Transgender Procedures Don’t Make Sense: Here’s Why

If you think that, oftentimes, political discourse is far more complicated than it needs to be, you are not alone. This is especially true of  “sex-change” surgeries, better called “sex-rejecting” surgeries, since their express aim is to erase, i.e., reject, a given victim’s sex—but of course, to no avail. And in his essay in “Sex, Truth, and Reconciliation: an Autopsy of the Transgender Movement”, a new book documenting the history, corruption, and faulty philosophy of the transgender movement and industry released by the American Principles Project, Dr. Eithan Haim expresses this very sentiment. 

“In every debate over transgender identity,” Dr. Haim writes, “there is always discussion of ‘evidence,’ and it tends to revolve around complex statistics, randomized controlled trials, or medical consensus. Before considering any of this, however, we should ask ourselves: Does any of this make sense?”

While medical studies are important and valuable, at times there arises an issue that does not require consulting medical literature to know that, no, the operation in question doesn’t make sense. Sometimes, all it requires is common sense. And when it comes to sex-rejecting surgeries, common sense dictates that they do not make any sense. 

Dr. Haim proposes an analogy that illustrates this point well. First, he says, if a woman came to his practice with a breast lump and an investigation shows the lump is cancerous, a mastectomy would be a logical and medically sound solution. A mastectomy “makes sense” in this case. Now, take another woman suffering from migraines who claims that a bilateral mastectomy would solve the problem. In this instance, a mastectomy would not make sense.

So it goes for transgender procedures. If a patient comes in distressed over his sex, the doctor should refrain from surgically operating on him. It does not make sense to treat an illness of the mind by physically altering the body. This simple principle is why we no longer use lobotomies and electroshock therapy to treat schizophrenia.

Furthermore, not only does research demonstrate that sex-rejecting surgeries don’t ameliorate gender dysphoria, it also shows that they come with further and regular health complications. Most definitively, at the end of 2025, the Department of Health and Human Services released a 410-page report titled, “Treatment for Pediatric Gender Dysphoria: Review of Evidence and Best Practices,” reporting

“that mastectomy is associated with predictable surgical complications such as necrosis and scarring…[E]vidence is very low regarding the effect of surgery on [gender dysphoria] or incongruence, improvement in mental health including suicidality and depression, and long-term outcomes such as sexual function, quality of life, and regret.”

Are we at all surprised? Of course not—and that’s Dr. Haim’s point. Sex-rejecting surgeries straightforwardly fit the colloquial definition of “mutilation”: “an act or instance of destroying, removing, or severely damaging a limb or other body part of a person or animal.” Why would sex-rejecting surgeries help anything? On what Earth is it a good idea to mutilate a mentally distressed individual? On what Earth is it a good idea to force a mentally distressed individual into an irreversible and unnecessary surgery? On the contrary, we have a duty not to mutilate each other. That’s not controversial, nor is it profound. It’s basic common sense. 

In the end, sex-rejecting surgeries remove or severely alter one’s organs, leaving them unable to function as intended. By robbing their victims of this end, sex-rejecting surgeries wield an egregious harm unto them. And we cannot listen to the woke ideologues touting sex-rejecting surgeries as “extraordinary successes” with no side effects. They are misleading us. Sex-rejecting surgeries only create a new problem while perpetuating an already existing one—the mental difficulties experienced by the individual struggling with his sex.