adverse outcomes, and some were lost to follow-up. Yet despite these limitations, the study became the foundation for a sweeping international medical practice involving puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and sometimes surgery.
Gorin and McDeavitt argue that serious ethical concerns have since been minimized or obscured. They note reports of unfavorable findings being buried, including completed suicides among minors placed on hormones. They also highlight the role of the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH), which removed age limits for medical interventions under political pressure while failing to warn patients about risks such as permanent sexual dysfunction.
The HHS review, the authors explain, reached conclusions that should alarm anyone committed to justice and evidence-based medicine. The risks documented in the review include infertility, impaired sexual function, decreased bone density, delayed cognitive development, and irreversible surgical consequences.
Progressive Countries Lead the Retreat
Importantly, the authors point out that this reassessment is not driven by conservative politics. Some of the first countries to restrict pediatric medical transition were progressive social democracies, including Finland and Sweden, followed by the United Kingdom. These nations conducted systematic reviews and concluded that the benefits of medical transition for minors were unproven and outweighed by the harms.
The editorial closes by proposing an alternative: non-medical therapeutic support that helps young people manage distress without rushing them into irreversible interventions. Most adolescents, the authors note, will see gender-related discomfort resolve over time. While the issue remains politically polarized, polling shows that a majority of Democratic voters already oppose pediatric medical transition.
Gorin and McDeavitt’s plea is simple but bracing: liberals should read the HHS review for themselves (link above). Doing so, they argue, is not a betrayal of progressive values—but an affirmation of them.
In recent years, debates around gender medicine have become some of the most polarized in the scientific and cultural landscape. What was once the realm of cautious inquiry has, in many institutions, hardened into dogma. Researchers who raise empirical or ethical concerns about puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, or surgical interventions for minors increasingly find their work censored or discredited—not through evidence, but through social pressure and editorial gatekeeping.
A new paper by J. Cohn in the Journal of Controversial Ideas shines a bright and uncomfortable light on this phenomenon.
In “Censorship of Essential Debate in Gender Medicine Research,” (see below) Cohn exposes a disturbing trend in modern medicine: the systematic censorship of scientific debate in the field of gender medicine. The piece reveals how leading medical journals and professional societies have created an echo chamber that suppresses scrutiny, silences dissent, and promotes ideology under the guise of science.
The Core Problem: Debate Is Being Shut Down
Cohn argues that medical research on gender dysphoria—especially regarding hormonal and surgical interventions for minors—has been overtaken by advocacy rather than evidence. The core claim is simple but explosive: major journals like JAMA and The New England Journal of Medicine routinely reject well-documented critiques of published research, allowing false or exaggerated claims to circulate uncorrected. Letters highlighting factual or methodological errors are blocked, and even platforms like PubPeer have removed accepted criticisms without explanation.
This, Cohn warns, is not merely academic malpractice—it is a corruption of science itself. When editors silence valid scientific debate, public policy and medical practice are shaped by untested assumptions and political pressure rather than by evidence.
What the Evidence Actually Shows
The article points to a striking fact: despite the confident tone of many advocacy-driven statements, there is no scientific consensus on the effectiveness of medical transition, especially for youth. Systematic reviews—the gold standard of evidence—consistently find the evidence base to be weak or of very low certainty. The long-term outcomes of puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgeries remain largely unknown.
Even basic questions about etiology, persistence, and predictors of benefit in gender dysphoria are unresolved. Yet, U.S. medical bodies have promoted these interventions as both safe and necessary—often claiming they are “lifesaving” while dismissing alternatives like psychotherapy or watchful waiting.
False Claims and the Refusal to Correct Them
Cohn provides concrete examples of misinformation that have been published and then protected from correction. Some articles claim that regret rates after transition are “low” or “rare,” despite the fact that true rates are unknown because of poor follow-up and incomplete data. Others assert that randomized controlled trials would be unethical—a claim that is scientifically indefensible, since experimental rigor is what distinguishes genuine medicine from ideology.
Cohn recounts instances where he attempted to submit brief corrections or letters to editors, only to see them rejected without explanation. One such letter challenging NEJM was dismissed; another, initially accepted by JAMA, was later withdrawn before publication. In both cases, his critiques were grounded in empirical evidence.
How Journals and Societies Reinforce Error
The article describes what Cohn calls a “closed loop” between medical journals and professional associations. Guidelines by groups like the American Academy of Pediatrics cite the very same uncorrected journal articles that overstate the evidence for gender transition. The result is a self-reinforcing cycle: advocacy-based claims become the official line, while attempts at correction are buried.
The International Picture: Caution Abroad, Ideology at Home
Outside the United States, several nations have already reevaluated their approach. Sweden, Finland, and the United Kingdom have all pivoted away from automatic medicalization toward a more cautious model emphasizing psychotherapy and holistic care. The 2024 Cass Review in the U.K. and a 2025 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services review both acknowledge the same reality: the evidence for pediatric gender medicine is extraordinarily weak.
Why This Matters
The censorship of debate in gender medicine is not just a matter of professional ethics—it directly affects vulnerable patients and the integrity of public trust in science. When unsupported claims about safety and efficacy are treated as settled facts, doctors cannot give truly informed consent, and policymakers are misled into endorsing experimental treatments for children.
Cohn concludes with a reminder drawn from JAMA’s own editorial policy: “The integrity of the scientific process hinges on the free exchange of scientific ideas grounded in rigorously conducted inquiry.” That principle, he argues, is being betrayed by the very institutions charged with upholding it.
The Way Forward
True science welcomes scrutiny. It is strengthened by disagreement and refined by debate. Cohn calls for the restoration of open, evidence-based discourse in gender medicine—a return to the first principles of inquiry: transparency, humility, and courage. Until that happens, medical journals risk losing what makes them credible in the first place.
The article ends with a simple warning that resonates far beyond gender medicine: when science silences itself, ideology rushes to fill the void.
You can download a PDF version of this article for easy sharing and reference.
