The Science Of Transitioning Children

The story is a “doctor” file-drawered a study which said kids drugged and maimed in service to the lunatic theory that people can “transition” to a different sex, sex now called a “gender” in a vain attempt to remove the theory’s absurdity, did not improve their “mental health”.

According to one story:

A prominent doctor and trans rights advocate admitted she deliberately withheld publication of a $10 million taxpayer-funded study on the effect of puberty blockers on American children — after finding no evidence that they improve patients’ mental health.

Dr. Johanna Olson-Kennedy told the New York Times that she believes the study would be “weaponized” by critics of transgender care for kids, and that the research could one day be used in court to argue “we shouldn’t use blockers.”

An online darling calling himself (herself?) Crémieux had this to say to some person (named Jennifer) who lamented what file-drawering does to trust in science:

I completely agree with Jennifer, but I do want to comment on this particular issue.

Because this issue can be resolved technologically so long as biotech continues to progress, the pro-trans side of things will eventually win out.

So much debate feels pointless in that light.

This Crémieux was teased by many, for reasons we’ll discuss, and was shamed into deleting the tweet. But it was saved here. I also notice this individual, and two others like him or her, I/O and Rabbit Hole, have been given curiously positive publicity lately.

File-drawering happens all the time; so much so that techniques in meta-analysis have been developed to estimate how much. More often, unwanted results are buried in a morass of technobabble, or hid through highlighting the unimportant. The wretched Olson-Kennedy could have used this trick and gotten away with it.

She was right, though, that her unwanted results would be used against her. They should have been. That’s the old-fashioned way to do science. But it is not the modern way, which is the manner Olson-Kennedy adopted. Only evidence which comports with beloved beliefs can be seen. That was the lesson of the covid panic.

Olson-Kennedy is not that bright, or she never would have attempted her “study” without having a plan what to do once the results went against her. It was only her incompetence that got her caught. This is not the interesting part of the story.

The delusional Crémieux is. Consider “The Science” of transexualism. It started by having a man who wanted to be a woman put on a dress. Did this make the man a woman? No, sir, it did not. The Science added lipstick and rouge, and sometimes a wig. Did this make the man a woman? No.

The Science then said, “How about injecting estrogen and implanting silicone under his chest!” Did this make the man a woman? Of course not. We were left with a weakened man in an ill-fitting costume, smeared paint on his face, and goofy bumpers on his chest.

Frustrated, The Science said, “What if we chop off the man’s pertinents, and shunt his colon into a new hole, which we will call a ‘front hole’, to resemble, as a pig does a turtle, a female vagina?”

Did this smelly mess make the man a woman? No, sir, it does not. Even if the odor problem is solved, it does not.

Well, what’s the next step? What does Crémieux envision “can be resolved technologically so long as biotech continues to progress”? More creative microsurgery to make the man, if you squint, while drunk, look more like a woman? But looks alone will never make the man a woman. What’s left? A wholesale swapping of the man’s chromosomes? And the other odd bits which can be inherited (about which, another day). In every cell.

Which is not possible. It is not that it is unlikely. It is that is impossible. You would be removing what makes the person this person, you would be making an entirely different person, even imagining the impossible were possible. The new person, in this sci-fi scenario, might not even be delusional and think they are the “wrong sex”, or again he or she might be. Who knows? You may as well say you are transforming a mosquito into a walrus. The precise same impossibility exists.

There was therefore no reason to “test” whether children, pushed, prodded, and persuaded by perverts that they were “born in the wrong body”, could have improved their “mental health.” Because it would be impossible trying to change the unchangeable, the thing would necessarily fail and could not improve anything, except the egos of the Experts pushing this nonsense, and the bank accounts of the “doctors” profiting from it.

Instantly, if we were to see a “study” which did “show” improvement of any kind in the kids, we would know something had gone wrong, though we might not know what. Maybe the study itself was flawed, bad or biased questions asked, or the “researchers” (what a grand title for these sexual ghouls) made some data or mathematical error. Or, most likely of all, they cheated, lied, obfuscated, bent the wee Ps to come out the way they wanted. But that is wrong is guaranteed.

There won’t be enough millstones in all the quarries of the world when the reckoning happens.

Subscribe or donate to support this site and its wholly independent host using credit card click here. Or use the paid subscription at Substack. Cash App: \$WilliamMBriggs. For Zelle, use my email: matt@wmbriggs.com, and please include yours so I know who to thank.