This essay is interesting, but not for the reasons that people are discussing.
Short version of the controversy: Seattle Children's hospital participated in a research study that claimed to show that "transgender-affirming care," i.e. the poisoning and mutilation of children, led to improved psychological outcomes for the kids. The actual data showed that it didn't really make much of a difference at all. Or maybe it did. But possibly not.
Lots of shouting and pointing starting in 3..2..1..
Here's the crucial snippet that everyone seems to be missing. Emphasis mine.
Most dramatically, after tracking the mental health of 104 transgender-identifying patients aged 13 to 20 for a year at Seattle Children’s Hospital, “gender-affirming care was associated with a 60% reduction in depression and a 73% drop in harmful or suicidal thoughts among the participants.”
The time frame is all wrong. The study is doomed because it wouldn't reveal the basic problem with the slicing and drugging of the children.
What are your metrics for life satisfaction in your teens? A brisk search revealed this page which makes the claim that social media, sports, food and entertainment top the list. That's about what I would expect. They're children evolving into adults and children like playtime.
The social media aspect is a marker for social status, something very important to girls in particular. Going back to the Island of Dr. Moreau, otherwise known as our children's hospitals, what happens when a girl comes out as trans? Well, she turns into a temporary, local celebrity, for one. Her life becomes a topic for conversation and all of it affirming. What girl doesn't want that? Any study that follows a teen for a year is really just a study of teens. In that time, a 15-year-old who has been poisoned and chopped up like a ham, has become a 16-year old. That's it.
The flaw in the study is that the damage done won't truly be felt for another 20 years. 15-year-old girls unable to have children have a much less sophisticated view of their decision than 35-year-old women. Unmarried and childless 35-year-old women tend to unhappiness, at least in my experience. At least the ones I know aren't looking back on memories of waking up in the hospital with sutures in their chests. They may fault themselves for not holding on to that boyfriend from a few years ago, but at least they aren't filled with horror at their decision to jack themselves up on testosterone at the behest of a sadistic and demented medical system.
<sarc> That's not going to lead to suicidal thoughts, no, not at all. </sarc>
If you wanted to design an experiment that tracked life satisfaction, you'd use one that followed your victims, err, patients throughout their lives. Unlike sparrows, we live a bit longer than a year or two.
Hmm. Since the degenerates who run our children's hospitals can't see a problem with hacksawing girls' bodies, maybe they don't know how long people live. It's possible.
Anywho, this is what passes for SciEnCE! these days. It's just trash.
Addendum - The Proper Way To Write Up The Results
The fundamental flaw in the study should have been front and center in the abstract. Since the authors knew that their work would be used to justify or criticize the permanent damage being done to children, they must have anticipated the publicity it would get. Knowing the study was fatally flawed from the start, it was utterly unethical not to note this. Well, unethical in a classical sense where you employ objective morality. These days, it's all about affirming marginalized groups.
Which they did. Let the slaughter of children continue, for this is right and just.