OK ~ Joking apart ~ We need first of all to work out WHO has produced this piece of "research" and they are the Endocrine Society. So what is Endocrine? (I assume we all know what a society is in this context ~ for those who don't we'll call it a club)
According to Wikipedia.
The endocrine system is an integrated system of small organs that involve the release of extracellular signalling molecules known as hormones. The endocrine system is instrumental in regulating metabolism, growth, development and puberty, and tissue function and also plays a part in determining mood.[1] The field of medicine that deals with disorders of endocrine glands is endocrinology, a branch of the wider field of internal medicine.
So for starters we now know that the Society that has published this "research" is in fact aimed at Doctors who specialise in the field of Endocrinology. A quick look at the Society's own web site tells us that they are "dedicated to advancing excellence in endocrine research and medical practice".
So these people have nothing else to think about other than researching ANYTHING that will further their importance in their chosen field of study.
Next we come to the "New Scientist" magazine which costs £96 a year for 51 issues ~ that makes it a weekly magazine with pages to be filled. Advertisements provide income but only if the publishers can persuade enough people to read the magazine and to do that they have to produce something readable.
In media circles readable equals contentious. (There is no news in good news unless it is a medical breakthrough or England win the world cup). The best way to fill the pages and get people to subscribe to your magazine is to publish stuff that they will want to read. You'll not find many people reading New Scientist for fun but because it is part of their job to keep up to date with the latest thinking in their field. So as editor you will publish anything that comes remotely within the remit of your readership ~ no matter how much bollix it may be because by doing so you will (i) be noticed and (ii) sell more copies. The more arguments you can create the better because people love to read "experts" falling out with one another. Even better if the man on the Clapham omnibus or even Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells feels the need to put pen to paper about whatever you have published.
RIGHT ~ I think we have dealt with the reasons why this has been published. The editor had pages to fill and he thought this was a good story to get the readership going, thus impressing his advertisers that it was worth continuing to pay for space in his publication.
As to the ethics of whether or not the Medical Profession should be using their training in this way, rather than curing illness and healing people, is another matter all together and I guess that depends on one's personal prejudices. I agree that it is probable that 11 years of age is far to young for the majority of children to make such a life confirming decision. Frankly I doubt that many 11 year olds would even know what the word gender means let alone being sure of what gender they wished to be. My view is that such things should be left to nature (or your God if you have one) to decide. These things have a way of balancing themselves out in the end and if it means that through Darwin's theory of Natural Selection some of unspecified gender are bred out of the species then that is the way things are meant to be. As "Scotty" used to say "Ye cannae change the laws of physics Jim" and I feel the same applies here.
