Media disregards scientific evidence on the risks of transgenderism in children, promotes unreliable pro-trans survey
Controversial Reports on the “Transgender” Population
Two reports on the “transgender” population, an umbrella term for those who are psychologically uncomfortable with their sex, were published this month. One report by the American College of Pediatricians detailed the results of a review of more than 60 studies on mental health in adolescents with gender dysphoria and concluded that wrongly termed “gender-affirming” care had “no demonstrable, long-term benefit” on patients’ psychosocial well-being.
On the other hand, the U.S. Trans Survey reported the results of an open-access internet survey administered by a coalition of several trans-activist groups to tens of thousands of men, women, and adolescents who identify as “trans,” which reported sky-high satisfaction rates in those who had “transitioned.”
You can probably guess which report the media have touted as proof that the science is settled. They say transitioning is an overwhelmingly good idea! And bias, if not hate, likely motivates anyone who counsels caution and patience, even for children.
Note that the U.S. Trans Survey is being promoted and amplified at a time when many states, following the example of many European countries, have pulled back sharply from what had become a “trans pipeline” for the ever-growing population of children and adolescents, especially teen girls, who question their sex. It’s also a time when detransitioners have become more vocal and visible. They’re even suing doctors and clinics who caused their infertility or removed their breasts or genitals as children when they were too young to understand or consent.
Which of these reports should be believed? The pediatricians’ study is a thoughtful review of a large body of medical research. The other is an anonymous internet poll designed by activists to reach people who believe they have been discriminated against and who have a vested interest in the outcome of the survey. The latter is the definition of bias — in statistics class, this kind of product is described by the pithy phrase: “Garbage in, garbage out.”
Elliot Page, formerly known as the actress Ellen Page, helped to recruit participants for the survey, along with other well-known media figures. When a celebrity recruits participants, those who share the celebrity’s stance are more likely to answer the call. Page has called transition nothing but “joy” and has said it caused a “massive explosion of creativity.” Page has also been very vocal in decrying state legislation that protects children from being hurried into puberty-blocking hormones and surgeries.
The respondents — who, like Page, are living as if they are individuals of the opposite sex — likewise report an almost perfect satisfaction rate (94-98 percent). These kinds of satisfaction rates are very hard to square with the sad fact that 82 percent of individuals identifying as transgender have considered killing themselves and 40 percent have attempted suicide. These abysmal statistics hold even in countries where there is wide social acceptance of almost all sexual lifestyles.
The survey is not a scholarly study. Its purpose is to be weaponized against critics of the trans narrative or anyone who fails to believe that the only response to gender dysphoria is immediate blanket “affirmation,” even when it comes to children. Recall that activist organizations have succeeded in outlawing therapeutic and wait-and-see approaches for children in at least 22 states, with partial bans in other states. The U.S. Trans Survey is especially designed to be used as leverage for similar legislation and as the backdrop of executive action like the Biden administration’s Title IX rewrite, which is poised to force schools to allow boys on girls’ teams and in girls’ bathrooms.
The pediatricians’ group has, in contrast, reviewed more than 60 proper medical studies from several countries and has found no evidence that transgender interventions such as puberty blockers, castration, mastectomies, or cross-sex hormones relieve the psycho-social distress of children and adolescents with gender dysphoria.
You may be asking yourself: Does this mean that the thousands of American children who have been sterilized, stunted, castrated, rendered sexually dysfunctional, had their breasts removed, and otherwise permanently altered were damaged for nothing?
The answer is yes and no. For the children, yes, they have been damaged and their sadness and dysphoria remain uncured. But for those who benefit monetarily from the $2.1 billion transgender surgery market, which is projected to rise at an annual rate of over 11 percent yearly, there has been nothing but upside.
What are the key findings of the American College of Pediatricians’ study on the long-term benefits of gender-affirming care for individuals with gender dysphoria?
Ith the findings of the American College of Pediatricians’ report, which highlighted the lack of long-term benefits of gender-affirming care. It is important to critically analyze and question the methodology and motives behind such surveys and studies.
First and foremost, the American College of Pediatricians’ study provides a comprehensive and in-depth analysis of over 60 studies on mental health in adolescents with gender dysphoria. The researchers carefully reviewed the evidence and came to the conclusion that gender-affirming care does not have any proven, long-term benefits on patients’ psychosocial well-being. This is a significant finding that should not be dismissed lightly.
On the other hand, the U.S. Trans Survey relies on an open-access internet survey that was designed by trans-activist groups. The survey reached a large number of individuals who identify as “trans,” but it is crucial to recognize the potential biases inherent in the survey design. Internet surveys are prone to self-selection bias, where individuals who have a vested interest in the outcome of the survey are more likely to participate. This can lead to inflated satisfaction rates and skewed results.
Furthermore, the involvement of well-known media figures like Elliot Page in recruiting participants for the U.S. Trans Survey raises concerns about the objectivity and validity of the survey. When a celebrity promotes a survey, it is reasonable to assume that those who share the celebrity’s viewpoint and experiences are more likely to respond. This can introduce further bias into the results and may not accurately reflect the wider transgender population.
It is also important to consider the broader context in which these reports are being promoted. Many states, inspired by European countries, have implemented measures to exercise caution in providing transgender interventions to children and adolescents. The rise of detransitioners, individuals who regret their previous transgender interventions, adds another layer of complexity to the discussion. These detransitioners are now seeking legal recourse against the doctors and clinics responsible for irreversible consequences they experienced as children who were unable to fully comprehend the implications of their choices.
Given these considerations, it is crucial to approach the reports on the transgender population with skepticism and critical thinking. The American College of Pediatricians’ study provides a more rigorous and evidence-based review of the available research, while the U.S. Trans Survey relies on an anonymous internet poll designed by activist groups. It is essential to question the potential biases and limitations of such surveys and to consider the conflicting perspectives and experiences within the transgender community.
The discourse surrounding transgender issues should be driven by a commitment to truth-seeking and a genuine concern for the well-being of individuals who experience gender dysphoria. Rigorous scientific research, conducted without bias, should be prioritized to inform policies and medical interventions. Balancing the need for affirmation and support with the ethical considerations of long-term impacts requires a nuanced and thoughtful approach, one that respects the complexity of this issue and values the well-being of all individuals involved.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
Now loading...