At first glance, I'm curious what the point of this is, people who want to believe it are going to believe, it people who don't want to aren't going to. The mainstream science community will probably just disavow most of these studies, and probably for good reason. They won't have good methods or won't be replicable.
But I'm guessing maybe the point is, if you can get these studies published by the NIH, then red-state governments can more easily argue for conversion therapy since it will be "backed by science"
The point of this is explained further down in the article:
> But some people argue that previous research on trans regret and related issues have been poorly done and is outdated.
> "We are starting to see much greater numbers of young people who are seeing that they went down the wrong path for them and they're now left with irreversible changes to their body and they no longer identify as transgender," says Evgenia Abbruzzese, the co-founder of the group Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine. "But they are left with these permanent effects."
> She adds: "There are a lot of negative impacts of transition. And regret is definitely one of them," she says. "It's a very important area of medicine to study."
> Others agree.
> "The research on detransition is very useful, it's a very important area," said Michael Biggs, an associate professor of sociology at the University of Oxford. "This is an understudied population to collect systematic data on."
It's the same playbook the tobacco and petrochemical industries use to block or weaken regulations. The refrain is something like, "the science is not settled".
ExxonMobil and Phillip Morris used to have to fund their own scientists, this is just getting government to spend your tax dollars for them.
unrelated: a month ago you mentioned a quote: "Your religion prohibits you. It does not prohibit me." is originally from the WW2 movie "The Wind Cannot Read" (1958)
That's a pretty misleading statement, given that the article only says an upcoming Green Party politician is calling for it, and their party is supporting them. The only problem is that the Greens in Norway have almost no seats, so expecting this to go anywhere is unrealistic.
I don't think proving a negative is really useful here, the only reason to believe that they WOULD grant asylum is on the basis of a tiny minority party backing a single politician. You also have to consider the asylum backlog in all of Western Europe, and the circumstances driving those people to apply.
Is an American with a vague sense of dread, but no actual threat to their life going to make a better case than a MENA region refugee? A Ukrainian? I know that people like to dismiss this sort of thinking as "Oppression Olympics", but the reality is that there are a very limited number of "slots" for asylum seekers in a country like Norway and therefore an element of competition does exist.
Who has a more pressing need? Someone fleeing a war zone? An LGBT person from a country like Afghanistan? Or an American upset about divisive political rhetoric?
> Personal choice suddenly does not matter, when one feels disgusted over trans people existing.
Personal choice and bodily autonomy has never mattered to the current ruling group in office - unless that person is male identifying as a straight man that agrees with whatever they tell them.
This is a welcome change of direction from an NIH that was captured by the "gender identity" ideological movement.
Consider, for example, that Dr Johanna Olson-Kennedy received $9.7 million in NIH funding to study the effects of puberty blockers on trans-identifying children. After two years, there was no significant mental health improvement - so she refused to publish the findings.
Hopefully this new research into the oft-hidden side of this burgeoning medical scandal will provide data on what's actually been happening.
At first glance, I'm curious what the point of this is, people who want to believe it are going to believe, it people who don't want to aren't going to. The mainstream science community will probably just disavow most of these studies, and probably for good reason. They won't have good methods or won't be replicable.
But I'm guessing maybe the point is, if you can get these studies published by the NIH, then red-state governments can more easily argue for conversion therapy since it will be "backed by science"
The point of this is explained further down in the article:
> But some people argue that previous research on trans regret and related issues have been poorly done and is outdated.
> "We are starting to see much greater numbers of young people who are seeing that they went down the wrong path for them and they're now left with irreversible changes to their body and they no longer identify as transgender," says Evgenia Abbruzzese, the co-founder of the group Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine. "But they are left with these permanent effects."
> She adds: "There are a lot of negative impacts of transition. And regret is definitely one of them," she says. "It's a very important area of medicine to study."
> Others agree.
> "The research on detransition is very useful, it's a very important area," said Michael Biggs, an associate professor of sociology at the University of Oxford. "This is an understudied population to collect systematic data on."
That's pretty much it, providing cover for more regressive policies, denying funding for programs they don't approve of, etc.
It's the same playbook the tobacco and petrochemical industries use to block or weaken regulations. The refrain is something like, "the science is not settled".
ExxonMobil and Phillip Morris used to have to fund their own scientists, this is just getting government to spend your tax dollars for them.
The current state of things in a nutshell, really. Our tax dollars now primarily fund corporations.
unrelated: a month ago you mentioned a quote: "Your religion prohibits you. It does not prohibit me." is originally from the WW2 movie "The Wind Cannot Read" (1958)
Same purpose as the upcoming vaccine autism studies.
GoP is awfully concerned about what is in everyone's pants ... wants the government in there passing judgement.
Meanwhile, in Norway, transgender Americans can seek asylum https://www.thepinknews.com/2025/04/11/norway-transgender-us...
That's a pretty misleading statement, given that the article only says an upcoming Green Party politician is calling for it, and their party is supporting them. The only problem is that the Greens in Norway have almost no seats, so expecting this to go anywhere is unrealistic.
The Greens and their aspirations notwithstanding, is there any reason Norway wouldn't grant asylum?
I don't think proving a negative is really useful here, the only reason to believe that they WOULD grant asylum is on the basis of a tiny minority party backing a single politician. You also have to consider the asylum backlog in all of Western Europe, and the circumstances driving those people to apply.
Is an American with a vague sense of dread, but no actual threat to their life going to make a better case than a MENA region refugee? A Ukrainian? I know that people like to dismiss this sort of thinking as "Oppression Olympics", but the reality is that there are a very limited number of "slots" for asylum seekers in a country like Norway and therefore an element of competition does exist.
Who has a more pressing need? Someone fleeing a war zone? An LGBT person from a country like Afghanistan? Or an American upset about divisive political rhetoric?
[flagged]
Personal choice suddenly does not matter, when one feels disgusted over trans people existing.
Personal choice is only for parents willingly exposing their kids to diseases.
> Personal choice suddenly does not matter, when one feels disgusted over trans people existing.
Personal choice and bodily autonomy has never mattered to the current ruling group in office - unless that person is male identifying as a straight man that agrees with whatever they tell them.
This is a welcome change of direction from an NIH that was captured by the "gender identity" ideological movement.
Consider, for example, that Dr Johanna Olson-Kennedy received $9.7 million in NIH funding to study the effects of puberty blockers on trans-identifying children. After two years, there was no significant mental health improvement - so she refused to publish the findings.
Hopefully this new research into the oft-hidden side of this burgeoning medical scandal will provide data on what's actually been happening.
[dead]