Niveau de vie, sexe, âge, ou encore quartier d’habitation influent sur les moyens de transports utilisés par les collégiens et collégiennes, révèle une vaste étude. Qui propose des pistes pour réduire leurs émissions de CO₂ et améliorer leur santé.
Administration health officials praised a statement released Tuesday by the American Society of Plastic Surgeons (ASPS) that advises against conducting “gender-related breast/chest, genital, and facial surgery” on people under the age of 19, even though such procedures are rarely conducted on minors. The ASPS based its statement on two recent reports from the U.K. and the U.S. that were widely criticized by transgender healthcare advocates as being biased.
In its statement, the ASPS admits that it didn’t reach its conclusions through “a formal guideline development process,” independent systematic assessment of existing medical evidence, consultation with consensus panels of medical experts, or strength-of-recommendation determinations weighing the benefits of gender-affirming care against its potential risks.
Rather, the organization admitted that it based its findings wholly on the U.K.’s infamous 2024 Cass Report (which excluded numerous studies demonstrating the benefits of gender-affirming care) and the U.S. Department of Health’s 2025 review (which was anonymously generated in 90 days, underwent no peer-review process, and resulted from a U.S. executive order seeking to ban all gender-affirming care for trans youth).
Both the U.K. and U.S. documents suggested conversion therapy for trans youth, disregarded all research and guidance produced or endorsed by the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH), and contradicted the best practices in gender-affirming care all for trans youth recommended by all major U.S. medical associations.
“More recently, a number of international health systems and professional bodies initiated formal re-examinations of earlier clinical practice assumptions in response to changes in patient presentation and a growing uncertainty about the benefits of medical and surgical interventions,” the ASPS statement says, without mentioning that the two reports it based its findings on were created by governments whose leaders have a stated desire to restrict gender-affirming care.
“Systematic reviews and evidence reassessments have subsequently identified limitations in study quality, consistency, and follow-up alongside emerging evidence of treatment complications and potential harms,” the statement continues.
However, critics of the U.K. and U.S. reports noted that both rejected numerous studies affirming the benefits of gender-affirming care based on standards “that are unattainable and not required of most other pediatric [medical studies]” and for not using “blind” methodology in which researchers are kept ignorant about which participants receive gender-affirming medications.
The ASPS’ statement claims that “available evidence suggests that a substantial proportion of children with prepubertal onset gender dysphoria experience resolution or significant reduction of distress by the time they reach adulthood, absent medical or surgical intervention.”
But recent studies have shown that trans youth tend to be consistent in their identities, even after a decade. The findings mirror what has overwhelmingly been found in studies on trans adults, that very few people detransition. A 2024 study found that 97% of trans youth don’t regret transitioning, and another study from the same year showed that fewer than 1% of patients who undergo gender-affirming surgical procedures end up regretting it. In fact, rates of regret are higher for people who get tattoos, elective plastic surgeries, bariatric weight loss surgeries, or have children, the study found.
The ASPS also advises against puberty blockers for trans youth, saying, “The current values and preferences framework … places a higher value on achieving more favorable aesthetic effects in adolescence and places a lower value on avoiding potential harm from early pubertal suppression.”
But the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association, and other major medical associations have all found gender-affirming care to be safe and essential to the overall well-being of trans youth. The associations consider puberty blockers as a safe, essential, effective, and reversible means of treating gender dysphoria for the overall well-being of young patients.
Despite the limitations of the ASPS’s statement, the organization said it opposes the criminalization of gender-affirming care. It also said that its policy statement “does not seek to deny or minimize the reality of any patient’s distress, and it does not question the authenticity of any patient’s experience.”
“Instead, ASPS affirms that truly humane, ethical, and just care, particularly for children and adolescents, must balance compassion with scientific rigor, developmental considerations, and concern for long-term welfare,” the statement said.
White House health officials praised the ASPS policy statement, The Hill reported.
Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. said, “We commend the American Society of Plastic Surgeons for standing up to the overmedicalization lobby and defending sound science. By taking this stand, they are helping protect future generations of American children from irreversible harm.”
Criticizing the study, trans activist and civil rights attorney Alejandra Caraballo wrote, “The American society of plastic surgeons has no issue with the tens of thousands of minors getting nose jobs and other cosmetic surgery but they decided that they want to support bans on trans youth care and align with [the president’s executive order] rather than actual medical science.”
An image from an ASPS report showing which cosmetic surgeries are conducted on people under the age of 19. | Image via Alejandra Caraballo’s Bluesky
“There would be a whole lot of people opposed to minors getting cosmetic surgery if they knew about it. But there wasn’t a billion dollar campaign involving an entire political party, several billionaires, and dozens of think tanks pushing it,” Caraballo added, also noting that ASPS President Bob Basu has contributed substantial amounts to the president.
“If you’re wondering why they shifted positions now to align with the [current presidential] administration… This was a political decision,” she wrote.
Subscribe to the LGBTQ Nation newsletter and be the first to know about the latest headlines shaping LGBTQ+ communities worldwide.
Souvenez-vous : il y a un an, de nombreux médias français quittaient X, motivés par le pedigree de son propriétaire Elon Musk, qui avait largement contribué à l'élection de Donald Trump et venait alor...
Earlier this week Rust Coreutils 0.6 released while out today is GNU Coreutils 9.10 as the de facto standard for this set of core utilities on Linux systems and other platforms...
En 2019, je suis venue m’installer à Taluyers, au sud-ouest de Lyon, avec mon compagnon. Nous avons acheté une maison, nous avons eu un enfant, on était heureux. Et puis un jour, on apprend qu’on est touchés par une pollution aux PFAS, des substances chimiques « per- et polyfluoroalkylées » aussi appelées « polluants éternels ». Cette découverte s’est […]
L’égoïsme serait le comportement par excellence d’une société travaillée depuis quarante ans par des politiques néolibérales : voilà ce qu’affirme le sociologue Camille Peugny dans Le Triomphe des égoïsmes. Pourtant, fin 2024, le sociologue Vincent Tiberj défendait l’idée que la droitisation de la France serait largement un mythe. Si celle-ci existe « par le haut », dans les […]
Les droits et les devoirs. En matière de sexe, le « devoir conjugal » accordait souvent un droit : celui de violer le consentement. Le 28 janvier, les députés français ont voté à l’unanimité une clarification du code civil à ce sujet – plus de coït non désiré au sein du mariage et plus de divorce pour faute fondé sur […]
En générant du code à partir de multiples sources des logiciels libres, le vibe coding détourne en même temps nombre d’utilisateurs des personnes qui ont créé ces logiciels. Les financements, les rapports de bugs et les discussions s’amenuisent en parallèle à la destruction des communautés d’utilisateurs, constatent des chercheurs en économie. « Dans le modèle […]
In just two words, former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg summed up Donald Trump’s attempts to get people to stop asking about his decades-long friendship with child sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein.
Buttigieg was asked about how Trump posted a fake AI-generated video to social media showing former President Barack Obama getting arrested last week during an appearance on the syndicated radio show The Breakfast Club earlier this week.
“They tried to rig the election, and they got caught. And there should be very severe consequences for that,” Trump told reporters on July 22, referring to the 2016 presidential election. A representative for Obama called the accusations “bizarre” and “a weak attempt at distraction.”
Buttigieg noted that it’s telling that Trump made this accusation as he faces sharp criticism from his base for refusing to release documents from the investigation of Epstein.
“So Trump says, ‘We’re gonna release the files, we’re gonna release the files, we’re gonna release the files,'” Buttigieg said, referring to files from the Epstein investigation. “Then he says, ‘We’re not gonna release the files.'”
“And people are mad, including MAGA, saying, ‘Wait a minute, you said you were going to release this information and you’re not.’ And what does he do? He’s like, ‘Uuhhhh, we’re gonna arrest Obama!'” The hosts laughed, and then Buttigieg summed up what he believes Trump is trying to do with a quippy phrase.
“What? That has nothing to do with anything, but it’s the distraction machine.”
“Whenever things get hard for Trump, he fires up the ‘Distraction Machine,’” Buttigieg wrote in the caption for the post. “We’re not falling for it.”
Trump has been under fire all month after his administration announced that it would not release information learned from the investigation of Epstein, including the wealthy clients for whom Epstein is rumored to have provided underage victims to sexually abuse. Trump has spent the month making increasingly hostile statements about people who want the rumored “Epstein client list” to be made public.
Last week, House Speaker Mike Johjnson announced that the House would adjourn early in what was seen as an effort to stall Democrats’ attempts to make the Justice Department release the Epstein files. The House is scheduled to reconvene in September.
Epstein died in prison in 2019 while awaiting trial on charges of sex trafficking minors. While the medical examiner determined that his death was a suicide, many people, especially on the right, do not believe that it was, instead asserting that he was killed to keep him silent about the clients for whom he found children to sexually abuse.
In February, Attorney General Bondi said that she was reviewing “a lot of names” related to the Epstein investigation and said that the Epstein list is “sitting on my desk right now to review.”
But earlier this month, the Department of Justice released a memo that said there was no “secret client list” and reaffirmed the 2019 finding that Epstein died by suicide. Many Trump supporters were outraged that the rumored client list wouldn’t be released, while many on the left speculated that the reason Bondi wasn’t releasing it is because Trump himself – or at least high-ranking members of his administration – is on it.
CMA's Subsidy Advice Unit reviewing state aid linked to redress and off-payroll tax costs
The UK competition regulator is set to report on a request for £246 million in subsidies to the Post Office, a publicly owned company, to cover its costs in compensation for the Horizon IT scandal and tax liability for IR35, a mechanism commonly used by tech consultants.…
Journalists decided to test whether the Grok chatbot still generates non‑consensual sexualized images, even after xAI, Elon Musk’s artificial intelligence company, and X, the social media platform formerly known as Twitter, promised tighter safeguards.
A Reuters retest suggests the core abuse pattern remains. Reuters had nine reporters run dozens of controlled prompts through Grok after X announced new limits on sexualized content and image editing. In the first round, Grok produced sexualized imagery in response to 45 of 55 prompts. In 31 of those 45, the reporters explicitly said the subject was vulnerable or would be humiliated by the pictures.
A second round, five days later, still yielded sexualized images in 29 of 43 prompts, even when reporters said the subjects had not consented.
Competing systems from OpenAI, Google, and Meta refused identical prompts and instead warned users against generating non‑consensual content.
The prompts were deliberately framed as real‑world abuse scenarios. Reporters told Grok the photos were of friends, co-workers, or strangers who were body‑conscious, timid, or survivors of abuse, and that they had not agreed to editing. Despite that, Grok often complied—for example, turning a “friend” into a woman in a revealing purple two‑piece or putting a male acquaintance into a small gray bikini, oiled up and posed suggestively. In only seven cases did Grok explicitly reject requests as inappropriate; in others it failed silently, returning generic errors or generating different people instead.
The result is a system illustrating the same lesson its creators say they’re trying to learn: if you ship powerful visual models without exhaustive abuse testing and robust guardrails, people will use them to sexualize and humiliate others, including children. Grok’s record so far suggests that lesson still hasn’t sunk in.
Grok limited AI image editing to paid users after the backlash. But paywalling image tools—and adding new curbs—looks more like damage control than a fundamental safety reset. Grok still accepts prompts that describe non‑consensual use, still sexualizes vulnerable subjects, and still behaves more permissively than rival systems when asked to generate abusive imagery. For victims, the distinction between “public” and private generations is meaningless if their photos can be weaponized in DMs or closed groups at scale.
Sharing images
If you’ve ever wondered why some parents post images of their children with a smiley emoji across their face, this is part of the reason.
Don’t make it easy for strangers to copy, reuse, or manipulate your photos.
This is another compelling reason to reduce your digital footprint. Think carefully before posting photos of yourself, your children, or other sensitive information on public social media accounts.
And treat everything you see online—images, voices, text—as potentially AI-generated unless they can be independently verified. They’re not only used to sway opinions, but also to solicit money, extract personal information, or create abusive material.
We don’t just report on threats – we help protect your social media
Gang walks away with nothing, victims are left with irreparable hypervisors
Cybersecurity experts usually advise victims against paying ransomware crooks, but that advice goes double for those who have been targeted by the Nitrogen group. There's no way to get your data back from them!…
Traverser les siècles et leurs châteaux de sommeil aux parquets rossignol, briser des kilomètres de vertèbres et lacérer à fond les peaux des vivants et des morts, débusquer le moindre esprit, fantôme ou démon, double-sauter puis se prendre un mur invisible, mourir seul dans un ravin, récupérer des milliers d’équipements aux couleurs aguicheuses, et ramener une tomate à Ieyasu Tokugawa.
Connexion
