It’s a shame that “follow the science” doesn’t really mean anything. That’s been completely blown to hell at this point. I now start from the assumption that a study’s design was meant to achieve some OTHER goal - in this case, to rationalize a reduction in care . . . for men. Got to save money somewhere to pay for “gender affirming surgery” for others! I somehow doubt the “wait and see” approach - even if well founded - would be offered as a suggestion for a condition involving a more protected class of patients. Maybe I’m too cynical.
“...in this case, to rationalize a reduction in care...”
BINGO