The ACLU (@ACLU) and CNN (@CNN) are in direct violation of recognized, research-based protocols for how (not) to talk about suicide, especially in the LGBT population. These protocols have been endorsed not just by the CDC (@CDCgov), but by major LGBT advocacy groups. 🧵
The CDC warns against "presenting simplistic explanations for suicide" because "suicide is never the result of a single factor or event, but rather results from a complex interaction of many factors & usually involves a history of psychosocial problems."
What could be more of a "simplistic explanation" that treats suicide as "the result of a single factor or event" than "if you pass this law, trans kids will kill themselves"?
The guide makes recommendations for how to talk about suicide without inadvertently fueling suicidal behaviors.
Why is this important? Because researchers have observed suicide contagion effects when the issue is presented in an irresponsible way (e.g., pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31042568/)
The "Talking About Suicide and LGBT Populations" guide explicitly states the following:
"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.
(cont.) 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...
(cont.) 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."
In other words, the guide tracks with CDC recommendations but clarifies that saying an "anti-LGBT law" will result in suicide, or that a completed suicide is because of "anti-LGBT laws," is dangerous.
This advice accords with comments recently given to Finland's liberal newspaper of record by Dr. Riitta Kaltiala, chief psychiatrist at Tampere University pediatric gender clinic and the country's top expert in the field.
Kaltiala called the suicide narrative (popular among trans activists & opponents of state restrictions on pediatric gender medicine) "purposeful disinformation." She said the use of this narrative is "irresponsible," presumably because of concerns over suicide contagion effects.
I've been pointing this out to activists & journalists for quite some time now, but some people are more invested in the suicide narrative, which they (correctly) recognize as politically potent, than in actually understanding & trying to limit suicide in vulnerable populations.
I tagged @TransJA on this tweet, hoping that they would inform Reed and other activist-journalists on this issue. I didn't hold my breath.
This can't be said enough: Teens who identify as trans ARE at higher risk for both suicide and suicidality. But there is NO evidence that that risk is BECAUSE of "unaffirmed" gender identity OR that social/medical gender transition are the only/best way to address their distress.
Systematic reviews of evidence done in Europe and Florida examined the link between "gender affirming" hormones and suicidality. They found "very low" certainty of evidence for benefits, due to serious flaws in the studies.
Do not dismiss out of hand the higher-than-average rates of suicide/suicidality in teens who reject their bodies/sex. It's a real and serious problem, even if the "solution" offered by trans activists' is a "quick fix" that obscures actual solutions and makes things worse.
In calling out activists for putting convenient political narratives about facts and medical ethics, and ultimately above children and families, we should not resort ourselves to what the CDC calls "simplistic explanations."
Restricting gender drugs and surgeries for kids will likely not solve the deeper mental health crisis, which is ravaging Gen Z and young liberal females in particular.
There are several points one could raise with Masha Gessen's (@mashagessen) piece in the New Yorker (@NewYorker), but one that strikes me as especially important concerns social transition. 🧵
Asked about pediatric gender medicine bans, Gessen said: "Well, it is our job as journalists to question standards of care. Journalists should absolutely question standards of care. And there’s some legitimate controversy about standards of care for trans youth...
What’s completely uncontroversial is social transition... [meaning] living as the gender that the person identifies as; fully changing names, changing pronouns, et cetera."
At present, 20 states and the District of Columbia have legislative bans on so-called "conversion therapy" for minors who reject their sex in favor of an alternative "gender identity." An additional 6 states have soft bans in the form of, e.g., defunding of such therapy. 🧵
These instances of "legislatures practicing medicine" are unscientific & unethical. They instruct mental health professionals to avoid helping minors feel comfortable enough in their bodies so as not to believe they need to submit to lifelong & risky medical interventions.
The choice between "gender dysphoria" and "gender euphoria" ("trans joy") is a false one. Adolescence is a difficult period of identity development. It's completely normal for teens to have issues with their "gender" and their bodies. Welcome to puberty.
NPR's Meghna Chakrabarti (@MeghnaWBUR) just did an On Point show with Hannah Barnes (@hannahsbee) on her just-released (and must-read) book, Time to Think, on the Tavistock Clinic. Meghna also interviewed other guests, including St. Louis whistleblower Jamie Reed. 🧵
First, it was a masterclass by Meghna on how to treat this topic with due sensitivity and rigor. It's really heartening to see journalists in liberal-leaning media lean into this issue with curiosity and an open mind.
The reflections that follow should be taken in that spirit.
As Hannah points out in the book, the failure of Tavistock to provide adequate care for minors did not have one cause. Unmanageable case loads, lack of consensus over clinical approach, pressure from outside groups (e.g., Mermaids) played a role.
1/ This article follows the script of studies purporting to find evidence that hormones work: the headline says one thing, but the article (which is behind a paywall) paints a far more complicated picture.
2/ Especially disappointing is @cschrappen’s misrepresentation of research, which she uses to provide context for the parents’ stories, and cherry-picking of information.
3/ For example, Schrappen claims that hormones are known to reduce suicidality in trans-IDing youth. The study she cites? You guessed it, Tordoff et al.
We're told that "gender affirming care" is life-saving, as kids who identify as trans are at high risk of suicide if not given their desired drugs and surgeries.
Another thread about the gender industry's most politically potent assertion. 🧵
As I and others have pointed out, two fatal problems with this narrative are:
1. It conflates correlation and causation. There is more evidence that suicidal kids are ID-ing as trans--perhaps seeing gender transition as a way to solve their problems--than the other way around.
2. Suicide among trans-IDing kids is extremely rare. In the U.K. between 2010 and 2020, 0.03 percent of kids seeking medical transition committed suicide. And we don't know if it was "because of gender."
The debate over pediatric gender medicine is rarely substantive. Typically, defenders of "gender affirming care" (GAC) use appeals to authority in place of evidence-based arguments. They point out, for instance, that GAC has the support of most American medical organizations. 🧵
Jack Turban (@jack_turban) is one of the more prominent names in GAC and a repeat offender of the appeal-to-authority tactic. He routinely dismisses substantive criticisms of GAC from people who are not MDs practicing GAC on the grounds that these critics lack the requisite… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…
Turban says that GAC is evidence-based medicine. He believes the European systematic reviews, which find the certainty of evidence behind GAC to be “very low,” can be ignored because WPATH and Endo Society have done them, and presumably done them better. Turban also agrees that… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…