The Washington Post’s editorial board acknowledged that the alleged evidence showing the benefits of so-called “gender-affirming care” for minors could be inaccurate, misleading, and biased in a new opinion piece on Sunday.
“The uncertainty [of the benefits of puberty blockers] is the result of scientists’ failure to study these treatments slowly and systematically as they developed them,” said the Post.
The WaPo editors called for more scientifically rigorous studies.
The debate surrounding puberty blockers and other transgender procedures for minors has been a subject of national contention for years, but has come to a head as the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) considers the United States v. Skrmetti case.
[RELATED: Medical Doctor Hid $9.7M Study Showing Children Do Not Benefit from Puberty Blockers…]
The Biden Administration’s Department of Justice (DOJ) is challenging a Tennessee law that bans the use of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones for minors seeking a gender transition.
Puberty blockers are designed to stop natural sexual development and can lead to complications such as sterilization and even problems in bone development.
SCOTUS’s ultimate decision will set an important national precedent for how states will be allowed to restrict transgender medication for minors going forward.
Currently, 24 states have imposed restrictions on transgender procedures and drugs for minors, while some, including Maine, encourage and subsidize the procedures.
[RELATED: SCOTUS Considers TN Ban on Prescribing Certain Drugs to Children for “Gender-Affirming Care”…]
The Post believes that Tennessee is able to make a strong defense in court because the alleged evidence surrounding the use of puberty blockers in minors is far from conclusive.
The article cited one Dutch study, often used to justify the use of puberty blockers to treat minors suffering from gender dysphoria, and explained why its results were dubious.
The study included only 70 subjects without any control group, making it highly unreliable.
The post recommended that, in order to produce reliable results and come to a final determination on the benefits and harms of puberty blockers, researchers need to select patients randomly, use control groups, and study a larger group of people.
The editorial board pointed to a British study that, contrary to the Dutch findings, determined that there was no psychological benefit to prescribing puberty blockers to minors.
Last week, Britain’s liberal Labour government made permanent a temporary ban on puberty blockers for minors after the release of a study finding significant risks associated with their use.
The study found that puberty blockers stunt bone development, causing permanent damage.
The newspaper did not acknowledge the damage done to bone development by puberty blockers.
It did, however, note that some scientists have been extremely biased in their studies, withholding and manipulating results to maintain the unscientific illusion that puberty blockers benefit children.
In April, court proceedings revealed that the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) exerted undue influence on studies of transgender medicine conducted at Johns Hopkins University in Maryland.
WPATH allegedly tried to influence the team working on the project and tried to prevent the publication of any findings that did not support transgender ideology.
The Post also acknowledged that American transgender advocate and doctor Johanna Olson-Kennedy delayed the release of potentially important information because it challenged her views.
She openly admitted that she refuses to release the results of a $9.7 million taxpayer-funded study showing no benefits from puberty blockers because she fears the findings will be “weaponized” by people opposed to radical gender ideology.
“The failure to adequately assess these treatments gives Tennessee reason to worry about them — and legal room to restrict them,” said the Washington newspaper.
The editors at the paper did not say whether they believe the court should uphold Tennessee’s ban but hoped that, in either event, the U.S. will fund more reliable studies on the effects of puberty blockers.
Those studies should be conducted by researchers who are not also practitioners of gender “medicine,” as that can, and has in the past, led to serious conflicts and unreliable results.
Despite the Post’s official position, its news division published an article celebrating the benefits of so-called “gender-affirming care” just two months ago.
“Transgender and nonbinary youths who received gender-affirming medical care, such as puberty blockers and hormones, were largely satisfied with the treatments they received,” said the Post.
The article cited a study conducted by Princeton University’s TransYouth Project.
SCOTUS appears likely to uphold Tennessee’s ban, with conservative-leaning justices occupying six of its nine seats.
It’s not pleasant conversation but… many who have used puberty blockers often permanently ends climax sensations. How can a child be expected to weigh the consequences? To borrow a line from the late Senator Robert Byrd… Barbaric.
“Puberty blockers are designed to STOP NATURAL SEXUAL DEVELOPMENT……”
“Maine encourages and subsidizes the procedures…..”
Ask yourself why the Mills dynasty is so interested in the illegal drug trade and the sexual exploitation of our children.
And our Governor supports bad science! Such a smart person who wants to be our leader.
And the related article- 9mil study hidden showing puberty blockers harmful to these transgender children.