Today is day two of my series of posts on new studies. Last time, we looked at a new study that found that support for gender ideologies was associated with support for political violence against dissenters. Today’s study found that there is no evidence for the widespread and alarmist claim that state prohibitions on surgeries, puberty blockers, or cross-sex hormones for gender-dysphoric minors increase suicide rates.

The article is from Do No Harm.

Today, Do No Harm released a study finding no evidence for the widespread and alarmist claim that state prohibitions on surgeries, puberty blockers, or cross-sex hormones for gender-dysphoric minors increase suicide rates.

[…]Employing three distinct analytical models, Do No Harm found no evidence to support the claim.

“The alarmist claim that protecting children from sex-rejecting procedures increases suicide is false,” said Jay Greene, Director of Research at Do No Harm. “We examined the evidence in a first-of-its-kind study of how teen suicide rates were affected by states adopting policies restricting so-called gender-affirming care for children. No matter how you examine the data, the result is consistently clear: These state policies did not increase teen suicide rates. Medical practice and policy must be grounded in evidence, not emotionally manipulative talking points. That principle is all the more critical when it’s a matter of children’s health and well-being.”

[…]Do No Harm’s study also debunks the flawed research cited by activists, media, and lawmakers to justify the suicide myth and claiming that “gender-affirming care” is “lifesaving.” These studies have profound methodological limitations and depend on unreliable evidence.

I remember Jay P. Greene, because I bought a book by him: “Education Myths”. I try to buy at least two of the best books on every kind of policy. I remember that when I got to education policy, that was one of the books I chose. Anyway, this new study confirms an older study that I reported on before.

This Substack article by Benjamin Ryan talks about that prior study from 2024.

He writes:

The Finnish study’s four coauthors have published some of the strongest scholarship challenging the assertion that providing them to adolescents improves their mental health and is life-saving. All of these Finnish investigators were also coauthors of a paper published in 2024 that found that there was no independent, statistically significant association between taking cross-sex hormones and the rate of suicide deaths among youths attending gender clinics.

The 2024 study was published in a medical journal called BMJ Health. One of the four authors was actually one of the pioneers of gender transitioning treatment. She was all for it, until she got far enough into it that she realized that it wasn’t working out as expected.

Other recent studies have found that transgender treatments and surgeries actually increase the rate of suicide.

First one from Oxford Academic.  The Post Millennnial reported on it:

A study of over 107,000 patients with gender dysphoria over the age of 18 has concluded that those who undergo transgender surgeries, are at greater risk for mental health problems, including depression, suicidal ideation, anxiety, and others.

The paper, published in the Oxford Academic Journal of Sexual Medicine, stated in conclusion that bottom and top surgeries are “associated with increased risk of mental health issues.”

And second one is from the journal Cureus and is up at PubMed.

It concluded:

Gender-affirming surgery is significantly associated with elevated suicide attempt risks, underlining the necessity for comprehensive post-procedure psychiatric support.

The third one is from the journal PLOS One.

It found:

Persons with transsexualism, after sex reassignment, have considerably higher risks for mortality, suicidal behaviour, and psychiatric morbidity than the general population. Our findings suggest that sex reassignment, although alleviating gender dysphoria, may not suffice as treatment for transsexualism, and should inspire improved psychiatric and somatic care after sex reassignment for this patient group.

So, I hope that all these studies are helpful for you if you get into a situation where someone is telling you that children will commit suicide unless they get transgender treatments and / or surgeries. The research is pretty clear about this. Sometimes, doctors and hospital workers will lie about the research in order to get health insurance money. Sometimes, airheads will speak in ignorance of the data because they just want to virtue signal. But you have to stick with the evidence even if it’s hard on you. Because that’s how you protect children from predators.

I am taking a break from my break from blogging to report on several interesting studies and articles I’ve found in the last month. I have 4 interesting things to write about and I’ll try to do 1 every day this week until I run out. The first thing is a new FEDERAL GOVERNMENT research study that links support for “gender ideology” to justifying political violence. Naturally, they’re talking about people in the Democrat party here.

Here’s the story from The Washington Examiner:

New scientific research commissioned by the Department of Health and Human Services has found that individuals radicalized by gender ideology are substantially more likely to believe political violence is justified.

A report on the study’s findings, published Wednesday, concludes that ideologues who adopt core tenets of gender theory tend to hold left-wing authoritarian beliefs, a psychological profile marked by aggression toward perceived oppressors and enthusiasm for top-down censorship paired with institutional enforcement.

The study’s authors, comprised of researchers from Rutgers University, the Manhattan Institute, and the Network Contagion Research Institute, titled the report, “Where the Clinic Meets the Movement: Does Gender Ideology Arm Left-Wing Authoritarian Psychology?”

It was not a small study, either. They used a sample of 1,200 U.S. adults to gather the data for it.

Now, I did do a quick check on the standard far-left LGBT activist web sites to see what their response was. And their responses were similar to that of Floyd Lee Corkins II, the gay activist who was convicted of domestic terrorism for his violent attack on the headquarters of the Family Research Council. It just seems like the whole LGBT activist movement is not very comfortable with scientific research that shows that there is something wrong with their worldview. The main point from the LGBT activists was that the study didn’t make them feel good and that caused them to approve of political violence against the people who made them feel bad, just like the study said it does.

But the thing is, the study wasn’t just idle talk – it’s based in the actual actions of the LGBT activists.

The Washington Times reported:

The study also points to a string of real-world cases where transgender identity intersects with violence — from Kirk’s killing to a Minneapolis church shooting to a 2022 plot against a Supreme Court justice. Researchers concluded gender ideology can act as “an ideological accelerant” signaling to authoritarian-minded believers when violence is justified.

And this isn’t the last we’ll hear about this:

Adm. Brian Christine, the assistant secretary for HHS, said “the association between sex-rejecting clinical beliefs, authoritarian attitudes and the justification of political violence warrants serious scientific scrutiny” and that the agency “will continue to pursue rigorous research.”

I noticed that hospitals are taking action based on studies about what transgender treatments and surgeries actually do to children.

Here’s a story from the Daily Signal about what hospitals are doing.

It says:

Opponents of “gender transition” surgeries on minors applauded a Justice Department settlement with at least six major hospitals to stop the practice.

The Department of Justice has announced settlements with six hospitals, The New York Times reported, to stop doing the surgeries and hormone treatments for minors.

“The Department of Justice has done incredible work in driving healthcare providers to end experimental transgender treatments on minors,” Dr. Kurt Miceli, chief medical officer of Do No Harm, said in a statement Wednesday. “Nearly two dozen systematic reviews have found no credible evidence supporting these interventions. Meanwhile, the known or expected harms are significant, including infertility, cardiovascular disease, and surgical complications, among others.”

Texas Children’s Hospital, Cleveland Clinic, Connecticut Children’s Medical Center, Mount Sinai Health System, the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center Children’s Hospital, and most recently, New York University Langone Hospital reached separate agreements with the DOJ, the Times reported.

Here’s a recent article from Daily Signal, written by the famous Tyler O’Neil. You might remember that he was a guest on The Knight and Rose Show.

He describes how gay activists were very upset with these hospital actions, but he reported that the Department of Health and Human Services refused to cave in to them:

“Protecting children from irreversible sex-rejecting procedures is not discrimination, and HHS will not allow unfounded claims linking these protections to violence to distract from the serious medical risks facing vulnerable children,” an HHS spokesperson told the Daily Signal in a statement Friday.

The statement marks the administration’s latest defense of efforts to halt transgender medical interventions for minors as major hospital systems across the country are reaching settlements with the Trump administration.

The HHS is just following the research:

Yet HHS released a peer-reviewed review last year finding “extremely weak evidence” for any benefits from “gender-affirming care” for young people.

Last month, HHS released “Wolves in White Coats,” a report focused on how medical professionals used false medical billing codes to prescribe so-called puberty blockers for minors.

HHS and other administration officials have challenged activist claims that restricting transgender medical interventions increases suicide, violence, or other harms. The administration has argued that the evidence supporting “puberty blockers,” cross-sex hormones, and surgeries for minors is weak and that the procedures carry significant risks.

The HHS spokesperson cited the “Wolves in White Coats” report, stating that “these procedures carry significant risks to children’s physical and mental health, including lifelong consequences.”

I cannot remember when the federal government was doing such a good job of protecting children from LGBT activists. Can you?

Upcoming mid-term elections

I do have a libertarian friend named Libby who likes to talk a lot about how both parties are the same. When I ask him anything about stories like this, he always says the exact same things: 1) That is such a good action by the government, and 2) I wonder why I had never heard of it. And I know why he’s never heard of it. His entire source of news are these little cartoons called “memes” that he shares with his libertarian friends.

For example, Libby shares memes criticizing the US armed forces fighting Iranian Muslims and rescuing Venezuela from communism. I ask him if he supports Islam and communism, and he said “of course not”. Then I ask him why we shouldn’t use our armed forces to fight them and he said “because we could use memes to fight them instead, hee hee hee”. I asked him when he’s going to stop driving his car, which runs on gasoline, and he said “gasoline comes from gas stations, we don’t need to deal with Iran or Venezuela for that”.

And for all his complaining about government, he doesn’t know anything about elections. In fact, I had to tell him when his state primaries were and which candidates to vote for. He had no idea who the candidates were or that an election was even going on.

Well, we do have mid-term elections coming up, so if you don’t like the idea of transgender surgeries on children or the idea of domestic terrorism committed by LGBT activists then you should probably vote Republican so we can get more research and action like we’ve been getting. It’s certainly a big change from the Biden administration that supported transgender surgeries on children and soft-pedaling violent crimes committed by the political left.

And if you want to stay informed about the news, I read The Federalist and Daily Signal every day. Don’t be a Libby.

In this post, I wanted to show a couple of videos to illustrate this point: when Christian men or socially conservative men teach women to be 1) entitled and 2) immune to accountability, they are causing the decline of dating and marriage. So, I’ll start by explaining what men want from marriage and what they don’t want from marriage. Then we’ll see the videos, then I’ll make the general point.

Problem Statement

So, I think what most men want from marriage is a helper. The Bible says that men are designed to be the heads of their homes and women are supposed to help them with their plans. And Christian men are expected to have a Christian plan that serves God, so his marriage plan should be oriented towards making a marriage that serves God, first and foremost.

My plan for marriage was 5 things:

1. 3-4 homeschooled kids who would go on to become influential Christians, preferably in the mold of Dr. Walter Bradley.
2. Teach evidential apologetics in the church, maybe with guest speakers or conferences.
3. Open the home to small group apologetics ministry, including to neighbors and co-workers.
4. Some kind of apologetics ministry, like a blog, podcast or online book study group.
5. Some kind of political involvement to improve the liberty, prosperity and security and that marriage depends on.

And here are some examples of threats to this plan:

1. Divorce initiated by wife, with alimony, child support, loss of custody, loss of visitation.
2. False accusations at work that would cause loss of employment.
3. Crime or violence from criminals or criminal illegal immigrants.
4. Indoctrination of kids by public schools and / or university leftists.
5. Socialism making the marriage and parenting plan unaffordable.

So, when interviewing women for that plan, I would be looking for demonstrated ability in areas like evidential apologetics, basic economics, evidence-based positions on moral issues like natural marriage and pro-life, advocacy for conservative policies, STEM degree, private sector work experience, no debt, chastity, sobriety and so on.

Research Findings

Let’s focus on that divorce risk for a moment. You can actually look at social science research and see what behaviors are more likely to cause divorce.

So, here are two examples of independent risk factors to divorce:

1. outstanding debt from loans and wastful spending
2. multiple recreational premarital sex partners

And here are some articles about studies for the first one:

• 1 in 8 divorces is caused by student loans (CNBC)
• Fidelity® Research Reveals Many Borrowers Delaying Major Life Milestones Due to Student Loan Debt (Fidelity)

And the studies for the second one:

• Teachman (2003) – “Premarital Sex, Premarital Cohabitation, and the Risk of Subsequent Marital Dissolution Among Women” (Journal of Marriage and Family).
• Smith & Wolfinger (2024) – “Re-Examining the Link Between Premarital Sex and Divorce” (Journal of Family Issues; PMC available).

That’s how I (a software engineer) make decisions. I think about what the Bible says I should be doing, I make a plan, I identify threats, and then I execute the plan. Divorce is bad for marital stability so I am rejecting candidates with a higher risk of divorce. Not only is student loan debt an independent risk factor for divorce, but even if there is no divorce, there are other bad effects related to my plan, such as delays in purchasing a home and delaying the production of children.

Data

So, with all that said, take a look at this video from well-known simp Dave Ramsey.

So what to make of this? Well, this is a case where a man has set a condition of marriage to him that she pay off her own loans. Is this a good rule? Yes, as we saw from the research, a woman with outstanding debts prior to the marriage raises the risk of divorce. But what does Dave Ramsey say? He says to the woman “You’re a princess!” and that her boyfriend has NO RIGHT to set conditions on her high-risk behavior in order to marry him. Dave Ramsey doesn’t know or care how debt affects marital stability.

Now let’s see the second video, featuring another well-known simp, Mark Regnerus.

So, what to make of this? Well, this is a case where a Christian virgin has decided to reject a woman for marriage because she has demonstrated her view that sex is something to have with men who are attractive but who do not first commit to her. And Mark and Lila Rose respond to this by saying nothing about the research, nothing about divorce-avoidance, but instead they say – without any evidence! – that he is probably rejecting her because he looks at porn. So, instead of praising the man for setting boundaries that are likely to give him a stable marriage, which is better for serving God, they condemn him for not serving their real God – which is the non-virgin woman’s own sense of entitlement and lack of accountability.

Analysis

Both videos show men being cowardly and weak in the vain hope that women will like them. The first video about the student loans shows that women have a sense of entitlement. They think marriage should not impose any duties on them. And Dave Ramsey, simp extraordinaire, responds to this entitled attitude by affirming it: “You’re a Princess!”. And the second video shows the lack of accountability. The woman chose a man on the basis of his attractiveness, and gave him premarital sex. It’s not commitment ability that gets sex from her – it’s attractiveness. She wanted validation from a man who had what she valued most: good looks. The virgin man looked at that and said “I have made decisions in my life to demonstrate my ability to commit and be loyal, but you are not attracted to that (in your actions), so I’ll find someone who is”. And Mark Regnerus and Lila Rose blame and shame the man for putting a stable marriage – which is better for God’s purposes in the world – above the woman’s desire to avoid accountability.

It’s important to note that neither of these “Christian” men care what the Bible says about best practices for marriage. Their real religion is female entitlement and female lack of accountability. And when their real religion conflicts with the Bible, the Bible loses.

Conclusion

There are morally good Christian men out there with multiple STEM degrees, 6-figure incomes, 7-figure net worths, and evidence-backed Christian worldviews in action. But the young women who are being manufactured by the simp pipeline of weak Christian leaders, weak Christian pastors, and weak social conservatives are not helpful for our plans. And that’s why dating, marriage and child-rearing are in decline. Good men simply decline to enter into a bad deal.