Chris Hayes and The Left's Double Standard on Parental Rights Over 'Gender-Affirming Care'

AP Photo/Charlie Neibergall

In a recent episode of his show “All In,” MSNBC host Chris Hayes expressed his opposition to a Florida law that bans sex change therapy for minors, arguing that it infringes on the freedoms of families. While Hayes and his ilk vehemently defend the rights of parents to make decisions about their children’s healthcare in this context, it is pretty clear they aren’t as keen on this idea in many other cases.

During the broadcast, Hayes railed against Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis for signing the bill, which means medical professionals will no longer be allowed to subject children to “gender-affirming care” involving the use of puberty blockers and surgical treatments.

The move mirrored other such legislation passed in other red states to protect children from the ongoing effort to encourage them to embrace transgenderism.

Hayes said, with no sense of irony:

Telling parents how they can or cannot raise their own children is among the most authoritarian things that government can do. And now that is exactly what Ron DeSantis and the Republican Party in Florida and generally the conservative movement that endorses this are doing purely for ideological and punitive purposes.

Later during his diatribe, Hayes argued that if parents wish to subject their children to irreversible procedures that could lead to devastating outcomes, it is “none of your…godd**n business!”

Progressives like Hayes have been peddling this line ever since the backlash against the movement to trans kids ensued. For a variety of questionable reasons, these people are gung ho about encouraging kids to embrace transgender ideology, and to convince parents to allow them to undergo medical procedures that have caused much harm to these children, especially when they become adults.

Yet, when it comes to treatments that go against their ideology, leftists are more than happy to use the force of the government to force parents to bend the knee. Take their stance on “conversion therapy,” for example.

Laws against conversion therapy for minors have been implemented in various jurisdictions with the aim of protecting LGBTQ+ children from harmful and allegedly discredited practices. Conversion therapy, also known as reparative therapy or sexual orientation change efforts (SOCE), refers to practices that attempt to change an individual’s sexual orientation.

The reason this became an issue is that some studies have documented the detrimental effects of conversion therapy on individuals, including increased risk of depression, anxiety, self-harm, and suicide. Minors are particularly vulnerable to the potential negative impact of these practices, as they may lack the ability to fully understand the implications and long-term consequences of undergoing conversion therapy.

Laws against conversion therapy for minors also seek to protect the rights of young individuals who may be coerced or pressured into undergoing these practices against their will. Such laws recognize the importance of ensuring that minors have access to supportive and affirming environments that promote their well-being, mental health, and self-acceptance.

If conversion therapy is as pernicious as leftists claim, then it might make sense to pass laws protecting children from the practice. Indeed, most would not have a problem with it, assuming the studies are true. Religious groups have largely abandoned this form of therapy for kids in favor of other approaches.

However, one glaring inconsistency in Hayes’ position is his failure to acknowledge the left’s own stance on “conversion therapy.” By championing laws against conversion therapy, leftists implicitly endorse state intervention in the realm of parental rights when it comes to certain healthcare decisions. They argue that protecting vulnerable children from practices deemed harmful outweighs the parents’ autonomy. This contradictory stance reveals a double standard: leftists support state interference when it aligns with their beliefs but vehemently oppose it when it contradicts their worldview.

People like Hayes get around this issue by claiming “gender-affirming care” is healthy for young ones struggling with gender dysphoria—despite the fact that there is not enough data to suggest that using puberty blockers and surgical treatments provides a long-term benefit.

In fact, studies from Sweden, the United Kingdom, Finland, and other European countries who were using these procedures before the United States show that these treatments have caused irreparable damage to these individuals especially after they reach adulthood. If leftists believe studies show that conversion therapy is harmful, why would they ignore studies showing the same about “gender-affirming care?”

But we already know the answer to this question, don’t we?

They don’t care about the damage these treatments have caused children because they line up with their ideology, which says they must affirm whatever identity an individual chooses. Meanwhile, more children are being subjected to treatments that carry irreversible outcomes for those involved.

Chris Hayes’ comments regarding gender-affirming care for children expose a double standard prevalent among leftists. While they passionately advocate for the state’s involvement in preventing harmful practices like conversion therapy, they simultaneously argue for unimpeded parental rights in the context of gender-affirming care. Such inconsistency undermines their credibility and weakens the arguments they put forth. This is why it is important to protect children from those who do not have their best interests at heart – including their parents.


Trending on RedState Videos