The Crumbling Sham of Trans Medicine

Trans activists loudly claim that medicalizing gender confused youth is “settled science” and saves lives. This is meant to shut down any doubt or debate on this critically important topic. 

Thankfully, a few undeterred scholars are asking important questions and demonstrating just how false trans activists’ claims really are. 

An impressive new Finnish study, published in the Swedish academic journal Acta Paediatrica, is extending the damning conclusions of the UK’s 2024 Cass Review. The report was unequivocal in concluding that the so-called “settled science” of trans medicine “is an area of remarkably weak evidence” and the “reality is that we have no good evidence on the long-term outcomes of interventions to manage gender-related distress.” 

The new Finnish study provides the “good evidence.” Its findings on long-term outcomes, based on extremely strong data sets, don’t bode well for trans activists’ overconfident claims. Finland’s government-run medical system has an extremely rigorous tracking system containing detailed medical and psychiatric records on all citizens dating back to 1994. Drawing from this, the study conducted an analysis of every patient under 23 who attended Finnish gender identity clinics from 1996 to 2019 and compared them with a matched control group.  

This means their study population is uniquely comprehensive—it analyzed the entire gender treatment patient population in the country for years and years. Other studies have only included those who chose to take part, seriously undermining the validity of their claims. The Finnish school system also regularly screens students for mental health disorders. It consists of two timeframes: 1996 to 2010, and 2011 to 2019, the time when those “trans identity” numbers started exploding in many countries, likely from social contagion. 

So, what did this comprehensive Finnish study find? It’s a pretty direct conclusion: The whole basis of transgender ideology and practice is wrong. As the study revealed, “Gender-referred adolescents showed significantly higher psychiatric morbidity than controls,” and severe psychiatric morbidity increased substantially in two-plus year clinical follow-ups. Those who sought gender services in the second, larger cohort “had greater psychiatric needs than earlier cohorts.” 

In fact, these medical researchers state,  

Among adolescents who underwent medical gender reassignment, psychiatric morbidity increased markedly during follow-up—rising from 9.8% to 60.7% in feminizing gender reassignment and from 21.6% to 54.5% in masculinizing gender reassignment. 

They add,  

After adjusting for prior psychiatric treatment, all gender-referred adolescents had similarly elevated risks of psychiatric morbidity, with hazard ratios approximately three times higher than female controls and five times higher than male controls. 

These findings directly challenge the assumption that gender transition is a natural, harmless occurrence and that taking sex-rejecting hormones and cutting off healthy body parts benefits patients. In fact, the researchers bluntly confess, “This does not support the suggested improvement in mental health after medical GR [gender reassignment].”  

Thus, this research supports previous conclusions that those struggling with gender confusion suffer from other serious parallel psychological comorbidities. A group of Austrian scholars explained in the Archives of Sexual Behavior in 2025 that “gender dysphoric adolescents presenting to specialized gender identity services experience varying degrees of co-occurring mental health problems.”  

They note that 71% of such patients suffer from moderate- to high-distress psychopathology (48% and 23% respectively) while only 29% suffer at low-distress levels. Most of these patients (77%) enjoyed high levels of social support in the midst of their struggles, belying another tired line of gay/trans rhetoric. 

This Finnish study confirms that gender confused patients aren’t otherwise healthy people simply born in the wrong body, and if we just give them what they say they need, all will be well. Doing so actually appears to make things worse.
The Finnish research team, working from the same stellar population sample, also reported two years ago in the British Medical Journal that the “Main predictor of mortality in this population is psychiatric morbidity, and medical gender reassignment does not have an impact on suicide risk.” The Cass Review came to the same conclusion: “Tragically deaths by suicide in trans people of all ages continue to be above the national average, but there is no evidence that gender-affirmative treatments reduce this.” 

The manipulative claims of trans activists continue to crumble, thanks to carefully done science by honest researchers.

This Breakpoint was co-authored by Glenn Stanton.

Copyright 2026 by the Colson Center for Christian Worldview. Reprinted from BreakPoint.org with permission.

Mary Rose Doe Reminds Us of the Horrors of Unrestricted Abortion on Demand

On April 28, 1983, an eight-year-old boy playing by his yard near Little Rock’s Cantrell Road discovered baby Mary Rose Doe lying dead in a drainage ditch.

Mary was 16 inches long and weighed five pounds. She was seven months gestation, with a full head of auburn hair, brown eyes, and ivory skin.

The State Medical Examiner’s autopsy determined Mary asphyxiated in the womb as a result of a legal abortion.

Mary’s lifeless body was delivered and — for reasons nobody has ever been able to determine — she was abandoned in a drainage ditch. She probably had been dead only a few hours when her body was found.

The State Medical Examiner described Mary as “a perfect little bud that was clipped before she could blossom.”

Mary’s death serves as a grisly reminder of the horrors of unrestricted abortion on demand.

In 1983 abortion was legal and largely unregulated in Arkansas.

In the spring of that year, the state legislature passed Act 509 instituting some of Arkansas’ first meaningful restrictions on abortion facilities. However, those regulations did not take effect for many months. None of them was in place when Baby Mary Rose Doe was aborted—and then abandoned—in Little Rock.

Abortions like the one that took Mary Rose Doe’s life are one reason Arkansas began enacting pro-life laws such as health and safety standards for abortionists and abortion facilities.

In May of 1983, North Pulaski Pro-Life assumed guardianship of Mary’s remains, and the group made arrangements for her burial.

North Pulaski Pro-Life’s Treasurer and his wife provided Mary with a dress that had belonged to their daughters.

North Little Rock Funeral Home gave her a small coffin. The Catholic Diocese of Little Rock provided her with a grave plot in Little Rock’s Calvary Cemetery.

And North Pulaski Pro-Life gave her a name: Mary Rose Doe.

On May 16, 1983—less than three weeks after her body was found—some 100 people attended a graveside service for Mary at Calvary Cemetery in Little Rock. According to a news report at the time, the group sang “Amazing Grace” and heard from two ministers—one a Church of Christ preacher and the other a Catholic priest—who both called for an end to abortion.

White linen, rosebuds, and daisies covered Mary’s casket. A small marker was placed on her grave—a memorial to Mary Rose Doe and the thousands of other unborn children aborted in Arkansas.

Today, abortion in Arkansas is generally prohibited except to save the life of the mother. Mary’s body rests in a quiet corner of Calvary Cemetery near the intersection of South Woodrow and Asher Avenue in Little Rock. Her grave lies just a short drive across town from the place her body was discovered 43 years ago.

Mary’s story is still relevant. Right now a lawsuit has been filed in Pulaski County Circuit Court to nullify Arkansas’ pro-life laws and bring unrestricted abortion back to Arkansas. But Arkansas has been down that road before. Mary Rose Doe’s brief life and tragic death remind us exactly what unrestricted abortion on demand looks like.

Articles appearing on this website are written with the aid of Family Council’s researchers and writers. Information in this article was adapted from Family Council’s update letter dated April of 2020 and from news articles published in 1983.

Federal Government Moves to Reschedule Marijuana

The federal government took a major step last week toward loosening restrictions on marijuana.

Across the U.S., many states have legalized marijuana either for “medical” or “recreational” use, and the Trump Administration has signaled that it wants to change U.S. policy on marijuana. But a growing body of evidence shows marijuana is actually much more dangerous that many people realize and needs to be restricted.

On April 23, the Justice Department and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) announced they are placing FDA-approved marijuana products as well as marijuana products legalized under state “medical” marijuana programs on Schedule III of the federal Controlled Substances Act.

Schedule III drugs are considered to have accepted medical uses and a lower potential for abuse than Schedule I or II substances. The announcement also kicks off an expedited hearing process, beginning June 29, to consider moving all marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III under federal law.

Rescheduling marijuana sends the wrong message.

For years, marijuana advocates have used the push for “medical” marijuana as a stepping stone toward full legalization. Rescheduling marijuana may not legalize marijuana outright, but it will create more confusion about marijuana’s legal status and make it much easier for people to grow, sell, and use marijuana.

THC — the main psychoactive substance in marijuana — has been tied again and again to everything from heart disease and cancer to stroke, mental illness, and birth defects. In fact, researchers now say marijuana use doubles a person’s risk of death from heart disease.

Yale reports roughly 30% of current cannabis users now meet the criteria for addiction, and researchers writing in JAMA found nearly one in three “medical” marijuana users may suffer from cannabis use disorder.

A major study by The Lancet recently found marijuana fails to effectively treat anxiety, depression, or PTSD. The findings raise serious concerns, because PTSD is the most common qualifying condition listed among “medical” marijuana users in Arkansas.

All of this underscores that marijuana is dangerous.

Legalization has not made marijuana safer — in fact, it has made things worse.

States like California and Colorado legalized marijuana with promises of regulation, oversight, and tax revenue.

Instead, legalization has emboldened drug cartels and spread illegal marijuana on the black market. California alone has seized more than $1.2 billion in illegal cannabis since 2022.

And law enforcement has alleged that 40% of America’s illicit marijuana has come from legal grow sites in Oklahoma.

All of this matters for Arkansas.

Major drug trafficking corridors pass through our state. Arkansas State Police routinely intercept marijuana from other states that appears to be intended for the black market. As Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders said recently, “Arkansas sits at the heart of major drug-trafficking corridors.” That’s a serious problem, and softening our federal policies on marijuana will only make that problem worse.

As we have said time and again: Marijuana may be many things, but “harmless” simply is not one of them.

Articles appearing on this website are written with the aid of Family Council’s researchers and writers.