South Dakota considers banning gender ideology in schools

By Jonathon Van Maren

As I’ve mentioned on this blog several times over the last month or two, there seems to be something of a pushback building against the trans activists agenda—especially as people begin to realize that they treat dissent with savagery and have every intent of teaching their ideology of gender-fluidity to children in every school they can gain access to. In response to that comes this news out of South Dakota:

This week, it is being reported that the heartland state of South Dakota is considering legislation that would ban “gender identity lessons” from state schools.

“No instruction in gender identity or gender expression may be provided to any student in kindergarten through grade seven in any public school in the state,” the text of the proposed bill reads. 

Independent Journal review reports that should the law pass, SD would be the first state in the nation to approve such legislation.

Although Education Department spokeswoman Mary Stadick Smith says she is unaware of any such lessons taking place in any elementary or middle schools, the sponsors of the bill have heard the concern of their constituents that gender identity education has no place in elementary or middle schools.

“I think we need to be focusing on reading, writing and arithmetic,” said state Sen. Phil Jensen (R), who sponsored the bill, to the AP last week.

Teaching reading, writing, and arithmetic in schools—what a quaint idea. So very old-fashioned. These days, reading stories about transgender crayons who come with the wrong label to kids in kindergarten and affirming gender dysphoria in teenage boys and girls are all the rage—even though this trend is coming with a tragic cost. The National Post explained last year that surgeons are facing an influx of people who regret their sex change and want to “de-transition”—but that talking about it is “taboo” due to the willingness of trans activists to destroy anyone who poses a threat to their emerging ideologies:

Five years ago, Professor Miroslav Djordjevic, the world-leading genital reconstructive surgeon, received a patient at his Belgrade clinic. It was a transgender patient who had surgery at a different clinic to remove male genitalia – and had since changed their mind.

That was the first time Djordjevic had ever been contacted to perform a so-called “reversal” surgery. Over the next six months, another six people also approached him, similarly wanting to reverse their procedures. They came from countries all over the Western world, Britain included, united by an acute sense of regret. At present, Djordjevic has a further six prospective people in discussions with his clinic about reversals and two currently undergoing the process itself; reattaching the male genitalia is a complex procedure and takes several operations over the course of a year to fully complete, at a cost of some euros 18,000 (pounds 16,000).

Those wishing the reversal, Djordjevic says, have spoken to him about crippling levels of depression following their transition and in some cases even contemplated suicide. “It can be a real disaster to hear these stories,” says the 52-year-old. And yet, in the main part, they are not being heard.

Last week, it was alleged that Bath Spa University has turned down an application for research on gender reassignment reversal because it was a subject deemed “potentially politically incorrect”.

This sort of research is desperately needed, of course—especially as so many young people begin to embark on a journey that, even with “de-transition” surgery available from a handful of surgeons, can be permanently scarring. But trans activists simply do not care about the damage they are doing. More—and do read the whole thing:

To date, all of his reversals have been transgender women aged over 30 wanting to restore their male genitalia. Over the last two decades, the average age of his patients has more than halved, from 45 to 21. While the World Professional Association for Transgender Health guidelines currently state nobody under the age of 18 should undergo surgery, Prof Djordjevic fears this age limit could soon be reduced to include minors. Were that to happen, he says, he would refuse to abide by the rules. “I’m afraid what will happen five to 10 years later with this person,” he says. “It is more than about surgery; it’s an issue of human rights. I could not accept them as a patient as I’d be afraid what would happen to their mind.”

Referrals to adult and child gender identity clinics in the UK have increased dramatically over the past 10 years. In April, the Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust, the only clinic for adolescents in England, reported 2,016 referrals to its gender identity development service, a 42 per cent rise compared to the previous year, which in itself marked a 104 per cent increase on the year before that.

The clinic stresses the majority of its young referrals do not end up receiving physical treatment through the service. While NHS guidelines state young people should not be given cross-sex hormone treatment until 16, concerns have been raised about the lack of regulation, particularly in the private sector.

Earlier this month, it was revealed a Monmouthshire MP, Dr Helen Webberley, was being investigated by the General Medical Council (GMC), following complaints from two GPs that she had treated children as young as 12 with hormones at her private clinic, which specialises in gender issues.

Webberley insists she has done nothing wrong, and there were no “decisions or judgments” made on the claims against her. “There are many children under 16 who are desperate to start what they would consider their natural puberty earlier than that,” she said this month.

Djordjevic feels differently, and admits he has deep reservations about treating children with hormonal drugs before they reach puberty – not least as by blocking certain hormones before they have sufficiently developed means they may find it difficult to undergo reassignment surgery in the future.

“Ethically, we have to help any person over the world starting from three to four years of age, but in the best possible way,” he says. “If you change general health with any drug, I’m not a supporter of that theory.”

These are profoundly life-changing matters around which he – like many in his industry – feels far better debate is required to promote new understanding. But at the moment, it seems, that debate is simply being shut down.

The debate is being shut down at the expense of children who are being taught in school that “gender-fluidity” and other such nonsense is normal. Hopefully, as our culture begins to wake up to the threat transgenderism poses, more jurisdictions will begin to follow in the footsteps of South Dakota and ban this poison from places of learning—and deny trans activists access to impressionable minds.


For anyone interested, my book on The Culture War, which analyzes the journey our culture has taken from the way it was to the way it is and examines the Sexual Revolution, hook-up culture, the rise of the porn plague, abortion, commodity culture, euthanasia, and the gay rights movement, is available for sale here.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *