WASHINGTON (ChurchMilitant.com) - YouTube is again censoring information that contradicts its ideological worldview — this time, on the cause of gender dysphoria.
YouTube, which is owned by Google, has removed a three-hour video featuring Walt Heyer, a man who once lived as a woman, for referring to gender dysphoria as "a childhood development disorder."
"Our hate speech policy prohibits videos which assert that someone's sexuality or gender identity is a disease or a mental illness," YouTube stated. "We quickly remove videos violating our policies when flagged by our users."
Rob Bluey, a Heritage Foundation vice president and executive editor for the Daily Signal, denounced the act of censorship. "We vehemently disagree with YouTube's decision to suppress valid medical information," said Bluey. "Not only is this decision anti-science, but it's also part of an alarming trend of YouTube removing or blocking content that it doesn't like."
Heyer's comment comes from his own painful experience. It began at 4 years old when his grandmother affirmed his dysphoria by putting him in a pretty dress. Later in life, he married and had children. After the divorce of his 15-year marriage, he decided to "transition" to the opposite sex.
This was a huge mistake, says Heyer. "The very same moment you're affirming that [attractiveness in a] young person you're telling him there's something wrong with him."
Heyer now admits changing to the opposite sex is impossible. On his website about sex change regret, Heyer says that in April 1983 he had gender reassignment surgery. "At first I was giddy for the fresh start. But hormones and sex-change, genital surgery couldn't solve the underlying issues driving my gender dysphoria."
"I de-transitioned more than 25 years ago," he continues. "I learned the truth: Hormones and surgery may alter appearances, but nothing changes the immutable fact of your sex."
Heyer calls "sex reassignment" surgery "the greatest medical fraud in history."
Church Militant reported in December on the new YouTube policy of taking the side of the ideological, progressive Left on sexual issues. "We will no longer allow content that maliciously insults someone based on protected attributes such as their race, gender expression or sexual orientation," YouTube states in its newest update to its "hate speech" policy.
It has also been recently reported by Church Militant that Facebook deleted Trump re-election ads due to a symbol it said resembled a Nazi sign, and that Twitter has flagged him twice for spreading what they considered potentially false information about mail-in voting. Trump has answered with an executive order making it easier for conservatives to sue social media by virtue of being platforms, not publishers. Most Americans believe social media is actively biased against conservatives.
Heyer is not backing down from his assertion he made on the now-banned YouTube video. He has since recorded another video in which he bleeps out his comment, explaining that "YouTube will not allow you to hear six words uttered by me, a former transgender-identifying person. I said that children suffering from gender dysphoria should not be encouraged to try experimental hormones and surgery. And I stand by that statement."
YouTube does not acknowledge that Heyer and all the people sharing their sex regret stories on his website are not alone. There is much science that supports their conclusions. The American College of Pediatricians (ACP) states on its website: "When [gender dysphoria (GD)] occurs in the pre-pubertal child, GD resolves in the vast majority of patients by late adolescence. Currently, there is a vigorous, albeit suppressed, debate among physicians, therapists and academics regarding what is fast becoming the new treatment standard for GD in children."
"This new paradigm," continues ACP, "is rooted in the assumption that GD is innate and involves pubertal suppression with gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists followed by the use of cross-sex hormones — a combination that results in the sterility of minors. A review of the current literature suggests that this protocol is founded upon an unscientific gender ideology, lacks an evidence base and violates the long-standing ethical principle of 'First do no harm'."