Opinion: Trans People Deserve Clarity From NYT, Biden Over Anti-Trans Surgery Statement

On Friday Night, the New York Times reported that the Biden Administration opposes trans surgeries under age 18, raising alarm within the trans community. We deserve clarity and disciplined responses.

Photo by Ana Lanza on Unsplash

On Friday night, the New York Times published an article with the headline, “Biden Administration Opposes Surgery for Transgender Minors,” following a similar statement given to Fox News on Wednesday. As of Monday morning, the article remained uncorrected, leaving many to wonder if the Biden administration has indeed started to formally oppose surgeries for transgender youth. On the other hand, the situation bears all the hallmarks of a trap set by the New York Times, whose coverage of transgender issues has been notably poor… a trap that the administration appears to have walked into.

At this point, one thing is clear: Transgender people deserve clarity from both the New York Times and the Biden administration about whether or not the administration opposes all surgeries for transgender youth, or whether the administration follows the WPATH Standards of Care, which allow for some surgeries, such as chest masculinization and feminization surgeries (“top surgeries”), in uncommon and individualized circumstances under 18.

The recent dust-up between the New York Times and the administration follows a previous article claiming that Biden officials—namely Admiral Rachel Levine, assistant secretary at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)—worked to remove age limits for surgeries in the WPATH Standards of Care. The article and headline seemed to imply that Levine was in favor of transgender surgeries on very young trans youth, clearly an attempt to spread outrage over both the Biden Administration and the WPATH Standards of Care. However, Levine actually opposed lowered age limits in favor of a more conservative approach that kept the age at 18+ except for some individualized circumstances.

Ultimately, the more conservative standards of care were published without specific age ranges. These standards reserve most surgical interventions for those over 18 but allow for “exceptions in some cases” for transgender youth under 18 seeking chest masculinization or feminization surgery, also known as “top surgery.” These standards allow such exceptions when considered necessary by a multidisciplinary team.

The administration has never before issued a blanket opposition statement to all surgeries for transgender youth. Doing so would mark a significant shift toward anti-trans politics.

Republicans have attempted to use surgery bans as a gateway to further healthcare restrictions and targeting of transgender people. For example, in New Hampshire, a few Democrats joined Republicans in passing a “surgery only” ban. The state subsequently passed bills removing nondiscrimination protections for transgender people and allowing for bathroom bans.

Following the reporting on the statement, anti-trans leaders who have worked to push legislation targeting trans people used it to urge Democrats to join in such legislation. They argue that failing to do so puts them at odds with the Biden administration. Leor Sapir, who works at the Manhattan Institute, a conservative think tank receiving billionaire donations to oppose transgender care, stated, “Every state that hasn’t banned these surgeries yet should do so in its upcoming legislative session. Every Democrat who supports gender surgeries for kids should be reminded that s/he is now in disagreement with the Biden administration.”

The dangers of leaving such a statement uncorrected are numerous. Some Democrats, wishing to appear “moderate” on transgender issues, could use it as a signal to break ranks with other Democrats when healthcare bans come up for legislation or in national spending bills. Overseas, such a statement by the Biden administration could signal to other countries that America is “reversing course” on transgender youth care.

However, there are those in the administration or working with it who may view the entire issue as a “trap” set by the New York Times to bait the Biden administration into fully defending transgender surgeries for trans youth, a topic that notably is misunderstood even by many cisgender allies of the transgender community. If so, the administration has already walked into that trap by making what is being reported as a broad statement of opposition.

There is room to course correct here in a way that avoids falling victim to such a trap. One only needs to look at the debate over abortion rights, where phrases like “third trimester abortions,” “late-term abortions,” or “abortions up until birth” are used to curtail abortion rights and advocate for restrictions. Abortion rights advocates have long understood the folly of dignifying those statements. While abortions at later gestational ages are exceedingly rare, they recognize that when they occur, there are good reasons for them, and that the decision lies between the patient, their circumstances, and their doctor.

Similarly, the administration need only clarify by stating that there has been no change in policy, that it opposes bans on care, and that these decisions are best left to patients, families, and doctors.

This latest attack on administration officials over transgender care makes it abundantly clear that the New York Times is directly oppositional to transgender people. If the previous misleading coverage on transgender youth wasn't convincing enough, the attempt to paint Levine as supporting trans surgeries on young children—something not practiced and not supported—is exceedingly dishonest. If the latest reporting on the administration’s position on trans care is accurate, it is likely the result of an overcorrection to exaggerated coverage by the New York Times.

Nevertheless, there is a responsibility to avoid falling prey to what amounts to anti-trans activism by the paper disguised as news coverage, and a responsibility to walk back such an overcorrection. Transgender people deserve clarity and disciplined defense, and the administration can offer those with a proper response to dishonest coverage.