Transition care or consumer fraud? Gender-affirming care should be viewed the same as “lobotomies or eugenics — it’s a bad medical fad”

One of the most eye-opening instances of the utter insanity that America and the rest of the world are going through is when Meet the Press host Chuck Todd challenged (ca. 4:00) Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy in the Spring:

The NBC News host asked, "Are you confident that you know that gender is as binary as you're describing it? Are you confident that it isn't a spectrum?"

Ramaswamy said he was confident, but Todd still didn’t buy it. 

Todd asked, "Do you know this as a scientist?"

"Well, there’s two X chromosomes if you're a woman, and an X and a Y, that means you’re a man," Ramaswamy said as Todd tried to speak over him. 

"There is a lot of scientific research that says gender is a spectrum," Todd said. 

In any normal and reasonable society, an MSM reporter would instead be interviewing one of these New Age types and turning the question the other way around: 

"Are you confident that you know that gender is a spectrum? Are you confident that it isn't binary as conservatives have been describing it?" When, and if, the New Age type insisted that it is a spectrum with a dozen or 72 or God knows how many genders, the reporter would then go "Do you know this as a scientist?" and  strike back and point out that "There is a lot of scientific research" — actually, that is all the scientific research in the world, scientific research which used to be so uncontroversial that it would not be up for debate — "that says gender is either two X chromosomes for a woman, and an X and a Y for a man" 

But the world is turned up side down.

Strange as it may seem, you can head to the a New York Times article for one of the best conservative defenses against gender treatment.

Needless to say, this is not visible until the final third of Many States Are Trying to Restrict Gender Treatments for Adults, Too.  And to be sure, the Azeen Ghorayshi piece is full of the typical weasel words, expressions, and sentences as well as euphemisms that we have become used to from the left's Drama Queens (the "onerous restrictions" and "severely restrict gender treatments" — onerous and severely — "Missouri has imposed sweeping rules to limit health care for trans adults" — sweeping rules —"a series of quieter moves across the country that have been chipping away at transgender adults’ access to medical care" — i.e., access to all medical care is suggested — for "transgender adults, many studies have shown that transition care can improve psychological well-being and quality of life", etc etc etc)
Only later in the article do we learn that 

When asked why [Missouri state attorney general Andrew Bailey's emergency rule] includes adults, Madeline Sieren, a spokeswoman for Mr. Bailey, said, “We have serious concerns about how children are being treated throughout the state, but we believe everyone is entitled to evidence-based medicine and adequate mental health care.”

And only in the last third of the article do we hear a conservative — whom the New York Times's Azeen Ghorayshi does not seem to have interviewed or even met herself — give the coup de grâce:

Terry Schilling, the president of the American Principles Project, a right-wing advocacy group pushing for restrictions on transgender rights, said in an interview earlier this year that focusing on minors had been a short-term political calculation. His organization’s long-term goal, he said, was to eliminate transition care altogether.

“I view this whole issue the same as I view lobotomies or eugenics — it’s a bad medical fad,” he said.

Mr. Schilling said policies might include outright bans for people of all ages, or bills to make it easier for people to sue medical providers if they regret transitioning. He also raised the possibility of classifying transition care as “consumer fraud” — the same approach put forward by Mr. Bailey — because he contends that it is impossible to change genders.