A Michigan Republican lawmaker says despite discussion of an “endgame” to banning all trans health care regardless of age, the purpose of an online forum he hosted last week was strictly to talk about ways to restrict trans kids from receiving that care.
“I understand why people focused on Schriver’s comments, who was just an attendee, who came in a little bit late and he might not have heard the goals either because he came in late,” Rep. Brad Paquette (R-Niles) told the Michigan Advance, referencing statements made by state Rep. Josh Schriver (R-Oxford).
In the discussion with Ohio and Michigan lawmakers hosted by Paquette Friday night on the X social media platform, Schriver was direct and open in his desire to see all trans health care made illegal.
“Why would we stop this for anyone under 18, but not apply this for anyone over 18? It’s harmful across the board, and I think that’s something that we need to take into consideration in terms of the endgame,” he said.
Neither Paquette, nor any of the other lawmakers participating in the forum — which included state Rep. Tom Kunse (R-Clare) as well as state Sens. Lana Theis (R-Brighton) and Jonathan Lindsey (R-Coldwater) — objected or corrected Schriver’s assertion that all trans health care should be denied.
Schriver’s comments were welcomed by another participant, Ohio state Rep. Gary Click (R-Vickery), sponsor of that state’s ban on gender affirming care.
“I think sometimes what we know legislatively is we have to take sometimes small bites,” responded Click. “And when you put everything into one pot, it’s going to be harder for you to get any legislation across the finish line. So take off a bite-sized portion of it, understand that this is going to have future consequences along the way.”
While Schriver, Theis and Lindsey didn’t respond when asked for comment, Kunse did later disassociate himself from Schriver and Click’s comments in a statement sent Monday to the Advance.
“I am not interested in banning surgery for adults,” he said. “I did not know someone would comment on adult surgeries. I am against irreversible gender surgeries on children. There is a reason we consider an adult to be past 18-21 years of age. Until a person reaches that level of maturity, they are not cognitively developed enough to make an informed decision. We should protect kids, but adults have the freedom to get elective surgeries.”
Paquette, while not repudiating the comments from Schriver and Click, insisted the forum was strictly about restricting such care for minors. He has introduced legislation to that end.
House Bill 4539 and House Bill 4540 would make it a four-year felony to provide either “drugs or surgery to a minor for gender transition.” Introduced by Paquette last year in the Democratic-controlled House, each has been assigned to the Government Operations Committee, where bills are traditionally sent to languish.
However, Paquette said that while the legislation is focused on minors, he is of the opinion that a lot of that care is harmful to adults.
“It seems to me right now that they would cause harm to an adult, hormones and then irreversible gender reassignment surgeries,” he said. “Right now, that’s my stance, but I’m looking forward to exploring that. I want to have dialogue, and that’s why I’ve invited my colleagues and any person in the state of Michigan to share with me. I’ve sent a letter to all of the hospitals that perform and have programs for gender affirming care. I want to learn more. So that’s my individual stance.”
A report by the Southern Poverty Law Center has documented what it called an “ecosystem of think tanks, legislators, political candidates, public intellectuals and gender-critical bloggers,” to inject doubt into the issue.
“At its most sophisticated, this strategy does not even need to argue against the idea that some youth are transgender and will benefit from care — only to argue that scientific consensus is lacking and that the broader evidence base precludes certainty, thereby justifying stringent gatekeeping requirements,” the report stated.
Several times, both in the online forum and in his interview with the Advance, Paquette said that European nations like England were limiting, and even prohibiting, access to such care.
“I’m looking at the science that is out there,” said Paquette. “And the science posits very, very low efficacy of these procedures, which is why we see other countries like England tapering back their gender affirming care programs. That is a very, very huge red flag with what is going on.”
But as reported by Politico in October, “the state of care for transgender people in Europe has more nuance” than Republicans critics like Paquette portray.
Kellan Baker is executive director of the Whitman-Walker Institute, which focuses on LGBTQ+ health policy and research.
“There is a lot of intentional misinterpretation in the U.S. of what is happening in Europe, and that misinterpretation is happening for ideological and political reasons,” he told Politico.
Only Russia, which has effectively prohibited all forms of LGBTQ+ expression, has banned gender affirming care. Baker says the other nations, including the U.K., France, Sweden and Norway, have expressed the need for more research.
“Europe is continuing to practice according to the same standards of care that used to hold sway in the U.S. — before states started banning care — a holistic course of care that incorporates a robust mental health component, where teams of clinicians are working very closely with patients, their parents, and mental health providers. That’s the standard of care that these European countries are continuing to follow,” he said.
Paquette said the online discussion was about fostering dialogue and noted that he invited all House and Senate Democrats to join in the conversation, but none did.
“I appreciate being able to have dialogue about passionate issues and important issues where a lot of our constituents get revved up,” he said. “You need to have statesmen and women that are able to rise to the occasion to not be insecure or be afraid to look at these issues head on.”
Some of Paquette’s Democratic colleagues have been vocal in their criticism of the forum.
“If our Republican colleagues are going to continue to attack the LGBTQ community instead of focusing on real issues that impact a majority of Michiganders, they will continue to lose,” state Sen. Mallory McMorrow (D-Royal Oak) told the Advance. “As Rep. [Lori] Pohutsky (D-Livonia) pointed out on her Twitter feed, some of the comments from that Twitter space reveal what we’ve known for some time: This was never about ‘protecting kids.’ It’s anti-LGBTQ, full stop.”
Michigan Senate gives final OK to ‘suicide prevention’ legislation banning conversion therapy
Paquette says he is being “demonized” over his advocacy, including receiving social media death threats and efforts to publish his home address.
“[T]hey’re saying that we want to erase trans people and genocide and all the above. And I didn’t hear any of that in the Twitter space whatsoever,” said Paquette.
When asked by the Advance whether trans health care was being used more as a political issue than a health issue, Paquette disputed the concept that children could be transgender, a point of view at odds with major medical organizations like the American Medical Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics.
“Kids are being told that they weren’t born right,” he said. “You don’t tell a child that they were not born right, and that their problems can be fixed by taking a pharmaceutical drug that is absolutely wrong, and it always will be, whether people agree with me or not. That is true. And that is something from me as an individual representative, is going to be a very, very large priority for me to advocate for, and it always will be.”
