The transgender backlash and what to do about it

Recent political data and public opinion research indicate that a backlash against transgender rights is getting stronger, particularly in the United States.

The reason for this is intense anti-trans propaganda from the Republicans and the failure of pro-democracy politicians to protect and defend trans people.

Shifting support

According to a US survey presented and analyzed by Lakshya Jain in The Argument, measures once widely opposed, such as bills requiring transgender people to use bathrooms corresponding to their sex assigned at birth, now has the support of a majority of voters, with about 52 % backing such legislation and only 33 % opposing it.

Similar trends are found in sports, where over 60% of voters favor restricting trans athletes to teams based on sex assigned at birth.

The polling also finds strong opposition to gender‑affirming care for minors, including puberty blockers, hormones, and surgeries, even when supported by doctors and parents.

The effect of anti-trans propaganda

Even if many of the anti-trans bills presented by Republicans in various states fail or are stopped in the courts, the extreme propaganda targeting transgender people has had an effect.

A majority of Americans do not known that much about transgender people, gender variance or gender dysphoria. The support trans people had up till 2024 might partly have been caused by a sympathy for marginalized people in general and LGBTQ people in particular.

Gender variance and camouflaging conversion therapy as care

Joanna Santos reveals how the advice and practice of Sasha Ayad of The Metaphor of Gender YouTube channel stop gender variant people from reaching an understanding of their true selves.

Guest post by Joanna Santos with Jack Molay

Recently I wrote a comment on the Metaphor of Gender YouTube channel regarding my objection to its dogmatic roots. The channel is run by Sasha Ayad. After having caught the gist of the approach, I realized the channel was about using a soft-pedaled and "kind" approach towards questioning gender variance and more specifically transitioning. 

I had looked up the author's previous appearances and discovered unsurprisingly that they subscribed to the gender critical school more broadly. More specifically they make use of  the Ray Blanchard two type taxonomy model where the variance is supposedly steeped in sexual dysfunction rather than in essence or a way of being.

The need for help

Sasha Ayad runs The Metaphor of Gender channel

Gender variant people have historically needed help from others, therapists included.  As undesirable members of society they save suffered from guilt and shame at one end of the spectrum to crippling dysphoria at the other. 

This angst has been used as confirmation of the idea that their dreams are sourced in mental illness rather than being primarily caused by the rejection from others. 

When gender variance is presented as a mental illness it is easier for gender critical "therapists" to present their "care" as a possible solution to their suffering.

Does gender dysphoria have a biological basis?

If you ask most experts in the field what causes someone to become transgender (as in experiencing gender dysphoria or being gender incongruent), they will tell you that this most likely caused by a combination of biological, cultural, social and personal factors. Most of them will agree that there is a significant biological component.

This is important, because it means that it is hard to dismiss gender incongruence as something imaginary caused by political and cultural pressure from sinister people promoting some kind of "gender ideology". All serious scientists in the field acknowledge that the identities of trans people are real and tangible and the great majority believe there are biological factors influencing the development of gender incongruence.

That does not mean that our concepts of gender are not influenced by culture. They most certainly are, as seen in the anti-trans insistence on gender being reduced to "biological sex", another concept that is as vague and ambiguous as the term "gender".

"Biological sex", as it is used by anti-trans activist, is a political and cultural construct that goes against everything we know about gender variance and intersex conditions, both in humans and in other animals. 

In intersex people chromosomes, gonads, genitalia and hormones do not match in wide variety of combinations, and in trans people a persistent and intense experience of a gendered self does not mach the gender assigned at birth. Dismissing this as "illusions" or "irrelevant variations" does not cut it.

What science says about the biological component

Research indicates significant biological factors influencing gender identity and dysphoria, particularly in brain structure and function. ​

Pluribus and fighting the hive mind

May Rude has written an interesting article on the sci-fi serie Pluribus' reference to conversion therapy as a way to create a totalitarian society and belief system.  Pluribus reflects on the way a confirmative culture will use all types of social conditioning to force people to adhere to the beliefs and behaviors required by that culture.

Conversion therapy is the logical extension of this practice. The fear of social exclusion and this kind of violence is what makes most people in such a culture complicit in the oppression, even many of those who are themselves outsiders.

Pluribus can be summed up as Contact + Body Snatchers + Matrix, but in very original and creative ways. These are the only spoilers you will get before the embedded video.

I love Pluribus because it using common sci-fi tropes manages to clarify why the hive mind of oppressive cultures (being those fascist, nationalist religious fundamentalist or communist) cannot allow the outsiders to exist in the open, because their very existence invalidates the god given or "natural" order defined by the oppressors.

Many of the ones who embrace the hive mind do so because they need a narrowly ordered universe that gives them a clear and unambiguous role that calms their anxieties. The anxieties are, of course, caused by the fact that the universe is not a safe and predictable place, and that whatever the meaning of it all is, that meaning contains diversity, uncertainty and suffering.

The oppressors cannot handle this so they have to design an imaginary universe where these uncertainties cannot exist, and where - to the extent they do exist - are caused by the very ones who break the rules and invalidates their world view.

In any period with great upheavals many of the fearful ones become militants. They use verbal and physical violence to force everyone else to obey. This is where we are right now, especially as regards transphobia and racism.

Pluribus manages to describe how hard it can be to stand up to the hive-mind, because the hive-mind promises love, companionship and a sense of belonging. The loneliness of outsiders can be heart breaking. But Pluribus also describes the falseness of the promises made. The hive-mind's love is not real love. Accepting the dogmas of its world is not real freedom. There is no room for unique life journeys in their society.

And that is why we have to fight back. Every day.

You find Pluribus over at Apple TV. Spoilers in the text below the video.

The invaders want Carol, the protagonist of Pluribus, to join them in their hive mind, giving up all individuality in the process. Carol, a lesbian, has been through this before - in conversion therapy.

Reflections on Gender Variance

Guest post by Joanna Santos

After having ended my blog, I wanted to add one last footnote and briefly summarize my thoughts on gender variance; a topic I have reflected on most of my life. 

We can come to two primary conclusions in that firstly, it is a naturally occurring phenomenon dating back to recorded human history and secondly it comes in different iterations and severity and degree of attachment. In other words, what Harry Benjamin observed with his hundreds of patients (who largely lived secret lives)  over his lifetime turned out to be ostensibly correct. Gender variance behaves like a continuum. 

The resistance to this human variant is explanatory in that it is in contravention to a desired social and political structure which seeks predictability. People can be more easily controlled if their behaviour is slotted into a safe binary which conveniently adhered to birth sex. Even detectable anomalies of birth sex were corrected such that the infant could fall within one of only two choices. 

As we became increasingly educated in genetics we unsurprisingly found that chromosomal anomalies were part of the global picture of humanity because nature abhors uniformity and perfection. However this did little to discourage the binary model to change since it suited the power structures within societies. 

It wasn't until well into the 2000's that society began to recognize that in many instances gender dysphoria wasn't a choice and people's actions in addressing it were valid. This was because the initial numbers of people coming out didn't warrant a moral panic. The kind of people who had previously transitioned in stealth were now coming out despite not needing to. 

However once the full breadth of gender variance was exposed as being much larger than imagined, it was seized upon as a moral panic and sold as social contagion. Youth who abandoned strict social rules and flaunted originality were suddenly part of a movement to derail society. The white man who was afraid of his world order being toppled, seized on the moment encouraged by subgroups with their own agendas. 

Our problem today is that the definition of 'trans' has become so expansive that it has left much of society with confusion about how to deal with people who, for varying reasons, don't readily fit within the old definitions of man and woman. Some are emboldened by the freedom of choice while others deal with conflicts of identity dating back to early childhood. 

Many of these people are themselves confused about what actions to take regarding medical interventions which may or may not be warranted. Some want a definition to give them a path forward only they can ultimately determine. 

Sorting out what this means will take time but I feel the answer lies in a live and let live perspective which abandons discrimination along gender lines. People need to be seen as individuals who embrace authenticity in their own manner and ultimately improve life quality and balance in doing so.

Illustration photo: Getty

Queerphobia, Science and the Problem with Realism

Here's a guest post by Davida, following up our post on the causes of transphobia. Using the approach of  philosopher and computer scientist Bernardo Kastrup Davida maps the logical and rhetorical tricks used by homophobes (and by implication transphobes) in their desire to defend their own beliefs. This way of arguing is also found in science.

By Davida

In his book, Meaning in Absurdity, the Dutch philosopher Bernardo Kastrup makes an argument against a metaphysical position known as realism. Kastrup’s opening words, “This book is an experiment: an attempt to use logic to expose the absurd foundations of logic.” 

In his argument, he employs research from quantum physics to support his critique. An alternative presentation is offered here, which hopefully will illustrate his points in a less technical manner. However, it will be without the strong empirical support his argument offered. 

His critique of realism is directed at its reliance upon bivalence logic (either, or), strong objectivity (alleged facts, independent of context or conditions), hidden variables (alleged causes, outside of that which can be known) and faith (belief treated as fact). 

A dialogue with a homophobe

So, imagine the following scene. Bill is talking across a backyard fence with his neighbor, Sam, about their new neighbors down the street.

Sam: We don’t need people like them in the neighborhood.

Bill: What do you mean? What kind of people are they?

Sam: Isn’t obvious? Two men are buying a house together and claiming to be one another’s spouse.

Bill: What’s the big deal? It is pretty common these days.

Sam: I’ll tell you what the big deal is. It isn’t natural. It goes against nature. It is against the natural order of the world. (realism claim implying strong objectivity)

Bill: How so?