“Gender-affirming care” is a hot topic within every state legislature across the United States. The debate is generally centered on whether parents should decide if their child should be put on the path to what’s called “medical transitioning.” The pro-transition argument is backed by the reassurance that these parents are working with medical professionals — which means they are getting quality and evidence-based care for their child.

At least, that’s what we would hope it means.

With the principle of “first, do no harm,” we’ve always been able to trust that this oath will serve as the basis for the practices of the medical professionals whom we trust to care for ourselves and our loved ones.

However, with the priorities of activism and ideology taking precedence over science and reality, the definition “doing harm” has become an increasingly gray area.

Those in favor of putting young kids and teens on a track of lifelong mental and medical assessments and doctors’ appointments have, thus far, desperately tried to underscore their case with science. However, the further into the dumpster fire of pronouns, drugs, and surgery that we descend, the more we discover not only how unreliable this “science” is but how much of it is actively being ignored.

As those on both the Right and Left argue about what kind of care is actually suitable for people suffering from discomfort with their biological sex — and what level of government intervention is appropriate in these situations — the common thread is of deafening silence. While many people are all too ready to double down on allowing children to drug and mutilate themselves into oblivion, there is little to no mention of the increasing number of studies warning about the consequences of this “care.” If they demonstrated the level of interest in data that they claim to have, their research might just inspire them to slam on the breaks.

A recent study conducted by Finnish researcher Riittakerttu Kaltiala examined the exact treatment recommendations that American doctors seem to be rapid-firing at their young dysphoric patients with little hesitation. These medical interventions can include cross-sex hormones, the removal of the reproductive organs, and the psychiatric measure of addressing patients with the pronouns of their choice.

Gender-happy doctors throughout the U.S. insist that a swift and aggressive approach suits all children who express even a sliver of discomfort about their bodies to reduce the likelihood of self-harm, mental health struggles, or even suicide. Ian Kingsbury, director of research at a healthcare advocacy organization called Do No Harm, summarized several studies whose findings directly contradicted the assertions listed above. These treatments are exacerbating, if not causing, mental health struggles, self-harm, and even suicide in the young people who find themselves on the identity radar.

From Sweden to Canada to California, the science is revealing and warning of the long-term effects of injecting healthy bodies with drugs that are potent enough to stop their entire development. The medications that are being prescribed as a solution to what is likely a temporary mental health issue have been associated with heart disease and obesity, higher risk for cancer, and lower life expectancy. This is true whether it be due to severe health conditions related to the medications or due to the suicidal tendencies of the patient, which often go ignored while the doctor and therapist usher them into procedures that permanently cripple them both mentally and physically.

While activists continue to insist that the science on gender is settled and that gender-enthusiast doctors are the spokespeople of facts and data on the subject, there are at least 170 health professionals who publicly disagree.

Recently, reports The Epoch Times, a large group of medical care providers signed “an open letter to the American Psychiatric Association (APA) condemning its new ‘gender-affirming’ care textbook as ‘unacceptable, unethical and unsafe’” — a textbook that has been published for the purpose of training doctors on the care and protocols for their gender-confused patients.

These doctors unanimously agreed on their deep concerns about the textbook’s contents, pointing out that most of what’s being used as “evidence” to promote gender-identity issues are personal stories of biased individuals who call themselves transgender rather than actual data and scientific evidence.

More plainly, this textbook — which, due to its backing by the APA, will be seen as the “gold standard” of care — is primarily based on feelings rather than medical research or evidence. The studies are out there. They are published and they are public.

The data on the harm that this ideology and its activists in the medical field are causing — with their fast-track, ask-questions-later approach with any patient who has the misfortune of ending up in their office — is rapidly increasing.

Unfortunately, the “trust the science” approach doesn’t seem to have any interest in science, and there will be many, many more casualties of this destructive ideology before enough doctors and legislators with an actual interest in science and care step in to put a stop to it.