Proponents of the trans agenda could be poised to lose big in the Supreme Court case U.S. v. Skrmetti. At the center of the proceedings is the debate over states passing laws restricting the use of “gender-affirming care” on minors.
The plaintiffs are challenging a Tennessee law banning puberty blockers, hormone therapy, and surgeries being used on children suffering from gender dysphoria.
During the proceedings, there was a very telling exchange that revealed significant discrepancies in the narrative surrounding suicide risks among trans-identified youth and the efficacy of “gender-affirming care” treatments.
Related: Supreme Court Hears Oral Arguments on Trans 'Treatments' for Kids, and Things Get Absolutely Wild
Those pushing the agenda for trans children have predicated their arguments on the notion that children who do not receive these treatments, which can cause irreparable harm, will commit suicide. It is a tactic many medical professionals have used to scare parents into agreeing to subject their kids to these treatments.
Yet, one of the attorneys arguing against bans on “gender-affirming care” was forced to admit that this particular narrative was false. It occurred when Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked the U.S. Solicitor General about the risks of suicide among children experiencing gender dysphoria. “The rates of suicide are—are striking,” she said.
Attorney Chase Strangio concurred, claiming children experiencing gender dysphoria are at a higher rate of “suicidality,” which refers to thoughts of suicide but not necessarily ending one’s life.
Justice Samuel Alito pressed Strangio on the issue, asking if he maintains “that the procedures and medications in question reduce the risk of suicide.”
Strangio replied: “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 Strangio said “gender-affirming care” potentially reduces “depression, anxiety, and suicidality,” but not actual suicides. There is a reason for that.
Alito pointed out this distinction, citing a report from Dr. Hilary Cass for the United Kingdom, which stated: “There is no evidence that gender-affirmative treatments reduce suicide.”
Strangio acknowledged that this is the case.
“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.”
It is also worth noting that it has not been definitively established that “gender-affirming care” actually reduces suicidality as well, according to The Manhattan Institute’s Leor Sapir, who wrote a piece in City Journal about the issue.
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.
What is particularly galling about this exchange is that those pushing “gender-affirming care” on minors don’t just use the risk of suicide to persuade the public to support it; they also use it to manipulate unknowing parents into subjecting their kids to these treatments, which can cause irreversible physical and mental health problems.
In fact, at least one study showed that puberty blockers and hormone therapy exacerbate mental health problems in children – especially after they become adults. The growing number of detransitioners – people who go through "gender-affirming care” and later regret it – shows that these treatments are not what progressives are portraying them as.
Additionally, other studies have shown that the vast majority of children dealing with gender dysphoria eventually grow out of it without medical interventions.
The lack of evidence supporting “gender-affirming care” has prompted countries like the United Kingdom to stop using it on children except in rare circumstances. It is clear that these treatments are causing far more harm than good to children.
In light of this, one must ask: Why would these people continue pushing “gender-affirming care” on minors when it clearly does not make them healthier? Why do they reject alternatives such as talk therapy and a wait-and-see approach?
Two words: Money and ideology. This issue is perfect for those seeking to blur the lines between males and females. Also, there are plenty of medical professionals willing to cash in on gender ideology. Until this changes, we will continue fighting this battle.
