Analysis by Alex Caldwell | Photo: Alamy Dec. 6‚ 2023‚ marks the sixth anniversary of a political decision that reshaped the dynamics of Israel’s position in the Middle East: President… The post Six years ago today‚ Trump became the first president to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital city first appeared on Right Side Broadcasting Network (RSBN).

Photo: Alamy The House of Representatives will take a formal vote next week on authorizing an impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden‚ Speaker Mike Johnson confirmed Tuesday. Johnson stated at… The post The House will vote soon on continuing the Biden impeachment inquiry first appeared on Right Side Broadcasting Network (RSBN).

McGraw and Faith Hill's youngest daughter turned 22 years old on Wednesday (Dec. 6.) Continue reading…

The song ... doesn’t seem to exist? Continue reading…

People experiencing gender dysphoria cannot expect gender-reassignment interventions to solve other mental health issues‚ according to a large‚ Finnish study published last month in the journal European Psychiatry. People with gender dysphoria “present with many more common psychiatric needs” than the general population‚ the study reported‚ “even when medical GR [gender-reassignment] interventions are carried out.” Based on their finding‚ the authors’ recommended “cautious assessment of the timeliness of medical GR and of other treatment needs that may be more urgent.” The register-based study reviewed records of 3‚665 people “who contacted the nationally centralized gender identity services (GIS) in Finland in 1996-2019.” Of this cohort‚ 38.4% had received either cross-sex hormones or gender-reassignment surgery‚ or both. The study matched each person in this population with eight people of the same sex‚ age‚ and place of birth‚ resulting in a control group of 29‚292 people. The authors compared the two groups both before and after the gender-dysphoric person’s first appointment with the diagnostic team at either of the country’s two hospitals that provide gender-identity services—known as the “index date.” In survey collection‚ a random sample of 1‚000 is considered sufficient for most statistical purposes‚ but Finland’s socialized medicine system enabled the authors of this study to survey the entire population over a two-year period. (One weakness the authors admitted is that it is possible to legally change one’s sex in Finland‚ and government records only listed the legal sex‚ not the birth sex.) The authors noted a much higher risk that a person with gender dysphoria will need “specialist-level psychiatric treatment” (most often for mood disorders and anxiety) than their age-matched controls‚ and that they will receive more care after entering the system. Before the index date‚ people with gender dysphoria were 2.4 times as likely to have contact with a specialist-level psychiatrist than the control group (33.0% to 13.7%). After the index date‚ the gender-dysphoric group was 4.2 times as likely to have contact with a specialist-level psychiatrist (60.6% to 14.5%). People with gender dysphoria were 3.2 times more likely to have received inpatient psychiatric treatment before the index date (11.7% to 3.6%) and 4.0 times more likely after the index date (10.7% to 2.7%). The authors recorded other noteworthy observations about the likelihood of people with gender dysphoria to need specialist-level psychiatric treatment. Nearly three times as many people with gender dysphoria did not proceed to gender-reassignment procedures if they had obtained serious psychiatric treatment prior to their first appointment with gender-identity services. The proportion of people needing serious psychiatric treatment increased more (from 15.3% to 52.9%) among people with gender dysphoria who received cross-sex hormones or gender-reassignment surgeries than among those who did not (from 47.0% to 66.7%). Among people with gender dysphoria‚ fully half of those who received gender-reassignment interventions later obtained serious psychiatric treatment‚ although they were slightly less likely to do so than those who did not receive gender-reassignment interventions. Among people who obtained serious psychiatric treatment before engaging gender-identity services‚ 70% to 80% of them still needed psychiatric treatment afterward‚ regardless of whether or not they actually received cross-sex hormones or gender-reassignment surgeries. Zooming out for a broader comparison‚ the authors summarized‚ “both those GD [gender-dysphoria] patients who had proceeded to medical GR [gender reassignment] and those who had not were more likely to need psychiatric treatment after the index date than were the controls.” How much more likely? That depended (somewhat) on the other variables included in the model. In the most complex model‚ the authors controlled for year of birth‚ legal sex‚ when patients first sought treatment for gender dysphoria‚ and whether they had previously received serious psychiatric treatment. According to this model‚ people with gender dysphoria were 3.8 or 3.9 times more likely than the control group to need serious psychiatric treatment. Furthermore‚ they “had an equal risk for later psychiatric treatment‚” regardless of whether or not they had received gender-reassignment procedures. However‚ those who had previously received serious psychiatric treatment before the index date were still 3.1 times more likely to need it afterward‚ too. The authors recognized that psychiatric issues were on the rise among the general population‚ and this is reflected in the data (for instance‚ a person born in a given year was 3%‚ or 1.03 times‚ more likely to need serious psychiatric treatment than someone born in the prior year). “The emergence of the widely recognized crisis in mental health among adolescents and young adults throughout the Western world” was “largely associated with the increasing use of social media‚” they noted. “Social media influences may also result in adolescent and emerging adult females—who present particularly frequently with identity confusion—seeking for a solution to their distress through GR [gender reassignment].” The unique contribution of their study‚ the authors believed‚ was in identifying a link between mental health issues and gender dysphoria. “As far as we know‚ the increase over time in psychiatric [co-]morbidity among those seeking GR [gender reassignment] has not previously been presented‚” they wrote. The report’s conclusion also undermines a commonly expressed narrative in U.S. debates over gender-transition procedures for minors‚ who lack the power to make permanent‚ life-altering medical decisions in many other contexts. This year‚ a whistleblower from a transgender center in Missouri said staff manipulated parents into consenting to gender-transition treatment by presenting them with a false choice between transition and suicide. “A common tactic was for doctors to tell the parent of a [girl]‚ ‘You can either have a living son or a dead daughter‚’” she said. This suicide argument even made an appearance in legislative debates‚ when Nebraska state Sen. Machaela Cavanaugh‚ a Democrat‚ called a bill to protect minors from gender-transition procedures “a stepping stone in genocide.” However‚ the authors of this large Finnish study arrived at results that “do not suggest that medical GR [gender-reassignment] interventions resolve psychiatric [co-]morbidity among people experiencing gender distress.” In plain English‚ this means that gender-reassignment procedures‚ invasive and dramatic as they are‚ likely will not fix a person’s other mental health problems. Originally published by The Washington Stand Have an opinion about this article? To sound off‚ please email letters@DailySignal.com and we’ll consider publishing your edited remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature. Remember to include the URL or headline of the article plus your name and town and/or state. The post Gender Reassignment Is No Cure for Mental Health Issues: Study appeared first on The Daily Signal.

We as a society need to assert that healthy families build human flourishing in every nation and culture‚ and we are not being honest with people when we don’t‚ said the CEO of what has been called the most influential free-market think tank in Britain. “There are some logical steps to what leads to human flourishing‚ and we need to be open about these things‚” Legatum Institute CEO and member of the British House of Lords Baroness Philippa Stroud told Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts on “The Kevin Roberts Show” podcast. She said that people should get a job‚ get married‚ and then have a child‚ in that order‚ to promote success for themselves and their families. Good social policy (that which promotes healthy families) makes for good economic policy‚ she said. “If we don’t have good social policy‚ we end up spending a huge amount of money on picking up the pieces of a breakdown. Whereas‚ actually‚ if we could get ahead of it [the breakdown of individuals and families] in our community to support people properly‚ then actually it wouldn’t—it doesn’t cost so much money later on‚” Stroud asserted. For the younger generation‚ there must be an effort to make it possible for them to have “hopes of owning a property” and “ensuring dignified work for all‚” according to Stroud.  Success for Stroud would be about changing the narrative to one that is “filling our children’s minds with the facts that they can—they do—have a future.” She said she believes in the importance of young people knowing that their efforts and agency can build and support a future for their families.  “We might have limited resources‚ but when you take those resources and you match them with human ingenuity‚ then actually‚ the potential is unlimited‚” Stroud said. To inspire the next generation‚ there should be a pathway for good leaders to be embedded in a community‚ working alongside others to inspire them‚ she said.  However‚ sometimes leaders may be reluctant to step forward. “One of the things we’ve seen is great leaders who say what everybody is thinking and then get mobbed on Twitter‚ and it damages people‚” Stroud said.  “The isolated leader standing on a hilltop on their own I don’t think in today’s world will make it. But communities of leaders building this vision‚ they will make it‚” she said.  She said that leaders need to be clear about the problems we have and a vision for addressing them. The challenge with politics is creating clarity about the issues‚ according to Stroud: “If you don’t create the clarity about the nature of a problem‚ why would people accept a solution?”  Politicians oftentimes don’t “cast a vision of the possibilities and the future that we can build together. Or if they do‚ they don’t then actually implement the journey towards that solution. So‚ people are just left with the nature of a problem‚” said Stroud.  “The only way to progress forward in my understanding … is [the] founding principle on the dignity of the human being … and that is a founding principle of this nation [the U.S.]” She said that gives her hope for the future. Have an opinion about this article? To sound off‚ please email letters@DailySignal.com‚ and we’ll consider publishing your edited remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature. Remember to include the URL or headline of the article plus your name and town and/or state. The post Social and Economic Flourishing Starts With Building Healthy Families appeared first on The Daily Signal.

A bipartisan group of senators is about to take Big Tech CEOs to task on Jan. 31‚ 2024‚ by having them publicly address their failures to protect kids online. And the CEOs need to! The harms social media poses to children are well documented and‚ at this point‚ indisputable—even by the companies themselves. YouTube admits that it hosts harmful content for children and even calls for legislation to address the problems it helps create. YouTube’s CEO indicated as much when he published his “principled approach for children and teenagers.” In it‚ he writes that YouTube “can’t do it alone … [and] support[s] policymakers‚ families‚ researchers‚ companies‚ and experts coming together to define a set of consistent standards for companies serving young people online.” He then advocates for policies that provide more parental rights‚ age-appropriate content for minors‚ and “appropriate safeguards.” Even with this call for legislation‚ policymakers are finding it hard to impose basic measures‚ such as age restriction requirements to protect kids using these services. Age restrictions on a deliberately addictive product that targets children should be a no-brainer. Various levels of government impose age restrictions on these types of offerings all the time. For example‚ kids can’t get tattoos or piercings without parental consent. Or attend movies that are rated R or PG-13. Or purchase video games rated “M.” But somehow‚ social media services are distinct‚ even though they trigger a similar addictive response as nicotine withdrawal and gambling. So‚ why haven’t we done it? State legislatures are making unforced errors by not considering the full internet stack—e.g.‚ the operating system‚ the app store‚ or the app—when imposing such measures. Arkansas’ social media law is a prime example of an unforced error. Its law would have required some‚ but not all‚ social media companies to verify the age of their users. The law didn’t apply to YouTube‚ for example. Failing to take a holistic approach when crafting legislation for the social media market unnecessarily opened the state up to a First Amendment challenge. This is because for the state to require such a measure‚ it would have to show that the requirement is both “narrowly tailored” to not impact adult users’ speech and also necessary to address the harms alleged. According to federal District Court Judge Timothy Brooks‚ the state failed because excluding some social media companies made little sense if the law’s stated goal is to protect kids from the harms social media imparts. Brooks pointed out that even though “YouTube is not regulated by [Arkansas social media law]‚” the state oddly cited YouTube as being particularly harmful to children and “[a]mong all types of online platforms‚ YouTube was the most widely used by children.” So‚ if Arkansas’ law doesn’t apply to YouTube‚ how can the state justify an imposition on adult speech on services that aren’t even favored by most children? But it’s not all bad news. Brooks may have provided legislatures a path forward to get age verification without implicating the First Amendment—by going through the app stores. Brooks seemed to be more upset that Arkansas’ law imposed duties on social media companies rather than on Google and Apple‚ the companies that run two of the biggest app stores on the internet. Throughout his opinion‚ he noted that Apple and Google provide parents several tools to shield kids from certain apps and wondered why the state needed to go through social media platforms to do what the app stores ought to. He’s got a point. Social media apps rely on users to self-certify their age when they create an account‚ but they can’t fully confirm that the user is being truthful—whereas Apple and Google know the precise age of the owner of the device. How? Well‚ their software is integrated at every level of the mobile device. They own the two dominant mobile operating systems (i.e.‚ iOS and Android‚ respectively)‚ app stores (i.e.‚ the App Store and Play Store)‚ and browsers (i.e.‚ Safari and Chrome). Candidly‚ not including Apple and Google in age verification legislation makes little sense‚ because doing so would almost certainly resolve the First Amendment concern. Why? Because all the law would have to require is for Apple and Google to give the app a thumbs up or thumbs down when a social media app asks to verify the device is owned by an adult or a child. The social media company would no longer have to guess how old the user is‚ which limits‚ or even eliminates‚ the risk of denying an adult the ability to engage on American social media platforms. What’s more‚ going through the app stores makes parental consent more doable‚ because‚ as the court noted‚ parents have more control over the device than the apps themselves and the app stores are already required to obtain express parental consent for in-app purchases to comply with consent decrees from the Federal Trade Commission. If the child’s device’s app store prohibits the child from downloading apps without a parent’s credentials (e.g.‚ entering a password‚ providing a fingerprint‚ or using facial recognition)‚ then parents immediately get more agency over the apps their children can access. Better yet‚ it wouldn’t require the consumer to provide more information about the user to social media companies. If social media companies could simply send a request to the device (leveraging the data already available from the device’s operating system) to confirm (almost instantaneously) that a person is above the age of 18‚ then two things occur: 1) The user doesn’t provide more data other than what he has already provided to Apple or Google; and 2) the social media company only gets a thumbs up or a thumbs down in response to its inquiry‚ which limits the amount of new information the company receives. State legislators should learn from these mistakes in order to effectively protect kids online. The biggest lesson so far is to look to both the apps and the app stores when it comes to age restrictions.  Have an opinion about this article? To sound off‚ please email letters@DailySignal.com‚ and we’ll consider publishing your edited remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature. Remember to include the URL or headline of the article plus your name and town and/or state. The post Protecting Kids Online: Requiring Age Verification Through App Stores appeared first on The Daily Signal.