The Trans Ideology Dilemma, Part 3 – From Reality to Rhetoric: A Critical Exploration of the Postmodern and Neo-Marxist Foundations of Gender Ideology

— Posted inUncategorized — 50 min read
  • How postmodernism’s rejection of objective reality plays into the concept of gender fluidity.
  • How neo-Marxism reframes identity as a class struggle, influencing transgender activism and institutional policies.
  • The broader cultural, academic, and institutional shifts that align with these ideological frameworks.

Introduction

Over the past few decades, the landscape of LGBT activism and gender discourse has shifted dramatically. What began as a fight for gay, lesbian, and bisexual rights – rooted largely in sexual orientation – has increasingly been overtaken by debates over gender identity and “gender ideology.” This research paper critically examines this shift and its implications. We explore the distinction between biologically-based gay rights and the more ideologically driven concept of gender identity, review scientific and psychological findings on gender dysphoria, analyze the influence of postmodern and neo-Marxist thought on gender activism, discuss ethical and medical concerns about affirming versus treating gender dysphoria, and survey the sociopolitical ramifications of gender ideology on law and culture. Throughout, we draw on expert commentary and data – with a dose of humor and irony – to illuminate how an originally liberatory movement for sexual minorities has in some ways transformed into an ideological crusade that even many within the LGB community question.

Distinction Between Gay Rights and Gender Ideology

(The End of Gender | Book by Debra Soh | Official Publisher Page | Simon & Schuster) Cover of Debra Soh’s “The End of Gender,” which challenges popular gender myths with scientific evidence. Sexual orientation and gender identity are often lumped together under the LGBTQ+ umbrella, but they are fundamentally different in nature. Sexual orientation refers to whom one is attracted – a trait which research suggests has biological underpinnings (e.g. genetics, prenatal hormones) and is not a choice. Gender identity, on the other hand, refers to an inner sense of being male, female, or something else – a concept that has become highly ideological. Unlike sexual orientation, there is no robust scientific evidence that an innate “gender identity” exists independent of biological sex (Sexual orientation and gender identity: what does the science say? | Catholic News Agency) (The binary nature of sex: a column by Deborah Soh – Why Evolution Is True). As neuroscientist Debra Soh bluntly put it, “I see no evidence that ‘gender identity’ exists, either in humans or animals. All observed phenomena can be explained by innate sex differences and, in rare cases, gender dysphoria” (The binary nature of sex: a column by Deborah Soh – Why Evolution Is True). In short, being gay is about who you love, whereas being transgender is about what you believe yourself to be – a belief often asserted despite one’s physical sex.

This distinction helps explain why many gay and lesbian individuals are uneasy with modern gender ideology. The gay rights movement historically fought to remove stigma from same-sex attraction and to secure equal rights – allowing people to love whom they love without discrimination. That struggle was grounded in material reality (biological sex) – e.g. two men or two women in a relationship – and demanded others not persecute them for it. In contrast, gender ideology demands affirmation of a subjective identity and often insists that others participate in that identity (through language, access to sex-specific spaces, etc.), effectively requiring a redefinition of reality. As journalist Helen Joyce observes, there is a key difference between traditional “trans rights” (freedom from unfair abuse or discrimination, which almost everyone supports) and the current agenda of “gender-identity ideology.” The latter demands that “trans people be treated in every circumstance as members of the sex they identify with, rather than the sex they actually are”, even when it infringes on others’ rights (On Helen Joyce’s “Trans” – Why Evolution Is True). For example, gender ideology asserts that a person born male who identifies as female is female in every legal and social sense – a far-reaching claim that goes well beyond the principle of “live and let live.” Joyce notes this is “not a human right at all” but rather “a demand that everyone else lose their rights to single-sex spaces…and accept trans people’s subjective beliefs as objective reality, akin to a new state religion, complete with blasphemy laws.” (On Helen Joyce’s “Trans” – Why Evolution Is True). That sharp analysis encapsulates why many gay and lesbian activists feel gender ideology has diverged from – and even undermines – the original gay rights cause.

Indeed, veteran gay rights campaigners have described the rise of the broad LGBTQIA+ coalition as “a hostile takeover of a homosexual-rights movement by straight people” (How trans ideology hijacked the gay-rights movement – spiked). This may sound ironic, but consider: under the ever-expanding LGBTQIA+ umbrella, the category “T” (transgender) often includes individuals who are heterosexual (for instance, a biological male who identifies as a woman and is attracted to women would count as a “lesbian” in gender ideology terms, despite being, from a biological perspective, an straight male). As one commentator wryly noted, “This is how a collective identity for homosexuals came to include lots of straight men who wanted to be seen as anything but straight men.” (How trans ideology hijacked the gay-rights movement – spiked) In the 1980s it was LGB (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual) – all orientations defined by attraction to the same sex. By the 2010s, the acronym had ballooned to LGBTQIA+, grouping together causes as disparate as sexual orientation and gender identity (plus Queer, Intersex, Asexual, etc.), sometimes with divergent or even opposing interests (How trans ideology hijacked the gay-rights movement – spiked) (How trans ideology hijacked the gay-rights movement – spiked). For many gays and lesbians, this “forced teaming” has been troubling. The LGB Alliance, a group founded by lesbians and gay men in the UK, argues that the right of same-sex attracted people to define themselves based on biological sex is being threatened by attempts to confuse sex with gender (LGB Alliance – Wikipedia). In their view, if “male” and “female” become subjective terms detached from anatomy, then the very meaning of “same-sex attraction” is obscured. A lesbian, for example, could be told she is bigoted for not being attracted to a transwoman (biological male), since gender ideology would label that transwoman a “female.” Thus, what was once the gay rights movement’s core assertion – that sexual orientation is valid and innate – is paradoxically undermined by an ideology claiming “gender is fluid and sex is irrelevant.” It’s no surprise, then, that there’s a growing schism: many LGB individuals support equal rights for transgender people to live free of harassment, yet reject the notion that gender self-identification should trump biological sex in law and culture.

The historical shift is stark. The gay liberation movement and fight for same-sex marriage were about expanding freedoms – allowing everyone the rights that straight people had, such as marriage and open service in the military (On Helen Joyce’s “Trans” – Why Evolution Is True). In contrast, the contemporary gender identity movement often demands not just freedom from discrimination, but affirmation and accommodation from others. Where gays once asked “please leave us alone and let us have equal rights,” gender ideologues now often insist “celebrate and believe what I say I am – or face consequences.” This represents a profound change in tone and approach. As we’ll see, it’s a change driven less by empirical science and more by ideology – one that many gay activists feel has hijacked their movement (How trans ideology hijacked the gay-rights movement – spiked) and even turned it into something “regressive” (How trans ideology hijacked the gay-rights movement – spiked) rather than progressive.

Scientific and Psychological Insights on Gender Identity

While “born this way” has strong scientific backing in the context of sexual orientation, the same cannot be said for gender identity. Decades of research in genetics, endocrinology, and neuroscience have found no conclusive biological marker for a mismatched gender identity – no “female brain in a male body” or vice versa, as popular rhetoric suggests. In fact, a major review of the science noted a “lack of scientific evidence that gender identity is an innate, fixed property of human beings independent of biological sex” (Sexual orientation and gender identity: what does the science say? | Catholic News Agency). The notion that a person could be literally born in the “wrong” body is not supported by robust evidence (Sexual orientation and gender identity: what does the science say? | Catholic News Agency). By contrast, sexual orientation does show some biological correlations (e.g. modest genetic influences, differences in brain structure, etc.), although it too is complex. The key point is that gender identity remains an ideological concept: an internal feeling that one’s gender is at odds with one’s sex, for which science has yet to find a clear, inherent basis. As one skeptical clinician quipped, if gender identity were truly innate and immutable, we wouldn’t see entire friend groups of teenagers coming out as trans in the span of months – something that is happening with startling frequency today.

And yet, that is exactly what’s being observed. In clinics and schools, there has been an “explosion” in adolescents (especially females) identifying as transgender in recent years. For example, the UK’s main gender clinic saw a 4,400% increase in teen girls seeking gender treatments over the past decade (Gender detransition: a case study – PMC). This rapid surge cannot be explained by genetics or prenatal biology; it points instead to social and psychological factors. Dr. Lisa Littman in 2018 coined the term Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria (ROGD) to describe the phenomenon of groups of teen girls suddenly declaring transgender identities during adolescence, often after intense immersion in social media and YouTube transition videos (Parent reports of adolescents and young adults perceived to show signs of a rapid onset of gender dysphoria | PLOS One) (Parent reports of adolescents and young adults perceived to show signs of a rapid onset of gender dysphoria | PLOS One). Her survey of parents documented a pattern: 65% of these teens had one or more friends become trans around the same time, and most had increased their social media use just prior to coming out (Parent reports of adolescents and young adults perceived to show signs of a rapid onset of gender dysphoria | PLOS One). In many cases, whole clusters of friends (sometimes every girl in a friend group) began identifying as trans together – a statistically unlikely coincidence (Parent reports of adolescents and young adults perceived to show signs of a rapid onset of gender dysphoria | PLOS One) (Parent reports of adolescents and young adults perceived to show signs of a rapid onset of gender dysphoria | PLOS One). These findings suggest a social contagion effect may be at work, wherein vulnerable adolescents, particularly girls, latch onto a transgender identity due to peer influence or a desire to make sense of feelings of angst. (One might say being trans is the new “emo”). It’s telling that historically, gender dysphoria was exceedingly rare in females, yet now teen girls are the predominant demographic in youth gender clinics ( RETRACTED ARTICLE: Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria: Parent Reports on 1655 Possible Cases – PMC ) ( RETRACTED ARTICLE: Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria: Parent Reports on 1655 Possible Cases – PMC ).

So who are these girls (and some boys) coming out as trans in droves? Far from being well-adjusted kids who simply “knew from toddler age” they were born wrong, many have underlying mental health challenges. Multiple studies and clinic reports show high rates of autism, anxiety, depression, trauma, and other issues among gender-dysphoric youth. For instance, one British gender clinic report found about 35% of referred adolescents scored in the range of autism spectrum disorder (Children referred to the UK’s largest gender clinic were vastly more likely than average to present with autistic traits. – Stats For Gender) – vastly higher than autism rates in the general population (around 1–2%). At the Tavistock GIDS clinic in London, internal data revealed that 97.5% of children seeking gender transition had at least one other psychological/neurological issue such as autism, depression, self-harm or a history of trauma (Tavistock clinic ‘ignored’ link between autism and transgender children). A staggering 70% of these young patients had five or more such co-occurring problems (e.g. abuse, bullying, eating disorders) in their backgrounds (Tavistock clinic ‘ignored’ link between autism and transgender children). In other words, the majority of these youths were highly vulnerable adolescents for whom gender dysphoria may have been a symptom or coping mechanism for other distress. One whistleblower from Tavistock said clinicians were so set on affirming trans identities that they ignored these red flags – treating complex cases as simple “born trans” narratives and thus doing a disservice to kids who might have been better helped by addressing their autism or trauma first (Tavistock clinic ‘ignored’ link between autism and transgender children) (Tavistock clinic ‘ignored’ link between autism and transgender children).

The correlation with neurodevelopmental and psychiatric conditions is particularly striking. Gender dysphoria in adolescents shows overlap with autism at rates many times the norm (Children referred to the UK’s largest gender clinic were vastly more likely than average to present with autistic traits. – Stats For Gender), suggesting that some autistic youth may fixate on gender as an explanation for why they feel “different.” Likewise, trauma and social isolation can lead a teen to seek a new identity for escape or a sense of belonging. As journalist Abigail Shrier documented in Irreversible Damage, peer influence and affirmation online can provide a social high. Trans-identification becomes “a peer contagion” in some teen circles: coming out as trans is celebrated, garnering instant attention and praise (and sometimes more compassionate treatment from parents and teachers) (Parent reports of adolescents and young adults perceived to show signs of a rapid onset of gender dysphoria | PLOS One). It’s not that teens consciously choose to be trans for kicks – but in an environment where it’s trendy and grants entry into an “oppressed” community, it unconsciously pulls a subset of troubled teens. Notably, Shrier found that many of the girls caught up in this craze had no signs of gender dysphoria in childhood and often were lesbian or bisexual in orientation before deciding they were actually trans boys (Irreversible Damage eBook by Abigail Shrier | Official Publisher Page | Simon & Schuster) (Irreversible Damage eBook by Abigail Shrier | Official Publisher Page | Simon & Schuster). This raises a provocative question: Are we medicalizing away some young lesbians? Some lesbians and feminists worry that today’s gender ideology, with its rigid ideas (“if you’re a masculine girl, maybe you’re really a boy”), is a new form of conversion therapy – pushing tomboys to become trans men, and thus effectively “straightening” their future, since a transitioned trans man dating men is now in a heterosexual relationship. It’s an ironic twist: in the name of inclusivity, we might be erasing the very diversity (butch girls, sensitive boys) that gay and lesbian activists once championed.

(Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters) Cover of Abigail Shrier’s book Irreversible Damage (2020), which investigates the surge of transgender identification among teen girls. The concept of ROGD remains controversial – major professional organizations (under pressure from activists) officially dismiss it – but clinicians in the field privately acknowledge seeing exactly this pattern (A gender imbalance emerges among trans teens seeking treatment). Even some mainstream outlets like Reuters have noted the “outsized proportion of adolescents assigned female at birth” seeking transition and questioned “whether peer groups and online media may be influencing some of these patients” (A gender imbalance emerges among trans teens seeking treatment). The data bear out that concern: when one or two friends in a group come out as trans, suddenly several others do too, almost like a domino effect. This doesn’t happen with, say, sexual orientation (friend groups don’t typically all turn gay simultaneously), which again underscores the ideological and social nature of gender identity. Additionally, pre-existing mental health issues are very common among these youth. One large parent survey reported that nearly half of their trans-identifying teens had diagnoses like depression or anxiety before developing gender dysphoria, and those teens were more likely to pursue medical transition ( RETRACTED ARTICLE: Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria: Parent Reports on 1655 Possible Cases – PMC ). Parents often felt that therapists and doctors “rubber-stamped” their child’s self-diagnosis of being trans, “pressured [them] to affirm”, and fast-tracked them to medical interventions ( RETRACTED ARTICLE: Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria: Parent Reports on 1655 Possible Cases – PMC ) ( RETRACTED ARTICLE: Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria: Parent Reports on 1655 Possible Cases – PMC ). Disturbingly, according to these parents, their kids’ mental health often deteriorated after starting transition ( RETRACTED ARTICLE: Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria: Parent Reports on 1655 Possible Cases – PMC ) – contrary to the “transition saves lives” mantra. Of course, these are parent-reported data, which come with bias, but they align with what European health authorities are now acknowledging: many young people presenting as trans today have complex issues and might not find long-term relief from simply changing gender.

Finally, it’s important to highlight a key scientific insight: most children with gender dysphoria will not remain dysphoric after puberty. Decades of studies (even from gender-affirming clinics) have shown that the majority of gender-questioning kids eventually desist – typically growing up to be gay or bisexual adults, not transgender (Sexual orientation and gender identity: what does the science say? | Catholic News Agency) (Sexual orientation and gender identity: what does the science say? | Catholic News Agency). Estimates vary, but roughly 61–98% of dysphoric children outgrow those feelings by adulthood if not socially or medically transitioned in youth ([PDF] No. 21-2875 – ACLU of Arkansas). In other words, nature often “corrects” course for kids with cross-gender feelings, especially once puberty hits and their identity solidifies. This fact was widely accepted in the field until recently. Now, activists downplay desistance, but it remains a crucial consideration: prematurely labeling a young child as trans and affirming that identity might actually cement a transient dysphoria into a persistent one. Many gay adults recall that as gender-nonconforming kids they might have said “I want to be a girl” or similar – today, those kids might be put on a transition track when in fact they were simply future gay men or lesbian women. This is why a growing number of LGB individuals are speaking out that “affirmation” protocols can inadvertently harm gay youth by medicalizing identities that would have resolved as healthy homosexuality. As we move to the ethical and medical section, keep in mind this data-backed reality: most dysphoric children would be okay if we did nothing drastic. That begs the question – why are we doing something drastic?

The Influence of Postmodern and Neo-Marxist Ideology on Gender Activism

To understand how gender ideology gained such traction, one must venture into the halls of academia, where certain postmodern and neo-Marxist ideas incubated and then seeped into activist movements. This might sound abstract, but bear with it – it’s the philosophy that underpins a lot of what we see today (and it comes with plenty of irony).

Postmodernism (particularly as applied in gender studies and queer theory) challenges the very notion of objective truth and biological essentialism. In the postmodern view, reality is socially constructed, language defines truth, and categories like male/female are fluid, arbitrary and “performative.” The poster child here is philosopher Judith Butler, who in 1990 famously argued that “gender is in no way a stable identity” – rather, it’s a repeated performance, something one does rather than is (“Gender,” Marxism, and the Search for Power | The Heritage Foundation). Butler and other queer theorists sought to “detach ‘gender’ from biology”, asserting that male and female are mere myths imposed by society (“Gender,” Marxism, and the Search for Power | The Heritage Foundation). They delighted in deconstructing binaries and norms – a fundamentally postmodern approach that holds that all identities (gender, sexuality, even sex itself) are fluid and subject to personal interpretation. Pushing this to its extreme, you get claims like “some women have penises and some men have vulvas,” or that asking for someone’s biological sex is a form of violence. In a postmodern lens, identity is self-defined narrative, and anyone who insists on a material basis (like chromosomes) is seen as oppressively “essentialist.” This ethos has trickled out of academia into activism: hence slogans like “Trans women are women” and the insistence that one’s stated identity outweighs any biological or empirical evidence to the contrary. It’s why a statement such as “only women can get pregnant” can be deemed transphobic – because postmodern gender ideology considers “woman” a subjective identity, not a biological category tied to wombs. The influence of this thinking leads to often surreal outcomes (the satire writes itself – e.g., forms asking for one’s “sex assigned at birth” as if it were arbitrary, or attempts to introduce pronouns like “ze/hir” to escape the he/she binary). While some find this liberating, others view it as a rejection of reality – the emperor’s new clothes with a gender studies degree.

Layered atop postmodernism is a hefty dose of Neo-Marxist or “critical” theory. Classical Marxism focused on class struggle (proletariat vs. bourgeoisie). Neo-Marxism, especially through the Frankfurt School and later critical theorists, expanded the idea of oppressed vs oppressor to culture and identity groups (“Gender,” Marxism, and the Search for Power | The Heritage Foundation). Critical Race Theory, for instance, frames society as structurally racist (whites oppressing people of color). In the gender realm, Critical Gender Theory (or queer theory) frames the world as a power struggle between cisgender “oppressors” and transgender (and gender-nonconforming) “oppressed” (“Gender,” Marxism, and the Search for Power | The Heritage Foundation) (“Gender,” Marxism, and the Search for Power | The Heritage Foundation). In this view, gender identity is politicized as an oppressed class. A trans woman (even if a wealthy, white, biological male) is deemed more marginalized than, say, a working-class lesbian, because in the identity hierarchy “trans” is considered more victimized in the current power structure. This intersectional mindset was articulated by theorist Kimberlé Crenshaw, who introduced intersectionality to describe overlapping systems of oppression – e.g. how a black trans woman might be oppressed on account of race and gender identity (“Gender,” Marxism, and the Search for Power | The Heritage Foundation). The result is a kind of “Oppression Olympics” in which gender identity has been grafted onto the civil rights framework. Gender activists often explicitly compare themselves to the gay rights movement or even black civil rights – with slogans like “Trans rights are human rights” – even though, as we’ve discussed, the demands often differ in kind (it’s one thing to demand not to be fired for being trans, quite another to demand society at large say “men can get pregnant”). Still, by casting trans people as an oppressed class and anyone who dissents from gender ideology as an oppressor, the movement gains moral leverage and urgency. It effectively weaponizes compassion: who wants to be the bigot yelling “there are only two genders” if that’s equated with being on par with racists or homophobes?

This neo-Marxist framing also leads to a quasi-religious fervor in enforcement of the ideology. Because if everything is a power struggle, no dissent can be tolerated (to dissent is to side with oppression). Thus, in some academic and activist circles, we see tactics like deplatforming speakers who question gender self-ID, branding feminists who uphold sex-based rights as “TERFs” (trans-exclusionary radical feminists) – essentially heretics – and even advocating the punishment of “misgendering” as hate speech. The ideology took on the zealousness of a revolutionary movement: it wasn’t enough to let people transition; society must be “re-educated” to affirm that trans women are women in every sense, that gender non-conformity means “you might be trans,” and that any skepticism is literal violence. If this sounds a bit Orwellian – compelling others to speak untruths (e.g. call a 250-pound bearded inmate “Ma’am” or face disciplinary action) – that’s because it is. The intellectual lineage here includes not just Marx but also Foucault (who saw everything as power relations) and Marcuse (who argued tolerance should not be extended to the intolerant – a rationale used to shut down “transphobic” speech). In short, gender activism absorbed critical theory’s tendency to view the world as oppressors vs oppressed, and postmodernism’s denial of an objective reality, yielding a potent doctrine: “My subjective identity is my truth, and if you don’t validate it, you are harming/oppressing me.”

It’s worth noting how institutions and academia have aligned with these ideologies. University gender studies departments have long been dominated by postmodern queer theory. From there, the language of “gender as a social construct” and the notion of infinite genders leaked into mainstream culture and policy. Organizations like WPATH (World Professional Association for Transgender Health) and the American Psychological Association have adopted affirming stances that echo ideological commitments (sometimes despite shaky evidence). The institutional capture can be seen in bizarre moments like medical journals suggesting that the words “mother” or “breastfeeding” be replaced with gender-neutral terms so as not to offend – an effort to rewrite language reminiscent of Newspeak. Laws and corporate policies increasingly reflect these ideas (more on that in the next section). The neo-Marxist influence is also evident in training materials that treat cisgender privilege as a concept analogous to white privilege, and that encourage folks to “ally” with trans people by memorizing new pronouns and challenging the gender binary at every turn.

One could inject some humor here by noting that in some circles this ideology has basically created a new class system: at the top of the virtue hierarchy is the non-binary queer person of color with neurodiversity (oppression points galore), and at the bottom is the cis straight white male (the dreaded oppressor). It sounds like a sketch, but in seriousness, we do see identity politics sometimes descend into self-parody – e.g., privileged students claiming exotic gender labels to avoid being seen as oppressors themselves. (In one comedic instance, an entire student group declared themselves “queer and nonbinary” so they wouldn’t be labeled cis, despite presenting entirely typical for their sex – truly a Marxist class consciousness twist!).

In summary, postmodern ideology provided the rationale to deny biological reality (“everything’s a construct”) and neo-Marxist critical theory provided the moral imperative to fight for gender identity as the next grand liberation movement (“we must smash the cis-heteronormative power structure!”). These influences help explain why gender activism became, at times, intolerant of debate and scornful of science – because it sees itself as a righteous struggle against an oppressive system of “cisnormativity” that must be dismantled. The result is that some activists indeed behave as if following a religion – reciting dogmas (“Trans women are women” like a creed) and excommunicating heretics (shutting down discussion by calling anyone who questions them a bigot). When Joyce quipped that it’s akin to a “new state religion, complete with blasphemy laws” (On Helen Joyce’s “Trans” – Why Evolution Is True), she wasn’t far off the mark. In the next section, we’ll see how these ideological currents have influenced medical practice and ethics – with real-life consequences for children and patients.

Ethical and Medical Concerns Regarding Affirmation Therapy and Medical Transition

Perhaps nowhere do the tensions between ideology and reality come into sharper relief than in the medical treatment of gender dysphoria, especially in children and teenagers. The prevailing approach in much of the Western world today is “affirmation therapy.” In practice, this means that if a person (even a minor) says they are transgender, the role of therapists, doctors, and parents is to immediately affirm that stated identity. No challenging, no probing into possible underlying causes – affirmation is treated as an end in itself, even the first step toward medical intervention. This stands in stark contrast to a more traditional “reality-based” or exploratory therapy, which would involve examining the reasons for the dysphoria (Is the child on the autism spectrum? Is the teen girl struggling with her body image or trauma? Might the boy simply be gay and feeling pressure because of homophobia or gender norms?) before jumping to the conclusion that altering the body is the solution. The ethical dilemma is clear: Should therapists treat the mind to fit the body, or alter the body to fit the mind’s perception? Affirmation therapy has overwhelmingly chosen the latter route – essentially saying the patient’s self-diagnosis is unquestionable. As one psychologist quipped, it’s the only field where “the customer is always right” has become clinical protocol. Imagine if every anorexic teen who “feels fat” were affirmed – “yes, you are overweight” – and put on diet pills; that, we recognize, would be absurd and harmful. Yet when a teen boy says “I feel like a girl,” many therapists rush to affirm and set him on a path of hormones and even surgeries. Critics call this “unquestioning affirmation” dangerous, and some trans activists ironically agree that not every dysphoric youth is actually trans – but the current climate often treats them as if they are, by default (A gender imbalance emerges among trans teens seeking treatment).

The dangers of one-size-fits-all affirmation are manifold. First, it can lock in a transient identity. As noted, most young children with gender dysphoria would desist if allowed to go through puberty normally (Sexual orientation and gender identity: what does the science say? | Catholic News Agency). However, if such a child is socially transitioned (new name, pronouns, treated as the opposite sex), the act of affirmation itself can alter the course – the child gets psychologically invested in the new identity, and everyone around them reinforces it. Desistance rates plummet once a child is socially transitioned, because it’s hard to go back when you’ve been effectively told “Yes, you really are a boy in a girl’s body” (the child feels they must have been right all along, and now has an identity and sometimes community built around it). This is why some clinicians argue that affirmation for young kids is itself an irreversible psychosocial intervention. And then comes the medical transition: puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, surgeries. Here we must get very concrete about the effects on the body. Puberty blockers, like GnRH agonists, are drugs that halt the normal puberty process. They are often described as a harmless “pause button,” but the reality is more complicated. There is weak evidence for their long-term safety or efficacy in gender dysphoria (Final Report – Cass Review). These drugs are being used off-label (originally intended for precocious puberty or prostate cancer), and no randomized controlled trials have proven that blocked puberty improves mental health outcomes for trans-identifying youth in the long run. What we do know is that blockers suppress hormones needed not just for development of sex characteristics, but for bone density and brain maturation. Pubertal hormones are critical for the adolescent growth spurt and achieving peak bone mass; blocking them for years can lead to osteoporosis or stunted development. Indeed, the French National Academy of Medicine recently warned of potential side effects including weakened bones and sterility from aggressive youth gender treatments (The real story on Europe’s transgender debate – POLITICO). And almost invariably, kids put on blockers do not go back – between 95% to 100% of children on blockers proceed to cross-sex hormones (On Helen Joyce’s “Trans” – Why Evolution Is True). In essence, the drug touted as a “pause to think” often becomes a one-way ticket to further transition.

Cross-sex hormones (estrogen for natal males, testosterone for natal females) cause permanent changes. For teenage girls, taking high-dose testosterone will deepen the voice (usually irreversibly), cause facial hair growth, change body fat distribution, stop menstrual cycles, and frequently lead to infertility (especially if given after puberty blockers, as eggs may not mature properly) (Number of transgender children seeking treatment surges in U.S.). For boys on estrogen, breasts will develop (often requiring surgery to remove if they later detransition), testicles may atrophy, sexual function can be lost, and fertility is usually compromised as well (Number of transgender children seeking treatment surges in U.S.). These are major, life-altering medical outcomes being introduced to minors who cannot vote, drink alcohol, or get a tattoo. In many places, a 13-year-old cannot legally consent to having her ears pierced without parental permission – yet 13-year-old girls have had their healthy breasts surgically removed in the name of gender affirmation. It sounds hyperbolic, but it’s true: in the United States, hundreds of girls aged 13–17 have undergone “top surgery” (double mastectomy) in recent years (Number of transgender children seeking treatment surges in U.S.). A Reuters investigation found at least 776 mastectomies on minors from 2019–2021 in the U.S. alone (and that’s likely an undercount, not including private pay cases) (Number of transgender children seeking treatment surges in U.S.). These surgeries, along with interventions like facial feminization or genital surgeries (which, while rarer in minors, have indeed occurred in 16–17-year-olds in some instances), raise profound ethical questions. Can an adolescent truly grasp the impact of losing fertility or sexual function for life? Many detransitioners (people who later regret and revert after transitioning) say absolutely not – they feel they were not in a position to understand what they were agreeing to as teenagers. Some have likened the rush to affirm and medically transition distressed youth to the “medical scandal of our time.” We allow youth feeling distress with their bodies to self-diagnose and effectively direct clinicians to administer high-risk treatments – a practice virtually unheard of elsewhere in medicine.

(image) Sweden, Finland, and the UK have begun reversing course on pediatric gender medicine after reviewing the evidence (or lack thereof) for long-term benefits. Europe is already tapping the brakes. Sweden, often seen as a progressive haven, conducted systematic reviews and found the evidence for youth gender transition was shaky and the risk of harm significant. In 2021, the renowned Karolinska Hospital in Stockholm announced it would no longer prescribe puberty blockers or hormones to minors outside of strict research settings (The real story on Europe’s transgender debate – POLITICO). The Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare in 2022 updated its guidelines to state that hormone treatment for minors should only occur in exceptional cases, as the risks likely outweigh the benefits (The real story on Europe’s transgender debate – POLITICO). Finland’s health authority reached a similar conclusion in 2020: their guidelines now prioritize psychotherapy and mental health support as first-line treatment for youth gender dysphoria, reserving hormones only for the most severe persistent cases, and banning gender surgeries for under-18s (Finland Issues Strict Guidelines for Treating Gender Dysphoria – CANADIAN GENDER REPORT) (Finland Issues Strict Guidelines for Treating Gender Dysphoria – CANADIAN GENDER REPORT). Finnish experts openly worried that many teen girls claiming trans identities were actually suffering from other issues (like trauma or internalized homophobia) and that invasive treatment would harm rather than help in most cases. In the UK, an independent review by Dr. Hilary Cass in 2022 found the current affirm-and-refer model “unsustainable” and driven by ideology rather than evidence (On Helen Joyce’s “Trans” – Why Evolution Is True) (On Helen Joyce’s “Trans” – Why Evolution Is True). The NHS is shutting down the singular Tavistock gender clinic and moving to a more cautious approach: new regional centers with multidisciplinary teams (including mental health and autism specialists) to fully assess each case (The real story on Europe’s transgender debate – POLITICO) (The real story on Europe’s transgender debate – POLITICO). The NHS has even proposed that puberty blockers be used only in research trials going forward, given the uncertainties (The real story on Europe’s transgender debate – POLITICO). France’s medical academy likewise urged great caution, emphasizing psychological support over hormones for youth. In all these countries, the pendulum is swinging back toward “first do no harm” and acknowledging that the explosion in trans-identifying youth may have cultural drivers.

Yet in North America, “gender-affirming care” for minors continues to be promoted as the only valid approach, and dissent is often silenced by accusations of transphobia. This despite the fact that no long-term randomized studies have proven that affirming and transitioning kids reduces suicide in the long run (the oft-cited stat “untreated trans kids suicide” is misleading – the data actually show suicidality is elevated in trans-identifying youth regardless of treatment, and while some short-term mental health gains occur after transition, these often level off or reverse later ( RETRACTED ARTICLE: Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria: Parent Reports on 1655 Possible Cases – PMC )). The ethical principle of informed consent is stretched to a breaking point: how informed can a distressed 14-year-old be about the decision to render themselves sterile, with unknown impacts on brain development? Moreover, parents in some jurisdictions are put in a bind – affirm your child’s new identity or risk being seen as abusive. There have been cases of parents losing custody for refusing to call their child by a new name and pronouns or for seeking a second (more cautious) medical opinion. This climate is driven partly by an ideological certainty (“better a live trans child than a dead child” is the emotionally charged mantra) that leaves no room for nuance – even though common sense and emerging evidence beg for nuance.

In reality, a thoughtful “watchful waiting” or exploratory therapy approach for youth – one that acknowledges the mind-body incongruence but tries to help the child become comfortable in their own body, or at least waits until they are adults to make irreversible decisions – might lead to far fewer medical transitions and likely better overall outcomes. Therapists like Dr. Kenneth Zucker (a pioneer in gender dysphoria treatment) practiced this more cautious method, helping many kids reconcile with their bodies (and often grow up to be gay). But such clinicians have been vilified in recent years, bizarrely labeled “conversion therapists” for not immediately affirming trans identity (even though helping a boy accept being a feminine gay male instead of becoming a trans woman is arguably preventing conversion of a sort!). The ethical conundrum is that affirmation therapy, in its zeal to be kind and supportive, may actually lead to medical harm – what one UK whistleblower called treating kids as “collateral damage” in service of an ideology (Tavistock clinic ‘ignored’ link between autism and transgender children). Future generations may look back and ask: why did the medical establishment go along with this so readily? Already, lawsuits are beginning – detransitioned young adults suing clinics for rushing them through life-altering procedures without adequate evaluation. One detransitioned woman in the UK told the High Court that at 16 she was fast-tracked to hormones after just a brief consultation; by 21 she regretted it deeply. These stories are mounting, and while proponents of affirmation try to downplay them, they pose a serious ethical wake-up call.

In summary, the medicalization of gender-questioning youth is a case study in how ideology can steer clinical practice away from scientific rigor. Compassion for transgender people is essential, but compassion without truth – without acknowledging biological reality and the complexity of identity formation – can become reckless. A more balanced approach would be “affirmation of the individual, but exploration of the dysphoria.” Love the child, but investigate why they hate their body; offer support, but not necessarily irreversible drugs and surgeries as a first resort. Encouragingly, some countries are moving back in that direction, prioritizing long-term well-being over political expedience. In doing so, they echo the age-old medical ethic: Primum non nocere – first, do no harm. It is an irony that a movement positioning itself as saving lives may in some cases be inflicting harms that won’t fully manifest until years later.

Sociopolitical and Legal Ramifications of Gender Ideology

The influence of gender ideology has extended far beyond clinics and college campuses – it is reshaping laws, policies, language, and social norms in profound ways. Proponents argue these changes are necessary for transgender acceptance, while critics contend they sometimes conflict with sex-based rights, free speech, and truth. Let’s examine a few key areas:

  • Redefinition of “Woman” (and “Man”): Perhaps the most consequential shift is the legal and social redefinition of basic sex terms. In places that have adopted gender self-identification, the word “woman” is no longer tied to biological females; it legally includes anyone who identifies as a woman. This has led to conflicts in women’s sports – for example, transgender athletes born male breaking women’s records and winning championships, raising questions of fairness given male puberty confers advantages in size, strength, and speed. It’s not mere hypotheticals: from weightlifting to swimming, we’ve seen cases of transwomen outperforming top female competitors by significant margins. Likewise, in women’s prisons, self-ID policies have allowed male-bodied inmates (including violent offenders) to transfer into female facilities. In the UK, the notorious case of Karen White – a male prisoner who identified as female – resulted in sexual assaults of female inmates after being placed in a women’s prison (Isla Bryson case – Wikipedia). Similar incidents and safety concerns have arisen in women’s shelters and domestic violence refuges when biological males are admitted on the basis of gender identity. For many feminists (and indeed ordinary women), these scenarios are alarming: hard-won sex-segregated spaces meant to ensure female safety or fair competition are being eroded. They argue that “trans-inclusive” policies sometimes amount to excluding women – from their own sports, or compromising their safety in private spaces. Even some liberal countries are responding: after the high-profile case of a trans-identified rapist in Scotland, authorities reversed a policy and barred such individuals from women’s prisons, acknowledging the obvious risks.
  • Compelled Speech and Pronoun Laws: Another ramification is the rise of laws and directives that enforce compelled speech in the form of preferred pronouns and gender terminology. In New York City, for instance, guidelines were introduced that threaten fines up to $250,000 for employers or landlords who “intentionally” use the wrong pronouns for someone (NYC: Huge fines for not using preferred trans pronouns – The Christian Institute) (NYC: Huge fines for not using preferred trans pronouns – The Christian Institute). Under these rules, if an employee born male requests to be called “she” or even “ze/zir,” persistent failure to comply can be deemed harassment punishable by exorbitant fines. This is an unprecedented move – traditionally, human rights laws punish actions, not words. Requiring one to say something one does not believe (e.g. that a biologically male colleague is “her”) is a form of compelled speech that raises First Amendment issues in the U.S. and free expression concerns elsewhere (Preferred Pronoun Laws and the First Amendment). Canada’s Bill C-16 similarly added “gender identity or expression” to anti-discrimination law; while the law itself doesn’t explicitly compel pronouns, official human rights commissions have interpreted misgendering as a violation. In some jurisdictions, misgendering or “deadnaming” (using someone’s former name) is now treated as a hate crime or civil offense. This has a chilling effect on open discussion, to say the least. People fear that even an accidental misuse of pronoun could cost them their job. Comedy sketch shows have lampooned this (imagining cops arresting someone for calling a person “Sir” when they identify as “Madam”), but it’s only slight exaggeration. When the New York City Human Rights Commissioner says they will “aggressively enforce” these pronoun rules (NYC: Huge fines for not using preferred trans pronouns – The Christian Institute), it’s not far-fetched to imagine a store owner getting a hefty fine because an employee innocently said “Have a nice day, sir” to a gender-nonconforming customer who took offense. Beyond legal penalties, social media platforms enforce these norms by banning users for “misgendering” – Twitter famously locked accounts, including a congressman’s, for referring to a trans woman (born male) as “him.” Thus, gender ideology has led to a new speech code where certain factual statements (e.g. “Bruce Jenner fathered children” or calling Ellen Page “she” after Page declared a new identity as Elliot) are treated as taboo or hateful. This raises profound free speech questions. Even some ardent trans supporters admit forcing language is counter-productive, giving credence to critics’ claims of authoritarian overreach.
  • Expansion of Hate Speech and Discrimination Concepts: Relatedly, there’s been a widening of what counts as “hate” or illegal discrimination. Using the wrong pronoun or questioning someone’s self-identified gender can be interpreted as violence in the rhetorical frame of gender ideology. Activists successfully lobby for “gender identity” to be included in non-discrimination laws, which on its face is reasonable (no one should be denied housing or a job simply for being transgender). But in application, it sometimes means that single-sex services or organizations come under fire. For example, a rape crisis center for female survivors may face lawsuits or loss of funding if it cannot, in good conscience, admit a bearded trans-identifying individual into women’s counseling groups – even though female survivors may be traumatized by male presence. Similarly, religious women’s groups or lesbian networking groups that wish to limit to biological women run afoul of these broad laws and risk being branded hate groups. The definition of “transphobic hate” can become so broad that any dissent from gender ideology is labeled hate. There have been instances of police in the UK knocking on doors to warn citizens about transphobic tweets (one man was told he committed a “non-crime hate incident” for retweeting a limerick about transgender people – you can’t make this up). This policing of thought and speech is justified by authorities as protecting a vulnerable group, but critics see it as the thin end of a totalitarian wedge. When stating biological facts or advocating women-only spaces can result in public shaming or even legal trouble, we have drifted far from liberal principles.
  • Cultural and Media Climate: Culturally, gender ideology’s influence means that media, academia, and corporations vigorously enforce in-group terminology and viewpoints. Major news organizations now write of pregnant people or “individuals with cervixes” instead of women, to be inclusive of trans and nonbinary individuals – at the cost of making language convoluted and erasing the common word for half the population. Schools introduce children to the concept of being born in the wrong body at young ages, sometimes without parental knowledge, in pursuit of affirming trans kids – even though this may confuse a lot of kids who would never have thought of themselves as anything but their birth sex. Stories abound (some perhaps exaggerated) of schools asking teachers to hide a child’s new gender identity from parents, or of children being encouraged to use alternate pronouns as an experiment. While inclusion is laudable, parents argue that some curricula veer into indoctrination, presenting gender identity as something everyone has to figure out, rather than a rare condition. The result can be kids who are simply going through normal puberty discomfort being led to believe they are transgender. Culturally we’ve also seen a sharp uptick in young adults identifying as nonbinary or genderqueer – not undergoing medical transition, but adopting the labels and sometimes expecting special accommodations (like colleges creating “all-gender” dorm floors, or workplaces adding third-gender options on forms). This can be seen as either a delightful expansion of freedom, or an indication of social contagion combined with the cachet of a trendy identity. A bit of irony: declaring oneself nonbinary (neither male nor female) has become particularly popular among a subset of youth, which some cynics describe as “the new goth” – a way to stand out and rebel. Except unlike wearing black lipstick, this trend has institutional support and can get you a pat on the back from the establishment.

The broad enforcement of gender ideology in media/politics means that even well-intentioned discussion is often shut down. A mainstream author who writes about the importance of biological sex (like J.K. Rowling did) is swiftly villainized; Rowling received mountains of abuse (some of it extremely misogynistic) and calls for boycott merely for saying “sex is real and important for defining women’s experiences.” Politicians who question aspects of the trans agenda are likewise attacked. In some cases, policy decisions are made out of fear of seeming transphobic rather than evidence – for instance, some state prison systems initially let inmates self-declare gender without much safeguard, only to reverse after incidents. The net effect is that public policy is often reactive and ideologically driven instead of calmly balancing competing rights. We see this in the U.S. debate over whether transwomen (biological males) should compete in women’s sports – those raising concerns are shouted down as bigots, when a year or two later even sports authorities concede there’s an issue and scramble for a compromise (like World Rugby banning transwomen from elite women’s matches for safety). One gets the sense that reality keeps reasserting itself – you can change the words on paper, but if a 6’2” 200 lb trans woman knocks out a 5’5” female opponent in an MMA fight, people notice the discrepancy regardless of pronouns. Gender ideology’s demand that everyone ignore the “man behind the curtain” can only go so far before the curtain gets yanked.

On the positive side, increased visibility of transgender issues has led to greater societal empathy for a minority that has long been marginalized. Discrimination in jobs, housing, healthcare against transgender individuals is now rightly condemned and often illegal. That is genuine progress. The challenge is ensuring that protecting one group’s rights doesn’t inadvertently infringe upon another’s. Striking that balance requires honest dialogue – something that’s hard to come by when any deviation from the “party line” invites outrage. As gender-critical feminist Megan Murphy famously quipped after being banned from Twitter, “We’re at a point where saying ‘men aren’t women’ can get you banned – that’s literal insanity.” She has a point: when truthful statements become unsayable, democracy suffers.

In conclusion, the sociopolitical ramifications of gender ideology are a mixed bag. We’re updating laws and norms to be more inclusive, which is admirable in intention. But some changes are proving contentious and destabilizing, especially where they collide with material reality or other important values like free speech and women’s rights. A nuanced approach would protect transgender individuals from discrimination and violence without demanding that all of society rewrite its entire rulebook of language, sports, privacy, and discourse. The current climate, however, often feels like an all-or-nothing zero-sum game – which is why the backlash (from gender-critical feminists, from conservative legislators, from ordinary parents) has been mounting. Ideally, we find a path that allows a transgender person to live their life in dignity and safety, and allows people to acknowledge biological sex where relevant and speak openly about sensitive issues without fear. In a pluralistic society, that compromise should be possible: respect people’s chosen lives, but don’t require everyone else to deny reality or silence themselves in the process.

Conclusion

The journey from the gay rights movement to the current gender ideology movement has been anything but linear. What started as a fight for the right to be (to love who one loves openly) has, in parts, morphed into a fight for the right to define reality (“I am what I say I am – and you must say so too”). We have examined how sexual orientation and gender identity, though often mentioned in the same breath, rest on very different foundations – one grounded in biological truths, the other in subjective self-perception. We have seen how scientific evidence for innate gender identities is scant, even as social evidence mounts that peer and cultural factors are driving a surge in transgender identification among youth. We’ve pulled back the curtain on how postmodern philosophy and neo-Marxist theory seeded the ground for an ideology that asks us to reject basic binaries and view gender through a prism of power and identity, sometimes to illogical extremes. We’ve raised ethical red flags about the rush to medically alter young bodies in the name of affirmation – a trend some countries are now reversing upon sober reflection of the data. And we’ve highlighted the broad societal changes underway, from the law to language, and the importance of finding balance so that one group’s rights don’t nullify another’s.

It’s an awful lot to untangle – fitting, perhaps, for such a tangled acronym (LGBTQIA+… sometimes jokingly extended with every letter in the alphabet). In navigating these issues, critical thinking and compassion are both needed. Compassion, because at the heart of this are real individuals with real distress who deserve respect and understanding. Critical thinking, because good intentions alone do not guarantee good outcomes – policies and treatments must be grounded in reality and evidence, not just ideology or fervor. A sharp but humorous observation sums it up: “Remember when we fought to break gender stereotypes? Now we enforce them with scalpels and lawsuits.” The irony isn’t lost on many old-school liberals and feminists who feel the gender ideology movement, in some ways, turned left at absurdity. Yet, these conversations are often drowned out by shouting matches between extreme ends. One end envisions a dystopia of forced gender conformity and erasure of LGBT people (which no one sane wants); the other end evokes a nightmare of all boundaries gone – hairy-chested “women” in every women’s locker room and compelled chants of newspeak pronouns (equally hyperbolic as a universal outcome). The reality will likely carve a saner middle path, if we let reason and evidence back into the room.

There are signs of a corrective course: European health authorities prioritizing therapy over hormones for kids, courts grappling with balancing trans rights and women’s rights, and more detransitioned voices coming forward to tell cautionary tales. Even within the transgender community, there are moderates urging a pullback from the extremist edge – worried that the radical ideologues are spurring a backlash that will hurt trans people most of all. After all, it’s possible to support trans individuals’ dignity and acknowledge biology; indeed, for long-term acceptance, that may be the only sustainable route. Many trans adults themselves do not subscribe to some of the militant dogmas – they quietly live as the opposite gender with the pragmatic understanding that they are honorary members of that sex, not literally changing chromosomes. Such trans people often get along just fine with their gay and straight peers; they’ve been overshadowed in media by the louder activist voices.

Ultimately, integration of previous research and sharp analysis leads us to one conclusion: biology matters, and so do people’s feelings – the challenge is not choosing one over the other, but accommodating both where possible. Sexual orientation will remain a fact of nature; gender identity will remain a facet of human experience (for some, not all). Striking the right balance between respecting individual identities and respecting empirical reality is the crux of the matter. As this paper has shown, when ideology swings too far (in either direction), problems ensue – whether it was the old ideology that being gay was a disorder to be “cured,” or the new ideology that every dissenter is a transphobic sinner to be shamed. We would do well to approach these issues with a mix of humility and humor. Humility, to admit we as a society are still learning and that the science of gender dysphoria is far from settled. And humor, because some of the scenarios are so absurd that if we don’t laugh occasionally, we’ll only rage – and laughter can diffuse tension and open minds more effectively than moralizing.

In the end, what most people want is actually not so different: a society that is kind but grounded, neither cruel nor crazy. Achieving that means pushing back against the excesses of gender ideology while avoiding a regression into intolerance. It means protecting the gay youth who might be mislabeled and medicalized, protecting the trans individual from unfair discrimination, protecting the woman who wants her safety and identity respected, and yes, protecting the truth so that our language and laws reflect reality and not just wishful thinking. Walking this tightrope isn’t easy, but it’s necessary. As the dust settles on this era of fervent activism, we can hope that the sharp analyses of thinkers like Debra Soh, Abigail Shrier, Helen Joyce and others are heeded – not to engender fear, but to inject sanity and science into the discourse. Only then will we be able to truly support everyone under the rainbow and keep our feet on solid ground.

Sources:

Comment

Din e-postadress kommer inte publiceras. Obligatoriska fält är märkta *