Category: Child Care

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

Gay Parenting, Science, and the Well-Being of Children: A Surprising Vindication of the Regnerus Study


Children thrive in the context of stable, intact biological families—an ideal that remains statistically and morally significant.

In 2012, sociologist Mark Regnerus published a bombshell study that challenged the prevailing narrative in academic circles about same-sex parenting. His findings? Children raised by same-sex parents, particularly lesbian couples, experienced significantly worse outcomes on numerous metrics compared to those raised by their married, biological mother and father.

The backlash was immediate and severe. Regnerus was accused of bigotry, his study denounced as pseudoscience, and attempts were made to have it retracted. But more than a decade later, the dust has settled enough for a deeper look. And what a surprise (to some) that deeper look brings.

A Study Stress-Tested by Time

Science advances through testing—Regnerus’s study held up under millions of analytical variations.

The recent multiverse analysis conducted by Cornell sociologists Cristobal Young and Erin Cumberworth takes a new and rigorous approach to contested social science studies. Their technique? Run every possible reasonable permutation of analytic choices—literally millions of combinations—to see whether a study’s conclusions hold up across models.

It’s like subjecting the study to every imaginable stress test. And Regnerus’s study passed.

Not one of the more than two million significant models contradicted his core finding: children raised in intact biological families consistently fared better than those raised by same-sex parents.

To put that in perspective, this kind of consistency is almost unheard of in social science research, where findings often vary widely depending on how the data is modeled. 

What Was the Regnerus Study, and Why Did It Matter?

Regnerus’s 2012 New Family Structures Study (NFSS) surveyed nearly 3,000 young adults, making it by far the largest and most representative dataset available at the time on the topic.

Unlike earlier studies—which had tiny sample sizes (often fewer than 50 children) and often relied on parents self-reporting at Pride events or through gay-themed media ads—the NFSS used a random national sample. It included 248 individuals who had been raised by parents in a same-sex relationship.

His findings were sobering:

  • Children raised by lesbian parents fared worse on 25 of 40 outcomes
  • Those raised by gay men fared worse on 11

The problems were wide-ranging: depression, lower educational attainment, greater reliance on public assistance, higher unemployment, more criminal involvement, increased sexual abuse, and unstable relationships.

The Immediate Backlash

The response to Regnerus was not scientific critique—it was ideological suppression.

The study ignited fury. Hundreds of academics and activists called for its retraction. Regnerus’s reputation was dragged through the mud.

But rather than retreat, he did what good scientists are supposed to do: he made his dataset public and invited others to analyze it.

Two major critiques emerged:

  1. Cheng and Powell argued that many individuals Regnerus classified as raised by same-sex parents had spent little time in such households.
  2. Michael Rosenfeld of Stanford insisted that Regnerus hadn’t adequately adjusted for family transitions, which are known to negatively impact child outcomes.

Regnerus countered that instability wasn’t a separate factor to isolate—it was intrinsic to same-sex parenting patterns.

The Critics Were Stacking the Deck

Young and Cumberworth found that both critiques had made analytical choices that reduced sample sizes—making it harder to detect statistical effects. They also committed what the authors call a “key mistake”: focusing only on whether the effects were statistically significant, rather than measuring how large the effects were.

In plain terms, the critics said, “We didn’t find a difference,” but they didn’t report whether their methods actually suppressed real effects.

The LGBT parenting effect was not only still there—it was strong and persistent.

When the new analysts combined family instability and parental structure in the same models, they found that:

  • Both factors independently contribute to negative outcomes
  • The problem wasn’t just instability; same-sex parenting itself mattered

Their conclusion: Regnerus’s central finding is not the product of statistical games. It’s a stubborn social fact.

The Problem Isn’t the Data—It’s the Ethics Police

Regnerus wasn’t condemned because his methods were flawed. He was condemned because his findings were morally unacceptable to the academic gatekeepers.

As sociologists Judith Stacey and Timothy Biblarz—both of whom support same-sex parenting—admitted in their review of the literature: “Ideological pressures constrain intellectual development in this field.”

Weak studies claiming “no difference”—even with tiny, biased samples—were waved through. But Regnerus’s robust, random-sample study was met with outrage.

For example, Nathaniel Frank called for a peer-reviewed study’s retraction simply because its findings were “irresponsible.” Not incorrect. Not unsound. Just inconvenient.

What happens to science when truth becomes subordinate to ideological comfort?

Enter Jessica Bates

Jessica Bates was barred from adopting because of her Christian convictions. The Ninth Circuit rightly intervened.

A recent case shows how this ideological pressure is spilling into public policy. Jessica Bates, a widowed mom of five in Oregon, was barred from adopting because she couldn’t, in good conscience, affirm gender ideology.

The Ninth Circuit rightly found that Oregon’s policy likely violated her First Amendment rights—both free speech and religious liberty.

These kinds of ideological litmus tests are spreading in progressive states. And they are excluding faithful Christians from the foster care and adoption systems—hurting the very children who most need stable, loving homes.

Is Bias Against Christian Agencies Widespread?

Yes. Consider this partial list:

  • Catholic Charities in Boston, San Francisco, and Illinois shut down adoption services rather than violate their beliefs.
  • Philadelphia’s foster care contracts were rescinded over similar issues.

Ideological conformity is being prioritized over the welfare of children. That should concern all of us.

A Word to Fellow Christians: This Isn’t About “Being Nice”

Christian compassion must remain anchored to biblical truth—especially when it comes to the care of children.

Many well-meaning Christians feel torn on this issue—not because they lack conviction, but because they want to be compassionate and avoid offense. That instinct is admirable.

But for Christians especially, our compassion must be tethered to Truth, it must be rightly ordered. If we say we care about vulnerable children, then we have to be willing to ask some hard questions about what truly serves their long-term well-being.

Are we prioritizing what’s best for children—or what makes us feel better about being inclusive and affirming toward adults? Have we considered whether the assumptions behind some of the arguments for same-sex adoption actually hold up?

  • Do we really believe that if gay couples are not permitted to adopt, these children will simply be left without homes? That assumes no other families—especially traditional ones—are willing to step forward, which is a questionable and pessimistic assumption.
  • And are same-sex couples disproportionately adopting the most difficult-to-place children—those who are older, have special needs, or come from severely traumatic backgrounds—or, like many prospective parents, do they generally prefer younger, more adoptable children?
  • If simply increasing the pool of potential adoptive parents is the highest good, then why do we draw any lines at all? Why ask questions like: Should society allow adoption by men who think they are women? Or by unmarried throuples? Or by persons with histories of instability? The very fact that we do ask these questions reveals that we intuitively understand—at some level—that not every arrangement is equally good for children. So the real question is: what standard are we using to decide?

We need a rational, child-centered adoption policy—one that is guided by a clear set of priorities, with the well-being of children at the top of the list. Policies should ask: What kind of environment best supports a child’s development? What family structure most reliably offers stability, love, and the complementarity of male and female parenting? These should be our guiding questions—not adult preferences or ideological conformity.

And we should not be ashamed to say that the ideal remains a married mother and father.

Christian Teaching on Marriage and Parenting

Biblical anthropology and Church tradition affirm the unique significance of a mother and father in child formation.

From a biblical perspective, marriage isn’t primarily about adult fulfillment. It’s about covenant, fruitfulness, and forming children into the image of Christ.

“Male and female he created them…” (Gen. 1:27)

Every child has the right, where possible, to a mother and a father. Church tradition has long affirmed this—and so does the data.

As Christians, we must remember: we are not our own. Our bodies, our desires, our families—all belong to God. Adoption and foster care are sacred callings, not platforms for adult affirmation.

The Stakes Are High

Let’s not forget what’s at stake here. When Christian individuals and faith-based organizations—like Catholic Charities—are excluded from the adoption and foster care space simply because they uphold traditional moral convictions, it’s not just anti-religious bigotry. It’s also a disservice to the very children we claim to care about.

We can’t say children matter most while simultaneously banning some of the most stable, loving homes from even being considered—just because they don’t conform to a particular ideological agenda. Traditional Christian belief is not a disqualifying liability.

So, to my Christian brothers and sisters I say: Let’s not waffle. Let’s not shrink back out of fear of being unpopular. The call to speak the truth in love does not vanish simply because our culture finds that truth inconvenient or offensive. In fact, those are precisely the moments when the Church’s voice is most essential.

The data is on our side. More importantly, so is the truth.

Children deserve the best we can give them. And that means standing for what is good, even when it costs us.

Sources: Public Discourse & Alliance Defending Freedom

+++

Posted on

When Queer Theory Meets the Cradle

Queering Babies and the Academic Void Where Ethics Should Be

So after marrying shrimp, what’s next? Apparently, queering babies.

In part two of the Citation Needed Podcast pilot, Colin Wright and Brad Polumbo wade into even more disturbing territory: a peer-reviewed paper titled “Queering Babies: Autoethnographic Reflections from a Gay Parent through Surrogacy.”

Let me start by saying this clearly: I don’t toss around accusations lightly. But this paper is deeply inappropriate. Not because it’s about surrogacy, or unconventional family dynamics. But because it tries to sexualize infants under the guise of academic theory—and then gets published in a reputable journal.

What’s the Paper Arguing?

Yes, you read that right. The author, Balazs Boross, attempts to apply queer theory to infants, claiming that because babies defy adult expectations and are not yet “straight,” they are therefore queer.

In short: that babies are inherently queer.

It’s intellectual nonsense—and worse, it veers into incredibly creepy territory.

Autoethnography or Navel-Gazing?

As the podcast explains, the method used here is “autoethnography.” Sounds academic, right? But in practice, it’s just the author journaling his personal feelings and labeling them research.

He reflects on moments like his newborn daughter’s instinctual attempt to nurse from him—an entirely non-sexual, biological behavior—and describes it as “animalistic and perverse.” He says there wasn’t “much intimacy or innocence there.”

Frankly, that’s horrifying. That’s not academic analysis. That’s projecting adult notions of sexuality onto infants, and then publishing it as research.

When Theory Becomes Dangerous

The problem here isn’t just the lack of scholarly rigor. It’s the loss of moral grounding.

Queer theory, as used here, is obsessed with destabilizing boundaries: between man and woman, adult and child, even decency and indecency. In this framework, nothing is off-limits—not even babies.

Colin and Brad hit the nail on the head: this paper doesn’t just explore taboo topics. It removes the taboos entirely, all in the name of challenging “oppressive norms.” That includes norms like age-appropriate sexual boundaries.

If you’re not disturbed by that, you should be.

Why Are Journals Publishing This?

That’s the million-dollar question. Like the brine shrimp paper, this one was published by Springer Nature—a giant in the academic world. The journal? Psychoanalysis, Culture, and Society.

So again, this isn’t fringe. This isn’t some Tumblr blog. It’s the academic mainstream.

And as the hosts rightly point out, when peer-reviewed journals accept “research” that cannot be independently evaluated (because it’s just someone’s diary), the entire peer-review process becomes meaningless.

This Is Why People Don’t Trust Academia

When academic journals become playgrounds for ideology and personal confession, they lose their authority.

We’re told to trust experts. But what happens when the experts are publishing manifestos about shrimp weddings and breastfeeding selfies with psychoanalytic commentary? Public trust collapses—and deservedly so.

These aren’t just isolated flukes. They’re symptoms of a deeper sickness in academia: the prioritization of political ideology over empirical evidence, clarity, and basic ethical boundaries.

Where Do We Go from Here?

We need brave voices like Colin Wright and Brad Polumbo to keep pulling back the curtain.

We need academics who are willing to say: No, this isn’t scholarship. No, this doesn’t help anyone understand gender, sexuality, or ecology. No, you don’t get to sexualize infants and call it “research.”

And we need the rest of us—students, readers, citizens—to stop being afraid to say the emperor has no clothes.

[Citation needed podcast]

Check it out for yourself.

+++

Stay Human