Imagine you are confused about your gender, and you think you were “born in the wrong body.” Do you really think a series of experimental drugs and surgeries to erase your biology and make you appear as the opposite sex would improve your psychological condition? It should come as no surprise that a landmark study from Finland suggests the exact opposite: Fins under 23 who were diagnosed with gender dysphoria proved more likely to receive specialist-level psychiatric treatment, both before and more than two years after the first referral to a gender clinic—and “gender-affirming care” made things far worse. The study, published Saturday in the journal Acta Paediatrica, finds that young people who were referred for gender identity services were more than three times more likely to receive specialist-level psychiatric treatment than other Fins, both before and after their first appointment. Those who underwent medical interventions after such referrals proved even more likely to need specialist-level psychiatric help. Most studies on the issue suffer from a lack of follow-up and a lack of consistent control groups. This study included both. Working with the Finnish government, Statistics Finland, and a hospital with one of the country’s two gender clinics, the study analyzed eight groups: men and women with gender dysphoria who did not undergo sex-rejecting procedures; men and women with gender dysphoria who did undergo such procedures; and men and women from the general public, matched by birth year and municipality to each patient in the other groups. The study used the 11-digit personal identification number that each Finnish resident receives to track medical data and psychiatric visits. The study found that 61.7% of the gender-dysphoric young people received specialist-level psychiatric treatment more than two years after being referred to a gender clinic, while only 14.6% of the control group received such treatment in a comparable time period. These young people also proved more likely to receive psychiatric treatment before their gender dysphoria diagnosis (45.7% compared to 15.0% of the control group). The study also finds that young people diagnosed with gender dysphoria after 2010 had greater psychiatric needs than those who were diagnosed before 2010. Only 15.3% of young Fins diagnosed before 2010 had visited a specialist beforehand, and 14.2% had done so two years after their first referral. Meanwhile, 47.9% of those who were diagnosed after 2010 had received specialist-level help beforehand, and 61.3% received it two years afterward. Psychological problems increased even more during follow-up after “gender-affirming care,” rising from 9.8% to 60.7% among men trying to appear female and from 21.6% to 54.5% among women trying to appear male. These findings suggest two important things: that sex-rejecting procedures do not improve mental health long term, and that the people who are diagnosed with gender dysphoria are more likely to have psychological problems—both before and after the diagnosis. The study presents a population in crisis: nearly 50% of the gender-dysphoric youth had visited a psychiatric specialist more than 25 times in their lifetimes, compared to 11% of their peers. Screenshot “Finland’s more than two decades of nationwide data show a clear pattern: youth who undergo medical gender reassignment use psychiatric services at markedly higher rates than even prior to that intervention,” Dr. Kurt Miceli, a psychiatrist and chief medical officer at Do No Harm, told The Daily Signal. The study admits its own limitations: it did not analyze what sort of psychiatric services patients received, and it did not control for patients’ socioeconomic backgrounds. Why This Makes Sense Contrary to transgender activists’ claims, it stands to reason that the grotesque transgender experiments often dressed up in pretty language as “gender-affirming care” might harm a person’s mental health long-term. When a doctor diagnoses a minor with “gender dysphoria”—the painful and persistent condition of identifying with the gender opposite one’s sex—the doctor may go on to prescribe “puberty blockers” (drugs that law enforcement uses to chemically castrate sex offenders), cross-sex hormones (which often cause permanent interventions in a person’s body to make them appear as the opposite sex), or surgeries to remove breasts or genitals. These “treatments” often leave patients stunted, scarred, and infertile. Detransitioners like Joni Skinner have testified that this “care” left them unable to experience sexual satisfaction. A jury recently awarded one detransitioner more than $2 million in a medical malpractice suit. “I'm a 23 year-old gay man who's never had an orgasm.”Sen. Wiener, a leading advocate for sex rejection procedures, comes face to face w/the human cost.I’ve never seen him squirm like this.It took immense courage for @JonniSkinner to be public about this issue. ? ???? pic.twitter.com/bM1zo2na3a— WomenAreReal (@WomenAreReals) April 8, 2026 How Americans Should Respond While opponents of “gender-affirming care” should find ourselves emboldened by these results, we should also respond with compassion to those who are struggling. This study suggests that people who are diagnosed with gender dysphoria also suffer from other psychological problems, and they need counseling that helps them process the mental issues that lie beneath gender dysphoria. The Supreme Court recently struck down part of a Colorado law preventing mainstream patient-directed talk therapy from addressing the potential underlying causes of gender dysphoria, but activists are already working on other ways to demonize and outlaw this kind of therapy. This study doesn’t just undercut the arguments for sex-rejecting procedures—it highlights how important this alternative kind of therapy is, and why Americans should champion it, not condemn it. If we want to actually help people who suffer from gender dysphoria, we must champion therapy that helps them come to terms with their biology, rather than a medicalization that engages in experiments aimed at erasing it. The post Finland Study Exposes the Harms of ‘Gender-Affirming Care’ and Hints at the Real Cause of Gender Dysphoria appeared first on The Daily Signal.

The man charged with killing 23-year-old Iryna Zarutska on a light rail train in Charlotte, N.C., last year was found “incapable to proceed” with a trial, meaning his case will likely at least be delayed. The public defender’s office filed a motion on April 7 revealing Decarlos Brown Jr.’s mental health evaluation at Central Regional Hospital, a North Carolina state psychiatric hospital, that determined he was incapable of proceeding in his case. A judge still has to accept the findings of Brown’s December mental evaluation, and the court could proceed if it determines Brown’s mental capacity is restored, WBTV reported. However, if the judge determines Brown is not capable to stand trial, the charges would be dismissed. The video of the stabbing murder of Zarutska, a Ukrainian refugee, captured national attention in 2024, including from President Donald Trump. The graphic video from the Charlotte light rail train shows that at 9:46 p.m. on Aug. 22, 2024, Zarutska boarded the train and sat down in front of Brown. At 9:50 p.m., cameras appeared to show Brown allegedly stabbing her to death. He claimed he acted because Zarutska was reading his mind. The Mecklenburg County District Attorney’s Office accepted the public defender’s request to continue the case and delay by 180 days a hearing on whether to seek the death penalty, WBTV reported. In addition to state charges, Brown also faces federal charges and is in custody at an Illinois federal prison, the outlet reported. He was indicted in October on charges of violence against a railroad carrier and mass transportation system resulting in death, and he will also be receiving a mental evaluation in the federal case. In conjunction with those charges, Brown could also face the death penalty based on a 2015 conviction for armed robbery. Legal experts said North Carolina has limited space in its psychiatric facilities, WBTV noted, and some defendants can wait more than a year for space to open. The post Accused Zarutska Killer Deemed ‘Incapable’ of Standing Trial, But Case Could Continue appeared first on The Daily Signal.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. A Freedom of Information response has confirmed what the UK’s speech regulator would probably have preferred to keep quiet. Ofcom fired off 197 information demands to American tech companies under the Online Safety Act, and not a single one went through the US-UK Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty, the formal diplomatic process that exists for exactly this kind of cross-border legal enforcement. Every one of those 197 notices was sent directly, by email or post, to companies operating entirely on American soil. The number comes from a FOI request filed by Daniel Lü, who asked Ofcom a series of pointed questions about how it enforces the Online Safety Act against non-UK targets. Ofcom confirmed that as of February 26, 2026, it had issued 197 Section 100 notices to US businesses. Zero through MLAT. The treaty between the US and UK that governs how one country’s legal process gets enforced in the other’s jurisdiction was treated as optional. Ofcom decided it didn’t apply. That admission drew an immediate response from Preston Byrne, the American lawyer who represents 4chan and other US companies targeted by Ofcom. Byrne called the 197 notices a “breathtaking” “attack on the First Amendment” and pointed out the uncomfortable math. Only two US companies, 4chan and Kiwi Farms, have publicly refused to comply with Ofcom’s demands. If Byrne’s assessment is right, that leaves Ofcom enjoying “a 98% compliance rate with foreign censorship orders that violate the First Amendment.” A British regulator sent nearly 200 demands to American companies, bypassed every established legal channel, and almost all of them appear to have simply done what they were told. The chilling effect is already here. Ofcom Uses Free Speech to Hide Its Censorship Methods Lü did more than ask for the number of notices. He asked for policy documents about how Ofcom selects its foreign enforcement targets, what guidance it gives its teams about the legality of emailing criminal penalty warnings to US corporations, and whether Ofcom has any internal guidance on protected speech. Ofcom admitted it holds much of that information. Then it refused to hand it over. The reason, cited directly from the FOI Act, was that disclosure “would, or would be likely to, inhibit the free and frank exchange of views for the purposes of deliberation; and/or would otherwise prejudice, or would be likely otherwise to prejudice, the effective conduct of public affairs.” A speech regulator is claiming that transparency about its censorship operations would damage free and frank deliberation. Ofcom is borrowing the language of free expression to shield itself from accountability over how it suppresses expression. The irony is so complete it feels deliberate. On the question of whether Ofcom holds any guidance on protected speech, the answer was even more revealing. Ofcom said it doesn’t have any. No internal documents addressing what speech is protected when it exercises its enforcement powers against foreign companies. It pointed instead to its general obligations under the Online Safety Act, the Communications Act 2003, and the European Convention on Human Rights, along with links to already-public guidance documents. That’s the speech protection regime for companies being censored by the UK from American soil: a few hyperlinks to existing publications. The MLAT Problem Isn’t New. It’s Getting Worse. The treaty issue is central. MLAT exists so that when one country wants to enforce its laws against people or companies in another country, there’s a formal process involving both governments. For the US side, that means routing through the Department of Justice. A judge gets involved. There’s oversight. There are procedural protections. Ofcom has previously argued it doesn’t need to use MLAT because its Section 100 notices are administrative, not criminal. That distinction might satisfy Ofcom’s lawyers in London, but it doesn’t satisfy anyone else. Byrne and his clients have argued in federal court that Ofcom’s demands have no legal force precisely because they skipped the treaty process. 4chan and Kiwi Farms received their enforcement demands by email, sent to addresses that in some cases weren’t even authorized to accept legal service. The Lü FOI also asked whether Ofcom holds any correspondence with the US Department of Justice or the FBI about its enforcement activity. Ofcom’s response: it holds no information related to this question. The regulator didn’t talk to anyone in the US government before firing off 197 demands to US companies. It just hit send. What the FOI Actually Revealed, and What Ofcom Hid Lü’s request covered six questions. The pattern in Ofcom’s responses tells its own story. On the questions where Ofcom could respond by linking to documents that are already public, it was happy to share. On everything else, it cited exemptions, claimed it didn’t hold the information, or both. When asked for policy documents about enforcing the OSA against non-UK providers, including any records discussing MLAT, Ofcom said it holds some information but won’t release it. It also claimed it holds no records of MLAT discussions or legal guidance about whether emailing criminal penalty warnings to American corporations is valid. Either Ofcom never considered whether its enforcement method was legal under international law, or it did consider it and doesn’t want anyone to see that analysis. When asked how it selects non-UK enforcement targets, Ofcom cited exemptions under the Communications Act 2003 and linked to its public enforcement guidance, plus its own decisions against 4chan and other US entities. The internal criteria, the actual decision-making process for choosing which American companies to go after, stayed hidden. When asked about its approach to “qualifying worldwide revenue,” the basis for calculating fines that can reach £18 million or 10% of global revenue, Ofcom linked to its public guidance explaining that companies are expected to self-report their revenue to Ofcom. Companies that Ofcom is threatening with fines are supposed to voluntarily tell Ofcom how much money they make, so that Ofcom can calculate a bigger fine. The compliance incentives here are about as perverse as they get. Byrne Goes to Congress Byrne said he forwarded Ofcom’s admission directly to the US government. He tagged US Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy Sarah Rogers, Senator Eric Schmitt, and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, and called on Congress to act. This is consistent with Byrne’s approach throughout the Ofcom fight. He has previously said he copies the US government on Ofcom correspondence that crosses his desk. The legal strategy from the US side has been to deny Ofcom any clean precedent. The four companies that received formal enforcement action, 4chan, Kiwi Farms, a mental health forum called SaSu, and the social network Gab, all refused to comply. 4chan responded to one of Ofcom’s fines with a picture of a hamster. The point was to make Ofcom’s orders publicly and visibly unenforceable on American soil, turning each attempted punishment into a political liability for the regulator rather than a deterrent for the rest of the American internet. But the 197 number changes the scale of the problem. Those four companies were the public-facing enforcement targets, the ones Ofcom wanted to make examples of. Behind them, 193 other US companies apparently received quieter demands and, if Byrne’s analysis is correct, most of them complied without a fight. Without lawyers, without publicity, without anyone in Congress knowing it happened. Byrne has pushed the GRANITE Act, a proposed law that would allow US entities to sue foreign governments for censorship attempts and void foreign censorship orders in US courts. Sarah Rogers, the US Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy, has appeared on GB News in London suggesting Congress is considering a federal version of the law. The Trump administration has made public statements objecting to the Online Safety Act. The US State Department sent diplomats to London in 2025 to challenge Ofcom directly. Whether all of that translates into legislation remains an open question. Ofcom, for its part, has already moved on to bigger targets. After spending a year trying to fine platforms like 4chan and getting nowhere, the regulator recently opened new investigations into Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok, YouTube, Roblox, and X. The small companies held the line. The question now is whether the large ones will too, or whether they’ll decide that complying with a foreign regulator’s censorship demands is easier than asserting their constitutional rights. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post How UK Regulator Ofcom Quietly Bypassed International Law to Police American Speech appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

Times of London: Nepo Babytollah Is Basically Beef Supreme

On July 9, 1962, the night sky in Hawaii glowed with an eerie light from afar.

The colors of spacesuits changed significantly over the years before NASA settled on orange.

The 2026 National Defense Authorization Act ratified by President Donald Trump in December is overhauling the draft registration process.Under the new law, "every male citizen of the United States, and every other male person residing in the United States, between the ages of 18 and 26" will be registered for the draft automatically. The previous policy required young men to self-register within 30 days of their 18th birthday.'Undocumented immigrants are by definition not giving data.'Craig Brown, the acting director of the Selective Service System since 2021, noted in a report earlier this year that automatic registration was among the top three transformational initiatives that his agency — which is tasked with registering men and maintaining a system that "rapidly provides manpower in a fair and just manner" — would pursue over the next five years.Sure enough, the SSS submitted a proposed rule change to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs on March 30 titled "Automatic Registration."Per the SSS, "This statutory change transfers responsibility for registration from individual men to SSS through integration with federal data sources."The SSS strategic plan notes that implementation will be executed in alignment with Trump's Executive Order 14243, which directed federal agency heads to ensure that federal officials "have full and prompt access to all unclassified agency records, data, software systems, and information technology systems — or their equivalents if providing access to an equivalent dataset does not delay access — for purposes of pursuing administration priorities related to the identification and elimination of waste, fraud, and abuse."It's presently unclear whether automation with improved inter-agency data-sharing and the Department of Homeland Security's boosted alien registration efforts will address the suspected under-registration of draft-eligible parolees, illegal aliens, legal permanent residents, and asylum-seekers.RELATED: ‘Terrible betrayal’: Republican’s ‘compassionate’ immigration bill sparks intraparty clash Tasos Katopodis/Getty ImagesThe Oversight Project raised concerns last year about possible widespread criminal noncompliance by inadmissible aliens — concerns fueled in part by the absence of a surge in registrations during the Biden administration, according to data provided by the SSS to Congress.These concerns were further fueled by documents hinting at an awareness behind the scenes at the SSS that the agency was failing to capture data on potential illegal alien registrants.For instance, in an April 28, 2023, email obtained by the Oversight Project, SSS acting Director Brown noted that "undocumented immigrants are by definition not giving data. We get info on every male trying to legit stay in the country."Mike Howell, president of the Oversight Project, told Blaze News, "I have no idea how they plan on automatically registering so-called undocumented immigrants into the Selective Service. Given the fact that the DOJ seems not to care about charging the hordes of military-aged male illegal aliens who came in during the Biden administration with failure to register, which could put them in jail for up to five years, I doubt that it's been considered in much detail or is even on the radar."Blaze News has reached out to the SSS for comment.According to an SSS report to Congress, the registration rate for eligible men in 2024 was 81%. The report suggested that automating the process might help bolster registration rates.Failure to register for the draft is punishable by a fine of up to $250,000 and/or five years in prison. An individual who "knowingly counsels, aids, or abets" another person not to comply with the requirement can be slapped with the same penalties.Failure to register could also jeopardize immigrants' U.S. citizenship, preclude offenders from receiving state-funded financial aid and job training, and cause ineligibility for various federal employment opportunities.Editor's note: Mike Howell is a contributor to Blaze News.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

President Donald Trump continues to bash NATO after meeting behind closed doors with Secretary-General Mark Rutte, further signaling that the alliance could be crumbling. Trump has long been critical of NATO, claiming that allies routinely fail to pull their own weight. This sentiment has reached a fever pitch since NATO allies have refused to aid the United States during the war with Iran. As a result, Trump told these allies to fend for themselves during the energy crisis, and he has not backed down. 'This was a very frank, very open discussion.'Trump has openly floated the idea of withdrawing from the alliance altogether after having a "frank and open" discussion with Rutte in the White House on Wednesday. "He is clearly disappointed with many NATO allies," Rutte told CNN following the meeting. "And I can see his point."RELATED: 'Delayed courage': Trump tells allies to fend for themselves amid oil crisis Mandel NGAN/AFP/Getty Images"Clearly, this was a very frank, very open discussion," Rutte added. "But also a discussion between two good friends." While Rutte kept his cards close to his chest, Trump took to Truth Social to tell the world exactly what he thinks of the alliance. "NATO WASN’T THERE WHEN WE NEEDED THEM, AND THEY WON’T BE THERE IF WE NEED THEM AGAIN. REMEMBER GREENLAND, THAT BIG, POORLY RUN, PIECE OF ICE!!!" Trump said in a Truth Social post after the meeting. "None of these people, including our own, very disappointing, NATO, understood anything unless they have pressure placed upon them!!!" Trump said in another Truth Social post. Although Trump has continued to signal his strong disapproval of the alliance, no formal decision has been made about withdrawing from NATO. Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

LOL-OUCH! Top Biden Aide SLAMS Abigail Spanberger for Chickening Out, Refusing to Debate VA Redistricting

The U.S. and Israeli militaries have "clearly accomplished" their goal of dismantling the Iranian regime's military capabilities, according to Adm. Brad Cooper, chief of U.S. Central Command.