Shutting Down the School-to-Clinic Pipeline
A perspective from DIAG
Republished with permission from DIAG.
As lifelong Democrats, we have long championed public education as a cornerstone of democracy, a vehicle for equality, and a means to empower future generations. But, we at Democrats for an Informed Approach to Gender (DIAG) are increasingly alarmed by the encroachment of gender identity ideology on our major institutions, including our public schools—a development that compromises student well-being, undermines parental rights, exposes students to anti-science dogma, and politicizes the classroom.
Impact on student well-being
Children as young as four years old are being taught in school that “gender” is a fluid construct, disconnected from biological sex. This concept isn’t based in fact and isn’t verifiable. Gender identity ideology—the elevation of this sense of self over the objective reality of binary sex—is a belief system, similar to religion, and has no place in school curriculum. Yet in some districts, this anti-science, pseudo-religion has been inserted throughout the student environment.
Key to the ideology is that a child can be born in the wrong body—the impossibility of a brain that doesn’t match the other organs or structures. Young children are learning not to trust their senses—that the person they innately know to be male is female, that they themselves may not be what they perceive. This induced confusion can be particularly destabilizing during formative years, causing behavior problems and other symptoms of distress. Ideas about an innate sense of sex separate from the body are reinforced and normalized through repeated questions about “gender” and “preferred pronouns.”
Educators use graphics, such as “The Gender Unicorn” (created by activists), to introduce the idea that one can have a “gender identity” separate from biological sex and encourage students to question fundamental aspects of biology. These graphics not only introduce terminology that is misleading but raise concerns about age appropriateness. Introducing abstract concepts as fact negatively influences students’ perceptions of reality. Students drawn to the idea of an alternate persona will be encouraged to explore and proclaim a new “gender identity.”
Supporting the ideology, not the student
“Gender support plans” allow students to require that others call them by new names and opposite sex, ambiguous, or novel pronouns, and to access facilities aligned with their self-proclaimed “gender identity.” The impact on other students is significant: compelled speech and thought, compromised safety for girls, dignity for both girls and boys, and shaming for those who don’t comply. In some jurisdictions, policies explicitly instruct educators to withhold information from parents regarding the “social transition” of their child at school, maintaining separate communications that hide their child’s new persona in an abundance of manufactured caution. This secrecy not only violates the trust between parents and educators, it creates conflict within the family that parents may not even be aware of. Adopting the idea that parents are inherently “unsafe” removes the child’s most consequential source of support and places children at risk of increased instability and vulnerability.
Moreover, because influential sources are promoting the idea that suicide is an expected outcome for youth who are denied “gender affirming” medical interventions—an idea that children come to believe—hiding a child’s confusion about sex-based reality from parents creates a dangerous situation where parents cannot provide their at-risk children crucial mental health support. School “gender support plans” are the antithesis of the healthy, transparent communication between schools and families that has long been understood as critically important, especially when addressing a child’s mental distress.
Data from 2024 show more than 1,000 public school districts in 38 states and the District of Columbia authorized or required “gender support plans” that withhold the “gender identity” information of minor students from their parents. With these districts encompassing 18,658 schools and 11 million students, “gender support plans” are more common than they are rare.
Misguided compassion
While often viewed as a compassionate approach, emerging research suggests that social transition is a significant intervention. Dr. Hilary Cass, who led a four-year independent review of the pediatric Gender Identity Development Service for England’s National Health Service, emphasized that social transition should not be considered a neutral act, as it may have substantial effects on a child’s psychological functioning. Studies indicate that children who undergo early social transition are more likely to maintain their self-proclaimed “gender identity” into adolescence, suggesting that such interventions may solidify, rather than alleviate distress.
Some schools refer students to external organizations or gender clinics, where medical interventions like opposite-sex hormones or puberty blockers are discussed. These damaging and largely irreversible interventions are not supported by credible evidence, as shown in the U.S. Health and Human Services’ umbrella review (2025) and in every quality evidence review conducted. Schools may also provide binders and opposite-sex clothing to use at school to keep parents from suspecting any issues. Experts understand that these actions put children on a dangerous path to an unattainable goal—changing their immutable sex. School staff are neither qualified nor mandated to initiate, facilitate, or participate in a significant psychosocial intervention, especially one with such dire consequences.
Impact of teaching ideology as fact
Children and adolescents, especially those who are rigid thinkers, are primed to accept the word of authority figures, and can be led quickly down the medical pathway, especially in states where the cutoff age for even minimal parent involvement in their child’s medical care is low. Once adolescents lock onto “gender” personas, relinquishing those identities can be very difficult to near impossible, due to a range of incentives, including increased attention and acceptance by peers, and disincentives, like claims of fakery or betrayal, or just the embarrassment of backtracking on a significant public claim. The result is a growing number of young desisters (those who adopted and subsequently rejected a “gender identity” persona) and detransitioners (individuals who regret undergoing body modification interventions to mimic the opposite sex) who attribute their decisions to the influence of school culture and curriculum. Their experiences underscore the harm in teaching children that their lack of alignment with sex stereotypes is more significant than biological reality.
A nonpartisan concern
Safeguarding vulnerable youth from harm transcends political affiliations. It is neither a left nor right issue but an ethical one. Parents from across the political spectrum are expressing concern over the lack of transparency and the psychological harm to children that results from teaching the pseudo-religious belief system of gender identity ideology. As Democrats, we must not shy away from questioning policies that inadvertently harm the individuals we aim to protect. Advocating for parental involvement and reality-based education rooted in fact is not a betrayal of progressive values but a reaffirmation of our commitment to the well-being of all students.
For more information on DIAG.
Yes, we have to keep fighting against this harmful approach to adolescent distress.