Guest Post by Steve Witherspoon
[My first reaction to this passionate guest post was “Gee, how do you really feel, Steve?” My second was “The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the host.” My third is: I wouldn’t laugh yet. One of my oldest friends is visiting D.C. to meet his new grandson, birthed by the wife of his former daughter, now son. When I went to the memorial service of a former thoroughly Irish Catholic boss from the streets of Brooklyn, I discovered that two of his three sons, all of whom I knew as children, are now middle aged women, and seemingly very happy about it. A close member of my immediate family is “transitioning.” Whatever it is that’s going on here, its getting dig in like a tick.]
I have raised the question in an earlier essay titled, What’s Considered Normal, where I looked into the differences between what is considered to be “normal” and “abnormal”. You can read the arguments presented in the entire post if you like, but I’ll briefly summarize some of the details as I go along in this essay.
I think it’s extremely important that everyone understands the core of an argument based on the words used and how those words are defined. So with that in mind, let’s start by presenting some generally accepted “norms”.
NORMAL
- Conforming to a standard; usual, typical, or expected
- Conforming to a type, standard, or regular pattern..
- …characterized by that which is considered usual, typical, or routine.
- If something conforms to a general pattern, standard, or average, we describe it as normal.
ABNORMAL
-
Deviating from what is normal or usual.
-
Not normal, average, typical, or usual.
-
Something that is abnormal is out of the ordinary, or not typical
ENABLING
- Supporting or allowing (whether intentionally or unintentionally) harmful or destructive individual behaviors thus preventing the individual from facing either the consequences of their choices and/or generally accepted reality.
Dysfunctional: Deviating from the norms of social behavior in a way regarded as bad.
Delusional: Characterized by or holding false beliefs or judgments about reality that are held despite incontrovertible evidence to the contrary, typically as a symptom of a mental condition.
Now that we have the terms settled, on to the core of this essay…
We have a malignant cancer that’s currently eating away at the core of our society. It is behavioral delusions which are “fixed, false beliefs held with strong conviction despite evidence to the contrary, often manifesting in specific behaviors or actions that align with the delusional thought”. There’s a huge swath of people who are choosing to intentionally enable people suffering from these delusions and there’s likely a lot of people that are enabling because of extreme social pressures. Let’s be 100% clear: the behaviors we’re talking about are delusional by definition and there’s nothing that social pressures and enabling can do to change that fact.
The delusional behavior I’m talking about is self-identifying as something we’re not. There are biological men identifying as women, biological women identifying as men, biological human beings identifying as turtles, cats, dogs, wolves, bears, non-humans, mythical creatures, fantasy beings, etc. Does anyone seriously think that there is anyone engaging in all this virtue signal enabling that honestly believes that a human being self-identifying as a cat, is actually a cat? I’m going to say this and it’s likely going to anger some people: I don’t actually believe that all the people engaging in this enabling actually believe that people identifying as non-human things are actually those non-human things. The enablers know good and well that their eyes aren’t deceiving them, but yet they continue to immorally signal their virtue by supporting the delusional identifier.
Anyone with a functioning brain knows that a man is not a woman, a woman is not a man, and a human being cannot be a non-human being. Why would people tolerate and/or enable this kind of obvious delusional behavior? What’s going on here? To properly answer that question you must look at the roots of this trend.
The tendency to publicly out someone’s own transgender delusion and identify as something they’re not began to take root in our society with biological men publicly identifying as women and biological women publicly identifying as men, thereby flushing real biological science straight down the shitter. The absurd social construct that delusional transgenderism is to be an socially acceptable “norm” was rammed down the throat of society and now has sunk into absolute absurdity, with human beings identifying as non-human animals or things. Now the people who have openly supported the absurdity of transgenderism are utterly trapped under the weight of piling absurdities, demonstrating to everyone just how ridiculous all of their arguments have been. They have essentially forced themselves to either advocate for other delusional identity claims or reveal the irrational foundations that their arguments have been built upon.
Rationally thinking people, like me, saw this absurd identity nonsense for exactly what it was, BULL SHIT, and knew what was coming. The irrational virtue signaling supporters of transgenderism, partisan hacks, and hateful bigots falsely called people like me who spoke out against this identity garbage, bigots. Transgenderism (not to be confused with being gay or lesbian) is irrational, delusional, dysfunctional, and I’m certain that, when sincere, it is a mental illness that may be treatable. It is immoral, unethical and illogical to continue to be silent about all this enabling, call out the enabling when you see it and encourage the enablers and the enabled to get some professional help.
Those of us that have been tarred as anti-transgenderism bigots, are getting the last laugh as we watch this social nonsense crumble under its own weight of complete absurdities
Ethics Alarms 
DSM V would have a field day with some of what I have seen and read. Just keep expanding the boundaries until they all just mash together. In some circles even NAMBLA is acceptable behavior.
If you really dig down deep into what the political left has been doing in the 21st century, the political left’s activism seems to be focused on bastardization of anything they consider to be the status quo or norms to completely undermine society and culture. It’s pure unadulterated gaslighting to brainwash a majority of the the population for totalitarian political purposes.
The Left “deconstructs” standards so that there is no objective reality. Trash is considered high art; filth is beauty. Collectivism is self-realization.
It has been happening for over 100 years. The Dystopians, and Ayn Rand to a degree, tackle these themes. Read “1984” where O’Brien tells Winston the truth about Bog Brother – it is the inversion of truth driven by fear of reprisals from the power structure. “Fahrenheit 451” addresses it, too, where the firemen don’t put out fires but start them. “A Brave New World” talks about anesthetizing people into compliance.
The themes you address in this post should not be a surprise to anyone.
jvb
PWS
Two former work colleagues are transgender women.
One is quiet, and each time I see.. her, she seems content with her life. This individual was always a bit odd, but impresses me as reasonably well-balanced with life these days.
The other is a (mostly peaceful) transgender warrior, who wants to shove the transition into everyone else’s face. Fortunately, this individual lives in a community that’s entirely willing to enable.
I suspect I know which of the two will reach a reasonably contented old age. And which will not.
Small sample size, but IMO truly trans people are almost vanishingly rare. Should we re-shape society as a result? I’m not convinced.
Pingback: Ethics Alarms: Guest Post By Steve Witherspoon #2 – Society's Building Blocks
Jack,
Again, thank you very much for the honor of sharing a guest post.
Yes this is something I’m very passionate about. I think we all should be passionate about putting a stop to this absurd nonsense of identifying as something we’re biologically not. It has to be recognized and treated as the mental illness that it is and put a full stop to the absurd social pressures to accept it as some kind of bastardized normal.
Jack’s second reaction to your post may have been, “The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the host.” They reflect mine 100%, though.
Rational societies build in restraints against the predictable excesses of male sexuality. Over the past decade, though, ours has instead decided to celebrate it as stunning and brave. Much to our detriment.
Much of mental illness vs eccentricity vs “just different” is really a society’s application of collective values and a consensus on what lifestyles comport with those collective values.
I’d be really interested in hearing the opinion of either our resident psychologist or resident psychiatrist on tis topic.
Some are not just enablers, but opportunists. I’m fairly certain my ex daughter-in-law is grooming my young grandson for gender dysphoria. She has been researching ‘conditions’ and having him tested since he was a baby. She gets a lot of attention this way, and is harming him no end. We haven’t been allowed to see them in a while, having been asked to leave when we suggested my son and his (then) wife, get jobs.
I am very sorry to read this, Grandma Lisa. Parents who withhold grandchildren from grandparents for silly reasons teach their children that it’s okay to drop relatives who upset you. If they’re not careful, they will be the grandparents cut out if someday their own child gets angry at them.
In my mind, parents who attempt to trans their kids are guilty of Munchausen Syndrome by proxy. Munchausen Syndrome is named after the fictitious Baron Munchausen of German folklore who told wild tall tales about himself. The Syndrome itself pertains to people who try to gain attention or financial support for themselves by falsely claiming to have chronic or terminal illnesses.
Eventually, those people are caught, but not before their reputations are destroyed after fleecing the people they know or even strangers.
Munchausen Syndrome by proxy is even worse. In this case, the liar claims that a dependent relative, often a child, is the one with the terrible illness. Some parents even tell their children that they are dying, keep them out of school and subject them to unnecessary medical treatments. The guilty parent then basks in the attention he or she is getting for being “brave”, “a devoted mother”, ‘sacrificing”, etc. Or they benefit financially from crowdsourcing or other community donations. Sometimes it’s about both the attention and the money.
Applying this to the trans phenomenon, the parent doesn’t even have to claim an illness has endangered the child. She only has to encourage the child to question his or her sexual identity. She then gets the attention she (she because Munchausen parents tend to be women) craves for being the same brave, sacrificing devoted mother that the parents of sick children get. In this case, without having to put the child through superfluous chemo treatments or worry about law enforcement getting involved. Why? Because the medical and educational communities are mandated reporters for child abuse in every other situation and, most certainly, in Munchausen by proxy. In the case of transgenderism, though, these entities are often the ones pushing the delusion on children so they have no problem backing up the parent’s delusion; hence, they are participants in the abuse. The checks and balances on child abuse go out the window once sexual identity comes into play.
Instead of being told that he or she is sick or is going to die, the child is simply told he or she is the opposite gender. Not only the parent is courageous, so also is the child. The child gets special treatment: given permission to use the bathroom in the school office, affirmed in his or her new identity every day, called by a different name, told he or she is brave…just like the brave mother.
It rather reminds me of the plight of child actors whose parents try to live vicariously through them. Paul Petersen, a child actor advocate, was quoted years ago, “There’s a scene in the movie Gypsy where Roz Russell is complaining that she feels very much cut out of her daughter‘s life all of a sudden, and she says to her, ’Why do you think I sat up all those nights doing the costumes and teaching you your lines and taking you to auditions?‘ And Natalie Wood says, ’I thought you were doing it for me.‘ And for a working kid, sooner or later, that scene is played out in real life.”
Sooner or later, these so-called trans kids are going to say the same thing to the people who were supposed to protect them.
Sorry for the delay … we are on a cruise in Japan and I’ve been out and about, not always checking my email. I appreciate your comments very much. I have often wondered if Munchhausen applies to my former DIL, but as grandparents we have no real rights or power, in the absence of provable abuse. She does a very good job of appearing to be a devoted mother. And she is, though seriously flawed. Our son backs her play, else she restricts visitation.
Thanks again, GL
All happy families are alike; each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way.
It’s apparent that we humans have an amazing ability to become disconnected from reality, and once disconnected, any path is as likely as any other. Perceiving reality through our own filter we act in accordance with that reality, not the reality that actually exists.
Unfortunately, many people can’t or won’t even look for these reality filters, thus dooming them to an existence of confusion and turmoil. Their filters are kept in place by powerful inner forces, which seem to bring the delusional some momentary relief.
My personal belief is that it’s a spiritual malady, and I have no ability to restore reality to those that don’t seek it for themselves.
I would not say that all people who identify as non-binary are delusional. There is a small minority of people where the development of the genitalia does not match the genotype, or where the genotype itself is abnormal.
I saw a YouTube video a year ago, where a 17 year old girl was interviewed who went to the doctor as at that age she did not had her first period. At the hospital they had to give her the shocking message that she was not really a girl as she had XY chromosomes. This is an example of an intersex person. Wikipedia has a good article about the phenomenon of “intersex”: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex
A second phenomenon are mosaics. A famous example is the fastest female runner of the Netherlands in 1950, Foekje Dillema. Doubts were raised about whether she was really a female, and she was the first women to be subjected to a mandatory sex verification. She was plucked from the train on her way to France to be subjected to sex verification, refused, and was banned from competition for life by the IAAF. Foekje had a female phenotype, and always assumed she was a women. Posthumously some tests were done on her, and some Y-chromosomes were found. She may have been a genetic mosaic, having half of her cells with XX chromosomes and the other half of her cells with XY chromosomes. This is all well documented at Wikipedia, and you may want to browse further for her life story, and also browse on “Disorders of sex development” and “Mosaic_(genetics)”.
So I would thread very carefully when discussing gender issues, as none of the examples in my comment indicate anything morally / ethically wrong with the people involved with gender issues. In my opinion Foekje Dillema was done wrong.
Conclusion one is that sexual development in humans is not always normal based on what you should expect for a particular genotype. Also a person’s genotype can be abnormal. This is scientifically uncontested.
Conclusion two is that gender issues are not always indicated by gender dysphoria, as the examples in my comments indicate.
It may well be the case that for many people who express gender issues, psychological factors may play a role, and the gender issues may be unrelated to genotype, physiology, or development of genitals. As I am not a psychologist I prefer to stay out of this.
(I hope that zoebrain is still around to comment on this).
CEES VAN BARNEVELDT wrote, “There is a small minority of people where the development of the genitalia does not match the genotype, or where the genotype itself is abnormal.”, “intersex person“, “a person’s genotype can be abnormal.”
I appreciate your input and in those cases the person is likely not a true biological male or biological female and those are not the ones I’m talking about.
I specifically stated up front…
The condition of those that are biologically abnormal should be directly addressed by qualified medical, psychological, and psychiatric professionals, and as far as I’m concerned, this is an entirely different topic. That said; if there is a human being with an appendage that appears to be a penis, no matter why they have it, they should show basic human decency and not go into restrooms specifically designated for females and if they do go in and exposes themself to females in that restroom there should be legal consequences for indecent exposure, period.
I’m all for having public restrooms designated for Male, Female, Unisex. Unisex should always be a restroom designed for a single person with a locking door.
By Presidential Executive Order, intersex people don’t exist.
State Laws and Federal Regulations are being drafted accordingly.
Yes, this is known as an “over-correction.”
Welcome back, Zoe.
Thank you, most kind of you to say so.
Zoe,
Is this the Presidential Executive Order you’re talking about?
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/defending-women-from-gender-ideology-extremism-and-restoring-biological-truth-to-the-federal-government/
Even though intersex is outside the scope of what I wrote and it doesn’t change what I wrote because my focus was strictly on biological males and biological females, let’s look at it a little bit in relation to the Presidential Executive Order (EO) that Zoe referred to. I think I got the right EO, but if I didn’t someone please correct me.
First, from what I can find, intersex is considered to be a sex variation like male and female. It’s a general term used for a variety of situations in which a person is born with reproductive or sexual anatomy that doesn’t fit the boxes of male or female.
The Presidential Executive Order I linked to above states the following…
Since this is defining a men and women based on biological terms, I see no conflict with intersex here.
Here I see a conflict with intersex since intersex is considered a variation of biological sex. I think this should be corrected based on existing biology.
Here I see a conflict with intersex.
So if the given choices are only male and female, an intersex person cannot truthfully and accurately answer the question because their “immutable biological classification” cannot be biologically specified as either male or female due to at least one of the following intersex reasons:
I understand the focus of the EO, which is more inline with the essay I wrote. They want to stop the non-biological gender identity claims that are being rammed down the throats of society. So, since intersex has absolutely nothing to do with non-biological gender identity claims, they could easily amend the EO to correct this throughout the document, all they have to do is add another choice of “intersex” so a person that physically falls outside the immutable biological classification of male or female can have a choice that’s not actually biologically false? I’m going to guess that as much as people hate President Trump this amendment to that EO would be reasonably acceptable even to President Trump because it solves a real problem and gives intersex people a truthful way of answering the question based on real science.
I’m sure there will be consequences if someone answers this question falsely, this proposed amendment to the EO would be accurate and truthful and doesn’t interject gender identity into the mix at all. It’s my opinion that those that are self identifying as the opposite sex will continue to do that regardless of this EO.
The image that I have in mind is that of a swinging pendulum. In the fifties people who did not exactly fit neatly in the category of heterosexual males and females were consider abnormal and weird, both socially and morally. The computer scientist Alan Turing was chemically castrated because of his homosexuality, and in the USA we had a lavender scare were government officials were subjected to polygraph tests to uncover their sexual orientation. And intersex people were considered freaks. In other words, people who were considered as not sexually normal were not treated with dignity and respect.
Well, the pendulum has swung the other way; it did not stop swinging after the Obergefell decision by SCOTUS during the Obama administration. In November 2024 Trump was elected, and one of the reasons was that the woke left had gotten arrogant and went too far in pushing transgender issues in everybody’s face. The majority of the USA does not support people with male genitalia in women’s locker rooms and in women’s sports. Also a lot of parents are terrified by sex ed given in today’s schools, and children being gender reassigned without even the parents knowledge.
So with Trump’s election the pendulum is swinging back again. However I believe it should not swing all the way back to the fifties. My impression is that the EO has a simplified view of biology, if the reality of intersex in specific, and gender issues in general is denied. I surely believe that there are people who are dysfunctional and delusional, however we cannot simply say that that applies to all people who struggle with gender and sex related issues.
CEES VAN BARNEVELDT wrote, “The image that I have in mind is that of a swinging pendulum. In the fifties people who did not exactly fit neatly in the category of heterosexual males and females were consider abnormal and weird, both socially and morally.”
I’m not saying that what took place in the 50’s was morally or ethically right; but, take a few minutes and read the blog post I referred to in the Guest Post, “What’s Considered Normal?” it specifically addresses the social concepts of what’s normal and abnormal. Just some food for thought.
CEES VAN BARNEVELDT wrote, “I surely believe that there are people who are dysfunctional and delusional, however we cannot simply say that that applies to all people who struggle with gender and sex related issues.”
Sure you can “say” that if you like, it’s a free country. 😉
Your overall point is taken and I think it directly applies to youth who can certainly struggle with things like gender and sex relate issues. Adolescents struggle with lots of things, it can be a really rough time for some of them, no one said growing up is easy. I think the correct thing to do, as I mentioned to Zoe earlier, is “socially, medically, and psychologically support and affirm in our youth that which is physically built-in to their actual biology” instead of enabling delusional thinking.
On the first day of my psych rotation at Brooklyn State Hospital I was given two pieces of sage advice. The head nurse in her starched white uniform was orienting us and providing keys to the variosu wards. She, in her grovelled voice said:
2. Do NOT play in any of their fantasy gardens, always, everytime speak about reality.
Now the patients have the keys and we are in state of chaos. Fantasy has replaced reality.
I wonder if fantasy has, in fact, replaced reality.
Our esteemed EA Leader often has lamented that Trump, a boor and reflexive provocateur, is the least qualified person to right the proverbial ship. While I understand that sentiment, on cultural issues, Trump has a better feel for the cultural pulse than most of his critics realize. The 2024 election was not so much a mandate for Trump as it was a rejection of the Left’s totalitarian tendencies, which include trans and DEI issues because they limit the ability to think and believe freely.
I suspect the majority in this country thinks, “oh, you’re trans? Cool. Pass the salt, please.” That means most do not believe that a person actually can change genders on a whim (or species, for that matter even though I truly and completely identify as an aardvark – challenge me at your peril!) but will be polite and respectful of that individual’s state of being; however, most – like yours truly – resent being told that, not only must we be respectful, we must formally suspend reality and buy into the belief that Bruce has, in fact, is and has always been Kaitlyn.
jvb
Two words: Rachel Levine.
Yeah, then there is this little beauty from Illinois:
https://www.dailywire.com/news/illinois-school-staff-watched-to-ensure-girls-changed-in-front-of-trans-identifying-boy-mom-says
jvb
What is wrong with these people?
What is wrong with these people?
I know this is a repeat comment, but the question bears repeating. What IS wrong with these people????
And a minor question of the Lake County school system (which includes among its students our grandson no. 1): Wasn’t it decades ago that open locker rooms, certainly for girls, were a thing of the distant past and were remodeled to provide private, doored changing stalls? Jeeze.
I remember having a discussion, years ago, with someone who was filling out applications for wage-work. To this day, most employers that have application forms still have sex or gender checkboxes. I remember thinking that it was a dumb practice to have started, but it’s an even worse practice to have continued: Someone’s gender probably shouldn’t come into play during the hiring process, and any argument about a necessity to know for insurance or reporting standards could be handled after the decision to hire. It seems like a checkbox designed to induce discrimination lawsuits. Why not have a White/Black/Hispanic/Other box while we’re at it?
The reality is that there are very few places where gender matters anymore, and so I have a certain degree of sympathy for the “plight” of trans inclusion. There shouldn’t be a problem in affirming, or being polite, or letting people do their own thing, the problem is that for the hyperminority of situations where sex matters, it tends to matter a lot. And in trying to push boundaries, the trans movement has started to touch third rails: Places where sex matters, they aren’t welcome, and they’re probably not going to be welcome.
I feel like the majority of even millennial trans people kind of… I don’t know. Get that? My friends of an age with me were kind of low-key. A lot of them pass, and don’t get too bothered by pronoun slipups. The ones that don’t get that they don’t, and are grateful that the people around them care enough to try to be polite. They aren’t confused about which bathroom to use.
And the activist class however… Takes exclusion of any kind, nomatter how obviously reasonable… poorly. And in the perrennial everloving bitchfits to follow, probably throw the movement back a generation. I feel like we were more tolerant in the 90’s than we are now, and I believe that’s because people were less personally effected than they are now. Seeing the pictures of the trans woman smashing a girl in sport is viscerally ugly. People understand, inherently, the mechanical problems with allowing trans women in jails. People can empathize with women in shelters that don’t want to share space with someone who has a penis. Women are not “birthing people” or “bonus hole havers” or “teated individuals. These asks are ugly and offensive.
What’s so hard about “Sure, identify as whatever you want to, but, no, you can’t compete in women’s athletics. It’s not fair. Sorry.”
I feel like that’s what we had, and the deal that a generation of trans people accepted with relative grace only a generation ago. No one cared about drag queens, because they weren’t in front of the kids, no one cared about trans people because they weren’t really in our faces about it.
I was reminded recently when Sam Seder went on Jubilee and talked to a Trump supporter and had to have the Melting Pot explained to him about all those ideas we learned in like grade three social studies classes… The Melting Pot, The Mosaic, Tolerance, Acceptance, Multiculturalism. I forget which comedian said in regards to tolerance: “You tolerate the baby crying, that doesn’t mean you enjoy it. But you accept it, because that’s the society we want.”
It feels like the trans lobby broke the deal, and every trans person is paying the price.
About nine or ten years ago, before transgenderism was even a gleam in the eyes of deranged pressure groups, I felt the gay marriage campaigners pushed things too far in that it felt as if everyone was not just expected to accept gays and lesbians, everyone had to celebrate gayness and lesbianism as vastly superior ways of life. And frankly, it seems as if the transgenderism thing popped up out of nowhere. I guess once an outfit like the Human Rights Campaign or any governmental department is set up, funded, and staffed, it takes on a life of its own and is set in perpetual motion, moving from one cause to the next once the first one has succeeded and timed out.
Recent research continues to shed light on the participation of transgender athletes in sports.
A comprehensive 2023 review by Assistant Professor D.J. Oberlin at Lehman College examined the impact of gender-affirming hormone therapy on athletic performance.
Oberlin concluded that “an individual’s sex does not determine their success or failure at any athletic event despite the high level of competition.”
The study also noted there are great variations among cisgender athletes, such as differences in height, weight, training, and more. That means in the general population there are bound to be people that are better at some sport than others, but no one seems to worry about those. “It is expected that about 2.3% of a normally distributed population is likely to fall above two standard deviations from a population mean,” Oberlin explained. “These exceptional individuals may be those who are gifted and excel at some sport or athletic performance.”
In 2024, the idea that trans women athletes have an inherent advantage over cis athletes was once again undercut by a study funded by the International Olympic Committee and conducted at the University of Brighton in England. It was published in April in the British Journal of Sports Medicine.
That study found:
Transgender women performed worse than cisgender women in tests measuring lower-body strength.
Transgender women performed worse than cisgender women in tests measuring lung function.
Transgender women had a higher percentage of fat mass, lower fat-free mass, and weaker handgrip strength compared to cisgender men.
Transgender women’s bone density was found to be equivalent to that of cisgender women, which is linked to muscle strength.
Another common myth is the idea that boys or men might falsely claim a female identity just to compete in women’s sports. However, there is no evidence to support this claim. Transitioning is a deeply personal and often difficult process-not something athletes would do just to win a competition.
The reality is that trans athletes, like all athletes, just want a fair chance to compete in the sports they love.
Therefore, science tells us:
After hormone therapy, trans women’s athletic performance aligns more closely with cisgender women.
Competitive advantage is complex and influenced by many factors, including training, skill, and individual physiology-not just gender identity.
Transgender women are likely to be at a physical disadvantage compared to cisgender athletes
Just a quick note of appreciation: I’ve missed you. The site has missed you.
I’m not so sure the IOC has earned the right for its pronouncements to necessarily be viewed as trustworthy. AFAIK, facts on the ground seem to show trans women prevailing over biological women in physical contests, and being more successful than they were competing against males, but no (that I’ve heard of) instances of the reverse.
I would assume that there would be organizations out there to let them play, probably more than would let trans women play, for exactly the same reason I think it would be fine: I don’t see a problem with trans men competing in the men’s division, because the men’s division wasn’t designed to be exclusive. If a trans man is the best in the world at something, let them prove it. It might be a little rough because some of the hormone treatments they take might test as PEDs, but barring that… Go wild.
The reason we don’t hear about that is because trans men aren’t competitive with men the same way that trans women are competitive against women. Heck, most of them probably wouldn’t qualify. Or the ones that do, who wants to go through all that shit and abuse to place near-last?
“The reason we don’t hear about that is because trans men aren’t competitive with men the same way that trans women are competitive against women.“
Yeah, that’s part of what I was saying; it sort of puts to the lie that things can be “equalized” when real world efforts and winning results in competitions only seem to occur in one direction. Pretty sure the organizations that allow trans women to compete would allow trans men to do so, but we don’t see much, if any, of that.
I mean, I’m not going to discount competing for the love of competing, I competed at a national level a couple of times in Taekwondo, and got a bronze medal exactly once… in a single division… that had five participants. Still very proud of it. Most of the time I’d expect to get nothing, but I still enjoyed the trip.
It wouldn’t surprise me even a little to find out that there are trans men participating in sport… But I don’t think we’re hearing about them because they probably aren’t winning.
Boy, this post suddenly burst into flames after smoldering for two months!
I got an Email ping for some reason
Sorry, but this is going to end a little bit rough, because at some point, I think that in order to have this discussion, a little bit of blunt truth is necessary.
“After hormone therapy, trans women’s athletic performance aligns more closely with cisgender women.”
As with so many things, it depends about what you’re talking about, and when. Part of the reason that trans women haven’t monopolized the podium is because they’re generally not allowed to compete. If they are, another reason they aren’t monopolizing the podium is that of the organizations that do allow them to compete, most will require participants to have been at a certain hormone level for a certain amount of time. But in cases where that standard doesn’t exist, you get participants who blow out their competition. This is where examples like trans women demolish women’s deadlifting records, not by marginal gains, but by like 30% come from. And those examples obviously exist. There’d be more of them if the sporting world went insane and dropped their standards.
Is there science that says that after two years of regular cross sex hormones, trans women’s physical performance tends to align with the average woman’s? Yes. Does that mean that the moment a trans woman makes her first affirmation that her performance will align with the average woman’s? No. After she buys her first sex affirming packed bra? No. After the first hormone injection? No. And this should be obvious to everyone: Transition is not a light switch. And yet, that’s what the activist class is calling for. Trans women are women, regardless at which stage of their transition they’re at. But sport isn’t designed for affirmation…. Sport is a competition. While the rules of sport are supposed to be fair, the execution of sport isn’t: Many more people are supposed to lose than win.
People with natural advantages will tend to win. This is obvious at the extremes: The Olympics aren’t a competition of average Joes going at it, the Olympics are a circus, a competition of genetic freaks with nearly unique advantages. Michael Phelp’s feet and ankle joint mimic a fishtail better than they do a human foot, and we celebrate him! So why couldn’t we assume that being born male is just one of those genetic things, and open the women’s division up?
Because the women’s division exists for a reason, and again, it’s not to affirm their gender. It’s a recognition that if not for those divisions, a full half of humanity would never get within sniffing distance of a podium, almost regardless of circumstance, and we wanted to give them a space. The women’s division is exclusive in a way that the men’s division is not because the point of that division isn’t to find the person who can run, jump, or swim fastest in the world. That boat sailed. It’s a sex-segregated division to give women a chance to compete. The women’s division is more akin to the Paralympics than the men’s division, because they to aren’t trying to find the best in the world, they’re trying to find the best (insert disability here) person in the world. How would you feel about full bodied people arguing that they should be able to compete in the Paralympics because they identify as blind, even if they were willing to wear really dark sunglasses?
What I think trans individuals will eventually need to come to terms with is that this isn’t a space for them. Why should a trans girl be told that she’ll never be able to compete because her body is different? The exact same reason we tell all kinds of people the exact same thing: Life isn’t fair. It’s not fair that someone is born under the circumstances that she was, it’s not fair that she’ll never be able to physically compete in the men’s division, and won’t qualify for the women’s division, but the vast, vast, majority, like… 99.9% of humanity, won’t either. What’s more affirming than that?
Worry not, the Arkansas state legislature has your back!
On March 4, Arkansas lawmakers introduced HB1668, the Vulnerable Youth Protection Act, a sweeping bill that would criminalize support for the social transition of transgender youth. The bill allows parents to sue anyone who affirms a child’s gender identity, defining social transition broadly as “any act by which a minor adopts or espouses a gender identity that differs from the minor’s biological sex… including without limitation changes in clothing, pronouns, hairstyle, and name.” It also serves as a total ban on youth gender-affirming care, prohibiting both surgeries and hormone therapy for transgender minors. But the bill goes even further: it asserts extraterritorial jurisdiction, meaning lawsuits could be brought against people outside of Arkansas if they are deemed to have helped a transgender child transition. The penalties are staggering—minimum damages of $10,000 per defendant, with punitive damages reaching up to $10 million for those involved in medical care.
Social transition is a critical way for transgender youth to affirm their identities. It typically involves changes in name, pronouns, clothing, and hairstyle—steps that help young people feel more comfortable in their own skin. Notably, even by the bill’s own definition, social transition does not involve any medical interventions.
Yes, girls wearing slacks or not having long hair will be criminalised.
Sometimes incessant, lunatic overreaching elicits as less than perfectly proportioned response.
True, and if it happens like that, perfectly understandable. It would not be understandable if it didn’t happen.
On the other hand , less than perfectly proportionate responses have been known to happen without any provocation whatsoever.
Zoe wrote, “Yes, girls wearing slacks or not having long hair will be criminalized.”
Writing absurd things like that can undermine your arguments.
Zoe wrote, “Social transition is a critical way for transgender youth to affirm their identities. It typically involves changes in name, pronouns, clothing, and hairstyle—steps that help young people feel more comfortable in their own skin.”
That is classic enabling of impressionable youth and I personally think it’s morally and ethically wrong.
How about we do the exact opposite of what you wrote; socially, medically, and psychologically support and affirm in our youth that which is physically built-in to their actual biology. Accepting who we are and where we fit in the world around us is part of growing up and it’s really tough for some of our youth to thread that needle. We should not in any way support psychological delusions of the brain when the proof of their immutable biological classification of being either male or female is built in to their human biology.
Transgenderism (not to be confused with being gay or lesbian) is irrational, delusional, dysfunctional, and I’m certain that, when sincere, it is a mental illness that may be treatable.
A very obvious and widely held belief. Also politically enforced now.
And as incorrect as asserting that the Earth is flat.
That’s not an opinion, the Earth really isn’t flat, as an objective fact.
A number of theologians assert that it is, as do a few fringe scientists, but the mainstream of scientific thought is contrary to that proposition, even if it is enforced by law.
We have to be careful with definitions here: “transgenderism” in particular. My contention is that it is less like Republicanism or Communism, and more like Caucasianism or Lefthandedism. The latter two don’t actually exist as political or philosophical beliefs, let alone “delusions”, though being left handed is regarded as intrinsically immoral by some, and others regard all those melanotically challenged as “white devils”.
Why do I say this? There’s my own personal experience of course, but mostly it’s because like all but a few fringe astronomers saying the Earth is round, based on extensive evidence, all but a few fringe psychologists say that being transgender is not a delusion in the psychiatric sense.
“A theory of gender development is presented that incorporates early biological factors that organize predispositions in temperament and attitudes. With activation of these factors a person interacts in society and comes to identify as male or female. The predispositions establish preferences and aversions the growing child compares with those of others. All individuals compare themselves with others deciding who they are like (same) and with whom are they different. These experiences and interpretations can then be said to determine how one comes to identify as male or female, man or woman. In retrospect, one can say the person has a gendered brain since it is the brain that structures the individual’s basic personality; first with inherent tendencies then with interactions coming from experience.”
Source: Biased-Interaction Theory of Psychosexual Development: “How Does One Know if One is Male or Female?” M.Diamond Sex Roles (2006) 55:589-600
“In sum, gender identity, whether consistent or inconsistent with other sex characteristics, may be understood to be “much less a matter of choice and much more a matter of biology” (Coolidge et al., 2000). The scientific evidence supports the paradigm that transsexualism is strongly associated with the neurodevelopment of the brain (Zhou et al., 1995; Kruijver et al., 2000). It is clear that the condition cannot necessarily be overcome by “consistent psychological socialisation as male or female from very early childhood” and it is not responsive to psychological or psychiatric treatments alone (Green, 1999). It is understood that during the fetal period the brain is potentially subject to the organising properties of sex hormones (Kruijver et al., 2000; 2001; 2002; 2003). In the case of transsexualism, these effects appear to be atypical, resulting in sex-reversal in the structure of the BSTc, and possibly other, as yet unidentified, loci (Kruijver, 2004). The etiological pathways leading to this inconsistent development almost certainly vary from individual to individual, so no single route is likely to be identified. Different genetic, hormonal and environmental factors, acting separately or in combination with each other, are likely to be involved in influencing the development of the psychological identification as male or female. Psychosocial factors and cultural mores are likely to impact on outcomes (Connolly, 2003).
That’s from Atypical Gender Development: a review Besser et al International Journal of Transgenderism 9(1): 29-44. 2006
I’ve used sources 20+ years old to show that despite the claims of many politicians, this is not new.
Zoe Brain,
I’m going to skip over most of your subtle and not so subtle insults regarding those that disagree with your view on transgenderism.
Zoe wrote, “all but a few fringe psychologists say that being transgender is not a delusion in the psychiatric sense.”
FYI: I’m extremely skeptical and red BS lights begin flashing in my brain when I see things that state or imply “settled science” or something similar.
I think that’s a really interesting claim, I also think it’s interesting that you call psychologists “fringe” because they say transgender is a delusion, and it’s also interesting that you don’t support this claim with anything but yet you state it as if I’m supposed to believe it as fact. I’m curious if this claim might be based on an ideological bubble of isolation on this topic, in other words, have you only searched out psychologists that agree with your bias thus giving you a false impression of psychologists as a whole? Estimates are that there’s likely over a million psychologists in the world, have you done a statistical analysis of a large portion of them to come up with your conclusion or are you quoting some other statistical study or is this just a biased guess.
I actually appreciate the information and the references you provided. I read them, and I’ll likely dig into some more of the complete references at a later date. After reading through Milton Diamond’s entire theory presentation paper, I found it interesting especially the well known case of David Reimer. Interesting yes but, at this point in time, I see no overwhelming evidence for me to change my opinion that a verifiable biological male or a verifiable biological female is having a transgender delusion if they think/feel/etc they are the opposite sex despite the incontrovertible evidence of their own biological chromosomes and make up of their sexual body parts. I still think they are is suffering from a anti-science flat Earther delusion which is literally “characterized by or holding false beliefs or judgments about reality that are held despite incontrovertible evidence to the contrary, typically as a symptom of a mental condition“.
I was using “delusion” in its strict psychiatric definition.
My apologies because you interpreted my ill expressed language as being insulting. This is somewhat ironic, as one of the things I like about being here is the general air of civility amongst those with significant disagreements.
I specifically mean you, Mr Witherspoon. I learn a lot from you, as we differ in many ways. I learn little from those I agree with in everything. You have been, if not unfailingly, as close to it as possible within human powers, courteous when differing. I’m not sure I’ve lived up to the standard you set, for which again, my apologies.
Thanks for taking the time to write that, I do appreciate it.
I don’t know if I can reach the rather high bar of “overwhelming evidence”, but I’ll give it a try.
I’ll go the legal rather than medical route, quoting expert witness testimony though.
From a submission to SCOTUS by a group who treat intersex kids, in the Gavin Grimm cases:
“An intersex student’s “physiological” sex may depend entirely on which Physiological trait one chooses to privilege. Indeed, because of the diversity of medical perspectives, trained experts can and do disagree on the “correct” sex to assign to an intersex child.
“Interpreting “sex” to refer to a student’s gender identity would avoid (or at least mitigate) these problems. Unlike “physiological” sex, all parties appear to agree on what gender identity means: it is “[an] individual’s ‘innate sense of being male or female.” Pet. Br. at 36; cf. Resp. Br. at 2 (similar). It is not subject to competing definitions depending on which expert or court is consulted. Moreover, unlike “physiological” sex, a student’s gender identity by definition cannot be subject to differences in medical opinion: each student is the ultimate arbiter of their own gender identity, as they (and they alone) experience it first-hand.”
Atypical Gender Development: a review Besser et al International Journal of Transgenderism 9(1): 29-44. 2006
I have no issue with Bruce Jenner transitioning to Caitlyn Jenner, as Jenner was an adult when making the decision to transition, and it is not on me to comment on somebody’s decisions regarding their own sexuality.
I have trouble with minors choosing to undergo irreversible gender transition procedures. Minors are not allowed to have tattoos, have an alcoholic drink, and cannot legally consent to having sexual relationships. It strikes me as odd that they can legally consent to puberty blockers and gender reassignment surgery.
There are minors who now want to detransition, as they have regrets over the gender transition procedure. I have a link to article in the Federalist below; I would appreciate it if Zoe would comment on detransition of minors. My position is that minors are too young to make decisions about any gender transition procedures.
https://thefederalist.com/2025/03/13/exclusive-linda-mcmahon-meets-with-detransitioners-to-discuss-schools-pushing-gender-transition/
My I Would Have Been A Trans Story
‘GENDER TRANSITION’ REGRET Deserves A Voice, Says Former Patient
PWS
I get a 404 error on one, forbidden on the other. Sorry.
The apologies are all mine on the first link, I replaced it BELOW
PWS
The second one’s “forbidden”? Might that be a Southern Hemisphere kinda thingey, ’cause it works HERE
PWS
It was another intrepid EA commenter (not me) in who, some time back, opined that if children have the mental maturity to make decisions about their sexual identities, then they probably possess the mental maturity to make decisions about their sexual activity as well. That makes the notion of pedophilia much harder to defend, since at that point, children are simply choosing to engage in sexual activity with adults.
This is a very dangerous road…one that any reasonable parent should never want his/her child to travel.
Is ZoeBrain – and others – alright with this potential outcome?
Classic straw man and slippery slope fallacy. “If we let women retain the right to vote, why not illegal immigrants” as was said recently at a “conservative conference”.
Conservative my …um… there’s nothing conservative about those wishing to repeal the 18th and 25th amendments.
But I digress.
I’d put it this way: if an individual is Gillick Competent, they probably should be regarded as having reached the Age of Consent.
At the risk of being impolite, if you don’t know the jargon, what Gillick competence is, wiki is pretty good on it.
Zoe,
I’ve heard some hail Gillick competence testing as the best thing since sliced bread. I personally don’t trust Gillick to be accurate and I think some might unethically be using it as a “but Gillick showed us” crutch of sorts without really diving deep into issues. It can certainly be another helpful tool in determining if a younger adolescent or child can make a reasonable decision but it certainly should not to be trusted to be the only thing considered in such an evaluation.
We all know that young adolescents and some older children know everything about everything and they learned it all from their know-it-all friends and TikTok and the rest of the adult world is “stupid” and that way of thinking seems to continue for a lot of people right up to the point that they realize just how freaking ignorant they were somewhere around 25’ish. Although, I’ve seen far too many cultish adults well beyond 25 years old in the 21st century thinking like they’re an adolescent and allowing their emotions, feelings and delusions to override logic, science, common sense, these people will bastardize science so it will conform to their feelings and then imply that it’s settled science – it’s science hackery.
Don’t be ridiculous, Zoe Brain. Stating that girls will be criminalized for long pants and short hair is the ultimate straw man argument…and I don’t need Gillick or jargon-knowledge to know that. I also don’t need Wikipedia to know that children – elementary school children as a whole, but also a significant majority of middle- and high-school students – do not have the mental capacity to process sexual identity.
But if they do…if a child CAN clearly comprehend the concept and consequences of his/her decisions around sexual identity, then a child can comprehend sexual activity as well, up to and including sex with adults. That is NOT a straw man. Instead, it is a completely logical conclusion from the original premise. Completely logical. And it would not surprise me in the least to learn that pedophiles are waiting with baited breath for – and probably opening their wallets to fund – any and all research that will confirm it.
At the end of the day, this appears to be true with some on the Left side of the political spectrum: they have little or no interest in allowing children to flourish as they were crafted by their Creator, and they have little or no interest in training up children in the ways they SHOULD go. Instead, they are really just into destroying children. Obviously, the ultimate goal is destroying them before they’re born, but if that can’t happen, then next best thing is to mutilate/destroy a child as early in the development process as possible.
CEES VAN BARNEVELDT wrote, “I have no issue with Bruce Jenner transitioning to Caitlyn Jenner, as Jenner was an adult when making the decision to transition, and it is not on me to comment on somebody’s decisions regarding their own sexuality.”
That’s your choice, but it’s still transitioning cosmetic surgery and enabling delusion by definition and there’s nothing that social pressures, surgery, or enabling can do to change that fact. Bruce Jenner made his choice to feed his own delusion and the life long consequences (physically, mentally, and socially) belong to him or her (whatever pronoun you choose to use).
CEES VAN BARNEVELDT wrote, “I have trouble with minors choosing to undergo irreversible gender transition procedures. Minors are not allowed to have tattoos, have an alcoholic drink, and cannot legally consent to having sexual relationships. It strikes me as odd that they can legally consent to puberty blockers and gender reassignment surgery.”
I have serious issues with minors in relation to irreversible gender transition procedures of any kind. I think this behavior from the enabler falls directly into the legal category of contributing to the delinquency of a minor which generally means, an adult or older minor knowingly aids, encourages, or causes a minor to engage in illegal or harmful activities, potentially endangering their health, safety, well-being, or morals.
Also, transitioning cosmetic surgery should never be paid for using tax dollars of any kind, and I think it would be really wise for insurance companies to seriously think twice before choosing to cover this kind of cosmetic surgery and then passing the cost on to the general public. I also have an issue with tax dollars or insurance companies paying for other types of elective cosmetic surgeries that are not related to fixing physical body damage due to someone’s negligence or crashes and then passing those costs on to the general public. There is no reason that the general public should pay (with tax or insurance dollars) for someone to have bigger/smaller/no boobs, or to add/subtract a penis, or to make non-medically needed physical abnormalities/deformities more “normal”. I really don’t give a damn if someone feels bad because their boobs are small or they don’t want their penis anymore (get professional psychological help), and I don’t give a damn how much these kind of surgeries cost, don’t pass the cost on to the general public in any way. There are for-profit and non-profit organizations out there that can offer assistance or completely pay for certain types of cosmetic surgeries or surgeries related to deformities.
Yes I know, I can be a real hard ass sometimes, it’s my opinion and I’m welcome to it just like everyone else.
A couple of questions and remarks:
CEES VAN BARNEVELDT wrote, “As this is an ethics blog, do you consider the choice of Bruce to transition to Caitlyn Jenner unethical? This is basically a Yes/No question. My take on this that the decision of an adult to transition is a private matter, and not unethical as this choice does not harm other people.”
Ethics has a direct correlation to morals, so yes I think it’s unethical. It’s not moral to mutilate your body because of delusional thinking and I think doctors that perform transition surgeries are doing it unethically.
CEES VAN BARNEVELDT wrote, “My take on this that the decision of an adult to transition is a private matter, and not unethical as this choice does not harm other people.”
I understand how you’ve arrived at your opinion but, to state that Jenner’s choice does not harm other people I think is not looking at the broader picture, it’s necessarily true. There’s a difference between actions directly harming others and actions indirectly harming others. The transitioning actions by famous people, like Jenner, are unethically presented by the LGBT community and their supporters as inspiring role models, they’re actions have turned them into cult’ish transition heroes. These people are being used a figure-head pawns (they know it and they’re proud of it) to inspire other mentally confused adults and youth into transitioning. Their actions are indirectly harming many people.
CEES VAN BARNEVELDT wrote, “I prefer not to call adults with gender dysphoria delusional.”
That’s your choice, I’ve chosen differently because delusional literally defines it.
CEES VAN BARNEVELDT wrote, “My preference would be to leave this diagnosis to psychiatrists.”
I’ve stated a number of times that I think that biological males and biological females that consider themselves to be transgender should seek professional help. I firmly believe that they’re trying to use a literal delusion of the mind to override biological science and ram their delusion down the throats of the world around them. It’s a good time to repost this graphic that the Gotch shared earlier.
“I’ve stated a number of times that I think that biological males and biological females that consider themselves to be transgender should seek professional help.”
I’d universalise that, but require the professional help to be at least minimally competent. Schoolteachers in general are not, unless professionally trained. Legislators, priests, witch doctors even more so. Very very few social activists are adequately trained too.
The real problem is that far too many medics know too little, though pretty much all who are ignorant at least know they are.
I recommend reading the Federalist article in its entirety.
Note how few “detransitioners” were ever actually given a formal diagnosis, how none of them went through the recommended course of treatment detailed in the WPATH Standards of Care v6, 7 or 8.
The problem here is that in the US, superstition, osteopathy and snake oil are given too much respect, and science too little. There are far too many quacksalvers in the Med Biz, most other nations don’t even consider Medicine to be primarily a Business. This leads to the wrong kind of people getting into the profession, and the many, many ethical medical practitioners getting persecuted whenever the local political climate encourages it.
No they won’t.
As the ACLU of Arkansas notes, if enacted, H.B. 1668 could lead to frivolous lawsuits against “hairdressers who cut a trans teen’s hair, teachers who use a student’s chosen name, and nonprofits that offer support.”
Not just the girl with short hair, the hairdresser who gave her a pixie cut too could be sued.
Zoe wrote,
Come on Zoe, I think you’re a whole lot more intelligent than that; you know good and well that that kind of extrapolation to complete absurdity is pure fear mongering propaganda and you just parroted it – basically twice.
Also, in your previous comment about this same topic you wrote “will be criminalized” and in this comment you wrote “could lead to frivolous lawsuits” (I highlighted the important part), there is a huge difference between those two things, the first is stating something as if it is a fact even though it’s an absurd prediction of the future, and the second is stating a mere possibility.
Now maybe you understand why I replied to that previous comment by writing “writing absurd things like that can undermine your arguments”.
Welcome back, Zoe! It’s been a while.
jvb
Good link: I Would Have Been A Trans Kid
PWS
Steve, your commentary has sparked a great dialogue. Thank you for what you wrote and your additional responses in this thread. You are quite knowledgeable on this subject and it’s been a great reading exercise for me.
Ditto. And You should visit Steve’s own blog regularly: I have been remiss in not recommending it before. (I will slao add it to the links page, not that anyone ever sees it…)
Thank you and you’re welcome.
I know this is long, but it may be worth the time for some to watch. Enjoy.