Pronoun/Gender Wars Continue Apace

[smac97]

On 8/7/2026 at 12:10 PM, smac97 said:

The Economist (June 2024) : 

Research into trans medicine has been manipulated

A Grok summary:

Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy (January 2023) :

The Myth of “Reliable Research” in Pediatric Gender Medicine: A critical evaluation of the Dutch Studies—and research that has followed

A Grok summary:

Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy (June 2025) :

The Façade of Medical Consensus: How Medical Associations Prioritize Politics Over Science

A Grok summary:

Thanks,

-Smac

Trump administration accuses hospitals of improper billing over gender care for minors

Quote

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services accused dozens of hospitals and healthcare providers on Thursday of improperly billing for gender-affirming care and referred them to the Office of Inspector General and the Justice Department ‌for investigation.

 

HHS released a report titled "Wolves in White Coats" that argued some gender-related treatments were paid for under unspecified conditions or, in some cases, based on diagnoses of early puberty. The report includes contributors who have been critical of gender-affirming care.

 

HHS said the providers billed for the therapies to treat minors aged 9 to 17, documenting an unspecified endocrine ⁠or hormone-related disorder diagnosis rather than gender dysphoria. The report alleged inaccurate diagnoses resulted in payments from both private and government-sponsored health plans.

 

HHS said that as gender care for minors has grown, it has become a larger revenue source for hospitals, creating financial incentives for more frequent billing. Citing conservative medical advocacy organization Do No Harm, the agency said hospitals and clinics billed nearly $120 million for the services provided to minors since 2019.

 

Gender-affirming care for minors can include clinical counseling, puberty blockers or hormone therapy.

 

Advocates for transgender minors say the services can reduce mental ‌distress ⁠and support social wellbeing.

Do No Harm has legally challenged gender-affirming care and diversity, equity, and inclusion programs in healthcare.

 

A spokesperson for the American Hospital Association declined to comment on the report.

 

The Trump administration finalized a rule this week barring two major federal health programs from funding puberty blockers, hormone therapy and surgeries ⁠to treat gender dysphoria, which is distress from a mismatch between a patient's sex at birth and gender identity.

 

HHS, based on Do No Harm data, named Mount Sinai Hospital, based in New York City, and Boston ⁠Children's Hospital as some of the top billing providers of the services for minors.

 

"In an era of razor-thin pediatric margins and pressure on hospital reimbursements, this new patient cohort — young, insured ⁠or Medicaid-eligible, and requiring perpetual follow-ups — represented a strategic area of growth," the report said.

 

Mount Sinai did not respond in time to a request for comment. A spokesperson for Boston Children's Hospital said it is reviewing the report.

Here is a link to the report itself.  A Grok summary:

Quote

Summary of the HHS Report: “Wolves in White Coats: How Doctors and Hospitals Pushed and Profited from the Fraud of ‘Gender Medicine’”

This is an official U.S. Department of Health and Human Services report (released around August 13, 2026) examining how hospitals and doctors promoted and financially benefited from “sex-rejecting” medical interventions (puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgeries) on minors with gender dysphoria.

Core Thesis

The rapid expansion of these interventions on children in the late 2010s and early 2020s was driven by a combination of:

• Strong financial incentives (creating lifelong patients who require ongoing, expensive care),
• Ideological capture of medical institutions and professional societies, and
• Active promotion and facilitation by the Biden Administration.

The report argues these interventions were experimental, lacked adequate evidence of long-term safety or benefit, and in some cases involved questionable or fraudulent billing practices.

Key Chapters / Findings

Chapter 1 – Financial Incentives Hospitals and clinics gained unique, recurring revenue streams. Once a minor begins medical transition, they often require continuous hormone therapy, monitoring, possible surgeries, and treatment for complications—creating “captive patients” for life.

Chapter 2 – Coding and Billing Practices (central focus) The report details how providers allegedly used vague or inaccurate diagnostic codes (especially “Endocrine Disorder, Unspecified” and codes for Central Precocious Puberty) to obtain insurance/Medicaid coverage for interventions that might otherwise have been denied. It cites presentations to WPATH, public statements by industry actors, advocacy-group guidance, and whistleblower accounts suggesting these coding practices were deliberate and widespread. An accompanying claims analysis flagged tens of millions of dollars in suspicious billing.

Chapter 3 – Federal Government Role Documents how the Biden Administration actively promoted access to these procedures, including through funding, guidance, and pressure on institutions.

Chapter 4 – Professional Society Influence Argues that major medical organizations became ideologically biased in favor of affirmative care, shaping hospital protocols and individual clinicians’ approaches.

Chapter 5 – Patient and Parent Accounts Presents first-hand stories from detransitioners and parents (including names such as Sydney Aviles, Lily Burns, Clementine Breen, Layla Jane, and others) describing pressure to pursue medicalization, lack of exploratory therapy, and later regret or harm.

Overall Framing

The report portrays the pediatric gender-medicine apparatus as a system in which financial profit, ideological commitment, and government policy reinforced one another, resulting in irreversible interventions on minors with weak evidence of benefit. It was commissioned under the current (Trump-era) HHS and is presented as part of a broader effort to investigate and reverse these practices.

The document is lengthy, contains an appendix with claims-data analysis, and includes contributions from physicians (including whistleblower Dr. Eithan Haim and endocrinologist Dr. Quentin Van Meter), lawyers, and policy analysts.

Very troubling.

Thanks,

-Smac

[BlipBlap]

12 hours ago, smac97 said:

Trump administration accuses hospitals of improper billing over gender care for minors

Here is a link to the report itself.  A Grok summary:

Very troubling.

Thanks,

-Smac

Chapter 4 is especially concerning since it opens the door for pointing out the likely possibility of not only infiltration of the medical system by ideologues, but external pressure from special interest groups to effectively force prioritization of affirmative care.  We already know that doctors have been successfully sued for refusing to provide, and while the lawsuit was based on non-discrimination laws, that creates other problems, namely at what point does that end and "do no harm" begin?  They'll get sued for not providing the care and then get sued again years later by the same people for providing the care that has caused them harm.  It's a constant Catch-22 brought about by the shrill, jackbooted trans lobby.

[The Nehor]

The HHS is now so politicized I don’t trust their report at all. It has regularly been spouting nonsense for the last two years about all kinds of quackery. Why should I believe them now?

[longview]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

The HHS is now so politicized I don’t trust their report at all. It has regularly been spouting nonsense for the last two years about all kinds of quackery. Why should I believe them now?

I'm sure you think Fauci is a beautiful human being. It was proper for him to fund "gain of function" lab work in Wuhan, red china. </sarcasm>

"at all" ? Why the absolutes?

[smac97]

On 7/24/2026 at 11:00 AM, smac97 said:

I think mandatory "pronoun" usage is, in the end, problematic.  It is compelled speech.  It is coercive and dishonest, in an "Emperor's New Clothes" sort of way.  It contravenes the Proclamation.  It is a manipulation of language, not evolution of it.  I view it a subversive ideological endeavor.  I view it as perhaps initially innocuous, but now unhealthy and potentially damaging, exercise relative to those with mental health disorders (I do not think incongruent-with-reality notions should be endorsed or incentivized or normalized).  I think the social pressure/harassment associated with it are unreasoned and intended to stifle free inquiry and discussion and debate. 

These things are, or ought to be, antithetical to the thought processes I deploy as a Latter-day Saint.

Another example of compelled speech:

Universities threaten students with investigations, disciplinary actions over 'deadnaming'

Quote

Several colleges and universities discourage students from “deadnaming,” with some threatening investigations under policies that classify the practice as a form of harassment against transgender-identifying students.

Deadnaming is the act of referring to a transgender- or nonbinary-identifying individual by his or her birth name rather than the name the individual currently uses after “transitioning.”

I think the State and its extensions should not regulate speech as to either "preferred pronouns" or "deadnaming."

Quote

If deadnaming occurs on campus, CSU Northridge states on its “Office of Equity & Compliance (Title IX)” website that if faculty or fellow students deadname or fail to use a person’s chosen pronouns, hearings can be held following a report to the office. 

CSU Northridge’s website adds that “If a violation is found, discipline through the relevant counterparts will be discussed.”

On a University of Oregon website, the public university’s “Prohibited Discrimination and Retaliation” policy allows officials to categorize deadnaming as harassment. It specifies that instances qualify as harassment when there is “intentional or repeated deadnaming or misgendering.” 

In response to deadnaming policies, Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) Director of Policy Reform Laura Beltz told Campus Reform about the policies on university campuses. 

“At a public university, deadnaming, like other protected speech, does not lose First Amendment protection merely because someone finds it offensive, upsetting, or disrespectful,” Beltz said. 

“A university may punish the use of a former name when it is part of independently unlawful or unprotected conduct, such as a true threat or a targeted pattern of conduct that meets the legal standard for discriminatory harassment. But a blanket rule prohibiting any use of a person’s former name would be unconstitutional,” Beltz added. 

Other universities, including private institutions such as Tufts University, also have policies on deadnaming and “misgendering” for students and faculty. 

The University at Buffalo states on its “Preferred/Chosen Names and Pronouns” web page that it “recognizes that individuals may use a name other than their legal name to identify themselves.”

The university also states that it categorizes deadnaming as an act of misgendering and requires its Equity, Diversity and Inclusion office to “Investigate and respond to complaints regarding misuse of a preferred/chosen name or pronouns,” while its Office of the Registrar is responsible for the maintenance of school records to reflect a student’s “chosen name.”

Additionally, a National University handbook on “Equal opportunity, harassment, and nondiscrimination policy and procedures” says that deadnaming and misgendering “can be very traumatic to a person who is transgender, transitioning, or gender diverse.”

Beltz added, “Requiring students or faculty to use another person’s chosen name raises compelled-speech concerns. The First Amendment protects not only the right to speak, but also the right not to be coerced by the government to express a particular message.”

“Universities may encourage the use of chosen names and use those names in their own records and communications, but encouragement is different from requirement,” Beltz said.

"{E}ncouragement is different from requirement."

Yes.

Thanks,

-Smac