You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘Gender Issues’ category.
About fucking time the facade of youth gender medicine’s supposed infallibility is crumbling. For years, the trans rights movement has peddled the emotionally manipulative lie that denying children puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones is tantamount to signing their death warrants—a claim rooted in social blackmail rather than evidence. The Atlantic article exposes this narrative, epitomized by phrases like “Would you rather have a dead son than a live daughter?” as collapsing under scrutiny. During Supreme Court arguments in the Skrmetti case, ACLU lawyer Chase Strangio admitted there’s no evidence linking medical transition to reduced adolescent suicide rates, a concession that exposes the hollowness of the movement’s loudest rallying cry. Systematic reviews further debunk the myth, showing no increase in suicides when blockers were restricted in England. The left’s bubble, sustained by zombie facts and a refusal to engage with critics, has been punctured by undeniable truths—truths skeptics have long pointed out, only to be shouted down.
I told you so: the so-called evidence base for youth gender medicine is a house of cards built on citation laundering and ideological zeal. American clinics, deviating from the cautious Dutch protocol, often prescribe blockers on first visits, bypassing thorough assessments. WPATH, the supposed gold standard, has been caught suppressing inconvenient research, with internal doubts about weak evidence buried to protect political goals. Rachel Levine’s push to remove age minimums for surgeries was a calculated move to dodge conservative attacks, not a science-driven decision. Meanwhile, practitioners like Johanna Olson-Kennedy, who casually dismissed adolescent regret with “you can go and get [breasts],” reveal a cavalier attitude toward irreversible procedures. The left’s sanctimonious insistence on “settled science” is nothing but a confabulation, propped up by medical associations’ politically influenced consensus rather than rigorous data.
The legal system, for all its flaws, has finally dragged these lies into the light—about fucking time. Court cases like Skrmetti and Alabama’s litigation exposed WPATH’s internal admissions of shaky evidence and their efforts to muzzle researchers whose findings didn’t align with the narrative. The Cass report, dismissed by American advocates as “subjective,” challenged WPATH’s authority with systematic reviews recommending caution. Yet, the left clings to its bubble, accusing outlets like The New York Times of “manufacturing” debate. Skeptics, long vilified as bigots, have been vindicated: the evidence is inconclusive, the risks are real, and the emotional blackmail is unconscionable. Supporting trans rights doesn’t require endorsing experimental treatments for kids, and it’s high time liberals faced this reality instead of doubling down on discredited dogma.
Bibliography
- Lewis, Helen. “The Liberal Misinformation Bubble About Youth Gender Medicine.” The Atlantic, June 29, 2025. https://archive.is/1PP0D.
Gender Affirming Care (GAC)—a suite of medical, surgical, and psychosocial interventions for transgender and gender-diverse individuals—commands fervent support despite a precarious evidence base. Major medical associations, wielding the authority of over 1.3 million doctors, proclaim its necessity, yet systematic reviews from health authorities in Finland, Sweden, and England expose a stark reality: the long-term efficacy and safety of GAC, particularly for minors, lack robust substantiation. This dissonance—between passionate advocacy and scientific uncertainty—begs scrutiny. What drives individuals to champion GAC when the evidence falters? Five primary reasons emerge: empathy for marginalized groups, belief in autonomy, trust in institutions, fear of social backlash, and perceived life-saving benefits. Each, though rooted in human impulses, corrodes critical inquiry, elevating ideology over empiricism. This essay dissects these drivers, weaving examples and citations into a tapestry of analysis, before concluding that the evidence fails to justify the claims propelling GAC’s ascent.
Empathy and Support for Marginalized Groups
Transgender individuals endure a gauntlet of social stigma—discrimination, microaggressions, and a 61% higher likelihood of suicidal ideation among youth with gender dysphoria. This suffering ignites empathy, compelling many to view GAC as a moral necessity, a lifeline for those drowning in despair. The emotional weight of personal narratives overshadows the absence of long-term data, transforming support into a crusade against perceived injustice. Consider Kelly Fleming, a Texas resident using they/them pronouns, who battled decades of depression, shaving in darkness to avoid their reflection. After a gender dysphoria diagnosis and low-dose estradiol, their anguish gave way to joy in their physical self. Such stories, visceral and compelling, sway supporters to prioritize lived experiences over empirical gaps, even as systematic reviews question GAC’s long-term mental health benefits (Scientific American, 2022). Empathy, while noble, risks blinding advocates to the need for rigorous validation.
Belief in Autonomy and Self-Identification
The ethos of self-identification—where one’s internal gender defines reality—fuels GAC’s appeal. This ideology, ascendant in progressive circles, holds that individuals must control their bodies, even if medical outcomes remain uncertain. Denying GAC, supporters argue, violates personal agency, a sin deemed antithetical to modern ethics. Katherine Imborek, MD, co-director of UI Health Care’s LGBTQ Clinic, likens GAC to insulin for diabetes: a non-negotiable intervention (AAMC, 2022). This analogy, wielded with clinical gravitas, frames GAC as an ethical imperative, sidelining concerns about irreversible effects like infertility or adolescent decision-making capacity. Supporters cling to autonomy as sacrosanct, undeterred by critiques—like those in Current Sexual Health Reports—that highlight the paucity of evidence for long-term benefits (Block, 2023). The conviction that choice trumps uncertainty drives this support, even when science lags.
Trust in Medical and Advocacy Institutions
Institutional endorsements lend GAC a veneer of unimpeachable legitimacy. The American Medical Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, and others, representing over 1.3 million physicians, assert GAC’s safety and necessity, often citing short-term studies. Advocacy groups like the Human Rights Campaign amplify this, claiming “decades of research” affirm efficacy (HRC, n.d.). For many, this imprimatur suffices, quelling skepticism. Yet, the irony is biting: systematic reviews, such as those by NICE and Sweden’s health authority, reveal methodological flaws in these studies, with no reliable evidence of long-term mental health gains (Block, 2023). The Human Rights Campaign’s amicus briefs, wielded against state bans, persuade laypeople and policymakers who trust institutions implicitly, unaware of the chasm between claims and reality. This blind faith in authority—however well-intentioned—corrodes the demand for scientific rigor.
Fear of Social Backlash
The cultural crucible of 2025 scorches dissenters. Questioning GAC invites accusations of transphobia, risking social ostracism or professional ruin—a modern scarlet letter. This fear, amplified by cancel culture’s swift retribution, coerces conformity. While specific cases are elusive, the broader dynamics are undeniable: public figures face X platform pile-ons for challenging progressive orthodoxies, a fate that looms over academics, clinicians, or laypeople alike. A hypothetical professor questioning GAC’s evidence base might lose grants, tenure, or reputation, a risk that stifles debate. This chilling effect, though undocumented in specific GAC contexts, mirrors broader trends in polarized discourse, ensuring support persists not from conviction but from dread. The absence of open dialogue—smothered by ideological zeal—betrays the pursuit of truth.
Perceived Life-Saving Benefits
Short-term studies, like a JAMA Network Open analysis, link GAC to reduced depression and suicidality in transgender youth within 12 months, fueling perceptions of its life-saving potential (Tordoff et al., 2022). These findings, though limited, galvanize advocates who see GAC as a bulwark against despair. Yet, the evidence is fragile: European reviews highlight risks—sexual dysfunction, infertility, even a 19-fold higher suicide rate in transitioned adults—while long-term benefits remain unproven (Block, 2023). A Dutch study noted a death from surgical complications, underscoring the stakes (Block, 2023). Despite this, the JAMA study’s mental health improvements dominate advocacy narratives, overshadowing concerns about detransition rates (potentially 10–30%) or ethical dilemmas over adolescent consent. The urgency to save lives, however compelling, outpaces the caution demanded by incomplete data.
Conclusion: A House Built on Sand
The fervor for Gender Affirming Care—woven from empathy, autonomy, institutional trust, fear, and hope—collapses under scrutiny. Systematic reviews from Finland, Sweden, and England, alongside critical analyses like those in Current Sexual Health Reports, reveal a stark truth: the evidence does not support the grandiose claims of GAC’s efficacy or safety. Short-term mental health gains, while promising, are dwarfed by unanswered questions about long-term outcomes—risks of infertility, regret, or mortality loom large. Institutional endorsements, though authoritative, lean on flawed studies; empathy, though human, cannot substitute for data; and fear of backlash stifles the debate essential for progress. The moral urgency to affirm identities, however heartfelt, builds a house on sand when divorced from rigorous science. Until comprehensive, long-term studies validate GAC’s benefits, its advocates—however well-meaning—peddle hope over truth, a debacle that risks harm to those they aim to help.
Bibliography
- Association of American Medical Colleges. (2022). “What is Gender-Affirming Care? Your Questions Answered.” https://www.aamc.org/news/what-gender-affirming-care-your-questions-answered
- Block, J. (2023). “Gender dysphoria in young people is rising—and so is professional disagreement.” Current Sexual Health Reports. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10039166/
- Human Rights Campaign. (n.d.). “Get the Facts on Gender-Affirming Care.” https://www.hrc.org/resources/get-the-facts-on-gender-affirming-care
- Scientific American. (2022). “What the Science on Gender-Affirming Care for Transgender Kids Really Shows.” https://www.scientificamerican.com/video/what-the-science-on-gender-affirming-care-for-transgender-kids-really-shows/
- Tordoff, D. M., et al. (2022). “Mental Health Outcomes in Transgender and Nonbinary Youths Receiving Gender-Affirming Care.” JAMA Network Open. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2789423
To ensure a balanced and rigorous analysis, this essay presents the strongest versions of arguments from activists, skeptics, and the neutral public, avoiding caricature and grounding claims in verifiable evidence.
Meanings of “Trans Rights Are Human Rights”
To Activists: For trans activists, this slogan is an axiomatic declaration: transgender individuals, as humans, deserve the same fundamental rights—life, liberty, dignity—as anyone else. It frames trans-specific demands, like legal gender recognition or access to preferred facilities, as inalienable entitlements, equating opposition with dehumanization. Activists argue that systemic discrimination—evidenced by 44 trans homicides in the U.S. in 2020 (Human Rights Campaign)—necessitates such forceful rhetoric to secure basic protections, akin to historical civil rights struggles.
To Skeptics: Skeptics view the slogan as a rhetorical sleight-of-hand, conflating universal human rights with contested policy demands, such as self-ID laws or medical interventions for minors. They argue it sidesteps concerns like women’s safety in single-sex spaces or fairness in sports, where biological differences (e.g., testosterone levels) may justify distinctions. A 2018 Pew Research poll shows 59% of Americans support trans nondiscrimination but only 49% back trans inclusion in women’s sports, reflecting nuanced concerns the slogan obscures. Skeptics see it as dogmatic, stifling debate.
To the Neutral Public: For the uninitiated, the slogan resonates as a call for fairness, aligning with humanistic values. Studies like Jones et al. (2018) show 70% of Americans acknowledge trans marginalization, supporting the slogan’s plea for equality. Yet, its vagueness—what constitutes “trans rights”?—leaves neutrals susceptible to emotional appeal without clarity on policy implications, like balancing trans inclusion with sex-based protections, leading to passive or conflicted support.
Meanings of “Trans Women Are Women”
To Activists: This slogan asserts that trans women are women in essence, with gender identity overriding biology or socialization. It demands societal alignment—language, policies, spaces—with this reality. Activists cite psychological evidence: gender dysphoria’s distress, alleviated by affirmation (American Psychological Association, 2015), justifies equating identity with womanhood to reduce harm, like the 40% suicide attempt rate among trans adults (2015 U.S. Transgender Survey). Denying this, they argue, invalidates trans existence.
To Skeptics: Skeptics see the slogan as a semantic overreach, redefining “woman” to prioritize self-perception over material realities—biology, chromosomes, reproductive capacity. They argue it erases distinctions critical to sex-based protections, like in prisons or sports, where trans women’s retained physical advantages (Hilton & Lundberg, 2021) could disadvantage cis women. The slogan’s circularity—“women” as those who identify as “women”—is viewed as intellectually dishonest, foreclosing debate about tangible impacts.
To the Neutral Public: Neutrals interpret the slogan as an empathetic gesture, affirming trans women’s lived experiences in a spirit of inclusivity. Yet, when biological realities—e.g., sex-based medical screenings—clash with its absolutism, neutrals may feel unease. They support inclusion but seek practical resolutions, like separate sports categories, reflecting a desire for fairness without fully endorsing either side’s stance. The slogan’s simplicity both compels and confuses.
Rhetorical Efficacy of Sloganeering
Slogans thrive on brevity and emotional charge. Nelson and Kinder (1996) describe them as “issue frames,” emphasizing narratives like justice while sidelining trade-offs. “Trans rights are human rights” shames critics by invoking universalism, while “Trans women are women” asserts an unassailable truth. Leeper et al. (2020) note that emotionally charged slogans trigger heuristic processing, bypassing rational scrutiny—a strength for mobilization but a weakness for dialogue. Polletta and Jasper (2001) highlight their role in forging collective identity, though at the cost of suppressing internal dissent.
Yet, Bishin et al. (2016) warn of backlash: dogmatic slogans alienate moderates. Their study on gay rights (1992–2000) found that while “love is love” boosted marriage equality support, it hardened traditionalist opposition—a parallel to trans slogans’ polarizing effect. Moscowitz (2013) adds that media amplification, including on platforms like X, can distort messaging, with corporate co-optation diluting radical demands into “homonormative” branding (Duggan, in DeFilippis et al., 2018). Slogans are potent but divisive, amplifying support while corroding nuanced discourse.
TQ+ Piggybacking on LGB Struggles
TQ+ activism’s alignment with LGB successes, particularly post-2015 marriage equality (Obergefell v. Hodges), leverages moral and institutional capital. DeFilippis et al. (2018) note that groups like the Human Rights Campaign pivoted to trans issues, adopting slogans echoing LGB campaigns (e.g., “Gay rights are human rights”). This frames trans rights as the “next frontier,” a narrative Greig (2021) critiques as rewriting history to erase LGB-T tensions. Activists argue shared marginalization justifies this coalition; LGB victories provided legal precedents and cultural acceptance for TQ+ issues.
Skeptics, including LGB groups like LGB Alliance (formed 2019), see this as opportunism. Murib (2018) documents friction, with critics arguing TQ+ demands (e.g., self-ID) dilute sex-based rights, particularly for lesbians. Jones et al. (2018) show a public opinion gap—62% support gay rights, 49% trans rights—suggesting TQ+/- piggybacking struggles to inherit LGB’s broader acceptance. Cohen (1999) warns that this strategy sidelines intersectional issues, like economic precarity for trans people of color, echoing LGB critiques of marriage-centric activism.
Conclusion
The slogans “Trans rights are human rights” and “Trans women are women” are rhetorical juggernauts, unifying activists and swaying neutrals through moral clarity. Yet, their thought-terminating nature—shutting down scrutiny of competing rights or material realities—alienates skeptics and risks backlash. Piggybacking on LGB successes amplifies TQ+ visibility but fractures coalitions by obscuring distinct priorities. The strongest arguments reveal legitimate aims: activists seek justice for a marginalized group; skeptics defend empirical distinctions; neutrals balance empathy with pragmatism. Scholarly evidence urges intersectional, coalition-based activism to bridge divides—lest these slogans, for all their fire, corrode the unity they claim to champion.
References
- American Psychological Association. (2015). Guidelines for Psychological Practice with Transgender and Gender Nonconforming People. American Psychologist, 70(9), 832–864.
- Bishin, B., Hayes, T., Incantalupo, M., & Smith, C. A. (2016). Opinion Backlash and Public Attitudes. American Journal of Political Science, 60(3), 625–648.
- Cohen, C. J. (1999). The Boundaries of Blackness. University of Chicago Press.
- DeFilippis, J., Yarbrough, M., & Jones, A. (Eds.). (2018). Queer Activism After Marriage Equality. Routledge.
- Greig, J. (2021). [Article referenced in LGB Alliance critique]. Cited in Wikipedia: LGB Alliance.
- Hilton, E. N., & Lundberg, T. R. (2021). Transgender Women in the Female Category of Sport. Sports Medicine, 51(2), 199–214.
- Human Rights Campaign. (2020). Fatal Violence Against the Transgender and Gender Non-Conforming Community in 2020.
- Jones, P. E., Brewer, P. R., Young, D. G., Lambe, J. L., & Hoffman, L. H. (2018). Explaining Public Opinion toward Transgender People. Public Opinion Quarterly, 82(2), 252–278.
- Leeper, T. J., Hobolt, S. B., & Tilley, J. (2020). Measuring Subgroup Preferences in Conjoint Experiments. Political Analysis, 28, 207–221.
- Moscowitz, L. (2013). The Battle over Marriage. University of Illinois Press.
- Murib, Z. (2018). Trumpism, Citizenship, and the Future of the LGBTQ Movement. Politics & Gender, 14, 649–672.
- Nelson, T. E., & Kinder, D. R. (1996). Issue Frames and Group-Centrism in American Public Opinion. Journal of Politics, 58(4), 1055–1078.
- Polletta, F., & Jasper, J. M. (2001). Collective Identity and Social Movements. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 283–305.
- U.S. Transgender Survey. (2015). National Center for Transgender Equality.
A recent review by the Department of Health and Human Services explores the evidence and best practices for treating pediatric gender dysphoria, a condition where children and teens experience distress related to their sex or its social expectations. As more young people identify as transgender or nonbinary, the U.S. has widely adopted the “gender-affirming” care model, which includes social affirmation, puberty blockers, hormones, and surgeries. However, this approach is under scrutiny internationally due to its experimental nature and potential risks, prompting this review to clarify the evidence for policymakers, clinicians, and families.
Background: Rising Diagnoses, Diverging Approaches
The review highlights a sharp increase in gender dysphoria diagnoses among youth, with the U.S. favoring a “gender-affirming” model that prioritizes medical interventions. This approach, originally developed for adults with poor outcomes, was extended to minors before robust outcome data emerged. Internationally, there’s no consensus—some countries, like the UK, have restricted puberty blockers and hormones for minors, citing insufficient evidence of safety and efficacy, and now emphasize psychosocial support instead.
Evidence Review: Weak Benefits, Known Risks
An “umbrella review” of systematic reviews found that evidence supporting the benefits of medical treatments—like improved psychological outcomes or quality of life—is of very low quality, suggesting reported benefits may not hold up. Evidence on harms is limited, partly due to short follow-ups and poor tracking, but established risks include infertility, sexual dysfunction, bone density issues, cognitive effects, cardiovascular and metabolic disorders, psychiatric conditions, surgical complications, and regret. This gap between uncertain benefits and clearer risks calls for caution.
Clinical Realities: Guidelines and Practice Under Fire
Influential U.S. guidelines from WPATH and the Endocrine Society lack rigor, with WPATH accused of suppressing systematic reviews and loosening standards under political pressure. Many U.S. gender clinics bypass even these permissive guidelines, often limiting mental health assessments to brief sessions. Whistleblowers and detransitioners report serious risks and harms, but their concerns are frequently ignored, revealing a disconnect between practice and evidence-based care.
Ethics and Alternatives: Caution and Psychotherapy
Ethically, while patients can refuse treatments, they aren’t entitled to unproven ones, and clinicians should avoid interventions with disproportionate risks. The review finds no evidence that medical transition reduces suicide rates, which are low and tied more to comorbidities than gender dysphoria itself. Psychotherapy emerges as a noninvasive option, with systematic reviews showing no adverse effects, yet it’s understudied due to misconceptions. The review urges more research and a careful approach to pediatric care.
- “Sex is complex and not binary”
Claiming sex is a spectrum oversimplifies biological reality. Chromosomes (XX/XY) determine sex in mammals, with rare intersex conditions (DSDs) being specific, diagnosable deviations, not evidence of a spectrum. - “Gender identity is more important than sex”
Prioritizing self-identified gender over biological sex ignores the material reality of sex-based differences, which matter in contexts like healthcare, sports, and safeguarding. - “Data on sex doesn’t matter”
Dismissing accurate sex data undermines policy and research. Sex-specific data is critical for addressing issues like medical treatment efficacy or crime statistics. - “Asking for sex data is transphobic”
Equating requests for accurate sex data with bigotry stifles legitimate discussion. Recording biological sex is necessary for practical purposes, not an attack on identity. - “Historical data collection was flawed, so why bother?”
Past inaccuracies in sex data collection don’t justify abandoning it. Improved, standardized methods can ensure reliable data without compromising privacy.
These arguments often rely on emotional appeals or misrepresentations of biology to dismiss the importance of sex. Accurate data and clear definitions are essential for fair and effective policies.
Source: Sex Matters
The violence at The Women Will Speak Rally in Melbourne, Australia, where trans rights activists disrupted a discussion on women’s rights, is a direct consequence of woke ideology, which has morphed from a call for social justice into a dogmatic force eroding female rights, boundaries, and safety. Originally rooted in awareness of marginalization, woke has been hijacked by activists who demand ideological conformity, often at the expense of open dialogue. At the rally, protesters, fueled by this warped woke ethos, resorted to intimidation and physical aggression to silence women raising concerns about gender policies, exposing how the movement’s fixation on equity can breed hostility toward women defending their spaces.
This woke-driven activism undermines female rights by dismissing their boundaries under the banner of inclusivity, threatening women’s safety and autonomy. The Women Will Speak Rally aimed to address critical issues like single-sex spaces and fair sports policies, but protesters, emboldened by woke narratives that brand dissent as bigotry, violently disrupted it. This reflects a wider trend where woke ideology fuels a zero-sum conflict, pitting trans rights against women’s protections. The result is a toxic environment where women face harassment or censorship for asserting their rights, while woke’s veneer of kindness obscures the damage to their safety and agency.
The link is unmistakable: woke ideology, despite its compassionate facade, mobilized the protests that harmed women at the Melbourne rally by suppressing their voices and disregarding their boundaries. Those who view woke as solely about kindness and equity overlook its destructive side—empowering extremism that justifies violence to enforce compliance. The violence at The Women Will Speak Rally was not an outlier but a symptom of woke’s failure to balance empathy with respect for women’s rights. Condemning this requires recognizing how woke activism, when unchecked, sacrifices female safety for ideological purity, betraying its own ideals.
The comparison of gender ideology to a Gnostic religious belief hinges on framing it as a worldview with metaphysical claims about identity, reality, and liberation. Here are five examples illustrating this perspective:
- Dualism of Body and Soul: Gnosticism often posits a split between the material body (flawed) and the spiritual soul (true self). Gender ideology can be seen as analogous when it suggests a person’s true gender identity resides in their internal sense of self, distinct from or in conflict with their physical body, which may be viewed as an obstacle to authenticity.
- Secret Knowledge of the Self: Gnosticism emphasizes esoteric knowledge (gnosis) as the path to salvation. Gender ideology sometimes frames self-discovery of one’s gender identity as a profound, personal truth that transcends societal norms or biological reality, accessible only through introspection or affirmation by others.
- Rejection of Material Reality: In Gnostic thought, the material world is illusory or corrupt. Critics argue gender ideology parallels this by prioritizing subjective feelings over objective biological markers (e.g., chromosomes, anatomy), treating physical sex as malleable or irrelevant to one’s true identity.
- Liberation Through Transformation: Gnosticism often seeks liberation from the material world through spiritual awakening. Gender ideology can be interpreted as promoting liberation from societal or biological constraints via social transition, medical interventions, or redefinition of language and norms to align with one’s identity.
- Moral Hierarchy of Believers: Gnostic communities sometimes distinguished between those enlightened by gnosis and outsiders. Gender ideology can create a similar dynamic, where those who affirm certain beliefs about gender are seen as morally superior, while dissenters are labeled as ignorant or harmful, fostering an in-group/out-group divide.
Gender ideology’s proponents might argue it’s grounded in psychological, social, or medical realities rather than metaphysical claims. Still, the Gnostic lens highlights perceived similarities in structure and worldview.
bleatmop
Mystro
Dead Wild Roses 
Your opinions…