Part 6/9:

The court's sampling of medical evidence underscored the contentious scientific debates surrounding gender-affirming care. Advocates for the treatments presented claims of overwhelming evidence supporting their efficacy; conversely, dissenting studies raised alarms about the potential risks and long-term effects. This scientific dichotomy mirrored previous public health debates—most notably during the COVID-19 pandemic—where adherence to specified guidelines often clashed with broader inquiries about the validity and reliability of those same guidelines.