Democrat Witness Unable To Name One Study That Shows Benefits Of Sex-Change Treatments For Minors | Eastern NC Now

    Publisher's Note: This post appears here courtesy of the The Daily Wire. The author of this post is Anthony Cash.

    Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-TX) charged a Democratic witness to cite evidence for her claim that sex change treatments were beneficial for children - which she was unable to do.

    In a heated exchange posted to Twitter by The Post Millennial, Crenshaw repeatedly asked Dr. Meredithe McNamara, a professor at the Yale School of Medicine, who has written extensively in defense of "gender affirming care" and abortion, to provide peer-reviewed evidence that such treatments are beneficial to children. McNamara was unable to cite one study, falling back on pointing to the "standards of care."

    "'The standards of care.' That's not a journal. That's not a study. That's not an organization. It's not an institution. You're just saying words. Name one study," Crenshaw chided.

    Crenshaw cited reviews from the British Journal of Medicine, the Journal of the Endocrine Society, and the American Academy of Pediatrics, which all conclude there is little evidence that gender transition treatments are beneficial for minors.

    He cited a review in the Journal of the Endocrine Society that found there is "low quality evidence for the idea that hormonal treatment improves quality of life, depression, and anxiety among adolescents."

    Dr. McNamara pushed back, saying, "It is very unscientific and flawed to pick a single study or a single statistic and discuss it in isolation. Medical experts are able to talk about all the evidence as a whole."

    "Totally agree," Crenshaw said. The Texas Republican went on to cite the British Journal of Medicine, which looked at 61 systematic reviews and concluded that there was "great uncertainty" of the treatments.

    Crenshaw pointed out that "the important part" was that because these findings were "systematic reviews," they are by definition "all encompassing review[s] of all the data" and are not "cherry-picked" evidence, as the witness claimed.

    Crenshaw then asked McNamara, "Do you not agree - just from an ethical standpoint - that you might want extremely strong evidence of the benefits?"

    McNamara continued to push back, eventually citing "the standards of care" as evidence for why those treatments were beneficial. Crenshaw noted that the Yale doctor was unable to name a single study, journal, or review that supported the idea that such treatments were beneficial.

    The debate occurred on the House Health Subcommittee in consideration of Crenshaw's bill that would block federal funding for hospitals that provide gender transition treatments like cross-sex hormones and sex change surgeries.

    Earlier in the hearing, Crenshaw attacked Democrats' use of the term "standards of care," saying that the schematic reviews he cited show that Democrats are using the term as "propaganda" and not as "an accurate representation of the data." He further contended that "gender-affirming care" is founded in "pseudoscience and radical ideologies."


    Crenshaw also pointed to a May Washington Post poll that showed 68% of Americans disapproved of using puberty blockers on minors, arguing that such a contentious issue should not be funded by the federal government since most taxpayers disagree with it. He cited the Hyde Amendment - which bars taxpayer money funding abortion at the federal level - as a precedent for his legislation.

    "Let's not put taxpayer money toward something that is so obviously unproven and contentious. It's really not that contentious - 70% of Americans oppose it, so the American people are pretty much on the side of not doing this, or at least pressing the pause button," Crenshaw said. He also pointed out that the U.K.'s National Health Service limited access to such procedures by minors.

poll#164

It has been far too many years since the Woke theology interlaced its canons within the fabric of the Indoctrination Realm, so it is nigh time to ask: Does this Representative Republic continue, as a functioning society of a self-governed people, by contending with the unusual, self absorbed dictates of the Woke, and their vast array of Victimhood scenarios?

  Yes, the Religion of Woke must continue; there are so many groups of underprivileged, underserved, a direct result of unrelenting Inequity; they deserve everything.

  No; the Woke fools must be toppled from their self-anointed pedestal; a functioning society of a good Constitutional people cannot withstand this level of "existential" favoritism as it exists now.

  I just observe; with this thoughtful observation: What will happen "when the Vikings are breeching our walls;" how do the Woke react?

848 total vote(s)     What's your Opinion?