A new term is rapidly entering federal policy discussions surrounding transgender healthcare for minors. The phrase “sex rejecting procedures” has begun appearing in official statements and regulatory announcements as part of a broader effort to eliminate access to gender-affirming care for people under 18.
The language surfaced publicly this week as federal health officials defended proposed rules that would bar Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program funding from covering puberty blockers, hormone therapy, or gender-affirming surgeries for minors. Hospitals that continue to provide such care could risk losing federal funding for unrelated services.
Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has repeatedly used the phrase in public remarks. During a press conference announcing the proposed restrictions, Kennedy said doctors are providing what he described as “needless and irreversible sex rejecting procedures that violate their sacred Hippocratic Oath.”
In a separate statement, Kennedy further asserted that “sex rejecting procedures are neither safe nor effective treatment for children with gender dysphoria,” framing the administration’s actions as a necessary intervention to protect minors.
The terminology represents a deliberate shift away from the medical term “gender affirming care,” which is widely used by major medical organizations. Supporters of the new language argue it more accurately reflects their belief that such treatments deny biological sex rather than support health or well-being.
Dr. Mehmet Oz, administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, echoed the phrasing while outlining enforcement mechanisms tied to the proposed rule. Oz said the policy would prevent hospitals from performing “sex rejecting procedures on children under the age of 18 as a condition of participation in Medicare and Medicaid.”
Medical organizations strongly dispute that framing. Groups including the American Medical Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics define gender-affirming care as evidence based treatment provided after careful clinical evaluation. For minors, this care often focuses on social support or puberty delaying medication rather than surgery, which is rare.
Critics say the adoption of the term “sex rejecting procedures” is not a neutral description but a rhetorical strategy designed to influence public perception. By embedding judgment into the terminology, opponents of transgender healthcare can portray medically supported treatment as extreme or harmful without directly addressing the existing body of medical research.
Advocates for transgender youth warn that this shift in language increases stigma and misinformation. Transgender young people already face elevated risks of depression, anxiety, and suicidality, risks that medical professionals say can be reduced when youth have access to appropriate care and family support.
Legal challenges to similar restrictions are ongoing across the country. Courts have increasingly scrutinized not only the policies themselves but also the language lawmakers use to justify them. In several cases, judges have questioned whether political definitions conflict with accepted medical standards.
As the phrase “sex rejecting procedures” spreads through federal agencies and political messaging, advocates caution that the words chosen by policymakers have real consequences. For families seeking care, the concern is not only how treatments are labeled, but also how that language is used to justify removing access to healthcare that many clinicians consider essential.
