Connect with us

Health

Oxford study finds transgender surgery increases depression, suicide ideation rates

Published

4 months ago

8 minute read

From LifeSiteNews

By Doug Mainwaring

This study, along with scores of others conducted in recent years, explodes the media-enforced narrative that so-called ‘gender transition’ procedures are beneficial for the gender-confused.

A study published in the Oxford Journal of Sexual Medicine found that undergoing so-called “sex change” surgery, far from reducing depression rates among the gender dysphoric, substantially increased rates not only of depression, but of anxiety, suicidal ideation, and substance use disorders. 

Males who underwent transgender surgery had a depression rate of 25.4 percent, compared to 11.5 percent in those who did not have surgery. Likewise, females who underwent surgery had a depression rate of 22.9 percent, compared to 14.6 percent in those who did not. 

The study notes that males undergoing “feminizing” surgeries demonstrated a particularly high risk for depression and substance use disorders. 

“From 107,583 patients, matched cohorts demonstrated that those undergoing surgery were at significantly higher risk for depression, anxiety, suicidal ideation, and substance use disorders than those without surgery,” the researchers found.  

Rather than concluding that so-called “gender affirming” surgery is a dangerous, unnecessary practice that should be discontinued because it puts patients’ lives at risk, the researchers instead suggest that that their findings show a need for “gender-sensitive mental health support following gender-affirming surgery to address post-surgical psychological risks.” 

Exploding the myth  

This study, along with scores of others conducted in recent years, explodes the media-enforced narrative that so-called “gender transition” procedures are beneficial or even “necessary” for the happiness and well-being of the gender-confused.  

A significant body of evidence now shows that “affirming” gender confusion carries serious harms, especially when done with impressionable children who lack the mental development, emotional maturity, and life experience to consider the long-term ramifications of the decisions being pushed on them or full knowledge about the long-term effects of life-altering, physically transformative, and often irreversible surgical and chemical procedures. 

Studies find that more than 80 percent of children suffering gender dysphoria outgrow it on their own by late adolescence and that “transition” procedures fail to resolve gender-confused individuals’ heightened tendency to engage in self-harm and suicide – and even exacerbate it, including by reinforcing their confusion and neglecting the actual root causes of their mental strife.  

Last year, a massive, peer-reviewed study provided unequivocal evidence that those who undergo so-called “gender reassignment” surgery put themselves at a vastly increased risk of suicide – an astounding 12 times that of the general population.  

The giant study, “involving 56 United States healthcare organizations and over 90 million patients,” analyzed data collected over a 20-year period, from February 2003 to February 2023, examining “suicide attempts, death, self-harm, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) within five years of the index event.”   

The researchers compared the experiences of persons aged 18-60 who visited hospital emergency rooms and who had previously undergone “transition” surgery with those who visited emergency rooms without having undergone transgender surgery: A stunning 3.47 percent of those who had surgically “transitioned” were treated for suicide attempts, versus 0.29 percent for non-“transitioned” patients.    

The authors of the study, like those of the one just published in the Oxford Journal of Sexual Medicine, sidestepped the obvious conclusion that attempts to surgically “transition” the gender-confused are both dangerous and futile.   

Instead they concluded: “Gender-affirming [sic] surgery is significantly associated with elevated suicide attempt risks, underlining the necessity for comprehensive post-procedure psychiatric support.” 

In 2016, The New Atlantis, A Journal of Technology and Society, produced a landmark report offering a summary and an up-to-date explanation of research on “sexual orientation and gender identity” from the biological, psychological, and social sciences, covering nearly 200 peer-reviewed studies.  

“The hypothesis that gender identity is an innate, fixed property of human beings that is independent of biological sex — that a person might be ‘a man trapped in a woman’s body’ or ‘a woman trapped in a man’s body’ — is not supported by scientific evidence,” according to experts Lawrence S. Mayer, M.B., M.S., Ph.D, scholar-in-residence in the Department of Psychiatry at the Johns Hopkins University, and Paul R. McHugh, M.D., professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine.  

According to their report, the vast body of scientific evidence tells a different story from the one most have been told through mainstream media. “Sexual identity” or “sexual orientation” are so commonly used that they go unquestioned and are perceived to have been derived from biological or medical science, but they are not. These terms are merely expressions of desire, behavior, and identity, all of which are fluid and may change over time. Additionally, “gay,” “lesbian,” and “transgender” are not scientific terms. People who suffer from homosexual inclinations and/or gender confusion are not separate species of human beings. 

The only thing that science actually tells us is that we are born either male or female. 

One young man, Yarden Silveira, was so distraught after “sex change” surgery that he committed suicide in 2021.    

Before taking his own life, Yarden wrote:  

I wish I never listened to the medical and psychiatric community when they told me it was possible to change my sex. What a lie. Very dangerous and unethical. Sex reassignment [sic] surgery is a hit and miss type of surgery, but they don’t tell you that. They never do. And maybe if I didn’t have autism, maybe if my brain wasn’t so defective, I would have caught on before it was too late…   

This is what I get for messing with nature… I just wanted friendship and love. I wanted life to be easier. I wanted to be a woman since I was 15. I wish I had the knowledge that I have today. I was a confused kid with no identity. I wish I could have done everything different, but it’s too late now. I’m royally screwed…  

The Transgender Ideology and its lies, along with the pro-gay media, medical and psychiatric community, have killed me. The feminization of America will continue to produce outcomes like mine. It wasn’t my fault for failing. Everyone failed me, my death shouldn’t surprise anyone.  

Related Topics:

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

More from this author
Daily Caller / 16 mins ago

‘Not Held Hostage Anymore’: Economist Explains How America Benefits If Trump Gets Oil And Gas Expansion

Business / 10 hours ago

Trump makes impact on G7 before he makes his exit

conflict / 12 hours ago

Trump: ‘We’ have control over Iranian airspace; know where Khomeini is hiding

Alberta

Alberta health care blockbuster: Province eliminating AHS Health Zones in favour of local decision-making!

Published on June 17, 2025

By

Hospital Based Leadership: Eliminating the bureaucratic vortex in hospitals

Since Alberta’s government announced plans to refocus the health care system in November 2023, a consistent message has emerged from patients, front-line health care workers and concerned Albertans alike about the flaws of the prior system. Alberta Health Services’ current zone-based leadership structure is overly complex and bureaucratic. It lacks the flexibility and responsiveness needed to effectively support facilities and staff – particularly when it comes to hiring, securing supplies and adopting necessary technologies.

That’s why Alberta’s government is changing to a hospital-based leadership structure. On-site leadership teams will be responsible for hiring staff, managing resources and solving problems to effectively serve their patients and communities. Hospitals will now have the flexibility to respond, freedom to adapt and authority to act, so they can meet the needs of their facilities, patients and workforce in real time.

“What works in Calgary or Edmonton isn’t always what works in Camrose or Peace River. That’s why we’re cutting through bureaucracy and putting real decision-making power back in the hands of local hospital leaders, so they can act fast, hire who they need and deliver better care for their communities.”

Danielle Smith, Premier

“Hospital-based leadership ensures decisions on hiring, supplies and services are made efficiently by those closest to care – strengthening acute care, supporting staff and helping patients get the timely, high-quality care they need and deserve.”

Matt Jones, Minister of Hospital and Surgical Health Services

“By rethinking how decisions are made, we’re working to improve health care through a more balanced and practical approach. By removing delays and empowering our on-site leaders, we’re giving facilities the tools to respond to real-time needs and ultimately provide better care to Albertans.”

Adriana LaGrange, Minister of Primary and Preventative Health Services

AHS’ health zones will be eliminated, and acute care sites will be integrated into the seven regional corridors. These sites will operate under a new leadership model that emphasizes site-level performance management. Clear expectations will be set by Acute Care Alberta, and site operations will be managed by AHS through a hospital-based management framework. All acute care sites will be required to report to Acute Care Alberta based on these defined performance standards.

“Standing up Acute Care Alberta has allowed AHS to shift its focus to hospital-based services. This change will enable the local leadership teams at those hospitals to make site-based decisions in real and tangible ways that are best for their patients, families and staff. Acute Care Alberta will provide oversight and monitor site-level performance, and I’m confident overall hospital performance will improve when hospital leadership and staff have more authority to do what they know is best.”

Dr. Chris Eagle, interim CEO, Acute Care Alberta

“AHS is focused on reducing wait times and improving care for patients. By shifting to hospital-based leadership, we’re empowering hospital leaders to make real-time decisions based on what’s happening on the ground and respond to patient needs as they arise. It also means leaders can address issues we know have been frustrating, like hiring staff where they’re needed most and advancing hospital operations. This change enables front-line teams to act on ideas they see every day to improve care.”

Andre Tremblay, interim president & CEO, Alberta Health Services

The Ministry of Hospital and Surgical Health Services, Acute Care Alberta and Alberta Health Services will work collaboratively to design and establish the new leadership and management model with an interim model to be established by November 2025, followed by full implementation by summer 2026.

Quick facts

  • Countries like the Netherlands and Norway, and parts of Australia have already made the shift to hospital-based leadership.
  • The interim hospital-based leadership model will be implemented at one site before being implemented provincewide.
  • Hospital-based leadership, once implemented, will apply only to AHS acute care facilities. Other acute care organizations will not be affected at the time of implementation.

Related information

Continue Reading

Aristotle Foundation

The Canadian Medical Association’s inexplicable stance on pediatric gender medicine

Published on June 16, 2025

By

By Dr. J. Edward Les

The thalidomide saga is particularly instructive: Canada was the last developed country to pull thalidomide from its shelves — three months during which babies continued to be born in this country with absent or deformed limbs

Physicians have a duty to put forward the best possible evidence, not ideology, based treatments

Late last month, the Canadian Medical Association (CMA) announced that it, along with three Alberta doctors, had filed a constitutional challenge to Alberta’s Bill 26 “to protect the relationship between patients, their families and doctors when it comes to making treatment decisions.”

Bill 26, which became law last December, prohibits doctors in the province from prescribing puberty blockers and hormone therapies for those under 16; it also bans doctors from performing gender-reassignment surgeries on minors (those under 18).

The unprecedented CMA action follows its strongly worded response in February 2024 to Alberta’s (at the time) proposed legislation:

“The CMA is deeply concerned about any government proposal that restricts access to evidence-based medical care, including the Alberta government’s proposed restrictions on gender-affirming treatments for pediatric transgender patients.”

But here’s the problem with that statement, and with the CMA’s position: the evidence supporting the “gender affirmation” model of care — which propels minors onto puberty blockers, cross-gender hormones, and in some cases, surgery — is essentially non-existent. That’s why the United Kingdom’s Conservative government, in the aftermath of the exhaustive four-year-long Cass Review, which laid bare the lack of evidence for that model, and which shone a light on the deeply troubling potential for the model’s irreversible harm to youth, initiated a temporary ban on puberty blockers — a ban made permanent last December by the subsequent Labour government. And that’s why other European jurisdictions like Finland and Sweden, after reviews of gender affirming care practices in their countries, have similarly slammed the brakes on the administration of puberty blockers and cross-gender hormones to minors.

It’s not only the Europeans who have raised concerns. The alarm bells are ringing loudly within our own borders: earlier this year, a group at McMaster University, headed by none other than Dr. Gordon Guyatt, one of the founding gurus of the “evidence-based care” construct that rightfully underpins modern medical practice, issued a pair of exhaustive systematic reviews and meta analyses that cast grave doubts on the wisdom of prescribing these drugs to youth.

And yet, the CMA purports to be “deeply concerned about any government proposal that restricts access to evidence-based medical care,” which begs the obvious question: Where, exactly, is the evidence for the benefits of the “gender affirming” model of care? The answer is that it’s scant at best. Worse, the evidence that does exist, points, on balance, to infliction of harm, rather than provision of benefit.

CMA President Joss Reimer, in the group’s announcement of the organization’s legal action, said:

“Medicine is a calling. Doctors pursue it because they are compelled to care for and promote the well-being of patients. When a government bans specific treatments, it interferes with a doctor’s ability to empower patients to choose the best care possible.”

Indeed, we physicians have a sacred duty to pursue the well-being of our patients. But that means that we should be putting forward the best possible treatments based on actual evidence.

When Dr. Reimer states that a government that bans specific treatments is interfering with medical care, she displays a woeful ignorance of medical history. Because doctors don’t always get things right: look to the sad narratives of frontal lobotomies, the oxycontin crisis, thalidomide, to name a few.

The thalidomide saga is particularly instructive: it illustrates what happens when a government drags its heels on necessary action. Canada was the last developed country to pull thalidomide, given to pregnant women for morning sickness, from its shelves, three months after it had been banned everywhere else — three months during which babies continued to be born in this country with absent or deformed limbs, along with other severe anomalies. It’s a shameful chapter in our medical past, but it pales in comparison to the astonishing intransigence our medical leaders have displayed — and continue to display — on the youth gender care file.

A final note (prompted by thalidomide’s history), to speak to a significant quibble I have with Alberta’s Bill 26 legislation: as much as I admire Premier Danielle Smith’s courage in bringing it forward, the law contains a loophole allowing minors already on puberty blockers and cross-gender hormones to continue to take them. Imagine if, after it was removed from the shelves in 1962, government had allowed pregnant women already on the drug to continue to take thalidomide. Would that have made any sense? Of course not. And the same applies to puberty blockers and cross-gender hormones: they should be banned outright for all youth.

That argument is the kind our medical associations should be making — and would be making, if they weren’t so firmly in the grasp, seemingly, of ideologues who have abandoned evidence-based medical care for our youth.

J. Edward Les is a Calgary pediatrician, a senior fellow with the  Aristotle Foundation for Public Policy,  and co-author of “Teenagers, Children, and Gender Transition Policy: A Comparison of Transgender Medical Policy for Minors in Canada, the United States, and Europe.” 

Continue Reading

Trending

X