Science Debunks Left’s Transgender Narratives
The truth about transgenderism is finally being revealed. On Monday, Michael Shellenberger unleashed a treasure trove of internal files from the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) that “expose the lack of scientific and medical basis behind transgender medicine.” WPATH has long been regarded as the ultimate authority on transgenderism by the political, cultural, and medical establishments. However, the private conversations among its members tell a different story than the one they present to the public.
Instead of practicing rigorous, evidence-based medicine as they claim, the WPATH files reveal doctors who are essentially making things up as they go along, disregarding ethical boundaries even though they are fully aware that the children they are altering through chemical and surgical means cannot truly give informed consent. And people are starting to take notice.
It’s no wonder that transgender activists are feeling anxious. The public has proven to be more resistant than expected, particularly when it comes to radical policies such as housing men in women’s prisons and allowing them in girls’ locker rooms, not to mention the controversial practice of surgically altering and sterilizing children. Yet, the activists and their allies have nothing new to offer except for repeating their failed arguments, but with more volume.
Take, for example, a recent opinion piece in the New England Journal of Medicine by Michael R. Ulrich, a professor of law and public health at Boston University who is also affiliated with Ibram X. Kendi’s controversial Center for Antiracist Research. Ulrich argues that restrictions on transitioning children are part of a broader right-wing culture war aimed at controlling and regulating medicine. However, the fundamental flaw in this argument is that so-called gender-affirming care is not actually medicine.
From puberty blockers to hormones to surgeries, there is never a medical necessity for transitioning. Transitioning does not cure any diseases or correct any physical ailments or injuries. Instead, the purpose of medicalized transition is to disrupt and dismantle the normal functioning of healthy bodies.
Ulrich tries to downplay concerns about these procedures by comparing them to “Pediatric chemotherapy and radiation,” which also “have lasting effects on growth development and reproductive capabilities.” While this may be true, it’s important to note that cancer is a life-threatening condition, which is why we are willing to accept serious side effects in order to treat it. In contrast, not receiving “gender-affirming care” poses no physical risks. However, as the WPATH files demonstrate, puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and transition surgeries carry significant and potentially life-threatening risks.
This is why the argument for transition always resorts to manipulating people, especially children, by using suicide as a threat. The only harm that can come from not transitioning is self-inflicted harm. Therefore, Ulrich repeatedly invokes the specter of suicide, claiming that “lives are at risk in states pursuing these bans on needed care.” However, Ulrich provides no substantial evidence to support this claim. He simply assumes that affirming and medically transitioning individuals will reduce the high rates of suicide, suicide attempts, and suicidal thoughts among transgender youth.
Ulrich cites only one study as “evidence showing the effectiveness of gender-affirming care in reducing depression, anxiety, and suicide attempts.” However, contrary to the hype, that study did not actually demonstrate such results. As Jesse Singal explained after its publication in 2022, ”the kids who took puberty blockers or hormones experienced no statistically significant mental health improvement during the study. The claim that they did improve, which was presented to the public in the study itself, in publicity materials, and on social media (repeatedly) by one of the authors, is false” (emphasis in original).
Lack of Evidence on Suicide
There is no solid evidence that transitioning prevents suicide, especially in the case of children. While it is true that those who identify as transgender have a higher risk of suicide (although this is often exaggerated by activists), this can be better explained by the fact that trans-identified individuals also have a significantly higher rate of mental health issues and trauma. Adding the false notion that they were born in the wrong body only exacerbates these underlying problems.
The extraordinary claim that some children are born in the wrong bodies and must therefore be chemically and surgically transformed into the opposite sex is not supported by medical evidence. It is an ideological and sexual fantasy disguised as medicine. There is no substantial evidence to justify transitioning children because gender ideology is exactly that – an ideology pretending to be medicine. The reality of human nature remains unchanged, despite the shameful eagerness of much of the medical establishment, such as the NEJM, to surrender to the demands of a small group of vocal activists.
Regulating the Industry
Therefore, it is not only reasonable but crucial for lawmakers to rein in the transgender industry, particularly when it comes to the “transitioning” of children. Ulrich and other activists may rant about right-wing conspiracies, but it is morally right and just to prohibit the surgical and chemical mutilation of children. Many states have already taken this step, proving that gender ideology does not have to prevail and claim our children as its own.
However, this does not mean that the battle is over. In fact, we should anticipate that gender ideologues will become even more aggressive as their defeats accumulate. They believed that time would be on their side and that new research would vindicate their cause. Yet, their time is running out, and the continued lack of evidence for “gender-affirming care” is driving them to resort to increasingly brazen lies and distortions in an attempt to justify their crumbling position. They are also becoming more authoritarian in the areas and institutions they control, as they strive to impose transgender dogma on the rest of society.
Therefore, those who oppose gender ideology must not become complacent. Trans activists and their allies will continue to fight until the bitter end, especially those who have staked their reputations, livelihoods, and self-worth on radical gender ideology. Nevertheless, we can now envision the end, even though there is still much work to be done in order to achieve it.
rnrn
How do the leaked WPATH files call into question the scientific basis of transgender medicine?
Title: The Hidden Truth Behind Transgender Medicine: Unveiling the WPATH Files
Introduction:
In recent years, transgenderism has become a highly debated topic, with various opinions and perspectives being expressed. However, a recent revelation challenges the widely accepted narrative surrounding transgender medical treatments. Michael Shellenberger, on Monday, disclosed confidential files from the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH), shedding light on the lack of scientific evidence behind transgender medicine. This article aims to explore the implications of these leaked documents and the concerns they raise regarding the medical treatment of transgender individuals.
Questioning the Validity of Transgender Medicine:
WPATH has long been regarded as the ultimate authority on transgenderism by political, cultural, and medical establishments. Yet, the leaked files from WPATH reveal a stark contrast between the organization’s public stance and private discussions among its members. Instead of upholding rigorous, evidence-based medicine, the files indicate that doctors associated with WPATH may be making decisions without sufficient scientific grounding.
Ethical Considerations:
The leaked files highlight a troubling aspect of transgender medicine—the lack of informed consent. It brings forth concerns regarding the medical alteration of children through chemical and surgical means without their capacity to truly understand the long-term consequences. This revelation raises ethical questions within the medical community and beyond.
Public Reservations:
The public response to radical transgender policies, such as housing transgender individuals in certain facilities, has been met with resistance. Transgender activists and their allies, despite their repeated arguments, have failed to provide new evidence to support their claims. This reluctance to address concerns and engage in meaningful discourse further challenges the validity of their stance.
Is Gender-Affirming Care Medicine?
Transgender medical treatments encompass various procedures, including puberty blockers, hormones, and surgeries. However, a fundamental flaw in their categorization as medicine exists. Unlike treatments for life-threatening conditions like cancer, transitioning does not aim to cure diseases or address physical ailments. Rather, it disrupts and dismantles the normal functioning of otherwise healthy bodies. This distinction calls into question the classification of gender-affirming care as genuine medicine.
Suicide as a Manipulative Argument:
Advocates for transgender medical treatments often resort to using suicide as a threat when arguing for the necessity of transitioning. However, the unproven claim that affirming and medically transitioning individuals will reduce suicide rates among transgender youth lacks substantiated evidence. While one study is cited as a reference, subsequent analysis revealed no statistically significant mental health improvement for those who underwent puberty blockers or hormone treatments.
Lack of Evidence on Suicide and Transgenderism:
Although transgender individuals may have a higher risk of suicide, it is crucial to understand that this could be attributed to their higher prevalence of mental health issues and trauma, rather than their gender identity alone. The idea that individuals are born in the wrong bodies lacks substantial medical evidence—a notion that can exacerbate underlying psychological difficulties.
Conclusion:
The leakage of WPATH files has sparked concerns about the scientific credibility of transgender medical treatments. The lack of evidence supporting the necessity and efficacy of transitioning procedures, particularly for children, challenges the prevailing narrative. It is essential to engage in open and evidence-based discussions to ensure that medical decisions align with the best interests and long-term well-being of transgender individuals.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
