What does a policy analyst say is necessary for the Trump administration to define what constitutes “promoting gender ideology,” according to a policy analyst.
The National Institutes of Health has funded nearly$ 3 million in studies on transgendered issues or “gender-affirming care” since President Donald Trump’s election.
The Fix used the NIH’s Grant Reporter to conduct this research, entering the terms” transgender,” “gender-affirming,” and “gender identity” into the search box. Eight outcomes were obtained from this. The eight studies had received fresh funding since President Trump took office, despite the fact that the projects were already in place and had formerly received tax funding.
For one investigation, the University of Wisconsin, Madison received more than$ 680, 000 from the NIH for its “investigation of social support for transgender and nonbinary individuals and its effects on health and well-being.”
Additionally, the federal government granted a$ 250, 000 give to the University of California San Diego to research” Systems Improvement for Psychosocial Safety in Transgender Care.”
Related studies at the University of Colorado, Boston College, Northwestern University, Princeton University, and Medical College of Wisconsin were also funded by the NIH.
A traditional think tank policy analyst wrote to The College Fix via email that the Trump administration may provide more details regarding “what does and does not constitute’promoting female philosophy.”
According to Joseph Figliolia with the Manhattan Institute, a current executive order from President Trump “bans national funding for promoting’gender ideology’.”
But, Figliolia believes that Trump assuredly made the decision to finance these projects before he and his executive orders were issued.
” I’ve seen stories in recent days about the NIH ending quite related grants to the people you outlined, which suggests to me that the decision was made in advance and that everyone is also getting on the same page,” he said.
Regarding the specific offers, Figliolia cited the UC study’s authors ‘ difficult conceits about “discrimination in medical and the causes of health discrepancies in trans-identical populations.”
The artists simply appear to be making the case that transgender people face discrimination in healthcare settings. They also assume that abuse and stigma are the cause of health disparities, he said.
It’s crucial to investigate why some groups have worse health outcomes, but they can’t believe that these health differences are caused by shame and prejudice, he said.
[embedded material]
For instance,” trans-identified people with psychiatric disorders, and potentially higher in “rejection sensitivity” may be more good to have visual biases that make them more likely to self-report more instances of stigma and discrimination in ambiguous circumstances.” Studies show that some trans-identification people have high levels of mental health issues before they identify as trans or are diagnosed with gender anxiety, he said, supporting this hypothesis.
Figliolia even objected to the UC study’s support of the World Professional Association for Transgender Health.
Another Entrepreneurship specifically denounces WPATH, but more significantly, the UK’s Cass Review found that WPATH’s recommendations were uncertain and suited to medical use, he said.
Second, journalist Jesse Singal reported in The Economist about how WPATH commissioned Johns Hopkins to perform data assessments of paediatric female treatments, but when the findings did not support their desired conclusions, WPATH suppressed the reviews and stopped publishing them, he said.
The College Fix received comments on the studies and how they matched recent policy changes via multiple emails in the last two weeks from the NIH news media team, UC San Diego, UW-Madison, and the project leads and program officials of the grants. A spokesperson for UW-Madison only responded, telling The Fix that the school “does not have information to share.”
Do No Harm Senior Fellow Jared Ross, who is affiliated with Figliolia, claimed that the organization’s oversight of funding these research projects, which were submitted prior to President Trump’s election, “appears to be an issue.”
The medical advocacy group claims that, in contrast to making an effort to improve medical care, federal funds are “disappointed” that “divisive gender and DEI pseudoscience” are being promoted.
Ross also stated:
Although promoting patient safety, improving mental health, and reducing HIV are all admirable goals, this research shouldn’t be restricted to particular groups based on group membership. These studies not only perpetuate harmful sex stereotypes under the pretext of “gender diversity,” but they also promote gender confusion in vulnerable teenagers.
We are confident that the courts will see a significant body of international evidence and systematic reviews that demonstrate these interventions are harmful, as President Trump made it clear in his executive orders.
He stated that Do No Harm is prepared to bring this matter before the Supreme Court and that he hopes” the NIH withdraws funding from these political activism projects thinly disguised as legitimate medical and scientific research.”
MORE: Sen. Cruz releases full list of the 3,400 NSF DEI grants.
IMAGE CAPTION AND CREDIT: Grok, a transgender researcher, stands next to a microscope to represent gender research.
Follow The College Fix on Twitter and Like us on Facebook.
