I'm fine with how the Florida governor has handled Disney. I wish there hadn't been a fight but Disney in the end decided to go after DeSantis and his parents right bill, or as Democrats call it, don't say gay bill, allowing parents to have a voice in what is taught in schools. The disagreement brought to light that Disney had their own special governing system for their park. And with that Florida's government decided it was time to change that. Disney shouldn't be running their own government system.
And along these lines, saw what Disney has been upset with DeSantis over, Disney wants sex education taught to elementary students along with sex change operations on young kids, is now receiving a new review from scientists.
"The scientific revolt against gender ideology has begun"
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...ific-revolt-against-gender-ideology-has-begun
excerpt:
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:
