Staff Reports
The World Health Organization (WHO) has finally come to its senses and admitted that there’s not enough solid science to justify pushing kids into getting gender-affirming care. It’s about time they acknowledged that it’s not all rainbows and unicorns when it comes to making life-altering decisions for children who are struggling with their gender identity.
After years of promoting the idea that kids should undergo dramatic gender-affirming treatments, the WHO is finally realizing that they might have been barking up the wrong tree. They’ve conceded that there’s not enough consistent evidence to support the long-term safety and effectiveness of these drastic measures for minors.
WHO Admits There Is No Scientific Evidence to Supporting 'Gender Affirming Care' On Children https://t.co/PVrb7LIULx
— Princess Lili's gender fluid bike (@Msblowana) February 5, 2024
In a recent doc release by the WHO, they made it crystal clear that their new guidelines for trans and gender diverse people won’t include anyone under the age of 20. Why? Because the evidence just isn’t there to back up the idea that these treatments are beneficial in the long run for children and adolescents.
Now, we all know that liberal leaders have been shouting from the rooftops about how gender-affirming care is a literal life-saver for kids with gender dysphoria. They’ve even turned some states into sanctuary states for these procedures! But thank goodness for some common sense in our country’s leadership – Republican-run states like Florida, Texas, Arizona, Georgia, and Montana have put their foot down and banned these treatments for minors.
And it’s not just us conservative thinkers who are raising an eyebrow at these child sex change procedures – healthcare pros in the UK, Sweden, Norway, Finland, and France have also been sounding the alarm. Now the WHO has hopped on the bandwagon, admitting that there’s reason to be concerned about this whole mess.
In fact, the WHO’s transgender Guideline Development Group is made up of mostly trans individuals, and only a handful of them are actually doctors. So forgive us if we’re a bit skeptical when it seems like those making the decisions might have a personal stake in the matter.
