Why Are Oregon’s Kids Becoming Exceptionally Good at Suicide? The Nagging Questions

Recently, a friend sent me a GoFundMe link to pay for the funeral expenses of a 10-year-old suicide victim. Ten years old. Jesus.

This kind of thing has been weighing heavily on my mind lately. Not just for the obvious reason that such a death is horrifying. But also because I’ve grown wary of what I lend my signature to regarding teen suicide, given that it’s become a rallying point to justify experimental drugs and surgeries for children who don’t conform to sex stereotypes.

Tragedy plus suspicion make for an uncomfortable mix.

The suspicion has partly to do with this friend’s tendency to post about gender theory. And with that news story last week about the out-of-state boy, also 10 years old (!), whose suicide followed a request to wear girls’ clothes to school. No doubt that greased the mental gears, though in truth I don’t know if such things figured in the local child’s death. Indeed, I hope they didn’t–though such hope won’t bring him back.

But it was this statistic, quoted in the child’s GoFundMe, that got me in the gut:

“According to Oregon Health Authority, suicide was the second leading cause of death among persons 10-24 years of age in Oregon in 2013. Oregon suicide rates among persons 10-24 years of age have increased since 2010. This trend is not observed with the same age group in the US overall.”

This is not the kind of exceptionalism that Oregon prides itself on.

The statistic comes from this Oregon Health Authority Report: https://www.oregon.gov/oha/PH/DiseasesConditions/InjuryFatalityData/Documents/Fact%20Sheets/suicide-youth-2015v2.pdf. If credible, which I have no reason to believe it isn’t, it would be disturbing on many levels. But perhaps the most troubling implication would be for our current rush to experiment medically on children in the name of suicide prevention.

Put simply, it suggests a logical fallacy in the suicide claims of trans-industry activists.

As a career health worker, I’ve followed with great interest the political debate over gender-related medical experimentation on children. It took off like gangbusters in the late oughts, especially here in Portland, where we have a major research facility that’s been doing gender surgery for decades, and where we pride ourselves on our progressive politics.

When one follows the debate about surgical experimentation on children in the name of gender theory, one can’t help but notice that suicide is always front and center. As the saying goes, it’s better to have a living son than a dead daughter, or vice versa. Frequently, this saying is also followed by misquoted statistics, suggesting that if not medically “transitioned” ASAP, kids with gender issues are exceedingly likely to kill themselves.

Suicide is a pretty damned serious concern.

But, disturbingly, it’s also become a badge of honor in the recent political trend that’s positioned suicide as the last and greatest (though queasy and tenuous) link between the world of medical intervention and the world of gender politics. All the proverbial eggs that would justify human experiments in the quest to prove that gender is a thing have been placed in suicide’s basket, as it were.

____________

It didn’t used to be that way. Until fairly recently, discomfort with biological sex was classified and treated as a more routine psychological disorder. Akin to myriad other struggles that people experience with the growing-up process–like anorexia, cutting and other body dysmorphias–it was a psychological problem with a dash of social contagion. It went by various names through the years, but in the psychology industry’s fourth diagnostic manual, DSM-IV, it was called gender identity disorder. And, as with other psychological disorders in developing kids, it was treated with psychotherapy and a great deal of caution.

But in the last decade or so things changed rapidly, and by the time the manual was revised in 2013, the condition had been strangely de-fanged. Gender theory was now pushing for immediate surgical and chemical intervention, and (not surprisingly) found itself under political scrutiny. DSM-V now avoided words that might equate gender theory with anything sounding like pathology.

Political activists had persuaded DSM-V’s publishers that people who experience discomfort with their biological sex are not ill; they are simply, truly, born in the wrong body. And the publishers agreed (without any medical evidence being offered in support of the contention) that being born in the wrong body is a routine thing that simply up and happens to a predictable section of the human population. That it can even be cruelly “assigned” to people by unscrupulous birth attendants. And, more importantly, that it has absolutely nothing to do with all those other things that mess with kids’ heads when they’re growing up.

This wholesale reclassification might raise eyebrows, one would think, with the medical doctors who, in the years preceding DSM-V, had increasingly bowed to pressure by trans activists to prescribe early medical intervention on gender-confused kids, under assurances that these kids were truly unwell. They’d been proceeding much as they had in electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) cases: Sure it’s unphotogenic, and we don’t have a theory for why it works. But somehow, for some reason, in some people who are unwell, we give them this therapy, and then they aren’t as unwell.

Once gender theorists had successfully removed the possibility of unwellness from consideration, it became hard to explain why a non-disease required drastic and experimental medical intervention. This wasn’t just ECT, after all, which was risky enough. This was the surgical removal of healthy tissue, off-label administration of cross-sex hormones, permanent sterilization, even loss of sexual function.

But activists and doctors alike had already committed themselves. The die had been cast. So both exclaimed, “Because suicide!”

Even though we were no longer to consider gender-confused kids ill like the people who received ECT, we were still supposed to accept the ECT argument. Let us take drastic measures on these kids, they said, because if you don’t, the kids will kill themselves.

This entailed no small amount of tap dancing. Why would totally healthy, sane people up and kill themselves? But gender politics had an answer for that: Because we give them no choice. Suicide based on gender ideology is not a sign of mental distress, they insisted; it’s a sign that society is irredeemably transphobic. Kids preemptively erase themselves from a society that conspires to erase them. And, since the evil of “cis” culture is as inherent as original sin, the only solution is to give nonconforming kids social and medical “authenticity,” and fast. Gender surgery, cross hormones and a new birth certificate. Only wholesale reinvention will quiet our stiflingly backward society that keeps insisting that biological sex is biological.

Or something.

Of course many people balked. But they could be dismissed as part of the irredeemable original sin of “cis” wrong-thinking.

At first it seemed to work. Politics, after all, aren’t immune to the laws of gravity; big logical somersaults have a way of gathering momentum. The trans industry (and its market share) grew like discontent on a college campus. The born-in-the-wrong body argument started making inroads into Middle America via TV, movies, and grade school curricula featuring the Genderbread Person.

If anyone started asking questions, the suicide argument would hopefully shut them up. (That, and a liberal dose of online and in-person harrassment; see, e.g., https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/08/new-paper-ignites-storm-over-whether-teens-experience-rapid-onset-transgender-identity.)

___________

And yet here in Oregon, where we were at the forefront of the last decade’s progressive movement, and adopted some of the country’s most liberal policies toward every kind of social engineering including gender-based medical interventions–made easier by our eye-poppingly low age of medical consent, of 15 years–kids still kill themselves. And when they do, their families assail us with gut-wrenching statistics showing that our state is outpacing the other 49 in the race to the bottom.

How can this be?

If the trans-activist brand of progressivism is to be believed, suicide is the sole medically significant feature of an otherwise non-pathological, statistically small, and totally-not-indicative-of-social-contagion demographic of gender-nonconforming youth. And our state leads the way in providing exactly what the trans industry says we’d better do or-else-suicide.

And yet….suicide.

Could it be a logical fallacy?

_________________

Allow me to elucidate the many facets of this problem; the nagging questions, if you will:

In order for suicide to be the second leading cause of death for the 10-24 age group, how can trans advocacy simultaneously claim it is the sole distinguishing feature that separates a tiny subset of that group from the rest?

In order to claim that a tiny subset of the 10-24 suicide risk group needs drastic surgical intervention and identity reinvention, might one need to explain why analogous interventions aren’t offered to the millions of other at-risk kids in this age group?  E.g., why no urgent liposuction for kids who are depressed about their weight?  Why no urgent skin bleaching for ethnic-minority kids who are depressed because they’ve experienced racism?

In order to convince the public that suicide risk justifies medical intervention in the name of “gender,” shouldn’t one prove that suicide numbers haven’t grown commensurately with one’s success in ushering in an explosion of said gender intervention?

In order to convince people that kids who think they’re in the wrong body aren’t simply messed-up kids, should one perhaps not rely, as one’s primary piece of evidence, upon something that messed-up kids do?

_____________

After wrestling for some time with these nagging questions, I find they’ve begun to coalesce, and that I can articulate the germ of my unease. Namely, I worry that the statistics cited in this poor child’s memorial correspond to something else that’s been brewing over roughly the same time interval. Something that encompasses gender politics but is much bigger, and affects every kid in Oregon.  Something that the better-a-living-son-than-a-dead-daughter activists never mention:

The rise of political extremism in Oregon.

The time period in question is the same interval in which I watched my neighborhood devolve from barbecues to uprisings. The era when grown Oregonians started shunning each other, and threatening to leave the country, and lying on the ground weeping over election results, and telling children that the world as they knew it had ended. When Portland started regularly making national headlines for its free meth pipes and its nullification of federal laws and its riots.

When life became measurably more stressful for kids in an economically depressed state where things were already hard enough.

When Portland school teachers stopped teaching the three R’s and started straw-polling kids to find out how their parents voted. When playground bullies ceased to focus on kids’ zits and BO and realized it was more effective to spread rumors about kids being various kinds of “phobic.” When assemblies became political rallies. When Portland Public Schools (followed closely by nearby districts in a spreading pattern) stopped setting educational policies and started dictating how City Council and the US Congress should vote on partisan issues. When teachers started leading kids out of the classroom and into marches with the Mayor and the Governor, tearfully proclaiming the children to be civil rights warriors, responsible for fighting their parents’ crimes of “not listening.”

When every school e-mail and syllabus that came home included the signator’s preferred pronouns. When sex ed started teaching that if you don’t fit archaic sex stereotypes you’re in the wrong body and you need surgery. When the kids I overheard in the bleachers at local football games were no longer talking about the dumb things kids are supposed to talk about in the bleachers at football games, but about how depressed they were that their teachers never shut up about how kids needed to adopt political identities and fight for them.

When it became obvious in the schools, on the streets, and in the hospitals that kids were increasingly possessed–at the urging of adults who should know better–by the notion that violence and nihilism are not problems to overcome, but precious tools to be nursed and cultivated.

One could accept the progressives’ argument, I suppose. The kids are killing themselves because Literal Nazis have taken over the country. But notwithstanding the lunacy of that argument, it refers to Republicans, whereas Oregon is a Blue State. A Blue State that’s been outpacing the country in kids offing themselves, even as it becomes ever bluer. A state where kids’ suicide rates spiked while progressive identity politics and governmental disdain for family autonomy became firmly codified in Oregon’s medical, mental health and educational bureaucracies.

______________

So, yes. In a way I’ve come to accept the “progressive” notion that there’s probably a link between gender ideology and teen suicide. But not for the reasons that progressive activists and agitators claim. Rather, it seems that an already vulnerable age group is being taught that hating themselves and others is the way to make the world better.

In Oregon, this nihilistic world view is eagerly cultivated by the very community leaders who are supposed to be working–who in many cases have been richly paid to be working–to address the economic stagnation that’s left so many in Oregon despairing of finding work, housing or purpose. The very leaders who daily point the finger at national political controversies in order to aim the questioning gaze of young Oregonians away from themselves. Away from inconvenient questions about why Oregon has declined despite over a generation of one-party rule by so-called progressives.

Don’t look at us, they say; look at yourself. Look at yourself so hard it hurts.  Give violence, self mutilation and suicide a try. You have no choice; you were born to it.

Portland is often considered the poster child of the progressive movement. If that’s so, then best not follow our example. We seem to be dying of progress.

9 thoughts on “Why Are Oregon’s Kids Becoming Exceptionally Good at Suicide? The Nagging Questions

  1. Enjoyed most of this well written article. Though it seems to end up blaming left wingers for all social ills. I’m not sure the youth suicide rate can be so neatly explained.

    Re suicides for trans kids then some data would be needed on whether any or how many of the suicides were children who identified as trans. Suicide itself is socially contagious and I agree that many of diagnoses of dysphoria are likely other mental health issues finding a popular new diagnosis.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Thank you for reading, Bob. I agree that suicide isn’t well researched. My point is that those who use it as the sole justification for medical experimentation on children should bear the responsibility of explaining the holes in the data.

      Unfortunately, even the little data we have about trans kids is hard to interpret, because despite over 100 years of experimentation on humans they’ve yet to give us even a workable definition of what trans is.

      If one were to look retroactively at the uptick in Oregon suicides, how would one distinguish those who were “trans” from the rest? By whether they’d asked for surgery? Or changed their names? Or not liked barrettes as infants? (The latter criterion is actually being advanced, by more extreme elements in the trans industry, as evidence of transsexuality in infants.)

      Fuzziness of test parameters is unfortunately, time and again, the defining feature of transsexuality research. We’re given bold predictions and drastic interventions without so much as clearly established criteria for a diagnosis. As mentioned, we’re not even allowed to call it a diagnosis, because that would insinuate a disorder, and that would be stigmatizing. And then we’re led back into the black hole of recursive postmodernist logic.

      When these glaring omissions are pointed out, the people whose only job for the last century has been to collect such data say, “we just don’t know.” I’d be willing to wager they do know. But what they know doesn’t support their political aims. So they censor and de-platform people who ask questions, as in the Littman case which I linked.

      Of course the left isn’t responsible for all social ills. But they’re responsible for the leftist policies they’ve enacted in Oregon.
      It’s not Republicans, Libertarians and Whigs who are polling kids in my child’s school about whether they wish they had different genitals.

      I’m not sure I need more research funded by the Pritzker family fortune to know that such questioning of impressionable kids has serious implications.

      Enough of this invasion of kids’ privacy for political gain. Using children as foot soldiers is a sure sign that a political movement losing its argument with adults. Historically, that’s rarely ended well. Sure we could wait for another rash of suicides to see how the kids or doing. But for myself, I’m inclined to give international children’s organizations some benefit of the doubt on this one:

      “[Children are] easier to mislead and indoctrinate, cheaper to retain, and more responsive to coercive methods….more willing to fight for nonpecuniary rewards such as honor and duty, revenge, a sense of purpose, or protection….more malleable, adaptable, and obedient; hence they are easily indoctrinated and deceived and so simpler to control and retain….[and] lab experiments suggest that adolescent social and brain development may lead them to be more conformist and easily influenced.”
      Beber, B., & Blattman, C. (2013). The Logic of Child Soldiering and Coercion. International Organization, 67(1), 65-104. doi:10.1017/S0020818312000409, https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/international-organization/article/the-logic-of-child-soldiering-and-coercion/EB8CC2FE13CC49C2846EEDE4FFD432FE

      Liked by 1 person

  2. The uptick of strident politics is hard to ignore. As someone who grew up in Oregon, I’ve witnessed the change. This used to be a live and let live state. Does this make it a live and let kids die state?

    There are a lot of homeless kids here. Why is that? How does that happen in a progressive state? Is it that too many families struggle to survive?

    I don’t know the answers. I truly dislike the current transgender push to replace sex with gender identity. In doing this, we have a generation of children growing up with the notion that one’s identity is paramount to their personhood and personal growth, instead of character and actions.

    Like all psuedo-religious belief systems, that of genderism becomes its own strident unbending ideology. I see that around me in Oregon. It’s not healthy. It’s especially not healthy to foist this psuedo-religious belief system onto children.

    Liked by 3 people

  3. Very interesting observation. A society plagued by nihilism (and let’s not forget narcissism) is bound to have devastating effects on impressionable youth who often pick things up unconsciously and have no words to express what they’re struggling with.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. I often wonder why childhood sexual abuse, which seems to be a risk factor for both child suicide and body dysmorphia (because of dissociative states due to trauma), is not cited rather than an imaginary framework of gender that was only invented 30 years ago. Do you know if there are statistics showing the correlation between CSA and suicide or gender reassignment requests? Is that question part of the screening for these sterilization procedures?

    Like

    1. That’s an excellent (and heartbreaking) question. I do know that there is a lot of anecdotal evidence suggesting you’re right, in terms of the blogs and videos of desisters (people who’ve changed their mind after taking sex-change measures). The best-known published research that I know of is Dr. Lisa Littman’s pioneering survey of such people and/or their parents: https://dotatomosblog.files.wordpress.com/2018/09/journal-pone-0202330.pdf.

      This publication has been the subject of much controversy, and the target of censorship, because it asked questions that made the gender industry uncomfortable. They’ve said that Dr. Littman shouldn’t have listened to these people’s testimony because they talk about it online, which is rather a bogus criticism considering that she followed standard ethical protocols and disclosed all potential data flaws, and got completely through peer review without anyone noticing any problems, and the censorship came only after her university and the online publisher were hit with an onslaught of trans-rights hate mail.

      As far as I can tell, they’re uncomfortable with the fact that someone finally took formal notice of what these people have been saying for years, that they were given drugs and surgeries on request, and no one bothered to screen them for the many, many red flags that suggested something else was going on.

      Dr. Littman’s survey did list a high incidence of childhood trauma amongst the subjects, but I’m not sure if the survey distinguished as to type of trauma.

      It’s possible that there are other such surveys of which I’m simply unaware, but given the extreme backlash against Dr. Littman, I suspect if anyone else had bothered to research it we’d have heard bloody murder from the trans industry about that too.

      Liked by 2 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s