Essayist and political commentator Wesley Yang recently ignited debate with a strong social media post criticizing pediatric gender-affirming care. His tweet, published on July 21, 2025, labeled the practice a "pseudo-medical cult" and alleged federal government complicity and taxpayer funding. This statement comes amidst a rapidly evolving landscape of federal policy shifts and widespread state-level legislative actions concerning gender-affirming care for minors across the United States.
Yang's post directly accused the practice of being "inflicted on tens of thousands of children who had been brainwashed to yearn to be chemically castrated and dismembered across the Western world." He further asserted that this "pseudo-medical cult practice had been pushed by conscious liars within the federal government and funded by taxpayers." Yang, known for his heterodox views on identity politics, frequently contributes to publications like Tablet magazine and hosts the "Year Zero" podcast.
In a significant development aligning with some of Yang's concerns, the U.S. federal government, under a recent executive order titled "Protecting Children from Chemical and Surgical Mutilation," has moved to restrict funding for pediatric gender-affirming care. Issued in early 2025, this order aims to prohibit federal funding for institutions providing or researching such care for individuals under 19. It also directs agencies to review and potentially cut off access through federal health programs like Medicaid and TRICARE.
This federal stance and Yang's critique stand in contrast to the positions of numerous major medical organizations, including the American Medical Association (AMA), the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), and the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH). These organizations largely endorse age-appropriate gender-affirming care as medically necessary and evidence-based for treating gender dysphoria. They emphasize that such care, which can include puberty blockers and hormones, is provided after careful assessment and in consultation with parents.
The controversy is further amplified by a surge in state-level legislative efforts, with 27 U.S. states having enacted laws or policies banning or severely restricting gender-affirming care for minors. These bans collectively impact over 120,400 transgender youth aged 13-17, according to recent data. Many of these state laws, as well as the recent federal executive order, are currently facing legal challenges in courts across the country.
Pediatric gender-affirming care encompasses a spectrum of interventions, from social transition and mental health support to medical interventions like reversible puberty blockers and, for older adolescents, gender-affirming hormones. While proponents cite positive mental health outcomes, critics, including some medical groups like the American College of Pediatricians, argue there is insufficient long-term evidence of safety and efficacy. Some European countries, such as the UK and Sweden, have also adopted more cautious approaches, limiting certain treatments to research settings.