#affirm or suicide

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: Mary Harrington

Published: Feb 19, 2024

A new study challenges the common assertion that gender-dysphoric youth are at elevated risk of suicide if not treated with “gender affirming” medical interventions. If it’s true, it ought to have a seismic impact on the accepted medical approach to gender-confused youth.

Reported in the BMJ, the study examines data on a Finnish cohort of gender-referred adolescents between 1996 and 2019, and compares their rates of all-cause and suicide mortality against a control group. While suicide rates in the gender-referred group studied were higher than in the control group, the difference was not large: 0.3% versus 0.1%. And — importantly — this difference disappeared when the two groups were controlled for mental health issues severe enough to require specialist psychiatric help.

In other words: while transgender identity does seem to be associated with elevated suicide risk, the link is not very strong. What’s more, the causality may not work the way activists claim.

The association between gender dysphoria and mental illness is well-documented by both providers of “gender-affirming care” and trans advocacy groups and clinical psychology research. But one less well-evidenced claim, based on this association, is that these difficulties are caused not by being transgender, but by the political and social stigma associated with it. Gender dysphoria, we are to understand, is not in itself a mental health issue. What causes mental health issues in transgender youth — up to and including suicide — is the wider world’s rejection of their identity, and of the metaphysical frame of “gender identity” as such.

This is the root of the oft-repeated social media assertion that anyone who demurs about trans identity, however mildly, is complicit in “trans genocide”. The same assertion that invalidating trans youth makes them kill themselves is also behind the rhetorical question routinely used to browbeat parents into consenting to social and medical transition for their gender-confused offspring: “Would you rather have a live daughter or a dead son?”

It’s behind the prohibition on “trans conversion therapy” already in force in several countries, and promised by the Labour Party in England too. Such measures forbid therapists from exploring with their clients whether there is any link between their gender dysphoria and — for example — life trauma or other mental health issues. For logically, if the cause of distress and suicidality in trans people is not being accepted for who they are, any therapist who seeks to explore links between gender dysphoria and other biographic or psychiatric issues is complicit in just this kind of non-acceptance, and is thus not helping but harming their client.

But as the study puts it: “Clinical gender dysphoria does not appear to be predictive of all-cause nor suicide mortality when psychiatric treatment history is accounted for.” Rather, what predicts risk in this population is “psychiatric morbidity”. And contra the activists, transitioning does nothing to reduce it: “medical gender reassignment does not have an impact on suicide risk.”

Every suicide is a tragedy, and leaves grieving loved ones behind. No one wants to be complicit in pushing a young person down that path. So the suggestion that questioning someone’s gender beliefs may have this effect serves as a powerful emotional cudgel. But if the Finnish study is correct, this whole rhetorical, legislative, and medical edifice may be built on sand. If the elevated risk of suicidality in trans youth disappears when you control for other psychiatric difficulties, this suggests strongly that trans youth are not more at risk due to transphobia or invalidation, but due to the well-documented fact that gender dysphoria tends to occur in people who are disturbed and unhappy more generally.

It ought to follow from this that the way to manage suicide risk in trans-identified young people is not to affirm their gender identity and whisk them off for medical interventions, but to watch for and treat psychiatric comorbidities. Ultimately, though, the claims of gender ideology are less scientific than metaphysical. So don’t expect scientific evidence that contradicts its prescriptions to have much impact on trans advocates. Even if “following the science” would make a real difference to suicide risk in gender-dysphoric youth.

==

History will view "gender affirming care" advocates the same way we view lobotomy advocates.

[rabbits-of-negative-euphoria]

I just want all the parents who refuse to use their gender-confused kid's new name & preferred pronouns to know.......you're my heroes, you're doing the right thing, your child will thank you later, and I will gladly defend you against an angry mob any day

[shamebats]

I love & support trans ppl who choose not to go on HRT or get any other kind of gender affirming medical care, I really do, but we should never stop stressing that it is indeed life-saving medicine. For many of us it's literally the difference between a life worth living and one that is not & it's crucial that the cis public, the trans community as a whole & the medical establishment are all painfully aware of that.

If you don't need or want gender affirming medical care or you only want it for aesthetic reasons, that's perfectly wonderful, but please keep in mind that when people (wrongly) assume that is true for all of us, including those who genuinely would not be willing or able to live without it, people die.

If gender affirming care gets banned or made inaccessible, you'll be fine, but we will always rely on advocacy & solidarity from others, which begins at calling gender affirming care what it is, life-saving medicine, even if that's not what it is to you personally.

— Signed, a trans person who is on HRT mainly for mental health reasons & would likely not survive being forced to go off it.

[coldasyou]

[myflowerdeer666]

[repsgirlfriend]

Daily affirmations:

- look like a heavily sedated fawn

- be perceived as an angelic form of light

- smell like fresh rain on flowers

- rest for eternity in a forest and have plants grow over my body

- lose my mind

- join a cult that worships deers

- explore the galaxies on a huge sparkly cat

[madeinheaven2008]

[snow-angel-777]

[sepiamestus]

Noooo dont kill yourself youre sosexy haha (standing in front of a mirror)

[sydicidal]

New month, new beginnings, new blessings | love letter to September

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: Leor Sapir

Published: Dec 5, 2024

An astonishing moment took place yesterday at the Supreme Court during oral arguments in U.S. v. Skrmetti, the case that challenges Tennessee’s ban on pediatric sex “change” procedures. Chase Strangio, the American Civil Liberties Union’s attorney, admitted to Justice Samuel Alito that the narrative around the risk of suicide in transgender-identified youth is false.

Before Alito and Strangio’s exchange, Justice Sonia Sotomayor had asked U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar about minors with gender dysphoria who “attempt suicide.” Prelogar responded that the “rates of suicide”—not “attempts,” but actual death by suicide—in that population “are striking.” Given the government’s support for puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones as treatments for gender dysphoric youth, the clear implication of Prelogar’s remarks was that such interventions are known to prevent these tragic and, in her view, common events.

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Some—some children suffer incredibly with gender dysphoria, don’t they? GENERAL PRELOGAR: Yes. It’s a very serious medical condition. JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: I think some attempt suicide? GENERAL PRELOGAR: Yes. The rates of suicide are—are striking—

This claim—that rates of suicide among gender-dysphoric young people are high—constitutes the trans suicide myth.

When it was Strangio’s turn, Justice Alito asked, “Do you maintain that the procedures and medications in question reduce the risk of suicide?” The transgender-identifying attorney responded:

MR. STRANGIO: I do, Justice Alito, maintain that the medications in question reduce the risk of depression, anxiety, and suicidality, which are all indicators of potential suicide.

Note that Alito asked about suicide, and Strangio answered about suicidality—the latter of which refers to thoughts of or intent to attempt suicide. Though suicide would be preceded by suicidality, research does not show that suicidality is a reliable predictor of suicide. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in 2022, for every one person who committed suicide, 270 people “seriously thought about suicide” and 33 attempted it.

Strangio’s pivot to suicidality is a standard tactic of gender medicine activists in public debates. They exploit public ignorance about the difference between suicidality—thinking about suicide, attempting suicide, using gestures of self-harm as a cry for help or as a form of emotional manipulation—and actual death by suicide.

Unfortunately for Strangio, Justice Alito had done his homework. Citing the U.K.’s Cass Review, Alito observed that “there is no evidence that gender-affirmative treatments reduce suicide.”

Then came Strangio’s remarkable concession:

MR. STRANGIO: What I think that is referring to is there is no evidence in some—in the studies that this treatment reduces completed suicide. And the reason for that is completed suicide, thankfully and admittedly, is rare and we’re talking about a very small population of individuals with studies that don’t necessarily have completed suicides within them. However, there are multiple studies, long-term longitudinal studies that do show that there is a reduction in—in suicidality . . .

Here, the ACLU’s star attorney on trans issues seems to be at odds with Solicitor General Prelogar, who had said that the “rates” of “suicide” among gender-dysphoric youth were “striking.” Strangio admits, under oath, that suicide is actually “rare,” and that the research purporting to demonstrate benefits from hormones concerns suicidality, not suicide. Strangio’s use of “admittedly” is also striking, as it suggests the attorney is aware that claims about suicide prevention through sex “change” are false.

Strangio’s claim that the evidence shows these treatments reduce suicidality is also false. Some studies claim to find that, but existing systematic reviews of evidence have concluded that these claims are not credible due to methodological problems in the research. The Cass Review explicitly cites “major methodological problems” as a reason to be skeptical of studies claiming that “gender-affirming care” reduces “suicidality.” I suspect that Strangio knows this, as well.

None of this means that we shouldn’t take suicidal attempts or ideation seriously. Of course we should. But to equate these behaviors with completed suicide and to use that equivalence as a justification for harmful and experimental treatments on vulnerable adolescents is extremely irresponsible.

It’s hard to exaggerate the importance of Strangio’s concessions yesterday. Transgender activists and their media allies, gender clinicians, and Democrats have consistently and emphatically told the public that suicide is a serious risk for transgender-identified youth and that “gender-affirming care” is necessary to mitigate that risk.

Strangio’s ACLU itself has said this on many occasions, as I previously reported. The ACLU of Wisconsin, for instance, issued a press release in 2023, stating: “Research shows it [denying youth access to ‘gender-affirming care’] contributes to… suicide. On the contrary, transgender youth whose families support their gender identity have a 52% decrease in suicidal thoughts [and] a 48% decrease in suicide attempts.” The following year, the ACLU of South Carolina quoted a physician who said, “Gender-affirming care is life-saving suicide prevention care.”

More egregiously, clinicians have used the suicide threat to cajole parents into agreeing to irreversible medical interventions that can potentially leave their kids sterile, sexually dysfunctional, disfigured, and with lifelong impacts on bone and cardiovascular health. “Would you rather have a dead daughter or a live transgender son?” they ask the parents, sometimes in front of the child.

Crucially, the risk these activists invoke is suicide, not suicidality. Parents are asked to weigh the amputation of their daughters’ breasts or the sterilization of their sons against losing their kids to suicide—any parent’s worst nightmare. If the risk in question were suicidality, that would likely change their calculus.

Consider, as a representative example of activists’ claims, these remarks by Diane Ehrensaft, a San Francisco-based psychologist and pioneer of the “gender-affirming” approach in the United States, in her 2016 book, The Gender Creative Child:

Time and again I watch youth weigh keeping their fertility options open against postponing obtaining their true gender identity, and time and again I watch the decision to affirm their gender and forgo fertility win out. Can a thirteen-year-old truly know that? Yes, I think so, in the same way that a thirteen-year-old is capable of making a choice that will save their life even if it means losing a limb or living with one kidney. We could say, “Well, yes, but that’s a matter of life and death.” So is this for many gender creative youth—to affirm their gender or face crushing despair.

The existing research on the link between gender-related distress and suicide undermines this claim. It includes four findings: first, individuals who identify as transgender or experience distress associated with their sex are at higher risk of suicide than age-matched controls. Second, however, that risk, though elevated, is quite low, as Strangio now concedes. (For example, the suicide rate among youths referred to the U.K.’s Gender Identity Development Service between 2010 and 2020 was 0.03 percent.) Third, the elevated risk is best explained by psychiatric comorbidities, which are extremely common in this population and hypothesized to contribute to transgender identification in youth. Fourth, adults who undergo full “gender reassignment” remain at elevated risk for suicide relative to matched controls even years after their procedures.

Suicide, in other words, is a complex problem that requires nuance and understanding. Suicide-prevention experts have long argued that talking about suicide in the way that Strangio and the ACLU have done is irresponsible: suicide is a socially contagious behavior, and telling youth in distress that it is the expected response to their problems can encourage the very behavior these activists purportedly want to prevent.

In 2017, major LGBT rights organizations partnered with suicide prevention experts and groups to produce a guideline for how to discuss suicide in this population. Among their recommendations:

DON’T attribute a suicide death to a single factor (such as bullying or discrimination) or say that a specific anti-LGBT law or policy will “cause” suicide. Suicide deaths are almost always the result of multiple overlapping causes, including mental health issues that might not have been recognized or treated. Linking suicide directly to external factors like bullying, discrimination or anti-LGBT laws can normalize suicide by suggesting that it is a natural reaction to such experiences or laws. It can also increase suicide risk by leading at-risk individuals to identify with the experiences of those who have died by suicide.

I have since come to learn—through a source close to the movement with contacts at the ACLU—that suicide researchers supportive of LGBT rights are deeply concerned with how transgender activists like Strangio have bullied advocacy group leaders and manipulated the suicide issue to serve their own personal agendas. Strangio and other transgender activists are continuously undermining public trust in the ability of these groups to generate or endorse credible suicide prevention guidelines.

But the narrative is too politically useful for many of these activists to abandon. Shorn of any ability to persuade the public of their incoherent ideas about sex and gender, and unconcerned that their practices violate centuries of accumulated knowledge about healthy child development, transgender activists need the suicide narrative to be true—or at least believable.  How else can they get parents to submit their kids to the cult of the scalpel and syringe?

[lepraddd]

888 i attract love 888

[xiaq]

It is absolutely wild to me how Republican news outlets and politicians try to sensationalize things that don't even exist. Yet these fabricated issues are having serious disastrous effects on real-life people's health and safety. B was just talking to one of his old "friends" and he was trying to convince us to donate to the campaign of a governor whose platform rests primarily on anti-trans legislation. And B was like...no?? Are you aware of his platform? And this guy says, with absolute confidence, that this governor's platform is about protecting kids. Because it's ok if an adult wants to mutilate their body, but we shouldn't be allowing doctors to surgically change children's bodies. Which is why gender-affirming care should be illegal.

The mental gymnastics. Except he genuinely thought that "gender-affirming care" was synonymous with "surgical intervention." Gender-affirming care for a 10-year-old is therapy and support and letting them wear the clothes and use the pronouns/name they want. Gender-affirming care for a teenager might also include blockers and/or hormone therapy (or not! I've only known one person who started hormones before they turned 18, and I specifically worked with queer kids when I was a professor/teacher). For some people, gender-affirming care is solely external and doesn't involve physical intervention at all. And it is so, extremely, rare for someone to receive surgery as part of gender-affirming care when they are a minor. Yet this is what so many people seem to think gender-affirming care means. Surgery.

This is not an accident. This is targeted and malicious. This is misdirection by people who know better trying to sway the opinions of people who don't. Listen. I don't know what my point is, here. I just needed to vent. I guess it just goes to show that, now more than ever, if you're going to get into a debate with someone, make sure you understand what they mean when they use certain terminology or you're certain to get nowhere. Because this man was so confident he knew what he was talking about until we did a quick vocabulary backtrack. And when confronted with the fact that maybe he hadn't, actually, been fed the truth, he suddenly had a lot less to say. Ugh.

[suckit47]

might be a little bit late but my soul was waning and yearning and i had to lock it back up like the rest of you.

made by me🪽

[plural-affirmations]

Here's to those who have had self-inflicted trauma.

Many, many traumatized individuals end up feeling like they are partly or completely to blame for their trauma. Regardless of reason, you are not responsible. Even if it was something you did to yourself or others, I firmly believe you were a victim of circumstance; genetic factors, predisposition, lack of knowing it was dangerous, adult influence, etc... there were things out of your control. So, today? We're here to appreciate you.

Shoutout to those who:

Went through SA, CSA, COCSA, and/or NCCSA

Were forced to do traumatizing acts to another child/person

Had/have an eating disorder

Had/have an addiction, even the "mild" or "uncommon" ones

Experienced self-harm or suicide attempts

Otherwise had a near-death experience

Were hospitalized for their mental health

And anyone else who just feels like it's their fault. Because I promise, it isn't.

It's going to be ok. I know how hard things can get. I've had my own run-ins with crises before, but... the important thing is that you're here. You have so, so much value and brightness inside you. I don't want you to think you have to take drastic measures to feel better. Because, you didn't get to write the beginning of your story... but you can definitely write the rest. And I'm excited to see how it turns out.

Please stick around, ok?

🖤💜💙💚💛

[stephobrien]

For a long time now, transgender people, allies, and medical and psychiatric professionals have been warning that attacks on gender-affirming care, privacy, and bodily autonomy harm kids.

Now, those warnings have been horrifyingly validated.

Researchers have found that states that passed anti-trans laws saw suicide attempt rates rise by up to 72% among transgender and nonbinary youth aged 13 to 17, and by 44% among those aged 13 to 24.

This study surveyed over 61,000 transgender and nonbinary people, and controlled for factors such as state by state differences, race, age, and the impact of COVID-19.

You can read the full article here:

It's been said many times, and now there's yet another piece of proof:

Transphobia is not about protecting kids.

Transphobes like terfs pretend they're trying to save children from some sort of evil "gender ideology," but - as usual - science proves that their bigotry only hurts the people they're pretending to protect.

And yet, right-wing politicians keep doubling down on their anti-trans attacks.

They've been warned again and again that their hate-based legislation hurts kids. They don't get to claim ignorance as an excuse.

They're knowingly choosing to endanger children's lives for the sake of their own bigotry and careers.

Remember this when casting your votes.