In recent years, the concept of transgenderism and the controversial topic of gender dysphoria have led to a proliferation of experimental treatments for children who identify as transgender. While some medical professionals advocate for early intervention and support, it has become apparent that the foundation of transgenderism itself and the legitimacy of these treatments are ideological rather than scientific.

Transgenderism is an attempt to challenge the longstanding binary understanding of gender as being solely male or female, which is deeply rooted not only in Creation but verified and confirmed by objective science. Gender is divinely ordained, with each sex having specific roles and responsibilities, and the emergence of transgenderism has disrupted these traditional views and is nothing more than an act of rebellion against nature and God’s created order.

But even worse than that is when adults seek to exploit children by imposing their own ideological sexual fetishes on them. Yet, that’s what the world has come to, and now there are several “gender clinics” in North Carolina that are catering to the sexual fantasies of parents who wish to ingrain ideological sexual immorality into their own toddlers.

Duke Medicine, UNC Health, and ECU Health have all established gender clinics that claim to specialize in treating young children with supposed “gender dysphoria.” According to a recent report, these clinics are not only “transitioning” toddlers but are also training future primary care doctors to engage in these experimental and unfounded treatments.

Dr. Deanna Adkins, a transgender activist who runs Duke Medicine’s Gender Clinic, is a prominent figure in promoting these treatments. In an interview with the Charlotte Observer, Adkins asserted that gender identity is the only medically supported determinant of sex. This alarming view allowed Adkins to “diagnose” and treat a two-year-old girl with gender dysphoria based on superficial observations, such as her preference for playing with a toy truck.

Similarly, UNC Health’s clinic practices “gender-affirming care” and treats children as young as three. The institution is so eager to “affirm” gender that its medical school residents offer cross-sex hormones for free every third Wednesday. ECU Health has also followed suit, opening its own “Pride Clinic” and treating children of all ages.

The treatment offered to these vulnerable children is both controversial and potentially dangerous. Although intensive therapy sessions are provided for children wishing to change genders, there is little to no consideration given to alternative treatments that might be less invasive or more suited to the child’s individual needs.

A recent study published in Pediatrics found that 97.5% of transgender-identified children who underwent early social gender transition continued to identify as transgender at the age of 11-12 which suggests that early intervention can effectively “lock in” a confused child’s “gender identity,” potentially robbing them from the opportunity to live a normal, healthy sex life as an adult. Moreover, this raises questions about the validity of transgenderism itself, as children are prematurely labeled and treated based on external influences.

These clinics and doctors are not only pushing for early “transition” treatment, but they are also seemingly motivated by financial gain. By targeting children and their families at a young age, these institutions can generate significant revenue from patients who will likely rely on a lifetime of medication.

Legislation to ban this practice is now being considered in the North Carolina House and Senate. The Youth Protection Act would protect vulnerable children from potentially harmful treatments and allow them the opportunity to grow and develop without being subjected to experimental and potentially irreversible medical interventions.

The medical practices surrounding the treatment of alleged transgender toddlers at Duke, UNC, and ECU are deeply concerning. Subjecting vulnerable children to life-altering treatments based on a concept that is still widely debated is both unethical and dangerous. It is crucial that we advocate for the rights of these children and support legislation that seeks to protect them from harmful and irreversible medical interventions based on absurd, unproven theories.