Do you want a dead daughter or a living son?
That’s the conversation-ending, terror-inducing question levied at so many parents of children struggling with their sex. It stems from a long-running talking point from advocates of so-called “gender affirming” care: children and teens suffering from gender dysphoria must be put on a path of social “transition,” puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and even experimental surgeries—or their suicide risk skyrockets.
Yet, it’s becoming clearer and clearer that this talking point is, in fact, a lie. It was even exposed during oral argument in United States of America v. Skrmetti. In the case, the U.S. Supreme Court is weighing Tennessee’s ability to protect children from dangerous “gender transition” procedures.
While questioning Chase Strangio, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) who was arguing against Tennessee’s law, Justice Samuel Alito cited a prominent recent review from the U.K. which revealed that “there is no evidence” that such procedures really do reduce suicide. (More on this below.)
As journalist and Manhattan Institute Fellow Leo Sapir documents for City Journal, what followed was a clear admission from Strangio: “What I think that is referring to is there is no evidence 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.”
“Strangio admits, under oath, that suicide is actually ‘rare,’” Sapir writes. “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 argument was a startling admission before the highest court in the land. Let’s dive into at least three problems with the claim that “gender transition” drugs and procedures decrease suicide risk for gender-dysphoric children and youth.
Suicide shouldn’t be a slogan
First, claims of suicide should never be wielded to shut down important debate on how to best care for suffering youth.
In May 2023, Alliance Defending Freedom and the state of Alabama filed an expert report written by Dr. James Cantor in Boe v. Marshall, a case in which the state is defending its law protecting children from experimental gender-transition efforts. Among the many things highlighted in Dr. Cantor’s report was that the dawn of social media had correlated with a sharp climb in suicide among youth. Throwing gas onto the fire isn’t just unhelpful—it’s unethical.
Moreover, as an independent report by Louis Appleby, a professor at the University of Manchester, contends: “The way that this issue has been discussed on social media has been insensitive, distressing and dangerous, and goes against guidance on safe reporting of suicide. One risk is that young people and their families will be terrified by predictions of suicide as inevitable without puberty blockers—some of the responses on social media show this.”
Is there any way for families to respond to claims of increased suicide risk other than terror?
And, as Appleby writes, for struggling kids to hear that others facing the same problems are committing suicide may lead them “to imitative suicide or self-harm, to which young people are particularly susceptible.”
“Suicide should not be a slogan or a means to winning an argument,” Appleby writes. To so many families, “[suicide] is devastating and all too real.”
‘Gender transition’ procedures don’t decrease suicide risk
Second, multiple studies have shown that “gender transition” procedures do not decrease suicide risk.
For instance, a Finnish study published in the journal BMJ Mental Health found that “[c]linical gender dysphoria does not appear to be predictive of all-cause nor suicide mortality when psychiatric treatment history is accounted for.” The study’s authors revealed that the “all-cause mortality rate” among patients struggling with gender dysphoria “was much lower than that reported in earlier studies among adults diagnosed with [gender dysphoria].”
Those struggling with gender dysphoria need help identifying the root causes of their distress—not harmful procedures.
In fact, Dr. Cantor writes in his report:
“It is repeatedly asserted that despite the known risks, despite the lack of research into the reality or severity of unquantified risks, it is essential and ‘the only ethical response’ to provide medical transition to minors because medical transition is known to reduce the likelihood of suicide among minors who suffer from gender dysphoria. This is simply untrue. No studies have documented any reduction in suicide rates in minors (or any population) as a result of medical transition. No methodologically sound studies have provided meaningful evidence that medical transition reduces suicidality in minors. Instead, multiple studies show tragically high rates of suicide after medical transition, with that rate beginning to spike several years after medical transition.” (bold added for emphasis)
Thus, according to Dr. Cantor, gender transition drugs and procedures not only fail to decrease the risk of suicide—they may actually increase it.
‘Gender transition’ procedures are ‘built on shaky foundations’
What’s more, research on the entire issue of gender transition procedures is “remarkably weak,” according to a landmark 2024 review by Dr. Hilary Cass (briefly mentioned above). Dr. Cass is the former president of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health in England. In her words, the practice of ‘transitioning’ is “built on shaky foundations.”
The studies used to build the foundation for the suicide myth simply do not meet the scientific rigor required for such a sensitive and important issue. As Kamran Abbasi, editor in chief of the British Medical Journal, wrote, “[O]f more than 100 studies examining the role of puberty blockers and hormone treatment for gender transition only two were of passable quality.” Only two.
“Without doubt, the advocacy and clinical practice for medical treatment of gender dysphoria had moved ahead of the evidence—a recipe for harm.”
‘Bad ideas have victims’
“All ideas have consequences,” says John Stonestreet, president of the Colson Center. “Bad ideas have victims.”
The suicide lie has victims—victims like outspoken de-transitioner Prisha Mosley.
After suffering sexual abuse and while struggling with anorexia and depression, Prisha turned to social media for peace. Instead, she found adults who exploited her trauma. They insisted that her anorexia symptoms meant she was a boy and praised her when she started going by “Charlie.”
It wasn’t long before Prisha and her parents were meeting with a counselor. After less than an hour, Prisha says, “[The counselor] looked me in my eyes and she said, ‘You are a boy.’” How could this be, they thought? This was the daughter they brought home from the hospital—the little girl they had loved and raised.
Do you want a dead daughter or a living son, they were asked.
The medical industry pushed Prisha and her parents toward harmful and misguided procedures—experimental hormones and even a double mastectomy.
“I believed what [the healthcare providers] said and I thought they were treating me properly,” Prisha has written. “Years later, I realized that I had been lied to and misled in the worst possible way.”
“[So-called ‘gender-affirming care’] was not the answer,” Prisha says. “Their ‘care’ … left me broken, with extreme physical injuries and without my body parts.”
Bad ideas have victims. Lies have victims. Stories like Prisha’s are preventable tragedies. They are stories of betrayal. But Prisha and other victims are speaking out and, God willing, the lies will continue to be exposed.
Charles Snow
Content Director
