The not so petite bourgeoisie.

A review of the infamous CASS report:

Results from 5 uncontrolled, observational studies suggest that, in children and adolescents with gender dysphoria, gender-affirming hormones are likely to improve symptoms of gender dysphoria, and may also improve depression, anxiety, quality of life, suicidality, and psychosocial functioning. The impact of treatment on body image is unclear. All results were of very low certainty using modified GRADE

Safety outcomes were reported in 5 observational studies. Statistically significant increases in some measures of bone density were seen following treatment with gender-affirming hormones, although results varied by bone region (lumber spine versus femoral neck) and by population (transfemales versus transmales). However, z-scores suggest that bone density remained lower in transfemales and transmales compared with an equivalent cisgender population. Results from 1 study of gender-affirming hormones started during adolescence reported statistically significant increases in blood pressure and body mass index, and worsening of the lipid profile (in transmales) at age 22 years, although longer term studies that report on cardiovascular event rates are required. Adverse events and discontinuation rates associated with gender-affirming hormones were only reported in 1 study, and no conclusions can be made on these outcomes.

This document was prepared in October 2020

Evidence review (.PDF): Gender-affirming hormones for children and adolescents with gender dysphoria https://cass.independent-review.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/20220726_Evidence-review_Gender-affirming-hormones_For-upload_Final.pdf

Other reading:

Fact Check: New York Times Publishes Misleading Story On Puberty Blocker Study

Gender-affirming care can improve mental health outcomes in transgender youth | Department of Epidemiology

Watching:

Exposing the Dangers of Anti-Trans Fascism | RE: The Cass Review & Labour's Downfall

"I don't have a horse in this cook-off."

The amendment has ostensibly been proposed to protect consumers

I wish you were correct, but the popular press is usually loaded with optimism, especially techno-optimism.

The science shows the current predicament and the fact that any "good things" are based on the idea of massive reforms (or even revolutions) occurring. This makes it very easily to estimate how bad the situation is based on what's not happening.

As the climate chaos gets worse, it's reasonable to expect more bad news, not less.

Efficiency is about physics. You can't break the laws of physics. Economics are not physics and subsidies can go in many different directions.

If we plan on using the land to store carbon, to restore ecosystems and biodiversity, then land use and land use intensity will have to decrease, which will mean that we have make sure that land is used to feed people, not to feed food.

If you're going to say "waste", don't bother. Waste firstly has to be reduced, and we need the rest for compost.

Your appeal to density works much like the bird CAFOs now in the face of HPAI. You think you've figured out a cheat, but, over time, it averages back down.

https://vegantheoryclub.org/ (instance)

The stochastic front line.

"Economic" depends on the subsidies which exist regardless of the species of those organisms.

There are many studies on these conversion ratios, I just wanted to point at one that gets into the "waste promise" too.

Nothing is going to beat eating plants because plants are primary producers of calories, amino-acids, fats.

What is going to happen, especially in the Western places where meat is in large demand and large supply, is that subsidies for insect farming are going to sustain the usual vertebrate farming.

"They have to rake the oceans!"

Honeybees are bugs