Doctors who” transition” gender-confused children like to claim their work is “evidence-based” and “life-saving”. However, they are rigging the facts, as one of their rulers simply admitted to The New York Times.
As the Times recently reported, Dr. Johanna Olson-Kennedy has refused to publish the results of a research ( begun in 2015 and funded by millions of taxpayer dollars ) on the use of puberty blockers for youngsters who identify as trans. She says this suppression is because” I do not want our work to be weaponized” . , So she has been stalling, for obviously self-serving reasons.
According to the Times, Olson-Kennedy is “one of the region’s most vocal supporters of youthful female treatments” and has provided expert testimony in numerous legal challenges to state bans. She said she was concerned the study’s results could be used in court to argue that’ we should n’t use blockers. ‘”  ,
Well, yes, that, as she admitted here, her study found that giving children puberty blockers did not result in changes to their emotional wellbeing. Olson-Kennedy tried to spin this by claiming of her individuals:” They’re in really good condition when they come in, and they’re in really good condition after two ages”. But as the Times information,” That realization seemed to reject an , earlier description , of the group, in which Dr. Olson-Kennedy and her associates noted that one third of the children were depressed or depressive before care”.
Olson-Kennedy’s issue is that her zero results leave her with either option. If puberty blockers do n’t help improve mental health among gender-confused children, then there is no reason to give them to children, regardless of whether they are “in really good shape” or depressed and suicidal. Which tale she chooses, because the outcomes she chooses to publish totally destroy the case for transitioning minors.
And she has put her whole life on children who are biologically transitioning. As the Times information, Olson-Kennedy “runs the country’s largest youth gender office at the Children’s Hospital of Los Angeles”. She is just one illustration of how the majority of research on flimsy-named “gender-affirming maintenance” is centered on a huge conflict of interest. People who are studying the performance of medical change are frequently the same individuals whose livelihoods and reputations may be destroyed if health transition is proven to be ineffective.  ,
These doctors have a tendency to think of themselves as health soldiers, saving children from the agony of being confined to the “wrong” bodies. But if it is the doctors who are bad, then they are demons who mutilate kids, for which they may experience a ruinous judgment. This is why, when their study contradicts their worldview and self-image, they insist that the information may be mistaken. And therefore, per the Times, Olson-Kennedy argued” that physicians ‘ scientific knowledge was generally undervalued in discussions of study. She has been giving trans children and adolescents physiological supplements and puberty blockers for 17 years, and she has seen firsthand how much of a difference they can make.
Of course, this is the same doctor who famously said,” If you want breasts at a later point in your life, you can go and get them” when talking about women who had their breasts amputated. Well, no, they ca n’t, and the casual cruelty of her comment should call into question her clinical judgment. Her conceit also raises the question of how much additional research has been censored or manipulated in order to advance transgender ideology, along with the everyday departure of her own data.  ,
There were several occasions when this was addressed in the New York Times article. For instance, when it was discussing the groundbreaking function that initially advocated the use of puberty blockers for transgender children, it neglected the destructive criticisms that have since been leveled at that study. It also overlooked some of the shortcomings of a study on cross-sex hormone in adolescents, but it at least acknowledged the subjects ‘ extraordinarily high murder rates, which should be devastating for a treatment that is marketed as preventing murder.
Despite these flaws, it is encouraging that The New York Times continues to question transgender ideology despite challenges from the Gay crowd whenever necessary. This suggests that the departed may become consciously trying to override transgender ideology, especially if the election results in a vote of disapproval. Some of the most successful GOP adverts have focused on Democrats ‘ support of transgender extremism, which has turned out to be a significant social responsibility.
And the work may involve more than just social calculation. A way is found by the natural laws. Some left-liberals who read the New York Times who supported trans philosophy when it was theoretical and distant are alarmed by its application even further away. They are now having second thoughts because their girls are afraid of having to share rooms and locker areas with men. Now that their children are immediately demanding hormone or their sons demanding an amputation of their breasts, they have doubts.  ,
If liberals need to feel comfortable speaking out in The New York Times running tales that expose the nonsense knowledge of “gender-affirming care,” then so be it. These late-arriving forces should be welcomed by those of us who have been in this fight for years. More important than getting the credit or embarking on an” I told you so” victory lap, is putting an end to the evil of transitioning children.  ,
Nathanael Blake serves as the Ethics and Public Policy Center’s postdoctoral fellow and is a top contributor to The Federalist.