Last Thursday’s USA Today featured this headline: “Gender stereotypes are destroying girls, and they’re killing boys.” Written by Alia E. Dastagir of New York City, the writer self-describes her compositions as “about culture” and has a Twitter feed full of gushing over Hillary, angry posts about the “rape culture,” criticism of certain gender-related Halloween costumes and boasts that antifa is gaining strength. Throughout her posts and retweets is a clear theme that gender is equated with victimhood and that gender fluidity is best.

But back to the headline. Are girls being destroyed because they’re being raised as females? Are boys being killed, and exactly who is doing that killing, because they are being raised as the male gender?

Dastagir speaks of the “lifelong consequences” of gender identities that are demonstrated universally irrespective of culture, socio-economics or educational attainment. The thesis is that girls and boys who conform to gender roles are endangered.

Citing the Global Early Adolescent Study that pooled boys and girls from 15 countries from 10 to 14 years of age, the shrill warning states that depression, child marriage, dropping out of school and exposure to violence are the correlating consequences to women whose gender is formed by “stereotypes.” Further, the study touts that men who’ve been shaped into a gender stereotype as a boy will die more frequently from accidents, be more prone to substance abuse and suicide, engage in more violent behavior and have a shorter life expectancy than women.

Those are some pretty serious and broad outcomes assigned to telling a little girl that she’s a female and telling a little boy to become a man. If you access the actual reprint from the Journal of Adolescent Health, you see Ms. Dastagir’s info comes from several papers written over time, with references to some of the countries included — Kenya, Nigeria, India, China, Egypt, Ecuador and Belgium. A study site in Baltimore is most certainly going to have quite different views on almost every aspect of life than one on subjects in Nairobi, Kenya. But, hey, who needs to employ controls in research to make sweeping statements, it’s social science, right?

This “editorial,” written by Dr. Elizabeth Saewyc, a PhD of Nursing from the School of Nursing of the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, is more analysis than scientific study in its full, single-page of text and a quarter page of 12 references.

Compare that to last year’s published report, “Sexuality and Gender: Findings from the Biological, Psychological, and Social Sciences” that challenged the narrative about sexuality and gender in our modern culture that is fueled by a leftist media pushing an agenda, not journalism.

Also a review, this 143-page report, published in the New Atlantis, covers more than 200 peer-reviewed studies of the sciences — biological, psychological and social. This analysis records contrasting outcomes, none of which support the claim that raising a female or a male according to their chromosomal identities results in a life-shortening calamity as theorized by USA Today’s social justice warrior.

The co-authors, Dr. Lawrence Mayer of Arizona State University and renowned expert and physician Dr. Paul McHugh of Johns Hopkins University, professors of biostatistics and psychiatry, respectively, demonstrate that gender identity is not innate but is learned. Further, they establish the fact that sex — male or female — is innate and established at birth by the biology of chromosomes, hormonal composition and internal and external anatomy. In their exhaustive analysis, they note that gender is a result of social construct and that in recent years a “new taxonomy of gender” has been established through an outbreak of new terms and definitions that have diminished a common set of criteria to be used to objectively define gender. And that’s because gender is no longer objective, according to the new breed of social “scientists,” it’s based on feeling.

In dramatic contrast to Dastagir’s preferred one-page editorial, Drs. Mayer and McHugh include studies using Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) and functional MRI in a control groups of males and females to those making the transition from one sex to another via transgender surgeries and therapies. While small in scope, these studies show that the structure and function of one’s brain, regardless of self-identified gender and transitional therapy, most closely matched the control groups of the matching biological sex at birth.

The conclusions of the three-part scientific review, listing 373 citations in its bibliography, acknowledge the clear science of biological sex (male or female) and reference the lack of explanation “for what causes some individuals to state that their gender does not match their biological sex.” But the authors declare that “despite the scientific uncertainty, drastic interventions are prescribed and delivered to patients identifying, or identified, as transgender” and they “strongly urge caution” due to the growing Frankenstein approach to identity in children.

Our society is not killing children by teaching them to function within the roles of their birth sex. On the other hand, what is almost never reported or explained in depth is that the experimental and politically motivated approach to identity is causing an increased incidence of mental illness in these cohorts with corresponding increases in suicide rates.

Those posing as journalists are feeding information to the public in the name of science that is only subjective in nature to serve as the basis of re-engineering our society at its core — our makeup as men and women. They must be exposed just as the frail and freakish data delivered as irrefutable science.

The danger of our day lies with those whose truth is nothing but the rot of lies.