According to a recently conducted study, gender-confused teens committed suicide after taking trans hormones from researchers.
The most recent example of the risks associated with giving youngsters medication injections to support their illusions that they can alter their sex was the suicide of two gender-confused teenagers receiving hormones as part of a children’s hospital study.
An article that was recently published in the New England Journal of Medicine examined 315 gender-ambiguous teenagers who received “gender-affirming hormones” as part of a study that was carried out by numerous researchers, many of whom were connected to the contentious transgender programs at Northwestern University and the Lurie Children’s Hospital. Both individuals receive millions of dollars from the affluent and influential Pritzker family, which includes the former Secretary of Commerce and the Governor of Illinois among its members.
Amy Tishelman, one of the researchers, attends Boston College, a Jesuit Catholic university. The belief that a man can turn into a woman and vice versa, as well as gender ideology, are both rejected by the Catholic Church.
A remark on the paper reads, “The most common adverse event was suicidal ideation (in 11 participants [3.5%]); death by suicide occurred in 2 participants.”
Subscribe to GreatGameIndia
Jesse Singal, a social science journalist, criticized the study in an essay outlining its shortcomings, which purported to discover advantages to giving children chemical injections to make them act like the other sex.
Singal asserted that the research team cherry-picked the data, pointing out that the article omitted a lot of the outcomes it had wanted to investigate and which were stated in the initial paperwork.
If you compare that to the protocol document, you’ll notice that of the eight key variables the researchers were most interested in — “gender dysphoria, depression, anxiety, trauma symptoms, self-injury, suicidality, body esteem, and quality of life” — the ones I bolded are not reported in the NEJM paper. That’s six out of eight, or 75% of the variables covered by the researchers’ hypothesis in their protocol document
He criticized the researchers’ assertion that “there were significant within-participant changes over time for all psychosocial outcomes in hypothesized directions” as being “borderline deceptive.”
“This is borderline misleading. By ‘all’ psychosocial outcomes, they don’t mean all the ones they measured and evaluated for change over time — they mean the ones they chose to report results on,” Singal wrote.
Transgender research regularly is flawed, ignores contrary opinions
Low standards continue to hinder research into medical standards for “gender-affirming care,” which mistakenly asserts that a person can alter their sex. It also disregards the advice of qualified medical professionals who have expressed concern about the dangers of transgenderism.
For instance, research conducted by a paid LGBT lobbyist attempted to refute the notion that the rapid rise in transgender identification was the result of a “social contagion.”
However, one social science writer referred to Jack Turban’s research as a “disaster,” while Michael New, a business and research techniques professor at the Catholic University of America, informed LifeSiteNews that the paper employed poor research. The LGBT advocate depended on polls with perplexing “sex” questions, especially if someone thought they were the other sex from what they actually were. Turban also did not interview any gender dysphoric individuals for his study.
Last year the governing Federal Council was quoted as saying that the binary gender model is still strongly anchored in Swiss society, hence rejecting a third-gender option on official records.
“In a field known for its weak methodologies and even weaker scientific conclusions, Turban’s study sets a new low,” Leor Sapir, with the Manhattan Institute, wrote in response to the paper.