I ordered leading youth transition advocate Jack Turban's new book, "Free to Be," to examine the evidence he claims supports a biological basis for innate gender identity
As always, fair, factual, and fearless. Idea-laundering – the tactic of normalizing political views by disguising them as knowledge – is ultimately what drives the false consensus on gender, so it’s heartening to see bright minds like you exposing it.
Thank you for enduring Turban’s writing so we don’t have to.
Setting aside the question of the shoddy “science” (which is appalling enough), I am additionally appalled by his appropriation of the phrase “Free to Be” for his title. Many of us have observed that the message of “Free to Be - You and Me” from the ‘70s was basically the opposite of today’s gender woo. William having a doll didn’t make him a sissy boy — let alone make him a girl. And the baby who thought she was a boy because she’s bald quickly figured out she was actually a girl as soon as her diaper was changed. How much we’ve regressed on this front in the past 50 years.
Thanks for pointing that out. It’s the first thing I thought of when I saw the book cover. And you inspired me to check YouTube and, indeed, it’s there: https://youtu.be/7PS3nOcLbHI?si=qJfSfu0__6dyPAhB I don’t think I’m overly optimistic to imagine it would still capture the attention of young children, and innoculate them against the notion that their sex or other immutable qualities might be considered a mistake or somehow wrong — and for anyone over 50 who grew up in the U. S., it’s a great sentimental journey, watching and listening to Michael Jackson, Harry Belafonte, Cicely Tyson, Rosey Grier, Carol Channing… such an amazing cast.
What Turban (and other idiots) is saying is that a male can "feel like" he's female or vice versa.
Define what a male is, define what a female is, then explain how a male can "feel" female.
It cannot be done. A male has XY chromosomes/sperm and a female has XX/eggs. Genetic disorders don't change this and there is no spectrum. How on earth can someone feel like he has DNA and a body he does not have?
There is no such thing as "gender identity." This is untreated mental illness, usually autogynephilia in males and childhood sexual abuse in females.
The problem here is very use of the term "gender." It means everything, anything, nothing, stereotypes, feelings, personality, etc.
"Gender" is a linguistics term for words only. It has no application to humans, and even introduction of it is the source of confusion.
As such, there is no such thing as "transgender." There is no special category for someone who refuses to accept the reality of his sexed body. A male who doesn't want to be male is still male. There is no biological basis for this. This is after YEARS of idiots like Judith Butler saying "gender" has nothing to do with biology.
Biology is determined by chromosomes and gametes. We know a lot about that. Nothing overrides it. Eliminate "gender" from the vocabulary, and watch the confusion disappear. This is mental illness and medical industry profits.
I’d go beyond this and say that I (a woman) also do not know what it means to “feel” female. I only know (and CAN only know) what it feels like to be me. Even for those experiences that a male will never have (menstruation, breastfed, childbirth), there’s no way for me to know that I experience or feel these in the same way other women do. (And, to be clear, I do realize that not all women will have these particular experiences, either. Which does not make them any less women.)
Thank you! I've never given birth or breastfed and never will. Stopped menstruating before i hit 30. I'm still a woman, but as you say, I don't know what it feels like to be A woman, I only know what it feels like to be THIS woman.
Perhaps we should stop referring to "trans-identified males" and simply call them "biology-denying males". Or biology-rejecting females: in the case of girls horrified by the degrading images of womanhood presented to them by porn and by hypersexualised advertising.
The lucrative body dissociation industry shouldn't be allowed to get away with calling its rocketing numbers of indoctrinated victims "trans". And we could stop colluding with it.
The podcast “The Check up with Dr. Mike” had Jack Turban on June 19. He repeatedly stated how complicated everything in gender medicine was except for the evidence supporting it. When asked about ROGD research he attacked the authors as being biased. The craziest part was him stating he doesn’t question new patients claiming they’re transgender because he doesn’t want to gaslight them or potentially cause anxiety. Parents think their kids are being evaluated when it’s really just straight to affirming care.
This is such an important point. People who aren't deep in the weeds of this - both on the left and right - trust the system and assume that doctors can sort this all out, can find the "true trans" people with the brain-body mismatch (or however they define "real trans"), and assume doctors are doing deep assessments and are even telling some people "no, this isn't right for you." They don't realize that there's no assessment happening and that no one gets told no (and if they did, there's a dozen doctors ready to say yes without a second thought or a first look).
That’s how they cancelled the Canadian psychologist Kenneth Zucker. Decades as an expert in the field. His philosophy was therapy for gender dysphoric kids. Most of them stayed the same gender and were gay. Trans activists reframed this as gate keeping and the same thing as gay conversion therapy. They seriously questioned what right does a psychologist have in questioning a child’s claim they’re transgender.
A tiny correction: you state that the Cass Review found extremely weak evidence supporting gender transition care, which is true. But what seems to be getting lost in the narrative is that despite recommending psychotherapy as the default for gender dysphoria, the Review also found there there are NO evidence-supported interventions of any kind for gender dysphoria in minors. That includes psychotherapy, as well as "watchful waiting". According to Cass, there is actually next to no convincing evidence supporting doing anything, or doing nothing, for kids with gender dysphoria.
I realize that's, at best, tangential to the point of your post. But I do think it's important that, at the same time we continue to point out to minimal evidence base behind medical transition, we also push to create an actual evidence base for SOMETHING. We can't take something away from a population who is clearly suffering, and leave it at that. There needs to be something that's actually effective to address that suffering. And as we drive home the point that the current interventions have very weak evidentiary support, I think we should also make sure people know that there is actually no evidence based alternative for these kids and their desperate families-and given the sharp rise in kids with these issues, that needs to change.
What likely needs to change is the culture itself. It’s a social contagion at this point. A very tiny number of people would latch onto the idea of being the wrong sex and get obsessed with it—but we’re saying far greater numbers now, and that’s due to it being part of the “symptom pool” available to distressed people.
There actually may never be good treatment for people who are convinced they’re “really” the opposite gender. There are other mental illnesses that we don’t really have great treatment for, either. Certain types of schizophrenia, autism (I’m on the spectrum myself). That’s just the unfortunate state of affairs.
I think your redefinition of gender identity as gender nonconformity is a very important and useful step. Most people would readily accept that some people do not wish to conform to gender stereotypes. What is impossible to accept is that we have to reinforce their delusions of being born in the wrong body necessitating surgical mutilation.
Excellent article Christina, and as always a great summary of the (lack of) evidence that trans identities are innate. Unfortunately there will be people in positions of power over children's lives who will read Jack Turban's book and unquestioningly accept it as an accurate summary of the science.
Readers may also be interested in my in-depth review of the arguments and evidence on both sides of the 'innate versus socially influenced' debate:
The point as I take it is gender is misused, yes it can be delineated and used meaningfully but it's past time for that. Because gender doesn't contain the underlying definitional content, which is always provided by, in reference to, sex then you can always use another term. Ie sex-based stereotype.
Don't think so. The concept of "gender" has "escaped the lab" and is ubiquitous. For example Google SOGI -- Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity -- there are probably thousands if not millions of "hits". It has wormed its way into millions of school systems all over the world:
Kinda think the only solution is a "vaccine" of sorts -- i.e., a scientifically justified and coherent definition for the term. Like the Merriam-Webster one. The problem isn't the concept of gender itself - at least as defined by MW. The problem is the conflation of sex with gender, is the demented idea that some doode putting on a dress and expressing a more "feminine" gender has therefore changed sex and should be treated as if he had.
> "Because gender doesn't contain the underlying definitional content, which is always provided by, in reference to, sex then you can always use another term. Ie sex-based stereotype."
Not sure exactly what you're getting at with your "underlying definitional content ... in reference to sex", but the MW definition is quite explicit in linking to sex: "the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex [or the other]"
Gender is -- essentially or to a first approximation -- a set of sexually dimorphic personality traits, roles, and behaviours. You might take a close look at the Wikipedia article on the topic:
Wikipedia: "Sexual dimorphism is the condition where sexes of the same species exhibit different morphological characteristics, particularly characteristics not directly involved in reproduction. .... Differences may include secondary sex characteristics, size, weight, color, markings, or behavioral or cognitive traits."
And those differences are not at all "socially constructed" -- at least not all of them or entirely. There is a massive amount of solid evidence that, in fact, there are significant, measurable, and objective differences, on average, in the "behavioral or cognitive traits" of men and women. For example, see:
Further, I don't think you -- and far too many others -- quite get the idea that stereotypes -- "sex-based" ones in particular -- are generally not at all cut from whole cloth. They often derive or follow from brute facts about differences in different populations -- like differences in "behavioural or cognitive traits" between men and women. You might try reading this old article by Substacker Lee Jussim:
Looks like you've written at least 3 articles on the topic. What's the Coles' Notes version?
Do you agree that one definition is the MW one or not? Yes, or no.
No doubt there's a great deal of scientific rot and egregious claptrap that comes in under that heading. But there is some solid evidence to justify the concept: there ARE significant differences, on average, in the "behavioural, and psychological traits typically associated with each sex".
I elaborated on my views in my writing. You’re free to read it and respond if you wish, but I’m not going to reiterate here something you could just read in your own time.
If you can’t be bothered to take the time to understand someone’s view before criticizing it, then your criticism doesn’t merit a response.
I love the retitling to "Free to Believe," as it has upset me to no end that the true progress towards dismantling the somewhat, sometimes arbitrary attributes of sex into gender stereotypes that Free to Be You and Me promoted has been undone by gender ideology while also stealing its title.
This is another case of an argument that is "faith based" , there is no empirical evidence to back it up. no matter how many angels they manage to count on the head of a pin. The same being true for DEI programs. What is assumed from the beginning is that those advocating for their position are pure of heart and only wanting to do what is best for their population. Anyone questioning this is by definition operating from darkness. Unfortunately liberals , "progressives" .....democrats have completely bought in and this is going to have serious consequences for them in the near future.
Very illuminating, cool-headed piece, thank you. I was notably glad to read an update on the “brain gender” subtopic. A few thoughts:
Re: Gender nonconformity and transgenderism: It makes perfect sense that the data for both sets would be similar. These have always struck me as being different stations on the same spectrum, but the former points back more directly to a previous understanding of ordinary human diversity (e.g., yesteryear's tomboy is today's AFAB). Both concepts overlap, but are built on different premises; as such, they've been and continue to be made sense of and “solved for” differently. The latter framing enables and encourages surgical/hormonal intervention; the former does not, or at least didn't used to. Conflating these is obviously a play designed to boost profits.
I don't buy it that the optimal solution to gender dysphoria is medical, and not social/cultural. Humanity's gotten by just fine for hundreds of thousands of years without “better living through destructive elective surgery and hormones.” More to the point, not all cultures have historically operated, from a worldview based on a strict gender binary; certain Indigenous North American/non-Western languages' pronouns reflect this (which is NOT tantamount to denial of biology/physiology). In looking for viable social solutions to a problem currently spun so as to enable egregious harm and profiteering, we'd do well to give this some thought.
By that same token, pharma should be denied the right to mediate or gate-keep people's identities. To me, the industry making itself indispensable to people this way is an unforgivable violation of people's right to self-determination, self-acceptance, and peace. Those who'd smuggle you across an emotional/spiritual border to happiness and belonging, at great cost to you, are usually a cult, a cartel, or some bastard child of the two.
More non-hysterical pieces like this one are sorely needed. For now, war is peace, freedom is slavery, and defending the vulnerable against rabid corporatist body-snatchers is still hatred. Apparently.
Lastly, a hearty +1 on “Nothing I am saying contradicts the view that transgender people exist and deserve dignity and respect." Personally, I only dream of a world where castration can no longer be sold to people as a way to make them whole.
thank you 🙏 for a good concise response to the defenders of gender affirming model which outlines clearly the weakness of the argument for how gender medicine is being delivered still today and that I can share with others
Just like his belief in the innate feeling on knowing one is transgender, I have the same ringing bell that tells me children are being badly abused by pediatricians and therapists whose job it is to confirm, confirm confirm every child who presents as nonconforming.
Possibly the "gene" for gender non-conformity is the same genetic ground for intelligence. Still, many thought to hold a modicum of intelligence are nonetheless subsumed into the emotional realm of "care" in a way that offsets logic. One can have compassion for those with mental distress without adopting the "let's go with that" approach that, applied to any other sort of distress, would be seen as enabling in the most harmful way. A difference, perhaps, in this area is that there is serious money to be made and serious funding from a few wealthy champions who are creating a foundation for their own predilections.
As always, fair, factual, and fearless. Idea-laundering – the tactic of normalizing political views by disguising them as knowledge – is ultimately what drives the false consensus on gender, so it’s heartening to see bright minds like you exposing it.
Thank you for enduring Turban’s writing so we don’t have to.
Setting aside the question of the shoddy “science” (which is appalling enough), I am additionally appalled by his appropriation of the phrase “Free to Be” for his title. Many of us have observed that the message of “Free to Be - You and Me” from the ‘70s was basically the opposite of today’s gender woo. William having a doll didn’t make him a sissy boy — let alone make him a girl. And the baby who thought she was a boy because she’s bald quickly figured out she was actually a girl as soon as her diaper was changed. How much we’ve regressed on this front in the past 50 years.
Thanks for pointing that out. It’s the first thing I thought of when I saw the book cover. And you inspired me to check YouTube and, indeed, it’s there: https://youtu.be/7PS3nOcLbHI?si=qJfSfu0__6dyPAhB I don’t think I’m overly optimistic to imagine it would still capture the attention of young children, and innoculate them against the notion that their sex or other immutable qualities might be considered a mistake or somehow wrong — and for anyone over 50 who grew up in the U. S., it’s a great sentimental journey, watching and listening to Michael Jackson, Harry Belafonte, Cicely Tyson, Rosey Grier, Carol Channing… such an amazing cast.
What Turban (and other idiots) is saying is that a male can "feel like" he's female or vice versa.
Define what a male is, define what a female is, then explain how a male can "feel" female.
It cannot be done. A male has XY chromosomes/sperm and a female has XX/eggs. Genetic disorders don't change this and there is no spectrum. How on earth can someone feel like he has DNA and a body he does not have?
There is no such thing as "gender identity." This is untreated mental illness, usually autogynephilia in males and childhood sexual abuse in females.
The problem here is very use of the term "gender." It means everything, anything, nothing, stereotypes, feelings, personality, etc.
"Gender" is a linguistics term for words only. It has no application to humans, and even introduction of it is the source of confusion.
As such, there is no such thing as "transgender." There is no special category for someone who refuses to accept the reality of his sexed body. A male who doesn't want to be male is still male. There is no biological basis for this. This is after YEARS of idiots like Judith Butler saying "gender" has nothing to do with biology.
Biology is determined by chromosomes and gametes. We know a lot about that. Nothing overrides it. Eliminate "gender" from the vocabulary, and watch the confusion disappear. This is mental illness and medical industry profits.
Nothing more.
I’d go beyond this and say that I (a woman) also do not know what it means to “feel” female. I only know (and CAN only know) what it feels like to be me. Even for those experiences that a male will never have (menstruation, breastfed, childbirth), there’s no way for me to know that I experience or feel these in the same way other women do. (And, to be clear, I do realize that not all women will have these particular experiences, either. Which does not make them any less women.)
Thank you! I've never given birth or breastfed and never will. Stopped menstruating before i hit 30. I'm still a woman, but as you say, I don't know what it feels like to be A woman, I only know what it feels like to be THIS woman.
@PhDBiologistMom This angle doesn't get nearly enough airtime. Thanks for pointing it out.
Perhaps we should stop referring to "trans-identified males" and simply call them "biology-denying males". Or biology-rejecting females: in the case of girls horrified by the degrading images of womanhood presented to them by porn and by hypersexualised advertising.
The lucrative body dissociation industry shouldn't be allowed to get away with calling its rocketing numbers of indoctrinated victims "trans". And we could stop colluding with it.
I like science deniers. Wait, didn’t we hear that term applied somewhere else?
> This is untreated mental illness, usually autogynephilia in males and childhood sexual abuse in females.
This “pervert if male, victim if female" stuff is so transparent and gross.
If the truth is “transparent and gross” to you, that doesn’t change the truth. That’s reality.
The podcast “The Check up with Dr. Mike” had Jack Turban on June 19. He repeatedly stated how complicated everything in gender medicine was except for the evidence supporting it. When asked about ROGD research he attacked the authors as being biased. The craziest part was him stating he doesn’t question new patients claiming they’re transgender because he doesn’t want to gaslight them or potentially cause anxiety. Parents think their kids are being evaluated when it’s really just straight to affirming care.
This is such an important point. People who aren't deep in the weeds of this - both on the left and right - trust the system and assume that doctors can sort this all out, can find the "true trans" people with the brain-body mismatch (or however they define "real trans"), and assume doctors are doing deep assessments and are even telling some people "no, this isn't right for you." They don't realize that there's no assessment happening and that no one gets told no (and if they did, there's a dozen doctors ready to say yes without a second thought or a first look).
That’s how they cancelled the Canadian psychologist Kenneth Zucker. Decades as an expert in the field. His philosophy was therapy for gender dysphoric kids. Most of them stayed the same gender and were gay. Trans activists reframed this as gate keeping and the same thing as gay conversion therapy. They seriously questioned what right does a psychologist have in questioning a child’s claim they’re transgender.
A tiny correction: you state that the Cass Review found extremely weak evidence supporting gender transition care, which is true. But what seems to be getting lost in the narrative is that despite recommending psychotherapy as the default for gender dysphoria, the Review also found there there are NO evidence-supported interventions of any kind for gender dysphoria in minors. That includes psychotherapy, as well as "watchful waiting". According to Cass, there is actually next to no convincing evidence supporting doing anything, or doing nothing, for kids with gender dysphoria.
I realize that's, at best, tangential to the point of your post. But I do think it's important that, at the same time we continue to point out to minimal evidence base behind medical transition, we also push to create an actual evidence base for SOMETHING. We can't take something away from a population who is clearly suffering, and leave it at that. There needs to be something that's actually effective to address that suffering. And as we drive home the point that the current interventions have very weak evidentiary support, I think we should also make sure people know that there is actually no evidence based alternative for these kids and their desperate families-and given the sharp rise in kids with these issues, that needs to change.
What likely needs to change is the culture itself. It’s a social contagion at this point. A very tiny number of people would latch onto the idea of being the wrong sex and get obsessed with it—but we’re saying far greater numbers now, and that’s due to it being part of the “symptom pool” available to distressed people.
There actually may never be good treatment for people who are convinced they’re “really” the opposite gender. There are other mental illnesses that we don’t really have great treatment for, either. Certain types of schizophrenia, autism (I’m on the spectrum myself). That’s just the unfortunate state of affairs.
I think your redefinition of gender identity as gender nonconformity is a very important and useful step. Most people would readily accept that some people do not wish to conform to gender stereotypes. What is impossible to accept is that we have to reinforce their delusions of being born in the wrong body necessitating surgical mutilation.
Excellent article Christina, and as always a great summary of the (lack of) evidence that trans identities are innate. Unfortunately there will be people in positions of power over children's lives who will read Jack Turban's book and unquestioningly accept it as an accurate summary of the science.
Readers may also be interested in my in-depth review of the arguments and evidence on both sides of the 'innate versus socially influenced' debate:
https://argumentswithfriends.substack.com/p/the-trans-wave-was-caused-by-social
...summarised in infographic format here:
https://argumentswithfriends.substack.com/p/trans-and-social-influence
(As also published on Plain Sight and restacked by Stella O'Malley).
Turban’s argument also fails on the conceptual level because ‘gender’ remains undefined.
I elaborated on why this is the case in one of my own writings.
"Gender" applies to words only. Words have "gender; humans do not.
Nobody can define it for humans.
It means sex, not sex, feelings, personality, clothes, hobbies, hair, anything, everything, nothing. There's always a more accurate word. Just use it.
The use of the word itself is the source of the problem.
Unmitigated horse crap -- clearly your "stock in trade". You might actually try reading a dictionary and thinking about what's there:
Merriam-Webster: "gender: the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex"
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gender#usage-1
The point as I take it is gender is misused, yes it can be delineated and used meaningfully but it's past time for that. Because gender doesn't contain the underlying definitional content, which is always provided by, in reference to, sex then you can always use another term. Ie sex-based stereotype.
> " ... but it's past time for that."
Don't think so. The concept of "gender" has "escaped the lab" and is ubiquitous. For example Google SOGI -- Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity -- there are probably thousands if not millions of "hits". It has wormed its way into millions of school systems all over the world:
https://www.coe.int/en/web/no-hate-campaign/sexual-orientation-and-gender-indentity-sogi
Kinda think the only solution is a "vaccine" of sorts -- i.e., a scientifically justified and coherent definition for the term. Like the Merriam-Webster one. The problem isn't the concept of gender itself - at least as defined by MW. The problem is the conflation of sex with gender, is the demented idea that some doode putting on a dress and expressing a more "feminine" gender has therefore changed sex and should be treated as if he had.
> "Because gender doesn't contain the underlying definitional content, which is always provided by, in reference to, sex then you can always use another term. Ie sex-based stereotype."
Not sure exactly what you're getting at with your "underlying definitional content ... in reference to sex", but the MW definition is quite explicit in linking to sex: "the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex [or the other]"
Gender is -- essentially or to a first approximation -- a set of sexually dimorphic personality traits, roles, and behaviours. You might take a close look at the Wikipedia article on the topic:
Wikipedia: "Sexual dimorphism is the condition where sexes of the same species exhibit different morphological characteristics, particularly characteristics not directly involved in reproduction. .... Differences may include secondary sex characteristics, size, weight, color, markings, or behavioral or cognitive traits."
And those differences are not at all "socially constructed" -- at least not all of them or entirely. There is a massive amount of solid evidence that, in fact, there are significant, measurable, and objective differences, on average, in the "behavioral or cognitive traits" of men and women. For example, see:
"No Child is Born in the Wrong Body … and other thoughts on the concept of gender identity": https://4thwavenow.com/2019/08/19/no-child-is-born-in-the-wrong-body-and-other-thoughts-on-the-concept-of-gender-identity/
Further, I don't think you -- and far too many others -- quite get the idea that stereotypes -- "sex-based" ones in particular -- are generally not at all cut from whole cloth. They often derive or follow from brute facts about differences in different populations -- like differences in "behavioural or cognitive traits" between men and women. You might try reading this old article by Substacker Lee Jussim:
"Stereotype Accuracy is One of the Largest and Most Replicable Effects in All of Social Psychology": https://spsp.org/news-center/character-context-blog/stereotype-accuracy-one-largest-and-most-replicable-effects-all
Also, is it my “stock in trade” or my stock in trade? Are you quoting yourself facetiously or… ?
I don't know -- is it? Do you insist there's no credibility or merit in that MW definition or not?
Kat has been cluelessly and dogmatically peddling that claptrap all over the place. Have you been doing so?
How does repeating your silly question answer mine?
Are you facetiously quoting someone who said “stock and trade” or are you facetiously quoting yourself for some inexplicable reason?
"stock in trade": "the equipment, merchandise, or materials necessary to or used in a trade or business"
Obviously that wasn't the sense in play, unless you agree that "horse crap" is Kat's actual stock in trade. Hence the "scare quotes":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scare_quotes
I wrote an article concerning that definition of gender, as well. Feel free to give it a read!
Looks like you've written at least 3 articles on the topic. What's the Coles' Notes version?
Do you agree that one definition is the MW one or not? Yes, or no.
No doubt there's a great deal of scientific rot and egregious claptrap that comes in under that heading. But there is some solid evidence to justify the concept: there ARE significant differences, on average, in the "behavioural, and psychological traits typically associated with each sex".
I elaborated on my views in my writing. You’re free to read it and respond if you wish, but I’m not going to reiterate here something you could just read in your own time.
If you can’t be bothered to take the time to understand someone’s view before criticizing it, then your criticism doesn’t merit a response.
Looks like a whole pile of blathering that rather clearly rejects the Merriam-Webster definition I quoted.
You can't even say whether you agree with it or not -- not a good recommendation for further reading.
Agreed!
Nope. See the above:
https://www.buttonslives.news/p/free-to-believe-in-gender-pseudoscience/comment/63056442
I love the retitling to "Free to Believe," as it has upset me to no end that the true progress towards dismantling the somewhat, sometimes arbitrary attributes of sex into gender stereotypes that Free to Be You and Me promoted has been undone by gender ideology while also stealing its title.
Twin studies were also used to claim a genetic basis for autism, now largely discarded as no "Autism gene" was ever identified.
This is another case of an argument that is "faith based" , there is no empirical evidence to back it up. no matter how many angels they manage to count on the head of a pin. The same being true for DEI programs. What is assumed from the beginning is that those advocating for their position are pure of heart and only wanting to do what is best for their population. Anyone questioning this is by definition operating from darkness. Unfortunately liberals , "progressives" .....democrats have completely bought in and this is going to have serious consequences for them in the near future.
Very illuminating, cool-headed piece, thank you. I was notably glad to read an update on the “brain gender” subtopic. A few thoughts:
Re: Gender nonconformity and transgenderism: It makes perfect sense that the data for both sets would be similar. These have always struck me as being different stations on the same spectrum, but the former points back more directly to a previous understanding of ordinary human diversity (e.g., yesteryear's tomboy is today's AFAB). Both concepts overlap, but are built on different premises; as such, they've been and continue to be made sense of and “solved for” differently. The latter framing enables and encourages surgical/hormonal intervention; the former does not, or at least didn't used to. Conflating these is obviously a play designed to boost profits.
I don't buy it that the optimal solution to gender dysphoria is medical, and not social/cultural. Humanity's gotten by just fine for hundreds of thousands of years without “better living through destructive elective surgery and hormones.” More to the point, not all cultures have historically operated, from a worldview based on a strict gender binary; certain Indigenous North American/non-Western languages' pronouns reflect this (which is NOT tantamount to denial of biology/physiology). In looking for viable social solutions to a problem currently spun so as to enable egregious harm and profiteering, we'd do well to give this some thought.
By that same token, pharma should be denied the right to mediate or gate-keep people's identities. To me, the industry making itself indispensable to people this way is an unforgivable violation of people's right to self-determination, self-acceptance, and peace. Those who'd smuggle you across an emotional/spiritual border to happiness and belonging, at great cost to you, are usually a cult, a cartel, or some bastard child of the two.
More non-hysterical pieces like this one are sorely needed. For now, war is peace, freedom is slavery, and defending the vulnerable against rabid corporatist body-snatchers is still hatred. Apparently.
Lastly, a hearty +1 on “Nothing I am saying contradicts the view that transgender people exist and deserve dignity and respect." Personally, I only dream of a world where castration can no longer be sold to people as a way to make them whole.
thank you 🙏 for a good concise response to the defenders of gender affirming model which outlines clearly the weakness of the argument for how gender medicine is being delivered still today and that I can share with others
"Gender" medicine just means mutilation and delusion.
These are the demands of untreated mentally ill people combined with an out of control medical industry.
The entire thing is a fraud.
Just like his belief in the innate feeling on knowing one is transgender, I have the same ringing bell that tells me children are being badly abused by pediatricians and therapists whose job it is to confirm, confirm confirm every child who presents as nonconforming.
Possibly the "gene" for gender non-conformity is the same genetic ground for intelligence. Still, many thought to hold a modicum of intelligence are nonetheless subsumed into the emotional realm of "care" in a way that offsets logic. One can have compassion for those with mental distress without adopting the "let's go with that" approach that, applied to any other sort of distress, would be seen as enabling in the most harmful way. A difference, perhaps, in this area is that there is serious money to be made and serious funding from a few wealthy champions who are creating a foundation for their own predilections.
He has done so much to harm children and youth.