The scientific revolt against gender ideology has begun

Kaylee McGhee White

Gender activists often defend the physical transition of gender-confused children by citing scientific research that supposedly backs up the efficacy and safety of these experimental treatments. But one close look at this research proves the exact opposite — and a number of experts are finally coming forward to say so.
A new in-depth report by the British Medical Journal reveals just how flimsy the “science” behind sex-change treatments is.
The Endocrine Society commissioned two systematic reviews for its clinical practice guideline, Endocrine Treatment of Gender-Dysphoric/Gender-Incongruent Persons: one on the effects of sex steroids on lipids and cardiovascular outcomes, the other on their effects on bone health. To indicate the quality of evidence underpinning its various guidelines, the Endocrine Society employed the GRADE system (grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation) and judged the quality of evidence for all recommendations on adolescents as “low” or “very low.”
The report goes on to cite several systematic reviews of the World Professional Association for Transgender Health’s (WPATH) sex-change recommendations. It says:
One of the commissioned systematic reviews found that the strength of evidence for the conclusions that hormonal treatment “may improve” quality of life, depression, and anxiety among transgender people was “low,” and it emphasised the need for more research, “especially among adolescents.” The reviewers also concluded that “it was impossible to draw conclusions about the effects of hormone therapy” on death by suicide.
Despite this, WPATH recommends that young people have access to treatments after comprehensive assessment, stating that the “emerging evidence base indicates a general improvement in the lives of transgender adolescents.”
WPATH has even admitted that the evidence supporting medical transition is so limited that “a systematic review regarding outcomes of treatment in adolescents is not possible," according to BMJ. Yet its public guidance offers no hint of this uncertainty. Indeed, one would think from reading WPATH's public statements on this issue that chemical and physical transition is always the right solution for the patient and that it never leads to unwanted or unexpected consequences.

"We state that when gender affirming medical treatment is provided with a standardized multidisciplinary assessment and treatment process, thorough informed consent, and ongoing monitoring and psycho-social support, the rate of regret of gender-affirming medical treatment commenced in adolescence has been observed to be very low and the benefits of treatment in adolescence are potentially greater than the benefits of gender-affirming treatment commenced in adulthood," WPATH claims. "Hence, the harms associated with obstructing or delaying access to wished for and indicated treatment for the majority, appear greater than the risks of regret for the few."

But the supposed "benefits" to which WPATH refers simply are not reflected in the scientific data. In fact, one of the only studies claiming to show a connection between better mental health and social and physical affirmation had to be publicly revised to clarify that there is no such connection. And every single other conclusive study on this topic has found that the evidence in support of "gender-affirming care" is, at best, inconclusive.
From the BMJ:
Cochrane, an international organisation that has built its reputation on delivering independent evidence reviews, has yet to publish a systematic review of gender treatments in minors. But The BMJ has learnt that in 2020 Cochrane accepted a proposal to review puberty blockers and that it worked with a team of researchers through 2021 in developing a protocol, but it ultimately rejected it after peer review. A spokesperson for Cochrane told The BMJ that its editors have to consider whether a review “would add value to the existing evidence base,” highlighting the work of the UK’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, which looked at puberty blockers and hormones for adolescents in 2021. “That review found the evidence to be inconclusive, and there have been no significant primary studies published since.”
Likewise, a review from Florida's Agency for Health Care Administration on the outcomes that are “important to patients” with gender dysphoria, including mental health, quality of life, and complications, found that the body of evidence from the 61 systematic reviews they looked at was "not sufficient" to support puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, or surgeries in young people.
Robert Garofalo, chief of adolescent medicine at Lurie Children’s Hospital in Chicago, admitted that scientists who support "gender-affirming care" are more or less throwing crap at the wall and hoping that it sticks. "It is a discipline where the evidence base is now being assembled,” he said last year. “It’s truly lagging behind [clinical practice], I think, in some ways.”
There is far more evidence that physical interventions in gender-confused children make things much worse. The Endocrine Society, for example, acknowledged that chemical treatment, in particular, places “a high value on avoiding an unsatisfactory physical outcome when secondary sex characteristics have become manifest and irreversible, a higher value on psychological well-being, and a lower value on avoiding potential harm.”
To be clear, gender activists don't really care whether the science backs up their agenda or not. But it does give them a claim to authority on this issue, which they have used aggressively in recent years to convince every one of our powerful institutions, from the education establishment to the healthcare sector to the White House, to accept gender ideology as fact. Debunking their bogus scientific claims brings us one step closer to breaking this ideological grip.

The scientific revolt against gender ideology has begun (msn.com)

Many of us in here have been challenging this for a while. The liberals, however, are all down with changing genders without proof it works.
It might appear that is causes serious, sometimes fatal, problems down the road.