I love the Persuasion Substack. But I see a number of problems with this piece. Firstly, you refer to "transgender athletes" in women's sports when what you presumably mean is transgender MALE athletes in women's sports. The distinction is crucial, because transgender-identifying FEMALE athletes — even females who "identify" as men — aren't a problem in women's sports. By eliding this fact, you're shifting the emphasis away from the problem: the issue is with people's sex, not their transgender "identities".
You talk of "pulling back from rhetoric that denies biological sex or demands unquestioning recognition for any self-declared gender identity." But you also advocate that people should be allowed to falsify the sex marker on their passports (which you incorrectly call a "gender" marker) because it could hypothetically "create problems at the border for a [male] with a female appearance." It seems patently obvious to me that if there are any problems with border guards somehow unable to comprehend that crossdressers and transsexuals exist, the simplest solution is to educate the border guards rather than to falsify people's documents.
The issue here seems to stem from confusing sex with "gender." As it is, the data recorded on people's passports is their sex. If you'd prefer that government documents record instead whether a person tends to dress and present with a "masculine" or "feminine" appearance, well, that's a separate argument altogether, and I'd argue that it's a pretty regressive position to take.
But the biggest problem with this piece is that at no point do you make any attempt to explain what exactly a "gender identity" is. What is it precisely that distinguishes a "trans person" from a non-trans person? You make allusions to mental health and medical diagnoses, and to "accommodating" "identities" but you haven't offered up any actual basis for the premise that the acknowledgement of ANYONE's biological sex should EVER be rendered taboo, either as a matter of cultural etiquette or as a matter of law.
The answer, of course, is that "gender identity" is nothing but a social construct, and a fairly recently invented one at that. It's also a social contagion. And it's also a bizarre kind of quasi-religious belief system in that it's not trying to cohabitate alongside the material fact of people's biological sex, it's trying to override it. If everyone simply acknowledged people's gender identities ALONGSIDE their actual biological sex, very few people would bother adopting transgender identities in the first place. The part about forcing everyone to pretend not to see their sex is the primary appeal of transgender identity.
There is absolutely no material basis for the distinction between a man and a "transgender woman", and the very concept of "being" transgender is iatrogenic — that is to say, the idea itself that some people were born with "gender identities" that are mismatched to their biological sex is alluring to people in vulnerable states of mind, and it leads to medical harm — both psychological and physical.
People are already free to live as they wish. People are free to dress femininely or masculinely. And people are free to self-identify as born-again Christians or Scientologists or "transgender women," but these are spiritual beliefs and there are limits to how much they should be accommodated in the secular sphere. This is especially true in the case of spiritual beliefs that have the potential to cause harm to their adherents. I believe that transgender identities are an un-ideal palliative treatment for severe mental health problems related to confusion and anxiety about biological sex. I believe that a far more ideal treatment for confusion and anxiety about the facts of one's biology is therapy for the patient, and social advocacy to make the culture better accommodate gender-bending individuals. Masculine women and feminine men should not be made to feel "wrong" in their bodies in the first place, and it's obvious that the factor that is most causing mass distress about sex is social media.
I believe that society's overindulgence of people's quasi-religious "gender identities" is exacerbating the crisis of body dysmorphia and gender dysphoria that's currently plaguing the culture, rather than alleviating it.
But of course, the real reason many straight males identify as "transgender women" is not that they have naturally feminine behavioural attributes. It's that they have a sexual paraphilia: they're sexually and romantically fixated on their own bodies, and because they're heterosexual, they're attracted to the idea of inhabiting FEMALE bodies. And these men are flat-out lying about it. Sexual paraphilias are a fact of the human condition and I believe the world would benefit from a better understanding of the diverse and unusual forms of sexual arousal that can occur in the human species. We all need to learn more about how the male sex drive and sexual fetishes work, in order for all of society to keep harmful sexual behaviours under control. The transgender movement seeks to cover up the existence of autogynephilia (the fetish that leads straight men to adopt transgender identities) with a folk tale about some males having been born with mystical female "gender identities" instead. Lies about sexual paraphilias really should not be accommodated in law or in cultural etiquette. You yourself acknowledged that over half of male prisoners with transgender identities are sex offenders. You take pains to distance the connection between extreme sexual behaviour and transgender identity, but you're wrong to do so: there is in fact a direct and strong correlation. A lot of crossdressing men who claim to be women really are exhibiting highly problematic and inappropriate sexual behaviours. That's a fact and it's crucial that we face it, in order to protect vulnerable women and girls from sexual assault.
You refer to the "dehumanizing" of people who identify as transgender, but you've given no examples of this. I don't believe it's "dehumanizing" to acknowledge anyone's biological sex, ever. This is especially true given that people who hold transgender identities are often struggling with mental illnesses and/or indulging their secret sexual fantasies.
We as a society should be striving to reduce the number of people who are so debilitated by mental distress that they require medical treatments and "transgender identities" in order to cope. But offering up more and more "middle ground" accommodations for such patients is ultimately only making the problem worse, not better.
There is no middle ground here. We as a society should speak up loud and clear that biological sex cannot be circumvented with scalpels and chemicals, nor can it be circumvented via "faith" in quasi-religious transgender dogma.
Excellent! This is the perfect answer because it is so much more rational that the piece published by Cathy Young. There is no middle ground because a "gender identity" is a fiction to begin with, and I am sure that deep down Cathy Young must know it, but she doesn't have the courage to say it out loud. In fact, any identity is a fiction, and to replace objective reality with the fictions we all have about ourselves can only lead to a madhouse. I loved your point that if a gender identity would coexist with the acceptance of real sex (which is what initially, about ten years ago when this fad started, appeared to be the case), no one would want a gender identity because the whole point for trans people is to force everybody to pretend they don't see their real sex. Indeed. From this point of view a trans identity implies a violent relation to the Other insofar as the Other is forced to accept the subjective point of view of the Trans person. It is, I think, the only example in human history when the Others are being forced to see you the way you see yourself.
I agree with you about "gender identity" being a social fiction, but I believe there's a middle ground, recognizing a disability whereby a person genuinely experiences a brain-body mismatch (due to a neurological or hormonal anomaly).
This is very different from cases involving (the controversial notion of) autogynephilia, or from those involving "gender identity" as a fashion statement.
There's no evidence for "brain-body" mismatch that causes people to require the rest of civilization to pretend they can't see their sex, and to require medical body modification. There is indeed a neurological basis for some men being very feminine and some women being very masculine. But you're conflating this natural phenomenon — natural diversity of "gender expression" — with what is fundamentally and utterly indisputably a 100% cultural concept: the idea that femininity causes some men to experience something like a reverse-phantom limb syndrome, whereby they "naturally" reject their penis and masculine body traits (and vice-versa for women), is pseudoscience horseshit, and it's actually incredibly simple to prove it: we can see that "gender dysphoria" spreads through social contact and that it never arose "naturally" before. It doesn't even exist in most parts of the world.
And as for your notion that autogynephilia is "controversial," well, it is among the men who have it and are desperate to pretend they don't, in the same way that anorexia is a "controversial" theory among the young women who have it and refuse to admit it. In sexological circles, the fact that crossdressing is often (even USUALLY) a fetishistic sexual behaviour is utterly rock-solid and indisputable. It was thoroughly culturally understood and utterly uncontroversial, too, until as recently as about ten years ago, when social media triggered bizarre social panic among liberals and caused them to pretend they dion't see the facts that are plain in front of them. Here's a homework assignment for you: watch the Rocky Horror Picture Show, and then Tim Burton's Ed Wood, and try and tell me you couldn't comprehend that crossdressing and transsexualism is a kink. These are both Disney movies available to stream right now on the family-friendly streaming service Disney Plus. That's how utterly basic the concept is — or was, until the left began to brainwash itself out of fear of losing the culture war.
I'm willing to allow for "wrong body" cases analogous to a phantom-limb syndrome.
Recognizing this as a disability eliminates (or deprecates) those cases where "gender identity" is invoked -- and where what's involved is actually a function of conformity to social stereotypes or a fashion statement.
You're making this too complicated -- ironically, not unlike the "queer theorists." "Gender identity" and "gender expression" (along with "trans") is intellectual stubble that disappears with the application of Occam's Razor.
As for your allegation that this range of phenomena "doesn't even exist in most parts of the world," try Googling terms like "Hijra" or "Berdache." Many cultures have attempted to grapple with these issues, in a variety of ways.
We might agree or disagree with those cultural constructs -- or in general on these issues -- but (like your adversaries!) you do yourself a disservice when dogmatism leads you to ignore contrary (or exceptional) circumstances, and to oversell your point.
Hijra and berdache are homosexuals who are kicked out of the GENDER ROLE of masculinity. We don't have gender roles in the West anymore, and we don't want to bring them back, thank you very much.
Here in the modern West, we no longer assign infants a limited menu of social roles they're allowed to grow up into, a list of duties they are permitted and forbidden to perform, based on their sex or their femininity or masculinity. That's what GENDER ROLES are, and that's what Thai Ladyboys, Samoan Fa'afafine, "berdache" in indigenous North America, Muxe in Zapotec indigenous Mexico, etc, all are: they're alternative menus of social roles, handed to feminine boys because they're probably gay and won't reproduce with females and are deemed too girly to adopt leadership roles in their tribes.
And these so-called "third gender" roles are also NEVER treated as overriding people's sex. Ladyboys are lady BOYS — it's right there in the name. Fa'afafine means "a man who acts in the manner of a woman" in the Samoan language — not an actual woman. No one is denying anyone's biology, although the superstitious in these communities may attribute things like having been a female in a past life (buddhist reincarnation theory) etc to feminine boys and men. We in the modern west however understand that homosexuality and femininity are biological, not magical, phenomena. Or at least we bloody well should.
Again, this is all rather regressive when you look closely at it.
Once again, excellent. It is incredible to me that we live in a world where intellectual mediocrities like Judith Butler have been elevated to stardom, rather than someone like you, who can explain things in such a clear and rational way.
I actually agree with you about those "gender roles" in other cultures -- and, indeed, that we've outgrown such constructs in the modern West (though, truth be told, I wish women would stop believing that -- as females -- there's any need for them to paint over their own facial features). ;-)
I was merely disagreeing with your allegation that this range of phenomena "doesn't even exist in most parts of the world" -- regardless of how (in those other cultures) the specifics of those identities are parsed.
Right. These phenomena arise in cultures that maintain rigid sex roles as a safety valve for gender misfits. The solution is to eliminate sex roles. In Albania where under customary law women were very, very disadvantaged 'sworn virgins' could escape by vowing lifelong celibacy in return for getting to live as men. Currently, after the situation of women in Albania has much improved--and Albania has gone from being the poorest country in Europe to an upper middle income country and candidate for EU membership--there are estimated to be no more than a dozen sworn virgins in the country. Eliminate sex roles and gender norms and you don't need third or fourth 'genders'.
It's days later and my mind keeps coming back to this comment. I've learned a lot from it, and I think it's very insightful. Thank you, https://substack.com/@hebaber
Hi, I read your longer comment and agree with it. I even agree with the concept of "disability", but I don't think that would be a middle ground. If this were treated as a disability, very few people would claim it. It would simply be a rare disability and no one would care about it. Which would be fine by me.
Exactly! If this were treated as a disability, very few people would claim it.
What makes this position a middle-ground is that, while acknowledging that such people might exist, it doesn't allow them to hype their condition as a fashion statement, or as an attribute that has anything to do with "gender identity."
what a great discussion you have started. I am reading through all the replies below, yours and those of others. I have always agreed with the position you laid out and have been working on expressing my arguments better as I interact with fellow Democrats who are 100% on board with the entire trans agenda, , but have never seen it all so well put. And the discussion below is clarifying even more for me. Thank-you for your original comment. Thank-you all who are participating in this discussion.
Wouldn't it be great if the Democrats accepted to have a real discussion on this topic? The problem is, though, one of fanaticism. Just the other day, a FB friend posted that there is no argument whatsoever she would accept in a discussing against Trans ideology and that even if someone could demonstrate to her that it's an ideology unfair to women, she is not interested in hearing it. What can you answer to this? It's religious fanaticism.
I could not agree more with your first two statements. And your FB friend's position is amazing really. Biological women who accept their sex apparently have no rights.
I am glad to be able to report that a few of the Dems I know in my small town here in upstate NY ARE willing to have these discussions. And we do so amongst ourselves, sharing what we have learned through reading/ thinking through books, newsletters, etc. We are working on composing a letter to our ultra-progressive county committee summarizing what we think needs to change most in order for Dems to be relevant again. One big item is the willingness to have sincere, rational discussions of a number of issues, trans ideology being just one (and it IS a belief system, not anything science based). The shouting down of, and attempts to punish, everyone whose views don't align with the new progressive orthodoxy is far too common. Terribly illiberal.
Dems bill themselves as the big tent party but in reality, the only ones allowed inside the tent these days are those who hew to modern progressive orthodoxy on all social justice and cultural issues.
Outstanding response which touches on all the points that concerned me when I read the article. This naive impulse to “be kind” is a fool’s errand which leads to unnecessary and foolish accommodations which only make things worse. They not only ignore or avoid the urgent need for proper therapy, not the bad therapy, which is comprehensively examined in Abigail Shrier’s book of the same name and correctly described there and in this post as iatrogenic. More importantly, this impulse gives oxygen and a permission structure to pernicious, dangerous and dishonest law fare such as the so called “conversion therapy” bans. This monstrously evil legal overreach by the state actually mandates legal penalties for decent, honest medical practitioners who are following the principle of “to first do no harm” by diagnosing and treating (as opposed to cooperating with) the underlying causes of so called gender dysphoria.
@Arty Morty, you write: "There is absolutely no material basis for the distinction between a man and a "transgender woman."
That's not entirely true. It ignores those instances where a person genuinely experiences a brain-body mismatch (due to a neurological or hormonal anomaly).
This is very different from cases involving (the controversial notion of) autogynephilia, or from those involving "gender identity" as a fashion statement.
Please see my longer comment about viewing this as a disability issue, rather than in terms of "gender identity."
I believe that presents us with a viable middle ground.
People do "genuinely" experience distress that feels like a brain-body mismatch, but that "genuine" feeling isn't innate or natural or inborn. it's culturally constructed. Anorexics "genuinely" feel that their bodies are wrong, too. Anorexia isn't an innate state of being.
The only reason people choose to pretend that "gender dysphoria" is an innate and natural state of being, and that sex changes are the best course of action to treat it, is that, consciously or unconsciously, they empathize with the idea that gender-nonconforming behaviour "feels wrong."
I don't agree that femininity in males or masculinity in females is "wrong" in any way whatsoever, and I utterly and absolutely reject the idea that it's "normal" to experience self-disgust over it. Such feelings are perpetuated on a social and cultural level, and they should be rooted out on a social and cultural level.
This is the deep cultural roots of homophobia we're looking at here, and it's very ugly indeed. A lot of people are flattering themselves that they're being virtuous because it's easier than admitting they're actually holding onto regressive (and deep-rooted) feelings.
"Yes, I experience stereotypically "feminine" emotions -- but the operative word is "stereotypically"; those feelings don't make me female. Indeed, reconciling such feelings with respect for my male body has been absolutely crucial to my self-acceptance as a gay male. On behalf of a stereotype or social fiction, I’m not about to cut off my dick to spite my crotch."
You've suggested that I've said the opposite, and have taken it upon yourself to argue against that position -- when (on this particular point -- whether femininity in males or masculinity in females is "wrong" in any way whatsoever) we actually agree! In fact, I agree that "we're looking at the deep cultural roots of homophobia here."
However, I'm willing to allow for the possibility that a person might genuinely suffer from a brain-body mismatch (due to a neurological or hormonal anomaly) -- and for addressing this as a disability (leaving the social fiction of "gender" [and of any putative "LGBT community"] entirely outside the realm of legitimate consideration).
What's your problem with that? Have you become so blinded (and disgusted) by "Trans" rhetoric and political posturing that you're unwilling to consider such a possibility?
I haven't misread you at all. And you seem to think that whether or not "brain-body mismatch" is a cultural concoction or a biologically hard-wired condition is a matter of choosing which answer gives you better "vibes" or something. We don't do science by "deciding" to "allow for the possibility" of this or that. That's woolly spiritualistic silly thinking. We look to the evidence to figure out whether the evidence from the actual material world confirms or rejects our ideas.
If I throw a watermelon off my balcony, whether it will plunge to the ground and splatter across the sidewalk or hover in midair is not a question of which result I feel better about — which one I'm "willing to allow". It's a matter of hard cold material physics: gravity exists, and the watermelon WILL fall, whether I like it or not, or whether I'm "willing to allow it" or not.
Likewise, the facts don't give you leeway to "allow" for the "possibility" that transsexualism is an innate state of being, whether you like it or not. It's a social construct. The end.
This is what philosophers call a category mistake. It's also called Hume's Guillotine, named after David Hume. There's a hard line between what actually IS and what we think OUGHT TO BE, and there's a metaphorical metal blade that lops the latter off the former.
There is in fact a growing body of neurobiology research that suggests there is a difference in brain systems architecture between trans brains and male and female brains. One of the issues with brain studies looking at the issue of trans is them being poorly controlled in terms of accounting for sexual orientation (among other things). The growing body that does make some sense and is often better controlled are finding the difference are in regions of the brain that are thought to play a role in self perception and perception of the world. Best paper I've seen I saw today, posted by a guy named Sammy on X.
- hetero males and females showed some dimorphism in some brain areas
- homo males were shifted toward female in many of these areas, homosexual females were shifted male in these areas
- transwomen and transmen were not shifted in these area with relation to their sex
- transwomen and transmen showed differences from both males and females in brain areas involved in self perception
- homo and hetero males and homo and hetero females showed no differences in these areas relative to each other.
The authors noted that other studies have looked self perception areas in anorexics, and while differences in anorectics compared to controls in brain self perception areas, they were different areas than those seen in the study of this paper. Hence a unique area with respect to trans.
The authors acknowledged that a there study was at a single time point, it was not definitive that their finding were based on innate vs changes based on socially mediated or induced plasticity. They did made arguments that they favored the innate hypothesis, and rightly pointed out that longitudinal studies would be necessary to answer this question.
They didn't mention autogynophiles. They also didn't discuss the discuss the fairly well documented finding that a large percentage of children out grow by sometime in adolescence any thoughts or confusion with respect their sex, although a longitudinal study that started in childhood could be illuminating.
Sooo...
Mitchell: Your intuition about this is probably on track, but you should express this as issues of self perception
Arty: Philosophical arguments/discussions are always a blast over a good glass of scotch, but there is in fact some hardcore neurobiology research being done on this topic.
There is no neurobiology now, nor will there ever be, to justify the moral command that society and law "should" pretend we can't see other people's biological sex.
You're conflating the FACT that feminine men and fetishistic men have regions of the brain that are different from non-feminine or non-fetishistic men (which, DUH, behaviours come from the brain, and people with different behaviours will exhibit different brain patterns accordingly. this is just basic no-shit-Sherlock stuff) with the WISH that everybody SHOULD therefore pretend we can't tell that they're male.
There is no brainscan on earth that will ever determine whether or not I'm allowed to acknowledge that, say, Caitlyn Jenner is a rich straight white man who has fathered six children. None. Zip. Nada.
And there is no brainscan on earth that will ever determine conclusively that society is "better off" pretending that Bruce Jenner is anything but a crossdressing straight guy.
And besides: The fact that people who hold trans identities are so adamant about which sex they want to be "seen" as is proof in itself that we all "see" the sexes differently in a very fundamental way. (Which, again, should be a no-shit-Sherlock moment for everyone.) The conundrum for them is that they want to be "seen" as the sex that we all can see that they literally aren't. If it didn't matter in society what sex anyone was, it wouldn't matter to people with gender dysphoria what sex they are seen as. It's a paradox, isn't it.
I've (quite deliberately) addressed this on the (relatively) crude level of a "disconnect."
The brain is obviously involved, and you've presented some very interesting findings.
Nonetheless, I'm very wary of addressing these issues in terms of subjective categories like "self-perception" (or for that matter, "trans"), unless we can trace every neural pathway and biological phenomenon involved -- and that brings us back to the question of the neurological (if not the existential) basis of consciousness itself.
At this point, I'll go with Wittgenstein in recognizing the pivotal function of language (much like Einstein's recognition of the pivotal [and inescapable] function of Time).
Given the limits implicit in the power of definition -- no matter how one might complexify or micro-organize any experimental design -- epistemology is not a science.
Ironically (like the "queer theorists”) you’re making this too complicated! "Gender identity" and "gender expression" (along with "trans") is intellectual stubble that disappears with the application of Occam's Razor.
As for a brain/body mismatch?
The "science" doesn't exist -- if indeed, it ever will -- to ascertain the neurological basis of consciousness -- let alone for the host of brain/body interactions. But we certainly know that there's a neurological basis for "phantom limb" phenomena (even if we don't [yet] know the details), and that hormonal anomalies (in fully-developed animals and humans, and in the womb) -- and for that matter, even "normal" hormonal functions that affect self-perception -- are biologically real.
That's my basis for allowing for "a brain/body mismatch." It's not about wishful thinking (an allegation that's gratuitously offensive!).
Hilarious that you claim that I'm making things too complicated and then you segue directly to some Deepak Chopra-esque deepity about the supposedly unknowable nature of consciousness. I've had my fun with you. You're just tedious now.
The disability in most cases is social--not brain body but brain society mismatch. Check the criteria for 'gender dysphoria' at the Mayo Clinic site. 3 concern dislike of one's body and physical sexual characteristics; 2 concern psychological lack of fit with social norms prescribing 'femininity' and 'masculinity'. And you only need to satisfy 2 of the conditions to be a candidate for 'gender transition'
I qualify by the social criteria. I hate the social role assigned to women and most of all the job options. And the dress and grooming requirements, and the expectation that I'll be nurturing, caring, compassionate, etc. Psychologically I am a 'guy'. But I'm a completely heterosexual female, with three kids, and have no problems with my body (except I wish it were a little slimmer).
This whole trans business infuriates me because fundamentally the suggestion: Ah! Your gender identity is male. No problem--get a double mastectomy and go on cross-sex hormones! I don't want my body chopped. Chop society, get rid of these social rules and expectations for men and women--and end ongoing discrimination in employment and I bet that would fix most 'gender dysphoria'.
Isn't it insane that we live in a society in which chopping one's body has become an acceptable cure for a mental issue and that anyone who has a problem with this "cure" is called a "fascist"? How insane a society must be to fall like that!
Liberals are kicking a heavy can down the road by insisting there's a "sane middle" here. Where's the sane middle for body integrity disorder or anorexia? Do some people have no choice but to cut off limbs or starve themselves as close to death as possible without actually dying to live full lives? Sex dysphoria is a body dysmorphia disorder just like all the others, but it's the only one we're supposed to pretend is treated by encouraging it. Those of us who have suffered sex dysphoria but don't fit the easy to condemn youth-related cases, adults who are largely autistic or mentally ill, are not content to find this middle with you. Everyone deserves to be at peace with their bodies. It is not acceptable to write some of us off as hopeless cases, doomed to accept what our mental illness tells us. No other mental illness is treated this way, where the distortions caused by it are enabled and encouraged.
And yes, of course everyone knows A Happy Transsexual. I know many myself who are quite different in private from the persona they use online. Happiness with irreversible choices can be put on quite easily considering the alternative is facing the irreversibility. It won't be easy to have this larger conversation but vulnerable people need it to happen. This is not going to just become accepted like homosexuality has been (primarily because homosexuality is not a mental illness that requires treatment and the vast majority of people intuitively understand that at this point).
Thank you for responding, and for your impassioned and beautiful comment below. I comment this message wherever I think it has a chance of breaking through and I rarely receive any engagement. I understand to an extent; it's embarrassing for me to post, and I think it's awkward for people without ~lived experience~ (for lack of a better descriptor) to contend with. We have to though. If this middle way wins out then youth transition might stop but it will be gay, autistic, and mentally ill adults who continue to be fed to the meat grinder.
I agree with the substance of what you've written, @C.C -- but think that there's a "sane middle" that incorporates your concerns. Please see my own comment about treating this phenomenon as a disability issue.
Thank you for sharing, Mitchell. If by treatment you mean access to comprehensive psychotherapy that can address the root of the dysmorphia, I totally agree with you. However, I do not agree that there is a group of people who need what currently passes for "trans health care" or to permanently deny the reality of their bodies.
(I accidentally responded to another comment of yours first, oops!)
When "the root of the dysmorphia" is a brain-body mismatch (due to a neurological or hormonal anomaly), psychotherapy might not be a viable option. (In these cases, we're dealing with a biological phenomenon.)
OTOH, calling the remedy for this disability "trans health care" -- i.e., casting it as a matter of "gender identity" -- is indeed a tendentious (and obnoxiously political) dodge. My cat doesn't concern herself with "gender identity" -- but perhaps weasels do! ;-)
There's no evidence for such a mismatch or biological phenomenon though, just like any other body dysmorphia disorder. To accept that there might be, there would need to be a test that proved beyond a reasonable doubt that a person actually had that mismatch, and even then, I'm quite skeptical. I simply do not believe that any dysmorphias should be validated with irreversible (or not, really) changes to the body.
The "science" doesn't exist -- if indeed, it ever will -- to ascertain the neurological basis of consciousness -- let alone for the host of brain/body interactions. But we certainly know that there's a neurological basis for "phantom limb" phenomena (even if we don't [yet] know the details), and we know that hormonal anomalies (in fully-developed animals and humans, and in the womb) -- and for that matter, even "normal" hormonal functions that affect self-perception -- are biologically real.
That's my basis for allowing for "a brain/body mismatch" -- even if there's no definitive test. I believe that recognizing such a phenomenon as a disability should provide the appropriate perspective, and should be sufficient for putting the "gender weasels" in their place.
We're talking past each other now; I do not think anyone should be "treated" for any body dysmorphia, including sex dysphoria, by encouraging the dysmorphia. I do not think people with body integrity disorder should be able to have limbs cut off due to their dysmorphia, I think they deserve the intensive psychotherapy it would take to resolve the issue holistically so that their body stops being a source of distress. I do not think anorectics should be encouraged to starve themselves, I think they deserve the psychotherapy needed to stop the desire to waste away. I do not think people with sex dysphoria should "live as" the opposite sex, take cross sex hormones, which cause devastating effects in the female body (not as familiar with what estrogen does to males), or get surgeries because of their distressing thoughts, I think they deserve the psychotherapy needed to stop the fantasy of "if i change my sex i'll finally feel better." I think these "treatments" are barbaric because they do not address the suffering of the patient at all.
Good article -- as far as it goes. FWIW, here's a rational framework for dealing further with these issues:
"Trans" people exist. They're just not what they crack themselves up to be.
This is a disability issue. It has nothing to do with "LGBTQIA+," let alone "Queer."
A person genuinely suffering from a brain-body mismatch (due to a neurological or hormonal anomaly) deserves the same decency, compassion and access to medical treatment (if need be) as anyone with a deformity or disability. (As for "intersex"? Some people are born with eight toes.) And bullying or harming the disabled (or those with a genetic anomaly) is an atrocity in its own right.
None of this requires that we redefine “male” and “female,” or adopt terms like “cis” and “trans.”
All the rest is cosplay.
“Gender" (as distinct from biological sex) is a social fiction. Indeed, among gay males, drag is about repudiating and ridiculing the very concept of "gender" -- not “affirming” it.
At age 74, I’ve fought all my adult life to advance a recognition that there's nothing “Queer" about same-sex attraction. I’m attracted to guys; I’ve never hidden that fact, and (as my parents raised me) I’m proud simply to be myself. I never signed up to "smash cisheteropatriarchy" in the name of some Brave New World.
Yes, I experience stereotypically "feminine" emotions -- but the operative word is "stereotypically"; those feelings don't make me female. Indeed, reconciling such feelings with respect for my male body has been absolutely crucial to my self-acceptance as a gay male. On behalf of a stereotype or social fiction, I’m not about to cut off my dick to spite my crotch.
The implicitly adversarial notion of "Queer" (or some putative “LGBTQIA+ community”) is a self-serving, self-marginalizing corral into which we’ve been herded by “The Groups.” It dilutes and jeopardizes the hard-won, widespread acceptance (and self-esteem, as individuals) that gay people have otherwise already gained — along with our fight against those who once medicalized our condition. And those promoting that paradigm (thereby emboldening our adversaries) are running a protection racket, at our expense.
Who picked this fight? In North Carolina, there was no controversy about a "bathroom bill" until the City of Charlotte passed an ordinance enshrining "gender identity" as a protected attribute. Only then did the State start making an issue of this.
So, FWIW: Yes, I’ll pull up the ladder behind me when anyone (especially some apparatchik running a protection racket) starts clutching at my heels, dragging me down.
I agree with the "disability" framing here. Gender dysphoria is indeed a disability. But I take issue with framing such a disability as "natural" biological phenomenon, when all evidence shows that it's a cultural/social anomaly. I think you've got good intentions here, but I would advise that it's crucial to recognize that gender dysphoria is a social contagion and cultural phenomenon, a kind of hybrid of anorexia and goth and Scientology — a socially contagious mental disorder that's fused with an alternative subculture and also fused with a pseudoscientific and abusive cult — and the way society reacts to it can create feedback loops and actually exacerbate the problem.
I also don't think it makes a difference one way or the other whether it's a disability in terms of acknowledging that biological sex doesn't change. So I reject much of this "middle ground"-ism as antithetical to the principles of a just and honest society. Disability or not, nobody should be coerced to lie about anyone's sex, or be shamed for using sex-based language and pronouns. The onus on the disabled is ultimately to manage their own disability without imposing their problem on everyone else. My right to free speech does not end with your religious beliefs about your mystical gendered soul, even if those beliefs stem from your mental illness, even if it makes good liberals cringe and feel like it's all so very "mean" and "dehumanizing." Speaking plain truths should never be codified as taboo. This is secularism 101.
You're as bad as the "gender" ideologues that you (rightly) disparage. You (both) keep insisting -- albeit for opposite reasons and with opposite agendas -- that ALL cases are the same.
I agree that "the onus on the disabled is ultimately to manage their own disability without imposing their problem on everyone else." OTOH, when engaging with the disabled, most people employ a measure of tact (and, I'd venture to say, most people consider this a matter of decency). For that matter, under "Secularism 101" this also applies to dealing with people whose religious beliefs you might not share.
Your mileage may vary. Of course, in a free society, you have a right to insult people -- and they have a right to be thin-skinned, and to take something as an insult even when you might not consider it to be so.
There are lots of ways to go about telling the truth. Sometimes we can accommodate each other's vocabularies; sometimes we can't -- and we can often find a modus vivendi (even if it involves avoiding each other) if we agree to disagree.
Before you go out of your way to create resentment, you (and your adversaries) might consider what state of affairs you (and they!) are trying to achieve.
It’s not trans people but the ideology of ‘gender’ that’s objectionable. I don’t have any problem with transwomen in ‘women’s spaces’ apart from sports, where those who’ve gone through male puberty have an unfair physical advantage.
It’s the ideology of ‘gender identity’ which is reminiscent of the bad old days when I was growing up. In ‘health’ class, the sex-segregated precursor to sex education we were told ‘femininity is part of my total personality’ and that if we weren’t suitably feminine, if it didn’t suit us, we were sick, neurotic, and self-hating. And we were sent to shrinks to remodel our personalities. Now it’s the same story except instead of remodeling personalities to fit bodies the idea is to remodel bodies to fit personalities.
But the assumption is the same—as some conservatives crudely put it: ‘being male or female isn’t just a matter of plumbing’. Now trans advocates are telling the same story except now the fix is to remodel the plumbing. Same old story. Even if there are statistical differences psychological differences between men and women and even if they’re biologically-based they’re still on-the-average differences. People are individually different and putting us into male or female ‘gender’ boxes is oppressive.
Some individuals fit their boxes—others don’t. Sex IS just a matter of plumbing and ‘gender identity’ is the same old story that we got in the bad old days.
This post has received many negative comments from some, myself included. The reasons are obvious. Still, I want to acknowledge that, given how the entire Democratic Party continues to ignore all the problems around this issue and to treat it as if it is now entirely controlled by Trans activists, it took some courage from someone on the Left (which I am sure Cathy Young is) to write it and for Yascha Mounk to publish it, and their goodwill must be acknowledged. One would hope that others will follow, but I am not holding my breath.
Gender-dysphoric children and youth need long term therapy, especially because they are likely to have other issues, like ADHD. But health care in the United States rarely provides psychotherapy for the long term. Our health care system is focused on specific treatments, procedures and surgeries. We need to reform our health care system.
The US healthcare system does indeed need to offer better psychiatric care. But there's some good news regarding children with gender dysphoria: very often this kind of distress/confusion resolves by itself. So a lot of these kids distressed about their sex aren't actually condemned to require years and years of mental health treatment: for most of them, simply growing up and going through puberty resolves whatever distress or confusion they were feeling about the sex of their bodies. We're actually making these kids a lot worse by obsessing over their "gender identities" and their "wrong" bodies (ugh, that's such an awful concept!) when all they need is to be supported just as they are (i.e., not lied to about the sex of their bodies), and to be left alone to figure themselves out. I know this because I was one such child. And countless studies (actually, every single one ever done) has confirmed that most kids with dysphoria grow out of it quickly unless the parents intervene and instill gender woo into their minds.
A Democratic Congressman (Seth Moulton D-MA) said "I have two girls, I don’t want them getting run over on a playing field by a male or formerly male athlete, but as a Democrat, I’m supposed to be afraid to say that". For his utterly tame remarks, he was called a 'transphobe' and a 'Nazi cooperator'. His campaign manager resigned. There were public demonstration against him. Only one Democrat (Tom Suozzi D-NY) publicly supported him.
Thank you, Cathy, for being, as always, reasonable, compassionate and principled.
Unfortunately a great number of people are not. These last 10 years have transformed your country beyond recognition, and the deep moral rot that has come to the surface spread far and wide and infected minds well beyond your borders.
The righteous, bigoted intolerance is intolerable. Oh, somebody thinks that bigots are only on the right? Think again and gaze upon the cults proliferating on the left. They are all the same, come from the same place: the frothing desire to bow others to one's will.
On this issue, the polarities are dismayingly extreme and incapable of self scrutiny. Reason will take a long time to prevail, if ever. Witness so many of the comments below, even if offered in civility.
In theory I agree that there is a middle ground. In practice I must say though, that a great deal of the focus of this issue revolves around children and my beliefs tend to defer to those children and their parents. As your colleague Jonathan Last wrote in the Bulwark just today, the people facing these choices are not doing so lightly, and they are certainly not choosing an easy path.
So often, the arguments against giving deference to these people and respect for their choices are made using edge cases and opinion polls. But if you had a friend or neighbor facing these challenges, I suspect you would also rely on deference and respect and not on edge cases and polling to support them.
Some of the evidence coming out of Europe suggests that the parents are emotionally blackmailed by the clinics without any hard evidence (and plenty of good contrary evidence) to back up the clinic's assertion that suicide is likely without the clinic's expensive surgical and chemical intervention.
Maybe. But if I was one of those parents I would expect to have agency to decide how to help my kid. Moreso, I don’t think I would impose myself on another parent doing so
Every single study ever done on gender-distressed kids has shown that they're highly likely to grow up to be gay, and they're highly likely to get past their childhood confusion about their own gender-atypical behavioural attributes and come to terms with simply being feminine gay men or masculine gay women. Before social media came along, very few feminine gay men and masculine gay women remained so distressed about their gender-bending personalities that they chose to undergo sex change procedures in an attempt to "camouflage" their sex. Clinics to treat such distress in children confirmed this regularly. That is, until about 20 years ago when the clinics were taken over by "true believers" in magic gender souls. Most of these people were straight men with AGP — a glitch in the sex drive that causes a deep sexual desire to crossdress and to try to turn their male bodies into literal female bodies — and they began using pediatric gender clinics as a recruitment tool to whitewash the sexual kink aspect out of their behavioural compulsions, and to make transsexualism look like a wholesome natural-born phenomenon instead. They're not trying to help distressed kids anymore, they're trying to prove to the world that they're "real" females by showing that they can "detect" "true innate transgenderism" in people basically right from birth. Gender clinics are recruitment centres for the belief system, which is mostly a big cover story to hide the fact that a lot of men get erotic pleasure by the idea of inhabiting female bodies. That's why they're being shut down all over Europe.
The very famous J. K. Rowling has some quite sane things to say about these issues. See "J.K. Rowling Writes about Her Reasons for Speaking out on Sex and Gender Issues".
"This reflects less on the population of trans women than on the fact that, when transition is based on self-ID, bad actors can easily abuse the process."
What empirical evidence do you have to back up that statement?
I love the Persuasion Substack. But I see a number of problems with this piece. Firstly, you refer to "transgender athletes" in women's sports when what you presumably mean is transgender MALE athletes in women's sports. The distinction is crucial, because transgender-identifying FEMALE athletes — even females who "identify" as men — aren't a problem in women's sports. By eliding this fact, you're shifting the emphasis away from the problem: the issue is with people's sex, not their transgender "identities".
You talk of "pulling back from rhetoric that denies biological sex or demands unquestioning recognition for any self-declared gender identity." But you also advocate that people should be allowed to falsify the sex marker on their passports (which you incorrectly call a "gender" marker) because it could hypothetically "create problems at the border for a [male] with a female appearance." It seems patently obvious to me that if there are any problems with border guards somehow unable to comprehend that crossdressers and transsexuals exist, the simplest solution is to educate the border guards rather than to falsify people's documents.
The issue here seems to stem from confusing sex with "gender." As it is, the data recorded on people's passports is their sex. If you'd prefer that government documents record instead whether a person tends to dress and present with a "masculine" or "feminine" appearance, well, that's a separate argument altogether, and I'd argue that it's a pretty regressive position to take.
But the biggest problem with this piece is that at no point do you make any attempt to explain what exactly a "gender identity" is. What is it precisely that distinguishes a "trans person" from a non-trans person? You make allusions to mental health and medical diagnoses, and to "accommodating" "identities" but you haven't offered up any actual basis for the premise that the acknowledgement of ANYONE's biological sex should EVER be rendered taboo, either as a matter of cultural etiquette or as a matter of law.
The answer, of course, is that "gender identity" is nothing but a social construct, and a fairly recently invented one at that. It's also a social contagion. And it's also a bizarre kind of quasi-religious belief system in that it's not trying to cohabitate alongside the material fact of people's biological sex, it's trying to override it. If everyone simply acknowledged people's gender identities ALONGSIDE their actual biological sex, very few people would bother adopting transgender identities in the first place. The part about forcing everyone to pretend not to see their sex is the primary appeal of transgender identity.
There is absolutely no material basis for the distinction between a man and a "transgender woman", and the very concept of "being" transgender is iatrogenic — that is to say, the idea itself that some people were born with "gender identities" that are mismatched to their biological sex is alluring to people in vulnerable states of mind, and it leads to medical harm — both psychological and physical.
People are already free to live as they wish. People are free to dress femininely or masculinely. And people are free to self-identify as born-again Christians or Scientologists or "transgender women," but these are spiritual beliefs and there are limits to how much they should be accommodated in the secular sphere. This is especially true in the case of spiritual beliefs that have the potential to cause harm to their adherents. I believe that transgender identities are an un-ideal palliative treatment for severe mental health problems related to confusion and anxiety about biological sex. I believe that a far more ideal treatment for confusion and anxiety about the facts of one's biology is therapy for the patient, and social advocacy to make the culture better accommodate gender-bending individuals. Masculine women and feminine men should not be made to feel "wrong" in their bodies in the first place, and it's obvious that the factor that is most causing mass distress about sex is social media.
I believe that society's overindulgence of people's quasi-religious "gender identities" is exacerbating the crisis of body dysmorphia and gender dysphoria that's currently plaguing the culture, rather than alleviating it.
But of course, the real reason many straight males identify as "transgender women" is not that they have naturally feminine behavioural attributes. It's that they have a sexual paraphilia: they're sexually and romantically fixated on their own bodies, and because they're heterosexual, they're attracted to the idea of inhabiting FEMALE bodies. And these men are flat-out lying about it. Sexual paraphilias are a fact of the human condition and I believe the world would benefit from a better understanding of the diverse and unusual forms of sexual arousal that can occur in the human species. We all need to learn more about how the male sex drive and sexual fetishes work, in order for all of society to keep harmful sexual behaviours under control. The transgender movement seeks to cover up the existence of autogynephilia (the fetish that leads straight men to adopt transgender identities) with a folk tale about some males having been born with mystical female "gender identities" instead. Lies about sexual paraphilias really should not be accommodated in law or in cultural etiquette. You yourself acknowledged that over half of male prisoners with transgender identities are sex offenders. You take pains to distance the connection between extreme sexual behaviour and transgender identity, but you're wrong to do so: there is in fact a direct and strong correlation. A lot of crossdressing men who claim to be women really are exhibiting highly problematic and inappropriate sexual behaviours. That's a fact and it's crucial that we face it, in order to protect vulnerable women and girls from sexual assault.
You refer to the "dehumanizing" of people who identify as transgender, but you've given no examples of this. I don't believe it's "dehumanizing" to acknowledge anyone's biological sex, ever. This is especially true given that people who hold transgender identities are often struggling with mental illnesses and/or indulging their secret sexual fantasies.
We as a society should be striving to reduce the number of people who are so debilitated by mental distress that they require medical treatments and "transgender identities" in order to cope. But offering up more and more "middle ground" accommodations for such patients is ultimately only making the problem worse, not better.
There is no middle ground here. We as a society should speak up loud and clear that biological sex cannot be circumvented with scalpels and chemicals, nor can it be circumvented via "faith" in quasi-religious transgender dogma.
Excellent! This is the perfect answer because it is so much more rational that the piece published by Cathy Young. There is no middle ground because a "gender identity" is a fiction to begin with, and I am sure that deep down Cathy Young must know it, but she doesn't have the courage to say it out loud. In fact, any identity is a fiction, and to replace objective reality with the fictions we all have about ourselves can only lead to a madhouse. I loved your point that if a gender identity would coexist with the acceptance of real sex (which is what initially, about ten years ago when this fad started, appeared to be the case), no one would want a gender identity because the whole point for trans people is to force everybody to pretend they don't see their real sex. Indeed. From this point of view a trans identity implies a violent relation to the Other insofar as the Other is forced to accept the subjective point of view of the Trans person. It is, I think, the only example in human history when the Others are being forced to see you the way you see yourself.
I agree with you about "gender identity" being a social fiction, but I believe there's a middle ground, recognizing a disability whereby a person genuinely experiences a brain-body mismatch (due to a neurological or hormonal anomaly).
This is very different from cases involving (the controversial notion of) autogynephilia, or from those involving "gender identity" as a fashion statement.
Please see my longer comment about this.
There's no evidence for "brain-body" mismatch that causes people to require the rest of civilization to pretend they can't see their sex, and to require medical body modification. There is indeed a neurological basis for some men being very feminine and some women being very masculine. But you're conflating this natural phenomenon — natural diversity of "gender expression" — with what is fundamentally and utterly indisputably a 100% cultural concept: the idea that femininity causes some men to experience something like a reverse-phantom limb syndrome, whereby they "naturally" reject their penis and masculine body traits (and vice-versa for women), is pseudoscience horseshit, and it's actually incredibly simple to prove it: we can see that "gender dysphoria" spreads through social contact and that it never arose "naturally" before. It doesn't even exist in most parts of the world.
And as for your notion that autogynephilia is "controversial," well, it is among the men who have it and are desperate to pretend they don't, in the same way that anorexia is a "controversial" theory among the young women who have it and refuse to admit it. In sexological circles, the fact that crossdressing is often (even USUALLY) a fetishistic sexual behaviour is utterly rock-solid and indisputable. It was thoroughly culturally understood and utterly uncontroversial, too, until as recently as about ten years ago, when social media triggered bizarre social panic among liberals and caused them to pretend they dion't see the facts that are plain in front of them. Here's a homework assignment for you: watch the Rocky Horror Picture Show, and then Tim Burton's Ed Wood, and try and tell me you couldn't comprehend that crossdressing and transsexualism is a kink. These are both Disney movies available to stream right now on the family-friendly streaming service Disney Plus. That's how utterly basic the concept is — or was, until the left began to brainwash itself out of fear of losing the culture war.
I'm willing to allow for "wrong body" cases analogous to a phantom-limb syndrome.
Recognizing this as a disability eliminates (or deprecates) those cases where "gender identity" is invoked -- and where what's involved is actually a function of conformity to social stereotypes or a fashion statement.
You're making this too complicated -- ironically, not unlike the "queer theorists." "Gender identity" and "gender expression" (along with "trans") is intellectual stubble that disappears with the application of Occam's Razor.
As for your allegation that this range of phenomena "doesn't even exist in most parts of the world," try Googling terms like "Hijra" or "Berdache." Many cultures have attempted to grapple with these issues, in a variety of ways.
We might agree or disagree with those cultural constructs -- or in general on these issues -- but (like your adversaries!) you do yourself a disservice when dogmatism leads you to ignore contrary (or exceptional) circumstances, and to oversell your point.
Hijra and berdache are homosexuals who are kicked out of the GENDER ROLE of masculinity. We don't have gender roles in the West anymore, and we don't want to bring them back, thank you very much.
Here in the modern West, we no longer assign infants a limited menu of social roles they're allowed to grow up into, a list of duties they are permitted and forbidden to perform, based on their sex or their femininity or masculinity. That's what GENDER ROLES are, and that's what Thai Ladyboys, Samoan Fa'afafine, "berdache" in indigenous North America, Muxe in Zapotec indigenous Mexico, etc, all are: they're alternative menus of social roles, handed to feminine boys because they're probably gay and won't reproduce with females and are deemed too girly to adopt leadership roles in their tribes.
And these so-called "third gender" roles are also NEVER treated as overriding people's sex. Ladyboys are lady BOYS — it's right there in the name. Fa'afafine means "a man who acts in the manner of a woman" in the Samoan language — not an actual woman. No one is denying anyone's biology, although the superstitious in these communities may attribute things like having been a female in a past life (buddhist reincarnation theory) etc to feminine boys and men. We in the modern west however understand that homosexuality and femininity are biological, not magical, phenomena. Or at least we bloody well should.
Again, this is all rather regressive when you look closely at it.
Once again, excellent. It is incredible to me that we live in a world where intellectual mediocrities like Judith Butler have been elevated to stardom, rather than someone like you, who can explain things in such a clear and rational way.
I actually agree with you about those "gender roles" in other cultures -- and, indeed, that we've outgrown such constructs in the modern West (though, truth be told, I wish women would stop believing that -- as females -- there's any need for them to paint over their own facial features). ;-)
I was merely disagreeing with your allegation that this range of phenomena "doesn't even exist in most parts of the world" -- regardless of how (in those other cultures) the specifics of those identities are parsed.
Right. These phenomena arise in cultures that maintain rigid sex roles as a safety valve for gender misfits. The solution is to eliminate sex roles. In Albania where under customary law women were very, very disadvantaged 'sworn virgins' could escape by vowing lifelong celibacy in return for getting to live as men. Currently, after the situation of women in Albania has much improved--and Albania has gone from being the poorest country in Europe to an upper middle income country and candidate for EU membership--there are estimated to be no more than a dozen sworn virgins in the country. Eliminate sex roles and gender norms and you don't need third or fourth 'genders'.
It's days later and my mind keeps coming back to this comment. I've learned a lot from it, and I think it's very insightful. Thank you, https://substack.com/@hebaber
Hi, I read your longer comment and agree with it. I even agree with the concept of "disability", but I don't think that would be a middle ground. If this were treated as a disability, very few people would claim it. It would simply be a rare disability and no one would care about it. Which would be fine by me.
Exactly! If this were treated as a disability, very few people would claim it.
What makes this position a middle-ground is that, while acknowledging that such people might exist, it doesn't allow them to hype their condition as a fashion statement, or as an attribute that has anything to do with "gender identity."
Thank you Alta! And may I say, it's a delight to cross paths with you here again. I lit up when I saw your name in my notifications. I'm a fan! xo
The feeling is mutual.
what a great discussion you have started. I am reading through all the replies below, yours and those of others. I have always agreed with the position you laid out and have been working on expressing my arguments better as I interact with fellow Democrats who are 100% on board with the entire trans agenda, , but have never seen it all so well put. And the discussion below is clarifying even more for me. Thank-you for your original comment. Thank-you all who are participating in this discussion.
Wouldn't it be great if the Democrats accepted to have a real discussion on this topic? The problem is, though, one of fanaticism. Just the other day, a FB friend posted that there is no argument whatsoever she would accept in a discussing against Trans ideology and that even if someone could demonstrate to her that it's an ideology unfair to women, she is not interested in hearing it. What can you answer to this? It's religious fanaticism.
I could not agree more with your first two statements. And your FB friend's position is amazing really. Biological women who accept their sex apparently have no rights.
I am glad to be able to report that a few of the Dems I know in my small town here in upstate NY ARE willing to have these discussions. And we do so amongst ourselves, sharing what we have learned through reading/ thinking through books, newsletters, etc. We are working on composing a letter to our ultra-progressive county committee summarizing what we think needs to change most in order for Dems to be relevant again. One big item is the willingness to have sincere, rational discussions of a number of issues, trans ideology being just one (and it IS a belief system, not anything science based). The shouting down of, and attempts to punish, everyone whose views don't align with the new progressive orthodoxy is far too common. Terribly illiberal.
Dems bill themselves as the big tent party but in reality, the only ones allowed inside the tent these days are those who hew to modern progressive orthodoxy on all social justice and cultural issues.
Outstanding response which touches on all the points that concerned me when I read the article. This naive impulse to “be kind” is a fool’s errand which leads to unnecessary and foolish accommodations which only make things worse. They not only ignore or avoid the urgent need for proper therapy, not the bad therapy, which is comprehensively examined in Abigail Shrier’s book of the same name and correctly described there and in this post as iatrogenic. More importantly, this impulse gives oxygen and a permission structure to pernicious, dangerous and dishonest law fare such as the so called “conversion therapy” bans. This monstrously evil legal overreach by the state actually mandates legal penalties for decent, honest medical practitioners who are following the principle of “to first do no harm” by diagnosing and treating (as opposed to cooperating with) the underlying causes of so called gender dysphoria.
@Arty Morty, you write: "There is absolutely no material basis for the distinction between a man and a "transgender woman."
That's not entirely true. It ignores those instances where a person genuinely experiences a brain-body mismatch (due to a neurological or hormonal anomaly).
This is very different from cases involving (the controversial notion of) autogynephilia, or from those involving "gender identity" as a fashion statement.
Please see my longer comment about viewing this as a disability issue, rather than in terms of "gender identity."
I believe that presents us with a viable middle ground.
People do "genuinely" experience distress that feels like a brain-body mismatch, but that "genuine" feeling isn't innate or natural or inborn. it's culturally constructed. Anorexics "genuinely" feel that their bodies are wrong, too. Anorexia isn't an innate state of being.
The only reason people choose to pretend that "gender dysphoria" is an innate and natural state of being, and that sex changes are the best course of action to treat it, is that, consciously or unconsciously, they empathize with the idea that gender-nonconforming behaviour "feels wrong."
I don't agree that femininity in males or masculinity in females is "wrong" in any way whatsoever, and I utterly and absolutely reject the idea that it's "normal" to experience self-disgust over it. Such feelings are perpetuated on a social and cultural level, and they should be rooted out on a social and cultural level.
This is the deep cultural roots of homophobia we're looking at here, and it's very ugly indeed. A lot of people are flattering themselves that they're being virtuous because it's easier than admitting they're actually holding onto regressive (and deep-rooted) feelings.
Great point about anorexia.
You've grossly misread me. I wrote:
"Yes, I experience stereotypically "feminine" emotions -- but the operative word is "stereotypically"; those feelings don't make me female. Indeed, reconciling such feelings with respect for my male body has been absolutely crucial to my self-acceptance as a gay male. On behalf of a stereotype or social fiction, I’m not about to cut off my dick to spite my crotch."
You've suggested that I've said the opposite, and have taken it upon yourself to argue against that position -- when (on this particular point -- whether femininity in males or masculinity in females is "wrong" in any way whatsoever) we actually agree! In fact, I agree that "we're looking at the deep cultural roots of homophobia here."
However, I'm willing to allow for the possibility that a person might genuinely suffer from a brain-body mismatch (due to a neurological or hormonal anomaly) -- and for addressing this as a disability (leaving the social fiction of "gender" [and of any putative "LGBT community"] entirely outside the realm of legitimate consideration).
What's your problem with that? Have you become so blinded (and disgusted) by "Trans" rhetoric and political posturing that you're unwilling to consider such a possibility?
I haven't misread you at all. And you seem to think that whether or not "brain-body mismatch" is a cultural concoction or a biologically hard-wired condition is a matter of choosing which answer gives you better "vibes" or something. We don't do science by "deciding" to "allow for the possibility" of this or that. That's woolly spiritualistic silly thinking. We look to the evidence to figure out whether the evidence from the actual material world confirms or rejects our ideas.
If I throw a watermelon off my balcony, whether it will plunge to the ground and splatter across the sidewalk or hover in midair is not a question of which result I feel better about — which one I'm "willing to allow". It's a matter of hard cold material physics: gravity exists, and the watermelon WILL fall, whether I like it or not, or whether I'm "willing to allow it" or not.
Likewise, the facts don't give you leeway to "allow" for the "possibility" that transsexualism is an innate state of being, whether you like it or not. It's a social construct. The end.
This is what philosophers call a category mistake. It's also called Hume's Guillotine, named after David Hume. There's a hard line between what actually IS and what we think OUGHT TO BE, and there's a metaphorical metal blade that lops the latter off the former.
Interesting debate by you two.
There is in fact a growing body of neurobiology research that suggests there is a difference in brain systems architecture between trans brains and male and female brains. One of the issues with brain studies looking at the issue of trans is them being poorly controlled in terms of accounting for sexual orientation (among other things). The growing body that does make some sense and is often better controlled are finding the difference are in regions of the brain that are thought to play a role in self perception and perception of the world. Best paper I've seen I saw today, posted by a guy named Sammy on X.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6677918/
Interesting findings. They found:
- hetero males and females showed some dimorphism in some brain areas
- homo males were shifted toward female in many of these areas, homosexual females were shifted male in these areas
- transwomen and transmen were not shifted in these area with relation to their sex
- transwomen and transmen showed differences from both males and females in brain areas involved in self perception
- homo and hetero males and homo and hetero females showed no differences in these areas relative to each other.
The authors noted that other studies have looked self perception areas in anorexics, and while differences in anorectics compared to controls in brain self perception areas, they were different areas than those seen in the study of this paper. Hence a unique area with respect to trans.
The authors acknowledged that a there study was at a single time point, it was not definitive that their finding were based on innate vs changes based on socially mediated or induced plasticity. They did made arguments that they favored the innate hypothesis, and rightly pointed out that longitudinal studies would be necessary to answer this question.
They didn't mention autogynophiles. They also didn't discuss the discuss the fairly well documented finding that a large percentage of children out grow by sometime in adolescence any thoughts or confusion with respect their sex, although a longitudinal study that started in childhood could be illuminating.
Sooo...
Mitchell: Your intuition about this is probably on track, but you should express this as issues of self perception
Arty: Philosophical arguments/discussions are always a blast over a good glass of scotch, but there is in fact some hardcore neurobiology research being done on this topic.
There is no neurobiology now, nor will there ever be, to justify the moral command that society and law "should" pretend we can't see other people's biological sex.
You're conflating the FACT that feminine men and fetishistic men have regions of the brain that are different from non-feminine or non-fetishistic men (which, DUH, behaviours come from the brain, and people with different behaviours will exhibit different brain patterns accordingly. this is just basic no-shit-Sherlock stuff) with the WISH that everybody SHOULD therefore pretend we can't tell that they're male.
There is no brainscan on earth that will ever determine whether or not I'm allowed to acknowledge that, say, Caitlyn Jenner is a rich straight white man who has fathered six children. None. Zip. Nada.
And there is no brainscan on earth that will ever determine conclusively that society is "better off" pretending that Bruce Jenner is anything but a crossdressing straight guy.
And besides: The fact that people who hold trans identities are so adamant about which sex they want to be "seen" as is proof in itself that we all "see" the sexes differently in a very fundamental way. (Which, again, should be a no-shit-Sherlock moment for everyone.) The conundrum for them is that they want to be "seen" as the sex that we all can see that they literally aren't. If it didn't matter in society what sex anyone was, it wouldn't matter to people with gender dysphoria what sex they are seen as. It's a paradox, isn't it.
I've (quite deliberately) addressed this on the (relatively) crude level of a "disconnect."
The brain is obviously involved, and you've presented some very interesting findings.
Nonetheless, I'm very wary of addressing these issues in terms of subjective categories like "self-perception" (or for that matter, "trans"), unless we can trace every neural pathway and biological phenomenon involved -- and that brings us back to the question of the neurological (if not the existential) basis of consciousness itself.
At this point, I'll go with Wittgenstein in recognizing the pivotal function of language (much like Einstein's recognition of the pivotal [and inescapable] function of Time).
Given the limits implicit in the power of definition -- no matter how one might complexify or micro-organize any experimental design -- epistemology is not a science.
Ironically (like the "queer theorists”) you’re making this too complicated! "Gender identity" and "gender expression" (along with "trans") is intellectual stubble that disappears with the application of Occam's Razor.
As for a brain/body mismatch?
The "science" doesn't exist -- if indeed, it ever will -- to ascertain the neurological basis of consciousness -- let alone for the host of brain/body interactions. But we certainly know that there's a neurological basis for "phantom limb" phenomena (even if we don't [yet] know the details), and that hormonal anomalies (in fully-developed animals and humans, and in the womb) -- and for that matter, even "normal" hormonal functions that affect self-perception -- are biologically real.
That's my basis for allowing for "a brain/body mismatch." It's not about wishful thinking (an allegation that's gratuitously offensive!).
Hilarious that you claim that I'm making things too complicated and then you segue directly to some Deepak Chopra-esque deepity about the supposedly unknowable nature of consciousness. I've had my fun with you. You're just tedious now.
The disability in most cases is social--not brain body but brain society mismatch. Check the criteria for 'gender dysphoria' at the Mayo Clinic site. 3 concern dislike of one's body and physical sexual characteristics; 2 concern psychological lack of fit with social norms prescribing 'femininity' and 'masculinity'. And you only need to satisfy 2 of the conditions to be a candidate for 'gender transition'
I qualify by the social criteria. I hate the social role assigned to women and most of all the job options. And the dress and grooming requirements, and the expectation that I'll be nurturing, caring, compassionate, etc. Psychologically I am a 'guy'. But I'm a completely heterosexual female, with three kids, and have no problems with my body (except I wish it were a little slimmer).
This whole trans business infuriates me because fundamentally the suggestion: Ah! Your gender identity is male. No problem--get a double mastectomy and go on cross-sex hormones! I don't want my body chopped. Chop society, get rid of these social rules and expectations for men and women--and end ongoing discrimination in employment and I bet that would fix most 'gender dysphoria'.
Isn't it insane that we live in a society in which chopping one's body has become an acceptable cure for a mental issue and that anyone who has a problem with this "cure" is called a "fascist"? How insane a society must be to fall like that!
Liberals are kicking a heavy can down the road by insisting there's a "sane middle" here. Where's the sane middle for body integrity disorder or anorexia? Do some people have no choice but to cut off limbs or starve themselves as close to death as possible without actually dying to live full lives? Sex dysphoria is a body dysmorphia disorder just like all the others, but it's the only one we're supposed to pretend is treated by encouraging it. Those of us who have suffered sex dysphoria but don't fit the easy to condemn youth-related cases, adults who are largely autistic or mentally ill, are not content to find this middle with you. Everyone deserves to be at peace with their bodies. It is not acceptable to write some of us off as hopeless cases, doomed to accept what our mental illness tells us. No other mental illness is treated this way, where the distortions caused by it are enabled and encouraged.
And yes, of course everyone knows A Happy Transsexual. I know many myself who are quite different in private from the persona they use online. Happiness with irreversible choices can be put on quite easily considering the alternative is facing the irreversibility. It won't be easy to have this larger conversation but vulnerable people need it to happen. This is not going to just become accepted like homosexuality has been (primarily because homosexuality is not a mental illness that requires treatment and the vast majority of people intuitively understand that at this point).
Beautifully said. Thank you for posting.
Thank you for responding, and for your impassioned and beautiful comment below. I comment this message wherever I think it has a chance of breaking through and I rarely receive any engagement. I understand to an extent; it's embarrassing for me to post, and I think it's awkward for people without ~lived experience~ (for lack of a better descriptor) to contend with. We have to though. If this middle way wins out then youth transition might stop but it will be gay, autistic, and mentally ill adults who continue to be fed to the meat grinder.
I agree with the substance of what you've written, @C.C -- but think that there's a "sane middle" that incorporates your concerns. Please see my own comment about treating this phenomenon as a disability issue.
Thank you for sharing, Mitchell. If by treatment you mean access to comprehensive psychotherapy that can address the root of the dysmorphia, I totally agree with you. However, I do not agree that there is a group of people who need what currently passes for "trans health care" or to permanently deny the reality of their bodies.
(I accidentally responded to another comment of yours first, oops!)
When "the root of the dysmorphia" is a brain-body mismatch (due to a neurological or hormonal anomaly), psychotherapy might not be a viable option. (In these cases, we're dealing with a biological phenomenon.)
OTOH, calling the remedy for this disability "trans health care" -- i.e., casting it as a matter of "gender identity" -- is indeed a tendentious (and obnoxiously political) dodge. My cat doesn't concern herself with "gender identity" -- but perhaps weasels do! ;-)
There's no evidence for such a mismatch or biological phenomenon though, just like any other body dysmorphia disorder. To accept that there might be, there would need to be a test that proved beyond a reasonable doubt that a person actually had that mismatch, and even then, I'm quite skeptical. I simply do not believe that any dysmorphias should be validated with irreversible (or not, really) changes to the body.
The "science" doesn't exist -- if indeed, it ever will -- to ascertain the neurological basis of consciousness -- let alone for the host of brain/body interactions. But we certainly know that there's a neurological basis for "phantom limb" phenomena (even if we don't [yet] know the details), and we know that hormonal anomalies (in fully-developed animals and humans, and in the womb) -- and for that matter, even "normal" hormonal functions that affect self-perception -- are biologically real.
That's my basis for allowing for "a brain/body mismatch" -- even if there's no definitive test. I believe that recognizing such a phenomenon as a disability should provide the appropriate perspective, and should be sufficient for putting the "gender weasels" in their place.
We're talking past each other now; I do not think anyone should be "treated" for any body dysmorphia, including sex dysphoria, by encouraging the dysmorphia. I do not think people with body integrity disorder should be able to have limbs cut off due to their dysmorphia, I think they deserve the intensive psychotherapy it would take to resolve the issue holistically so that their body stops being a source of distress. I do not think anorectics should be encouraged to starve themselves, I think they deserve the psychotherapy needed to stop the desire to waste away. I do not think people with sex dysphoria should "live as" the opposite sex, take cross sex hormones, which cause devastating effects in the female body (not as familiar with what estrogen does to males), or get surgeries because of their distressing thoughts, I think they deserve the psychotherapy needed to stop the fantasy of "if i change my sex i'll finally feel better." I think these "treatments" are barbaric because they do not address the suffering of the patient at all.
Good article -- as far as it goes. FWIW, here's a rational framework for dealing further with these issues:
"Trans" people exist. They're just not what they crack themselves up to be.
This is a disability issue. It has nothing to do with "LGBTQIA+," let alone "Queer."
A person genuinely suffering from a brain-body mismatch (due to a neurological or hormonal anomaly) deserves the same decency, compassion and access to medical treatment (if need be) as anyone with a deformity or disability. (As for "intersex"? Some people are born with eight toes.) And bullying or harming the disabled (or those with a genetic anomaly) is an atrocity in its own right.
None of this requires that we redefine “male” and “female,” or adopt terms like “cis” and “trans.”
All the rest is cosplay.
“Gender" (as distinct from biological sex) is a social fiction. Indeed, among gay males, drag is about repudiating and ridiculing the very concept of "gender" -- not “affirming” it.
At age 74, I’ve fought all my adult life to advance a recognition that there's nothing “Queer" about same-sex attraction. I’m attracted to guys; I’ve never hidden that fact, and (as my parents raised me) I’m proud simply to be myself. I never signed up to "smash cisheteropatriarchy" in the name of some Brave New World.
Yes, I experience stereotypically "feminine" emotions -- but the operative word is "stereotypically"; those feelings don't make me female. Indeed, reconciling such feelings with respect for my male body has been absolutely crucial to my self-acceptance as a gay male. On behalf of a stereotype or social fiction, I’m not about to cut off my dick to spite my crotch.
The implicitly adversarial notion of "Queer" (or some putative “LGBTQIA+ community”) is a self-serving, self-marginalizing corral into which we’ve been herded by “The Groups.” It dilutes and jeopardizes the hard-won, widespread acceptance (and self-esteem, as individuals) that gay people have otherwise already gained — along with our fight against those who once medicalized our condition. And those promoting that paradigm (thereby emboldening our adversaries) are running a protection racket, at our expense.
Who picked this fight? In North Carolina, there was no controversy about a "bathroom bill" until the City of Charlotte passed an ordinance enshrining "gender identity" as a protected attribute. Only then did the State start making an issue of this.
So, FWIW: Yes, I’ll pull up the ladder behind me when anyone (especially some apparatchik running a protection racket) starts clutching at my heels, dragging me down.
I agree with the "disability" framing here. Gender dysphoria is indeed a disability. But I take issue with framing such a disability as "natural" biological phenomenon, when all evidence shows that it's a cultural/social anomaly. I think you've got good intentions here, but I would advise that it's crucial to recognize that gender dysphoria is a social contagion and cultural phenomenon, a kind of hybrid of anorexia and goth and Scientology — a socially contagious mental disorder that's fused with an alternative subculture and also fused with a pseudoscientific and abusive cult — and the way society reacts to it can create feedback loops and actually exacerbate the problem.
I also don't think it makes a difference one way or the other whether it's a disability in terms of acknowledging that biological sex doesn't change. So I reject much of this "middle ground"-ism as antithetical to the principles of a just and honest society. Disability or not, nobody should be coerced to lie about anyone's sex, or be shamed for using sex-based language and pronouns. The onus on the disabled is ultimately to manage their own disability without imposing their problem on everyone else. My right to free speech does not end with your religious beliefs about your mystical gendered soul, even if those beliefs stem from your mental illness, even if it makes good liberals cringe and feel like it's all so very "mean" and "dehumanizing." Speaking plain truths should never be codified as taboo. This is secularism 101.
You're as bad as the "gender" ideologues that you (rightly) disparage. You (both) keep insisting -- albeit for opposite reasons and with opposite agendas -- that ALL cases are the same.
I agree that "the onus on the disabled is ultimately to manage their own disability without imposing their problem on everyone else." OTOH, when engaging with the disabled, most people employ a measure of tact (and, I'd venture to say, most people consider this a matter of decency). For that matter, under "Secularism 101" this also applies to dealing with people whose religious beliefs you might not share.
Your mileage may vary. Of course, in a free society, you have a right to insult people -- and they have a right to be thin-skinned, and to take something as an insult even when you might not consider it to be so.
There are lots of ways to go about telling the truth. Sometimes we can accommodate each other's vocabularies; sometimes we can't -- and we can often find a modus vivendi (even if it involves avoiding each other) if we agree to disagree.
Before you go out of your way to create resentment, you (and your adversaries) might consider what state of affairs you (and they!) are trying to achieve.
It’s not trans people but the ideology of ‘gender’ that’s objectionable. I don’t have any problem with transwomen in ‘women’s spaces’ apart from sports, where those who’ve gone through male puberty have an unfair physical advantage.
It’s the ideology of ‘gender identity’ which is reminiscent of the bad old days when I was growing up. In ‘health’ class, the sex-segregated precursor to sex education we were told ‘femininity is part of my total personality’ and that if we weren’t suitably feminine, if it didn’t suit us, we were sick, neurotic, and self-hating. And we were sent to shrinks to remodel our personalities. Now it’s the same story except instead of remodeling personalities to fit bodies the idea is to remodel bodies to fit personalities.
But the assumption is the same—as some conservatives crudely put it: ‘being male or female isn’t just a matter of plumbing’. Now trans advocates are telling the same story except now the fix is to remodel the plumbing. Same old story. Even if there are statistical differences psychological differences between men and women and even if they’re biologically-based they’re still on-the-average differences. People are individually different and putting us into male or female ‘gender’ boxes is oppressive.
Some individuals fit their boxes—others don’t. Sex IS just a matter of plumbing and ‘gender identity’ is the same old story that we got in the bad old days.
Well said!
I'll admit this isn't an issue I know a lot about, but Ms. Young's discussion seems reasonable ("sane") to me. And I learned a bit, too, so thanks.
This post has received many negative comments from some, myself included. The reasons are obvious. Still, I want to acknowledge that, given how the entire Democratic Party continues to ignore all the problems around this issue and to treat it as if it is now entirely controlled by Trans activists, it took some courage from someone on the Left (which I am sure Cathy Young is) to write it and for Yascha Mounk to publish it, and their goodwill must be acknowledged. One would hope that others will follow, but I am not holding my breath.
Gender-dysphoric children and youth need long term therapy, especially because they are likely to have other issues, like ADHD. But health care in the United States rarely provides psychotherapy for the long term. Our health care system is focused on specific treatments, procedures and surgeries. We need to reform our health care system.
The US healthcare system does indeed need to offer better psychiatric care. But there's some good news regarding children with gender dysphoria: very often this kind of distress/confusion resolves by itself. So a lot of these kids distressed about their sex aren't actually condemned to require years and years of mental health treatment: for most of them, simply growing up and going through puberty resolves whatever distress or confusion they were feeling about the sex of their bodies. We're actually making these kids a lot worse by obsessing over their "gender identities" and their "wrong" bodies (ugh, that's such an awful concept!) when all they need is to be supported just as they are (i.e., not lied to about the sex of their bodies), and to be left alone to figure themselves out. I know this because I was one such child. And countless studies (actually, every single one ever done) has confirmed that most kids with dysphoria grow out of it quickly unless the parents intervene and instill gender woo into their minds.
A Democratic Congressman (Seth Moulton D-MA) said "I have two girls, I don’t want them getting run over on a playing field by a male or formerly male athlete, but as a Democrat, I’m supposed to be afraid to say that". For his utterly tame remarks, he was called a 'transphobe' and a 'Nazi cooperator'. His campaign manager resigned. There were public demonstration against him. Only one Democrat (Tom Suozzi D-NY) publicly supported him.
Thank you, Cathy, for being, as always, reasonable, compassionate and principled.
Unfortunately a great number of people are not. These last 10 years have transformed your country beyond recognition, and the deep moral rot that has come to the surface spread far and wide and infected minds well beyond your borders.
The righteous, bigoted intolerance is intolerable. Oh, somebody thinks that bigots are only on the right? Think again and gaze upon the cults proliferating on the left. They are all the same, come from the same place: the frothing desire to bow others to one's will.
On this issue, the polarities are dismayingly extreme and incapable of self scrutiny. Reason will take a long time to prevail, if ever. Witness so many of the comments below, even if offered in civility.
In theory I agree that there is a middle ground. In practice I must say though, that a great deal of the focus of this issue revolves around children and my beliefs tend to defer to those children and their parents. As your colleague Jonathan Last wrote in the Bulwark just today, the people facing these choices are not doing so lightly, and they are certainly not choosing an easy path.
So often, the arguments against giving deference to these people and respect for their choices are made using edge cases and opinion polls. But if you had a friend or neighbor facing these challenges, I suspect you would also rely on deference and respect and not on edge cases and polling to support them.
Some of the evidence coming out of Europe suggests that the parents are emotionally blackmailed by the clinics without any hard evidence (and plenty of good contrary evidence) to back up the clinic's assertion that suicide is likely without the clinic's expensive surgical and chemical intervention.
Maybe. But if I was one of those parents I would expect to have agency to decide how to help my kid. Moreso, I don’t think I would impose myself on another parent doing so
Every single study ever done on gender-distressed kids has shown that they're highly likely to grow up to be gay, and they're highly likely to get past their childhood confusion about their own gender-atypical behavioural attributes and come to terms with simply being feminine gay men or masculine gay women. Before social media came along, very few feminine gay men and masculine gay women remained so distressed about their gender-bending personalities that they chose to undergo sex change procedures in an attempt to "camouflage" their sex. Clinics to treat such distress in children confirmed this regularly. That is, until about 20 years ago when the clinics were taken over by "true believers" in magic gender souls. Most of these people were straight men with AGP — a glitch in the sex drive that causes a deep sexual desire to crossdress and to try to turn their male bodies into literal female bodies — and they began using pediatric gender clinics as a recruitment tool to whitewash the sexual kink aspect out of their behavioural compulsions, and to make transsexualism look like a wholesome natural-born phenomenon instead. They're not trying to help distressed kids anymore, they're trying to prove to the world that they're "real" females by showing that they can "detect" "true innate transgenderism" in people basically right from birth. Gender clinics are recruitment centres for the belief system, which is mostly a big cover story to hide the fact that a lot of men get erotic pleasure by the idea of inhabiting female bodies. That's why they're being shut down all over Europe.
The very famous J. K. Rowling has some quite sane things to say about these issues. See "J.K. Rowling Writes about Her Reasons for Speaking out on Sex and Gender Issues".
"This reflects less on the population of trans women than on the fact that, when transition is based on self-ID, bad actors can easily abuse the process."
What empirical evidence do you have to back up that statement?
The "empirical" evidence is present all throughout the article.