An article in the November issue of Pediatrics Magazine has caught the attention of social media watchers and is raising quite a stir. Dr. Leena Nahata, a professor at the Ohio State University College of Medicine in Columbus delivers a cautionary tale about expectant parents holding “gender reveal” parties or even informing friends and family about whether their upcoming bundle of joy is a boy or a girl. I’m guessing that you can see where this is going already.

Reuters jumped on the story shortly after it came out and delves into precisely why painting the nursery pink or blue in advance may be harmful to the child.

“By celebrating this single ‘fact’ several months before an infant’s birth, are we risking committing ourselves and others to a particular vision and a set of stereotypes that are actually potentially harmful?” Nahata works with transgender children and families of infants born with congenital conditions that complicate a gender designation. Currently, she writes in her editorial, 1 in 4,500 to 5,500 infants are born with such conditions. Nahata counsels parents as they wrestle to recast stories they told themselves about their children’s futures, dreams of cheering on a son at a Little League game or shopping for a prom dress with a daughter.

In a good-faith effort to find something positive to say about this scholarly paper, I would note that Nahata raises the question of advance gender testing in relation to “screening” the unborn. While not much of an issue in the United States (or at least I hope not), there are definitely cultures where pre-screening can lead to more abortions as families seek to weed out the less preferred gender, usually girls, unfortunately.

But beyond that? The rest of the questions being raised by a professor at a medical school boggle the mind. It’s true that there are children born with “atypical” genital structures due to chromosomal damage, but the doctor herself admits that this takes place in less than .02% of all births. That can definitely lead to some traumatic times for the child and the entire family, not to mention challenging medical procedures, but learning that a possibly flawed gender “assignment” was made prior to their birth is going to be the least of the child’s worries at that point.

None of that is the major thrust of the article, though. Dr. Nahata is primarily focused on the “damage” being potentially done to the child if they eventually decided to trade in their “assigned” gender for a new one or none at all. Writing at the Federalist, Mary Hasson lets the air out of that balloon in short order.

The problem is that if the child eventually decides to trade the “assigned gender” for one that seems a better fit, there will likely be pain and awkwardness all around, at least for awhile. However, it clearly troubles Nahata to hear a parent say, “I have to mourn the loss of the daughter I have raised before I can move forward with my son.” Note: she’s not troubled by the unscientific assertion that the daughter turned into a “son,” but by the fact that the parent isn’t celebrating her transgender child’s newly discovered self. Nahata blames parental distress on “harmful” traditions that celebrate a child’s sex and spur parents to invest in “a particular vision and a set of stereotypes” based on “sex and implied gender.” Already adept at manipulating hormones to sculpt the bodies and mold the minds of her young transgender patients, Nahata now wants to reverse-engineer the emotional distress their parents feel.

It’s one thing to have a group of fringe, left-wing activists going around ignoring basic science and trying to forcibly “evolve” society to suit their agenda. That’s dangerous in its own right of course because too many parents latch onto the message and begin embarking on journies down the rabbit hole which will likely mean a lifetime on a therapist’s couch for some of these kids.

But it’s not just social justice activists. Now we have a subset of actual medical professional and educators buying into a concept which is completely unsupported in their field of study. Doctors are supposed to be scientists and follow the data wherever it leads them, not promote skewed political ideologies to the point where they’re putting foreign, hormonal cocktails into otherwise healthy children to thwart the onset of puberty. And the problem has already erupted among elected officials who are responsible for setting policies in schools and public facilities which involve gender.

This train is running off the rails quickly. There needs to be a much more vigorous effort to push back against such unscientific and dangerous ideas before we lose an entire generation in this debacle.