Transgender-identified teens are stressed about policies “related to their identities,” the education-focused website K-12 Dive recently claimed. That assertion was based on a 2025 survey by the Trevor Project, an influential LGBTQ advocacy organization ostensibly focused on suicide prevention. The numbers K-12 Dive presented are alarming, implying that kids with gender distress were at heightened risk of suicide thanks to “anti-LQBTQ+” policies.
But while many of the survey’s findings fit progressive assumptions, its conclusions aren’t clearly supported by the evidence it offers. Specifically, the survey authors fail to consider alternative interpretations of their findings, like how mental-health status may be driving self-reports of discrimination and distress rather than the other way around. In high-stakes areas like “gender identity” policy, the lack of humility regarding research findings has immense implications.
Finally, a reason to check your email.
Sign up for our free newsletter today.
The report’s conclusion is certainly unambiguous: “This year, anti-LGBTQ+ victimization, policies and rhetoric contributed meaningfully to the rates of poor mental health and suicide risk observed among the LGBTQ+ young people who took this survey.” But findings from self-report surveys cannot establish causality. Though the authors do not consider it, the data suggest alternative interpretations to this simple cause-and-effect story.
The survey asked respondents—over 16,000 self-identified LGBTQ+ people between the ages of 13 and 24—about mental-health symptoms and suicide risk, access to treatment (mental-health and medical interventions), the impact of “anti-LGBTQ+” policies across a host of domains, and about ways best to support trans-identified youth.
The Trevor Project and its interpreters then assume that the respondents’ high levels of poor mental health—over a third of respondents reported seriously considering suicide—are caused by the policies. For example, K-12 Dive highlights the Trevor Project’s finding that nine out of ten “LGBTQ+ youth” say recent “anti-LGBTQ+ laws, policies and debates” have caused them stress or anxiety. The Trevor Project asserts that “these policies, and the rhetoric associated with them, negatively impact the mental health of LGBTQ+ young people.” This use of minority stress theory—the assumption that the trans-identified have elevated rates of mental-health issues because of societal mistreatment—shapes the survey and its conclusions.
But it may be the case that respondents’ mental health caused their response to the laws and their explicit “anti-LGBTQ” framing, not the other way around. Many trans-identified young people have mental-health issues that predate a transgender identity. In turn, these mental-health issues can lead to more negative interpretations of ambiguous events, which can culminate in self-reports of stigma and rejection. For example, a 2024 paper found that these psychiatric issues, not gender dysphoria, predicted suicide mortality. Moreover, a recent April 2026 paper found that “Psychiatric needs do not subside after medical gender reassignment.
The 2025 Trevor Project survey’s findings fit equally with this “reverse causal” account. In short, trans-identified youth suffer from elevated rates of psychiatric issues, which are strongly linked with corresponding mental biases that make them more susceptible to social threat and perceived rejection. In turn, this sensitivity amplifies psychic distress and self-reports of discrimination.
Because there’s no reliable evidence that “gender affirming care” improves mental-health outcomes, it’s unlikely that any legal or policy change is driving these reported concerns. Rather, the growing evidence that some portion of trans-identified youth interpret their preexisting psychiatric issues through the lens of “gender identity” suggests that these respondents would be unhappy regardless of what the law says.
Moreover, the survey does not define “discrimination”—instead, it simply asks whether or not respondents subjectively experienced “discrimination” because of their “gender identity.” That leaves it up to the imaginations of trans-identified respondents who presumably are more likely to interpret ambiguous scenarios as overtly hostile.
The framing of the Trevor Project’s questions—that policies failing to reflect progressive orthodoxy are inherently “anti-LGBTQ+”—also seems engineered to prompt distress in an already vulnerable population. In this way, the organization arguably helps create or at least magnify the very problem it aims to measure.
Advocacy organizations like the Trevor Project have clear fundraising incentives to present the image of perpetual crisis among LGBTQ youth. Neither trans-identified youth nor the public are served by one-dimensional narratives that limit our collective ability to understand and address one of the most polarizing issues of our time.