On Dec. 20, 2022, Brokenhearted Films released the indie documentary “Dead Name” on Vimeo. It lasted there less than 60 days before Vimeo smote us, deplatforming the film after trans-activists raised hell because the film dared to question how a child’s transitioning can impact parents and the parent-child relationship.
Vimeo told us, and the world, it pulled the film because it contained “hate speech.” It even tried to withhold funds we’d earned from the sale of the film on its platform.
We had the film back up in four hours on an independent platform, and to date it’s been seen worldwide and in private screenings across the red state nation. The big news, however, is that “Dead Name” is now on Amazon Prime, thanks to the film’s distributor, Bay View Entertainment.
The reason it’s worth mentioning (besides giving it a shameless promotional nudge) is that the film, which showcases three aggrieved parents who are dealing with the fallout of transitioning children, may be ready, for “prime” time, finally.
That would be a genuine blessing because the battle over transgender medicine for minors needs a nonpartisan, all parents’ hands-on-deck campaign to press the issue forward and force the medical industry to undertake deeper research and apply better oversight on transgender medicine.
Last week, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments over a Tennessee ban on transgender medicine for children under 18. Court watchers and pundits strongly predict the justices will uphold the state’s ban, emboldening the other 23 red states that have passed some version of the law. The court’s decision is going to boil down to whether the ban discriminates against sex, and that may be a tall order for the plaintiffs, which include the Biden administration, because the law to ban youths from using puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones applies equally to boys and girls.
In the meantime, blue states are busy strengthening access to “gender-affirming care” for children who think they are suffering from gender dysphoria.
If the Supreme Court does not think this case deserves “higher scrutiny,” and the red state bans prevail, there will be no core investigation of the underlying medical dispute. The plaintiffs in the case argue that so-called gender-affirming medicine is necessary for the mental health of teens struggling with body dysphoria. They say it treats depression and suicidal ideation. They also claim there are few long-term side effects, and that “detransitioners,” or those who regret transitioning and try to reverse course, comprise an imperceptible number of the trans population.
What the justices didn’t discuss at the hearing was statistics on the percentage of children put on puberty blockers who move on to hormones. There are some studies that say a significant number of children continue treatment to complete some aspects of transition. So, when those defending puberty blockers state that they are reversible, the more important data trend is not spoken out loud; namely, that the effects of the hormones are far less immutable.
Unfortunately, medical institutions, which stand to gain from relatively new transgender treatments, have not done enough, in this country at least, to look under the hood to give this field the scrutiny it deserves. Research shows the potential risks of treatment including loss of fertility, vaginal atrophy, blood-cell disorders and increased risk of heart attack.
It’s important to note that every major American medical institution still supports it.
Note the difference between the American medical community’s hard stance on the subject and European and Scandinavian countries that have been walking back the euphoria and putting stricter measures in place (though not all-out bans).
For years, trans-activists have not allowed America to have a sane and tempered debate over the pros and cons of transgender medicine for youths. They’ve had a stranglehold on mainstream media, entertainment, and indie films. “Dead Name” found its way to two film festivals. (By contrast, our previous films, under a different production name and on a different topic, were accepted into a slew of festivals). Only right-wing media and conservative-leaning and libertarian podcasters have given our film a platform.
Is there a sea change coming? Has the high-profile Supreme Court case and Donald Trump’s dark election ads on the subject generated more curiosity, concern, and conversation? Are we allowed to talk about this now, and even debate it?
Without a full-on medical examination of the topic, we will remain a cleaved country, as rudderless and divided as we are over the abortion issue. In “Dead Name,” we meet Bill, whose son has cancer. Sean has gone off to college, where he comes to believe he’s female. His father understands that hormones might interfere with other medicines he’s using for treatments because he has consulted with his son’s oncology team. But his efforts to help his son are thwarted, and ultimately Sean pays for that with his life.
Big Pharma has a lot to gain by putting a generation of children on lifelong medicine, and that’s a problem. But the most egregious issue of all is whether this sudden rash of teens who think they are suffering from gender dysphoria is really racked with gender dysphoria and not a slew of underlying psychological issues that have gone unchecked or have been misdiagnosed.
There’s far too much work to do before transgender medicine should be sanctioned by the medical industry, and there are too many unanswered questions for half the country to outright ban the procedures.
Films like “Dead Name” humanize the issue. They’re accessible. These are real people navigating novel medical circumstances and questions. Their voices are extremely important, and not just in red states, or on right-leaning platforms. They are important emissaries for parents across the nation, no matter their politics, religion, race, or parenting philosophy, because as with any mental illness, the issue of transgender medicine transcends state borders.
We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal.
