What on a break point, a daily look at an ever-changing culture through the lens of unchanging

truth, but the Colson Center, I'm John Stung Street.

A calling card of our cultural moment is the presumption that science is wholly on the

side of the progressive sexual agenda.

To question, so-called transgender medicine, for example, especially for miners, is to

be called a science denier.

Advocates often point to a set of Dutch studies is the scientific ground on which to build

their case for childhood transgender quote unquote medicine.

However, a new review of those studies reveal this is a foundation of sand, hopelessly,

obviously, and dangerously flawed.

Rather than being a gold standard of scientific proof for the claims of transgender activists,

these studies are now the new exhibit A for the dangers of researchers tweaking data in

order to achieve their ideological aims.

The review was published in the Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy.

It was a profound lack of scientific rigor in this older research and science that it

was politically motivated from the very beginning.

Admittedly, I'm reading this critique as a non-scientist, but some of the problems with

the pro-trans research are so obvious it's tough to believe they were not exposed before

now.

The first and most significant problem with the studies is selection bias.

This, by the way, was also a central failing of the research conducted by Alfred Kinsey

in the 1940s and 50s about sexual behavior.

...