Pentagon rescinds new testosterone screening policy without explanation

arstechnica.com

Pentagon rescinds new testosterone screening policy without explanation

arstechnica.com

Wren@lemmy.todayM to

Wild Feed@sh.itjust.worksEnglish · 12 days ago

The Pentagon says the guidance is being updated after being online for one day.

Following Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s startling announcement in July that the US military would begin mandatory testosterone screening for personnel, the Pentagon released a clinical guidance document on September 2 outlining the new medically questionable policy.

The next day, though, the clinical guidance document disappeared, as did an accompanying statement by spokesperson Sean Parnell. The withdrawal was first reported by Reuters.

Chat

SteveBanned
link
fedilink
arrow-up
9
arrow-down
2·
12 days ago
Removed by mod
- RizzRustbolt@lemmy.world
  link
  fedilink
  arrow-up
  1·
  12 days ago
  Not cool.

Wild Feed@sh.itjust.works

wildfeed@sh.itjust.works

Create a post

You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !wildfeed@sh.itjust.works

A catch-all world journalism community for news, reports, blogs, editorials, and whatever.

Be cool to each other. Instance rules apply.
All posts should link to a *current, *good quality blog, article, editorial, listicle, research paper, or something that can be considered “journalism.”
Post title should be the article headline.
No misinformation or bigotry.
For paywalled media, please provide an archived link in the text body of the post.
Commenters who don’t read the posted article may receive temporary bans. This is a community for informed discussion.
This instance has no rules against calls to violence, please don’t report general wishes for violence. I will moderate direct implications of violence (i.e. I will shoot x person in the head) at my discretion.

Tag if needed:

[NSFW] and [Content Warning - x] — At your discretion.

[D/M/Y] — If the publication is older than a month. You can just tag the year if the article is more than a year old.

[Month and/or year] — For old but relevant articles. Use your best judgement.

[Conspiracy Tuesday] — Conspiracy theories/occult themes/cryptids/pseudoscience. On Tuesdays.

[E-mail required] — If an e-mail is needed to sign in.

[Archive link in post] — For paywalls and account sign-ins, link the main article in the URL, paste the archive link in the text body.

*Current means the article contains the most up to date publically available information on the subject, within reason. Older publications are welcome as long as they include a date tag.

*Good quality means the source has a good reputation for accurate journalism with a reasonably clean fact checking record.

Check out !Independent_Media@lemmy.today for independent news from around the world or !indy_news_canada@sh.itjust.works for Canadian independent publications.

All communities were created with the goal of increasing media literacy and media pluralism.

Sources posted here include:

https://americanlibrariesmagazine.org/

https://www.apa.org/

apnews.com/

https://arstechnica.com/

https://www.theatlantic.com/

https://www.bbc.com/

https://www.earth.com/

https://www.theguardian.com/international

https://www.lawfaremedia.org/

https://lithub.com/