this post was submitted on 26 Mar 2026
184 points (91.4% liked)
Political Memes
11449 readers
2584 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
1) Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
2) No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
3) Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
4) No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
5) No AI generated content.
Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
If you take healthcare away from trans people, suicide numbers go up. And she wants to take healthcare away from trans people and shove us back in the closet. She's chosen to attack kids, the most vulnerable of us. I believe she's already taken lives through her lobbying.
I might be wrong as I haven't looked too much into it in recent years, so maybe her rhetoric has changed, but isn't even that a little beyond what she actually has said? From what I recall, isn't her entire stance just that trans women are not the same as biological women?
Again, I could be wrong, I might be going off of outdated info, but has she ever actually argued that trans people shouldnt exist, or that they should be denied medical care? From what I've seen, it's all boiled down to not wanting trans women in sports or bathrooms. Which, yea, that's problematic, but that's not the same as saying they shouldn't exist or shouldn't have healthcare.
Here's a fun one: She accused cisgender women's Olympic gold medalist in boxing, Imane Khelif, of "being a man". Seemingly just because she's black.
Anyway, back on topic: https://www.yahoo.com/news/j-k-rowling-uses-harry-175223238.html?guccounter=1
the suicide numbers go up?
So, a common metric people bring up in discussions of trans people that make their way into politics is 'trans suicide rates'. Republicans tend to mention it in reference to "We shouldn't let anyone be trans, because trans people commit suicide often," and Democrats tend to argue "Trans suicide is so high because they get degraded by society, and aren't allowed to express themselves."
Yeah not exactly Democrats and Republicans, but fugget it gets the point across of who tends to argue what. I would say Conservative or Liberal, but even that isn't exactly nuianced enough.
so different people have different "explanations" for the suicide rates. has there been any unbiased evidence to explain it?
Yeah, sure. Here's some research by the government that assessed the impact of gender affirming care and legal recognition on suicidal thoughts. More healthcare meant fewer suicidal thoughts. https://www.aihw.gov.au/suicide-self-harm-monitoring/population-groups/lgbtqia-sb-people/gender-affirmation
thanks, i'm reading this link and looking for data about suicide rates. this report is talking about a collection of self-reported data about suicidal thoughts, which many people can have and fortunately not go through with it.
I also see a statistically significant correlation, and i'm still looking for a reliable causation and data on suicide rates. how do we know if the lack of gender affirming care directly leads to increased suicides in a systemic pattern? perhaps the same people who cannot access it also are likely to have other things in life that could cause terrible suicidal thoughts or actions. i'm wondering how we can rule this out.
You want causation? How about a study that looked at the suicide attempts per year before and after anti-trans state laws were passed? https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-024-01979-5
good for them for having such a large sample size. i admit i'm confused though, the results are an increase "by 7–72%."? i wonder what is up with this huge range. how can we have confidence in this?
i wish the abstract explained what types of anti-trans laws were passed, cause of course different laws end up having different effects. that could explain the uncertainty in the results range. in this case we're concerned with how a lack of gender affirming care would directly influence systematic suicide rates, so I'm still looking out for more evidence on that topic.
Well, confidence interval and p value aren't the same thing. They're related, but different. You've identified that there's a big confidence interval. But p value is what's really important, because that tells you if the results are statistically significant. Now here's a maths trick: if the confidence interval of the null hypothesis overlaps with the confidence interval of the result, then it won't be significant. But if the confidence intervals don't overlap, then your p value is smaller than 0.05; it's significant.
Now here's the data from the study:
The black circles represent years where the suicide attempt rate was not significantly different from baseline. The white circles are years where there was a significant difference to the baseline rate. So you can see that before these laws are passed, suicide rates are pretty much holding steady, and then on the second anniversary of the law's enactment, it's way up.
Now here's the trick. That 7-72% is not a confidence interval. So it's not actually related to significance. See, in the first year after the anti-trans laws were passed, for the teenage sample group, there was actually a significant effect. a 7% rise. Just very barely. You can see how the confidence interval line goes nearly all the way down to baseline. Second year, that's way up. 72% up. So that's the 7-72%. 7% is the first year, 72% is the second year.
So yeah, we're pretty fucking sure this is because of the laws.