Author: blueridgemountain_man

Posted on

Suicide Shock and Study Correction

Originally posted Sept 5, 2021

Transgender activists often claim if the “affirmative care model” is not followed the mental health of those suffering from gender dysphoria will worsen and increase the likelihood of suicide.

Parents are shocked into action when told by health professionals that puberty blockers and cross sex hormones, and eventually “gender affirming surgery” may be the only way to prevent their children from committing suicide. Starting them on a medicalized pathway from their “sex assigned at birth” to the sex they now identify with is the most beneficial and humane course of action, parents are instructed.

[Please view this post which rebuts the “assigned at birth” fiction]

In 2019 one of the few major studies on this issue released its findings. The study analyzed health records of 2,679 Swedes diagnosed with gender dysphoria between 2005 and 2015 to determine whether hormonal or surgical treatments improved their mental health over time.  This was one of the first longitudinal studies done about the efficacy of cross-sex hormonal therapy and sex reassignment surgery. And the largest population study to date. Plus it was done in perhaps the most Trans-friendly country on the planet, Sweden.

The original study conducted by a researcher from the Karolinska Institute in Sweden and a researcher from the Yale School of Public Health was published in the American Journal of Psychiatry in 2019. (The Karolinska Institute is the same institute that awards the Nobel Prize in Medicine and in May advised its hospital to stop hormone treatments and surgery for young people under 18!) The study concluded that “Transgender individuals who undergo gender-affirming surgery are significantly less likely to seek mental health treatment for depression and anxiety disorders or attempt suicide in the years following the procedure.”

Still from the perspective of the “affirmers” the results were decidedly mixed.

We learned two things from this study.

The main finding of the study was that hormonal transition showed no signs of mental health improvement for “gender incongruent” patients. This “no improvement” finding was largely ignored by the news media and trans-activists.

Administering cross-sex hormones to gender confused folk did not improve their mental health.

But the 2019 study did show that gender affirming surgery improved the mental health of those in the study. Patients from 2005-2015 who underwent surgical procedures to assist their transition to the opposite sex showed an overall 8 percent improvement.

This was widely reported as evidence that the “affirmative care model” works!

You may think an 8% improvement for those who underwent radical irreversible surgery is not a lot to “hang one’s hat on.” But this result was widely used to denounce Gender Critical viewpoints like mine as anti-science. (read on)

Study Correction

That was then. This is now. (as of August 2020)

After criticism for the study’s flawed methodology, the American Journal of Psychiatry was forced to retract those findings. What was the flawed methodology? For starters: No control group! The researchers looked at a large group of transgender patients over a 10 year period, making it a good longitudinal study. But they failed to compare those results with a control group of transgender patients who had not undergone body altering surgery. Once that was done the rather small 8 percent improvement evaporated. 

“the results [of the reanalysis] demonstrated no advantage of surgery in relation to subsequent mood or anxiety disorder-related health care visits or prescriptions or hospitalizations following suicide attempts” - AJP correction

Surgery did not improve psychological well-being. It did not decrease suicide attempts relative to those transgender patients who went the non-surgical route. (Remember this is a study of Swedish patients in the most trans-friendly country on Earth so blaming unaccepting social factors as a cause for continued distress doesn’t work.)

Hormones & mutilating surgery did not improve outcomes for transgender patients!

Here’s a link to the correction. And here is an assessment by the Society For Evidence-Based Gender Medicine (SEGM) an international group of over 100 clinicians and researchers. Their assessment is worth your careful attention. For those of you interested in the details of the flawed methodology make sure you click on the “click here for more” link in the section labeled “Vigorous Debate Leads to Correction of Key Finding.”

***

So, after the retraction how did the media respond?

Crickets….

Journalists, like scientists can be biased too.

But sadly parents are still being pressured by pediatricians, gender clinics and Trans-activists into accepting a single medicalized pathway if they want to prevent their kids from committing suicide.

In my research this past year I’ve noticed parents and confused young people hear the following statement all the time from social media influencers and medical professionals:

“Do you want a live “son” or a dead daughter?

That will cause any parent to sit up and take notice! But that is a bald assertion with no evidence to support it. Yes, there is a much higher incidence of suicide among this population but that is because they are psychologically troubled to begin with. Social transitioning, hormones and surgery doesn’t change that reality. My recommendation to parents is get non-affirming treatment and “hold your ground.” Your children and teens are confused.

You’ll meet some of those parents in my next post. They are distraught over the advice they and their children have been given by health care providers.

Obviously, it’s hard to know whether the flaws of the above study were just human error or whether the scientists involved desired a preferred outcome. If you read the end of my last post you’ll find one of our top Psychiatrists admitting that when it comes to questions about “Sex and sexual behavior” many scientists who view humans as infinitely malleable would rather not look too hard for empirical evidence to back up their claims. Ideology drives some of them, just like the activists.

***

If you’ve just found my blog and are intrigued about this issue, and want to learn more, I highly recommend a book by Abigail Shrier.

Shrier is a graduate of Columbia College who went on to earn a bachelor of philosophy degree from the University of Oxford and a JD from Yale Law School.  Her book Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters was named a “best book” by The Economist and The Times of London. [2020, 2021]

Posted on

The Gospel of Love: For Family and Friends

Dear Family and Friends,

This post has been on my heart for a while now. It comes with some weight—and I don’t post it lightly. But I also don’t post it in anger or bitterness. I write out of love—for my family and friends, for the Church, for the truth. I hope it will be received that way.

Over the past few years, you’ve probably noticed how much I’ve written about human sexuality—issues like gender identity, same-sex parenting, and transgenderism.

These are hard topics. They touch real people. They touch us. And because they do, I haven’t wanted to treat them casually or toss out slogans from a distance. But I’ve felt more and more compelled to speak clearly—especially because these ideas have not only infiltrated our cultural institutions, but have taken root in the Church itself.

The final turning point for me was personal. For several years, I had been attending a congregation that was a blend of Evangelical Lutheran Church of America (ELCA) and Episcopal USA traditions. I loved the people. I still do. It was a generous, open-hearted community. But over time, I began to sense that the gospel being proclaimed there was subtly—sometimes not so subtly—drifting from the one I knew. The Bible’s authority and Church Tradition was increasingly treated as optional. Christian sexual ethics were reimagined to align with the culture. And then came the moment I could no longer ignore.

One Sunday morning, a woman ordained by one of those denominations—an openly practicing lesbian, whose “wife” was present in the congregation—stood before us and preached as a representative of Christ’s Church. That was the moment for me. I sat there grieving—not out of personal offense, but because something precious was being lost.

This wasn’t merely a difference of opinion. It pointed to a deeper divergence—a fundamentally different understanding of what the Church is, what the gospel proclaims (ie. that Jesus is Lord of the created cosmos), and who Jesus calls us to be.

The gospel is not merely a message of inclusion or affirmation. It is the announcement that Jesus Christ is Lord of all—that through Him all things were made, and in Him all things hold together. As Paul writes in Colossians:

"For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible... all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together" (Colossians 1:16–17).

This is the gospel: not a validation of our desires, but a call to live in joyful submission to the One through whom the cosmos was made.

After that Sunday, I knew I couldn’t do it anymore—not in good conscience. I couldn’t keep contributing my time and treasure to a church whose leadership had embraced a theological trajectory that I believe is deeply harmful. So I stepped away. And that decision still breaks my heart. I loved those people. I still do.

Love and truth cannot be separated. In the years since, I’ve come to believe that many parts of the Church have failed to speak the truth—especially about the body, about male and female, about marriage and children—and that failure has had devastating consequences. The cultural winds are strong. But the Church was never called to drift with the wind. We are called to be rooted.

I’ve written several blog posts recently, and I want you to know why.

The first was about gay parenting and the Regnerus Study—a work that dared to ask what’s best for children and found answers that challenge the prevailing narrative. It’s not enough to say children are “loved.” They also need a father and a mother. Our policies—and our churches—ought to reflect that truth.

The second addressed the ELCA’s 2025 Reconsideration of Human Sexuality—a document that appears to codify the denomination’s full embrace of sexual revisionism. The very truths that once shaped Christian witness on marriage, the body, and the created order are now treated as “harmful” or “exclusionary.” I couldn’t remain silent.

The third examined the ELCA’s doctrine of “Bound Conscience”—a concept I once thought might preserve theological diversity, but which has become a theological escape hatch. It allows the Church to affirm contradictory truths in the name of unity, while quietly discarding the authority of Scripture. That’s not unity—it’s institutionalized confusion.

I don’t write these things to score points or “win” debates. I write them because someone needs to say what so many faithful Christians—especially in more progressive circles—are afraid to say out loud. I write them because I fear that silence now will only mean deeper compromise later.

I believe the Triune God made us male and female—not as an accident of biology, but as a reflection of something sacred. I believe our bodies matter. I believe Christian love includes a call to repentance. And I believe that our first obligation of love is not to ourselves or one another, but to our Creator.

To affirm someone’s identity apart from the Lordship of Christ is not compassion—it is a tragic abandonment to a path that cannot yield life. And I believe the Church must have the courage to say so, even when it costs something.

With love always,
d

Posted on

What is “Bound Conscience”?

A Slippery but Sacred Term

In recent years, no phrase has carried more weight—or more ambiguity—within the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) than “bound conscience.” First introduced in the 2009 social statement Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust, it has become both a theological shield and a procedural tool for managing moral disagreement. But what does “bound conscience” actually mean? And more importantly, is its use in the ELCA consistent with Scripture and the historic Christian tradition?

The ELCA’s Definition: A Plurality of Convictions

In the 2009 statement, the ELCA proposed that faithful Christians may, in good conscience, come to mutually contradictory conclusions about same-sex sexual relationships. That is:

  • Some believe such relationships are contrary to God’s will.
  • Others believe they can be faithful expressions of love and discipleship.

According to the ELCA, both groups may be said to have consciences “bound to the Word of God,” and therefore both should be honored within the Church. This framework was presented as a means to preserve unity amid disagreement.

But is this a faithful application of the concept?

Reformation Roots: Luther at Worms

The idea of “bound conscience” is not new. It draws most famously from Martin Luther’s defense at the Diet of Worms:

“My conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and will not recant anything, for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe.”

But for Luther, this was not about subjective conviction. It was about submission—conscience rightly bound by the authority of God’s Word, not by personal sentiment, political pressure, or communal consensus.

To reinterpret “bound conscience” as permission for contradictory moral positions is to sever it from its Reformation foundation.

Why the Bound Conscience Model Fails

1. It Redefines Truth as Preference
If one person believes a behavior is sinful and another believes it is holy, both cannot be correct. The Church may be patient in discerning, but it cannot bless contradiction. As Paul reminds the Corinthians:

“God is not a God of confusion but of peace” (1 Cor. 14:33).

2. It Undermines the Church’s Moral Witness
When the Church upholds opposing teachings as equally valid, it erodes its ability to proclaim any moral truth. Instead of a prophetic voice, it becomes an echo of the culture.

3. It Was Always a Temporary Measure
The ELCA’s use of bound conscience in 2009 was framed as a way to hold diverse views together. But the current reconsideration process—especially Reconsideration #2 scheduled for 2028—makes it clear that the provision will likely be removed. Those who were promised space for their convictions may soon find that space eliminated. That possibility is underscored by the church’s stated rationale for changes already enacted: “in light of public acceptance of marriage of same-gender and gender non-conforming couples.”

The key phrase is “gender non-conforming couples.” The 2009 social statement affirmed publicly accountable, lifelong, monogamous, same-sex relationships. But the new language being recommended goes beyond that. Page 19 of the Human Sexuality Social Statement Draft Edits refers to “lifelong, monogamous relationships of same-gender or gender-diverse couples.” On the same page, it broadens further: “life-long, monogamous relationships between individuals of diverse sexes, genders, or sexualities.” A footnote on that page defines “gender diverse” as encompassing “a wide diversity of identities and expressions in relationships between individuals, including gender non-conforming, non-binary, genderqueer, and transgender persons.”

This trajectory makes clear that the original logic of bound conscience is rapidly being replaced by a new moral consensus.

4. It Confuses Unity with Uniformity
True Christian unity is grounded in shared confession, not in the suppression of moral clarity. The New Testament calls for unity in truth (Eph. 4:11–15) 1 And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes. Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, from whom the whole body, joined and held together by every joint with which it is equipped, when each part is working properly, makes the body grow so that it builds itself up in love., not unity despite its absence.

What True Conscience Requires

The Christian understanding of conscience is not private or self-referential. Biblically, the conscience is formed:

  • By the Word of God (Psalm 119:105)2Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path.
  • Through the community of faith (Acts 15:28)3For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.”
  • In submission to the Holy Spirit (Romans 9:1)4I am speaking the truth in Christ—I am not lying; my conscience bears me witness in the Holy Spirit— that I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart.

A truly bound conscience is not simply sincere. It is correctly tethered—anchored to God’s revealed truth. That truth, on matters of human sexuality, is consistent through Scripture and affirmed across centuries of Christian witness.

Conclusion: Truth Cannot Be Voted On

The ELCA’s deployment of “bound conscience” may have been well-intentioned, but it has become a theological smokescreen for unresolved contradiction. Conscience must indeed be honored—but only when it is bound to the truth.

The Church is not free to pronounce both light and darkness as equally valid. As Jesus said:

“If then the light within you is darkness, how great is that darkness!” (Matt. 6:23)

Let us call conscience back to its proper source—not to sentiment, not to social trends, but to Scripture. For only there can it be truly bound, and only there can it be truly free.

Sources: ELCA – Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust Study Process

+++