Texas is definitely at the forefront of the culture wars these days, with legislation restricting abortion past six weeks, addressing concerns about critical race theory and now a state directive nixing hormone treatments aimed at changing a child’s gender.

Naturally, media have been all over these issues. The latest, which has to do with sex changes for kids, has gotten a lot of people riled up on both sides. In the Lone Star state, all of these debates have obvious religious and moral implications.

However, only one side ends up in newspapers like the Houston Chronicle, from whose March 4 story I’ll quote from here:

 Texas Children’s Hospital has stopped prescribing gender-affirming hormone therapies — a move that could affect thousands of transgender children in Texas — in response to a controversial directive from state leaders to investigate medical treatments for transgender youth as child abuse.

The nation’s largest pediatric hospital revealed the decision Friday, dealing a blow to parents of transgender children who were seeking access to medicine that slows the onset of puberty or hormone treatments that help older children develop into bodies that match their identities.

A few paragraphs down, we learn that a state agency was investigating the parents of a 16-year-old “who underwent gender-affirming care.”

 “Gender-affirming care” means puberty blockers that block the hormones — testosterone and estrogen — that cause periods and breast growth, or voice-deepening and facial hair growth. It’s not known their effect on fertility, bone marrow density or brain development. Supposedly there are no bad long-term effects, but we don’t know everything at this point, do we?

We do know that there are strong voices on both sides of these debates and, as tmatt noted the other day, not all of them (“Top Trans Doctors Blow the Whistle on ‘Sloppy’ Care”) fit neatly into the familiar right-left, straight-LGBTQ niches.

A quick review of how the Chronicle first covered this matter several weeks ago:

The state’s child welfare agency says it will investigate instances of transgender youth receiving gender-affirming health care as possible child abuse, after it received a directive from Gov. Greg Abbott based on a recent legal opinion issued by Attorney General Ken Paxton.

Paxton, in a non-binding opinion issued Monday, concluded that sex “reassignment surgery,” as well as hormonal medications, fall under the state’s broad definition of child abuse that includes “mental or emotional injury” as well as physical injury. Abbott in a letter Tuesday directed state agencies to abide by the opinion.

I have a problem with the “gender-affirming” wording, feeling that’s biased to one side — since it is, in fact, the language created by activists on one side of the debate. Why not just say “gender-changing?” But “affirming” is such a loaded term that assumes one’s birth gender was a mistake. And why isn’t anyone saying these medications are being used off label? FDA approval anyone? Nope.

(Note: Texas Republicans have fought back on this point by coming up with the phrase ‘child gender modification.’ Want something stronger? Try “chemical sterilization.” If you want to see a news article that covers the issue well without the “gender-affirming” wording, see this Wall Street Journal piece).

As one reads through the Chronicle’s pieces, what is unanswered is the reason why Gov. Abbott took this step. These articles could remind us of the James Younger case (see above video), about the custody battle between two Texas parents, one of whom, (the mom) wants to begin sex-change therapies on her son James, who she names “Luna.” .This case alarmed many Texans, who did see what the mother was doing as child abuse.

So, there’s a history behind what Abbott is doing and it’s dishonest for Texas media not to remind readers of that fact.

But here is the crucial journalism point that must be made: Note that this story had several quotes from people opposing the governor and zero quotes from anyone defending him.

I used to work at the Chronicle back in the late 1980s, and it was customary then to include both sides of a story. Things have changed in 30 years. Back to the March 4 story:

 Most major professional medical organizations support evidence-based care for treatment of gender dysphoria, which is defined by the American Psychiatric Association as psychological distress and anxiety due to a mismatch between a person’s sense of their gender and their assigned sex at birth. 

 “Evidence-based care?” This sounds copied from an APA pamphlet. Re the “assigned sex at birth” wording; why not just use “sex at birth,” not the PC-laced version?

Truly, the former is everywhere; I was at Seattle Children’s Hospital a few months ago making out forms for my daughter and suddenly there popped up a question asking me her “assigned sex at birth.” Hey – there’s nothing “assigned” about it.

As I’ve been surfing other media, as in the Dallas Morning News, I am not seeing any explanatory thoughts behind the “why” of Abbott’s decision other than he’s up for election.

OK, so let’s go there. Having reported on religion in Texas quite a bit in my life, I know the two largest religious groups in the state are Roman Catholics and Baptists (of various kinds). There are also substantial amounts of Methodists and independent Pentecostal/charismatic churches. Black megachurches of various kinds play a major role in Texas life. Houston, in particular, has a thriving Muslim community.

As for what Southern Baptists think about children changing their gender, you need only look at this 2014 position statement. You can find the Catholic teaching here. A Muslim viewpoint? Read here.

Are these the people that politicians have in mind, people that Texas journalists are not, as a rule, covering much these days? Because every major religious group opposes changing one’s biological sex. Do you think Texas politicians are going to forget those people?

The publication that seems to get it is the progressive Texas Tribune which, although hardly anti-trans drugs, at least recognizes certain facts about the opposition to trans-friendly trends.

The issue is no longer contained to just the party’s fringes — and it is unlikely to go away any time soon as the national fervor grows, Abbott’s directive faces legal challenges and it factors prominently into a slew of GOP primary runoffs.

“This is a winning issue,” Abbott’s top political strategist, Dave Carney, told reporters last week, brushing off any general-election concerns. “Texans have common sense.”

On Monday, the Tribune came out with a profile of Jeff Younger, the father in this dispute, in a piece about how Younger’s activism is propelling him to run for Congress. The piece is hardly favorable to Younger’s cause, but at least it connects the dots on why the governor is attempting to slow down in the trans activists.

Context is everything, isn’t it? Reporters don’t have to agree with the beliefs of all of the people that they cover, but it does help to explain why people believe what they believe or at least include some opposing voices in the mix that will do the job for you.

FIRST IMAGE:  Texas trans flag featured on the website of the American Civll Liberties Union.