Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
“… Now, a medical journal has published the most reliable estimate yet and the numbers are low, reflecting more clearly on medical practices now being weighed by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Fewer than 1 in 1,000 U.S. adolescents with commercial insurance received gender-affirming medications — puberty blockers or hormones — during a recent five-year period, according to the study released Monday.
… “We are not seeing inappropriate use of this sort of care,” said lead author Landon Hughes, a Harvard University public health researcher. “And it’s certainly not happening at the rate at which people often think it is.”
… The researchers analyzed a large insurance claims database covering more than 5 million patients ages 8 to 17.
Only 926 adolescents with a gender-related diagnosis received puberty blockers from 2018 through 2022. During that time, 1,927 received hormones. The findings, published in JAMA Pediatrics, suggest that fewer than 0.1% of all youth in the database received these medications.
The researchers found that no patients under age 12 were prescribed hormones, an indication that doctors are appropriately cautious about when to start such treatments, Hughes said.
“I hope that our paper cools heads on this issue and ensures that the public is getting a true sense of the number of people who are accessing this care,” he said.…”
“… Now, a medical journal has published the most reliable estimate yet and the numbers are low, reflecting more clearly on medical practices now being weighed by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Fewer than 1 in 1,000 U.S. adolescents with commercial insurance received gender-affirming medications — puberty blockers or hormones — during a recent five-year period, according to the study released Monday.
… “We are not seeing inappropriate use of this sort of care,” said lead author Landon Hughes, a Harvard University public health researcher. “And it’s certainly not happening at the rate at which people often think it is.”
… The researchers analyzed a large insurance claims database covering more than 5 million patients ages 8 to 17.
Only 926 adolescents with a gender-related diagnosis received puberty blockers from 2018 through 2022. During that time, 1,927 received hormones. The findings, published in JAMA Pediatrics, suggest that fewer than 0.1% of all youth in the database received these medications.
The researchers found that no patients under age 12 were prescribed hormones, an indication that doctors are appropriately cautious about when to start such treatments, Hughes said.
“I hope that our paper cools heads on this issue and ensures that the public is getting a true sense of the number of people who are accessing this care,” he said.…”
And anyone who thinks that they will stop even if this ends in defeat is fooling themselves. MAGA is really feeling their oats right now, and on culture war issues I expect them to go for broke. They'll never have a better time to ram through their dream agenda of rolling us all backwards to the 1950s.We all knew it was coming.
I'm sure that Zen thinks it more nuanced and not as blatantly bigoted as it appears.
I don't think you're thinking big enough.They'll never have a better time to ram through their dream agenda of rolling us all backwards to the191850s.
I would bet money that this bill got more votes than there are trans athletes.
House Passes GOP’s Transgender Sports Bill
The legislation would strip federal funding from schools that let transgender girls compete in female sports categories
"The Republican-led House narrowly passed legislation designed to force public institutions to prohibit transgender girls and women from competing in female sports categories.
The bill, dubbed the Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act, requires schools to restrict participation in female sports categories to girls and women, “based solely on a person’s reproductive biology and genetics at birth.”
The measure passed the House in a 218 to 206 tally, with one lawmaker, Democratic Rep. Don Davis of North Carolina, voting present. Democratic leadership issued guidance to vote against the bill, but two Texas Democrats, Vicente Gonzalez and Henry Cuellar, joined all Republicans in voting in favor. A similar proposal in 2023 drew no Democratic votes.
The legislation would make it a violation of federal Title IX rules for any educational institution that receives federal funding to allow transgender girls and women to participate in female sports categories on the basis of their gender identity. The definition covers almost every middle school, high school and college in the U.S. ..."
Some things should not be at a state level because it's ridiculous to have different rules in each state. Marriage is one of those.I have no doubt that some Republicans would like to make marriage decisions at a state, not national, level.
There's also a reason this isn't big news- it means nothing. It's "for show".
Remember when Republicans were voting every other day to repeal Obamacare? This is as meaningless as that. Probably more meaningless.
Marriage already is at a state level, subject to constitutional restrictions. What states can't do is refuse to recognize marriages in other states, because of the Full Faith And Credit clause. Who knows -- maybe that will be a new target for the jabroni right, but as of now, that's the state of play as I understand it.Some things should not be at a state level because it's ridiculous to have different rules in each state. Marriage is one of those.
Why should one state be able to tell my child that they cannot marry while another say it's ok?
True, I understand this. Might not have been the best subject to make a point on.Marriage already is at a state level, subject to constitutional restrictions. What states can't do is refuse to recognize marriages in other states, because of the Full Faith And Credit clause. Who knows -- maybe that will be a new target for the jabroni right, but as of now, that's the state of play as I understand it.
Some jurisdictions allow for remote marriages. Those are often used for people to get married while deployed abroad. I don't know if they have any residency requirements, or if it's like Vegas-on-zoom.
But this shit riles up the ignorant, so they keep pounding this nonsense.God makes hermaphrodites', too, Steve