Conservative
A place to discuss pro-conservative stuff
-
Be excellent to each other. Civility, No Racism, No Bigotry, No Slurs, No calls to violences, No namecalling, All that good stuff, follow lemm.ee's rules, follow the rules of your instance, etc.
-
We are a Pro-Conservative forum. Posts must have a clear pro-conservative, or anti left-wing bias. We are interested in promoting conservatism and discussing things that might get ignored elsewhere. All sources are acceptable, however reputable sources with a reputation for factual reporting are preferred.
-
Dissent is allowed in the comments, but try to be constructive; if you do not agree, then provide a reason which is backed up by references or a reasonable alternative interpretation of the provided facts. That means the left wing is welcome to state their opinions, but please keep it in good faith.
A polite request, not a rule, if you feel the need to report a comment, please don't reply to it.
view the rest of the comments
What a shitshow. The studies all show that puberty blockers have positive or neutral effect on trans people's health, the "insufficient evidence" they're claiming here is literally just that the people running the studies didn't refuse to treat one group as a control.
If you want to claim you're "evidence-led" maybe you should follow the evidence. If the best studies support puberty blockers banning puberty blockers is not "evidence-led". If you believe the evidence isn't strong enough you're welcome to run your own study too, but good luck getting past any ethics committee with a proposal of "let's force gender dysphoria on kids as a control".
Non-evidence-led law is what this place is all about. The cruelty is the point.