Statement from Phillip C. Parrish, Candidate for Governor of Minnesota 2026
Fellow Minnesotans,
As a father, veteran, and candidate for Governor in 2026, I am deeply concerned about the direction of our state’s education policies under the current administration. The Minnesota Department of Education’s Draft 2 of the K-12 Academic Standards in Health introduces age-inappropriate concepts, such as gender identity and “sex assigned at birth,” to children as young as third grade. This isn’t about politics—it’s about protecting our kids from unproven, potentially harmful ideologies that lack scientific backing and could confuse their development, erode parental rights, and lead to long-term mental and physical health issues.
I strongly oppose this draft and urge its rejection or major revision. Here’s a sample feedback statement you can adapt and submit via the online survey by the deadline of July 18, 2025—just two days away:
Subject: Strong Opposition to Draft 2 of Minnesota K-12 Academic Standards in Health – Request for Rejection or Major Revision
Dear Minnesota Department of Education Review Committee,
I am writing to express my strong opposition to Draft 2 of the Minnesota K-12 Academic Standards in Health, particularly the benchmarks under the Sexual Health strand that introduce concepts like gender identity, gender expression, and “sex assigned at birth” to elementary students as young as third grade (e.g., benchmarks 3.4.1.05, 3.4.1.06). While I support comprehensive health education that promotes physical and mental wellbeing, this draft embeds flawed agendas that are intellectually unsound, morally questionable, and potentially harmful to children’s development. These elements prioritize ideological indoctrination over evidence-based learning, risking confusion, family discord, and long-term health issues without proven benefits. I urge the committee to reject this draft in its current form and prioritize standards grounded in biological facts, age-appropriate content, and robust scientific evidence.
Flawed Agendas: Ideological Bias Over Developmental Appropriateness
The draft’s agenda to teach fluid gender concepts to 8-9-year-olds (e.g., distinguishing gender identity from biological sex in a “gender-neutral way”) is intellectually broken because it lacks empirical support for its efficacy or safety at this age. Children in early elementary stages are still mastering basic biological realities and self-concepts; introducing abstract, contested ideas like gender as a spectrum can overwhelm cognitive development and divert time from foundational skills like nutrition or emotional regulation. This isn’t a conservative vs. liberal debate—it’s about adhering to child psychology principles. For instance, Piaget’s stages of cognitive development indicate that pre-operational children (ages 2-7, extending into early elementary) struggle with abstract reasoning, making such topics developmentally inappropriate and likely to cause unnecessary confusion.
Moreover, the agenda appears driven by activism rather than education, as evidenced by the absence of citations in the draft to high-quality studies justifying these benchmarks. Critics, including licensed health educators, have noted that even high school students struggle with basic reproductive anatomy, yet third graders are expected to parse gender expression (as highlighted in interviews with Minnesota teachers opposing the draft). This rushed push—without broad consultation of frontline educators—undermines trust in the process and risks embedding bias, where schools affirm identities without parental input, potentially violating family integrity.
Intellectually Harmful Realities: Evidence of Negative Impacts on Mental and Physical Health
The intellectual harm stems from a weak evidence base, where gender-affirming approaches in education may exacerbate rather than alleviate issues. The Cass Review (2024), a comprehensive independent analysis by the UK’s National Health Service, evaluated over 100 studies and concluded that the evidence for social transitions (including school-based affirmation of gender identities) is “remarkably weak,” with low-quality research failing to demonstrate mental health benefits for youth. In fact, it found potential harms, such as increased persistence of gender dysphoria (from historical desistance rates of 80-95% without intervention to nearly 100% with early affirmation), locking children into paths that could lead to medical interventions with irreversible effects.
Studies on desistance reinforce this: Pre-pubertal gender incongruence resolves naturally in 80-95% of cases by late adolescence under a “watchful waiting” approach, but social affirmation in schools correlates with higher persistence and subsequent medicalization. A Dutch follow-up study showed that all children who received pubertal suppression (often following school affirmation) proceeded to cross-sex hormones, suggesting educational policies may create iatrogenic harm—worsening distress through suggestion. Long-term data post-transition reveal elevated risks: A Swedish study (Dhejne et al., 2011) found 19 times higher suicide rates and increased psychiatric morbidity among those who underwent sex reassignment, indicating that early ideological exposure doesn’t prevent but may contribute to poor outcomes.
Physically, this agenda paves the way for interventions like puberty blockers, linked to bone density loss, infertility, and cardiovascular risks, with “very low” evidence quality per systematic reviews. In the U.S., over 17,000 youth aged 6-17 started such treatments from 2017-2021, with detransition rates up to 30% in some cohorts, highlighting regret and harm often traced back to school influences. Mentally, exposure to gender ideology correlates with higher anxiety and depression, as seen in reports of “rapid-onset gender dysphoria” (ROGD) among adolescents influenced by peers and media, disproportionately affecting girls with comorbidities like autism.
These realities harm families too: Policies excluding parents (e.g., affirming identities secretly) erode trust, as documented in UK reports where only 28% of schools notify families of gender distress, leading to isolation and custody battles. In Minnesota, this aligns with broader concerns under bills like SF 1740, which offers opt-outs but doesn’t address the core flaws.
Recommendations
Reject Draft 2 and revise to:
• Delay gender-related topics until high school, focusing elementary health on biology, hygiene, and consent.
• Require evidence-based citations for all benchmarks.
• Mandate parental notification and opt-outs for sensitive content.
• Consult diverse experts, including those from the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine (SEGM), which critiques affirmation models for methodological flaws.
Prioritizing children’s safety over unproven agendas is essential. Thank you for considering this feedback.
Sincerely,
Phillip Charles Parrish
Minnesotans, our children’s future is at stake—act now! Complete the survey at https://survey.alchemer.com/s3/8319410/Health-Survey-Draft-2 before July 18, 2025. While I encourage you to review the draft and form your own conclusions, here’s a step-by-step guide to suggested responses based on evidence like the Cass Review and desistance studies. Use these as a starting point, but personalize to reflect your views:
1. CCCR Statement Section: Strongly Disagree on all readiness statements. In the text box: “The CCCR Statement is overly vague and fails to communicate clear, evidence-based expectations, as it underpins a draft riddled with intellectually flawed agendas like early gender identity education. This risks harming students’ mental health by promoting concepts without proven benefits, potentially exacerbating confusion and leading to iatrogenic effects (Cass Review, 2024). Historical data show 80-95% desistance in pre-pubertal gender incongruence without affirmation (Cohen-Kettenis et al., 2008), yet the draft’s approach may increase persistence and medicalization risks like bone density loss from blockers. For true readiness, revise to emphasize biological facts, delay abstract topics until high school, and cite high-quality studies. Include parental opt-outs and consultation with experts like SEGM to avoid ideological bias over child wellbeing.”
2. Anchor Standards Section: Strongly Disagree on clarity for all standards. In the text box: “While the Anchor Standards’ wording is generally free of jargon and understandable, I strongly disagree with their clarity as they underpin harmful benchmarks (e.g., early gender identity education) without safeguards or evidence mandates. Ambiguity in terms like ‘functional health information’ (Standard 1), ‘affirming’ (Standard 4), and ‘promoting health’ (Standard 8) conceals risks, like iatrogenic harm from social affirmation—the Cass Review (2024) deems evidence ‘remarkably weak’ with no mental health benefits. Studies show 80-95% desistance in pre-pubertal gender incongruence without intervention (Cohen-Kettenis et al., 2008), yet standards may increase persistence and harms like infertility. Definitions lack precision on age-appropriateness and parental involvement, risking family discord and ROGD-related anxiety. To improve: Add to all: ‘Evidence-based (high-quality RCTs), biologically accurate, age-appropriate; parental opt-outs for sensitive topics.’ Standard 2: ‘Include peer/media contagion risks.’ Standard 4: ‘Honors diverse views but prioritizes child safety/family rights.’ Standards 5-6: ‘Consider long-term outcomes/desistance data.’ Limit 7-8 to high school. Require SEGM citations. These ensure clarity and help over harm.”
3. Grade Band Selection: Select K-5, 6-8, and K-12 to cover key areas.
4. Benchmark Comments:
• Q8 (Clarity): Disagree.
• Q9: Use the provided explanation on vagueness and suggest edits like replacing terms with biological ones.
• Q10 (Progression): Disagree.
• Q11: Highlight illogical jumps and suggest restructuring to delay topics.
• Q12 (Appropriateness): Disagree.
• Q13: Note cognitive mismatches and suggest raising ages.
• Q14 (Assessable): Disagree.
• Q15: Suggest factual revisions for objectivity.
• Q16 (Accessibility): Disagree.
• Q17: Propose inclusivity for cultural views and opt-outs.
• Q18 (Underrepresented Topics): List biology focus, family roles, and risks.
• Q19 (Underrepresented Groups): Families opposing ideology, detransitioners.
• Q20 (Challenges): Parental opposition, lack of evidence.
• Q21: Other—Evidence-based training on watchful waiting.
• Q22: Reject draft; remove K-8 identities; add evidence mandates.
5. Demographics: Select as a parent/guardian of K-12 students, focusing on grades 3-5, in a public school setting.
Your voice matters—submit today and help ensure our schools prioritize real health and family values over agendas. Together, we can build a better Minnesota.
In service,
Phillip C. Parrish
Candidate for Governor, Minnesota 2026