Indeed. It looks my "alt text" caption didn't go through--it's there now. I was hoping for an allusion to Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. Yellow...yellow...but yes, an excavator (I think?), not a bulldozer.
Mar 29, 2022·edited Mar 29, 2022Liked by Heather Heying
I really appreciated your discussion of this on the podcast; this post is also lovely, including the beautiful photos at the end.
Perhaps because I am a successful product of the feminist movement, I have trouble wrapping my head around trans activism. Most specifically, I harbor no judgment or prejudice toward any male or female who prefers to present to the world ambiguously or in a non-conforming way, for whatever reason. It seems like rather a setback to me that one needs to claim womanhood in order to wear makeup and high heels-- a setback both for people who argue for the rights of men to do such things, and for feminism.
A gay friend once told me he was wary of the "marriage" movement because he thought it was turning an issue most people could agree with (legal and social contracts for same-sex couples) into a deliberate act of aggression toward this particular social construct. I disagreed with him, but now think he may have been ahead of his time. The trans movement is harming the goodwill many of us have toward human beings who just want to enjoy the rights and freedoms they deserve by insisting on co-opting a prior category. This time, however, as you pointed out, they are not dealing with a social construct. They are attempting to appropriate a word that actually describes something humans didn't invent. Thank you so much for providing a biologist's perspective; it's the one I am hoping that Ketanji Brown Jackson had in mind when she deferred the question.
I, too, hope that KBJ had precisely this in mind--this simple, obvious definition of woman--when she deferred the question.
You raise a point that I had not before considered, with regard to gay marriage. So many landmines! And yet...fascinating. And yes, I absolutely (already) agree with you that the trans movement is harming the goodwill that most of us already had toward people who want to be free to live lives that are in accordance with how they feel.
I tend to try to distinguish "true trans" people from "Trans Rights Activists" here--the former specifically have very little in common with the latter, and very much wanting not just civil rights, but also privacy. But it's a tough sell, this distinction, in part because: who can cleanly judge the boundary? There are many cases that are not "edge cases," of course, but many that are, and all of the TRAs will *claim* to be in the former class; while other people, now utterly fed up, may claim that the former class doesn't exist at all.
A Twitter comment the other day noted that KBJ wholeheartedly approved of the idea of having more women on the supreme court but couldn't define woman on the spot. What would have been an ideal answer to this question?
I agree. I feel that judging others as physical humans is not right. Judging their actions is legitimate but it is an opinion. Then it’s personal. Is it right ? Is it wrong? And yes of course the category of sex is immutable. The choice to remain in that category is personal. I feel that choice should only be made at adulthood if it involves medical chemical changes. Until then the guardian can lessen social pressure by allowing a child to be what the child wants to be and explaining there will be problems. The same as short people have and disabled people and allergic people. The child hopefully will have the strength to stand against prejudice and figure out what he or she wants and go forward with bravery and grace. It’s not easy but you will be a better human for it.
I've been contemplating on the the public perception of science for some time now, and I may write about it fairly soon, but I find that there's been a capture of the language used in science by the public (most notably those within the social sciences) to misconstrue or misappropriate the language for their own narrative.
Take, for example, that we don't describe trans people with the dichotomous terminology of "sex" and "gender". In fact, there's a large paradox in the way we describe a trans person as a "Male to Female Transwoman". How is it that, even within this framework, can we conflate gender and sex and use both to define a trans person within the same phrase? At the same time we are arguing that there's a difference between sex and gender (which I absolutely agree with) we are bastardizing the terms and conflating them. In that regard I believe the term sex has been co-opted by the social scientists to describe things that were exclusively biological in nature, and by having scientists use such phrases as "male to female transwoman" we are arguing against their narrative by fighting on their territory.
COVID has shone a light on the concept of science possibly requiring their own form of language gatekeeping. We can see how the definition of vaccines have been changed to suit the needs of the medical establishment even though it runs counter to the actual, intended definition. But I'm also seeing the same thing with respect to "gain-of-function" with many arguing that gain of function research is only nefarious in intent and that it is done with the sole purpose of making a virus more deadly, which I would argue is not the case.
I would love to hear from the perspective of both you and Bret in how the science community properly addresses the co-opting going on in regards to the language of science that defends the actual intent of scientists' use of such terms with public perception and misappropriation.
There is a lot here. One of many things to say is that I haven't seen anyone argue (not to say that it hasn't happened) that gain-of-function is "only nefarious in intent," but what I do think--what both Bret and I have argued, as have others--is that it is now revealed to be a dangerous approach, used by people who do not know what they do not know.
If we are talking specifically about serial passaging here, the fact is that "we" have done it precisely because selection has more tools at its disposal, and can make changes more quickly, than people can. We are, precisely by seeking out serial passaging as a method, admitting that selection is more powerful than we are. Furthermore, we cannot control the results that we will get.
Of course this research isn't inherently nefarious--that sounds like the plot of a comic book, not of real life. But the research *is* potentially both very dangerous, and uncontrollable.
For me, I don't see evil everywhere, but I do see hubris (nearly?) everywhere, and it is the arrogance of the "scientists" and "health authorities" in charge that has, largely, gotten us into our current mess.
I've seen it in a few places which is why I was curious as to how the science community should approach the topic of science terms being adopted by the mainstream and misused. Most recently I believe Robert Barnes has mentioned on Viva Frei's Sunday podcast that gain of function refers to making viruses more transmissible and more virulent. I enjoy both Viva and Barnes but I find it a bit ironic when Viva prefaces many of the vaccine discussions with "we are not scientists/doctors" but Barnes defines what gain of function is.
I certainly fall within the same camp as both you and Bret. In fact, I think more recent evidence suggests that SARS-COV2 was an attempt to get ahead of possible future pathogens and was developed to serve as a model for a possible new pathogen. Ironically, I actually find that the quick turnaround time for these "effective" mRNA vaccines would counter the need for gain of function research. If the concern is that a virus may emerge within the near future and these so-called effective vaccines were created in such record time, can't we make a case that we have the technology to properly deal with any novel future pathogen without the need to create models that may accidentally be released?
Regardless, I definitely agree with your rationale, and as it comes to gender and the whole argument with the trans community I hope we can discuss such ideas more openly and scientifically.
I discovered them a few years back. I enjoy Viva as playing the Devil's advocate role but he's also become far less naïve and so it's been nice seeing him develop and becoming more vocal.
My sister lives in a small town in WI and a young child in her friends' school has identified as a "furry" wears cat ears and requested a litter box. I remember wanting a pony as a young child but never thought I could actually request to be one- only Tabitha on "Bewitched" could twinkle her nose for that. This nonsense must stop. What are we doing to our children? If this has reached the Midwest I truly fear we have a very big problem on our hands.
This is really silly. You are using a biologists definition of 'female' to make meaningless noise about the legal definition of 'woman.'
Are you going to use a biological definition of 'sightless' to complain about people who are 'legally blind?' Would you like to use a biologists definition of 'parent' to nullify all adoptions?
Maybe you could address further the pitfalls of societies and species adding complexity to their lives. It is the complicated disorganized mess we generate in the interest of improving our lives that is doing us in, and at times is being conveniently weaponized. Noted authors like Jared Diamond have examined the issue. The ever increasing human drive toward complexity will be our demise. Didn't Terrence McKenna make this point? Understood under the influence of psychedelics no less, which may feel spiritual and life transforming as it simplifies our perception toward oneness? True species intelligence and survival may best embrace principles of simplicity. So where it applies here is why are we making the genders, sexes so complex? On purpose? With a treacherous set of rules and a rainbow of fine grained distinctions. Is complexification a path to destruction? Who or what is driving it?
I diverse. Page 146 of “A Hunter-Gather’s Guide” you write ‘A handful of ancestors came into the new world with Stone Age technology, & invented writing, astronomy,architecture, & city states along the way, pace of change being far too rapid to be attributable to genes. It took place on the software side.’ The stones age people who populated the American continent came from N.E. Asia. We call them Indians.They drew symbolic pictures. Would one state, it was the European migrants who caused the fast paced of the cultural software? The journey to astrology to astronomy began in eastern & Western Europe.
Of the four words you use in your premise — women, adult, human and female — only 2 have biological meanings that would also apply socially, or in general conversation: human and female. Your definitions of those terms would not be objectionable at a cocktail party or in a lab. However, that is not true of your definition of adult as an individual who has “attained the average age of first reproduction for their species.” While that definition is fine for a biological discussion, I doubt that many people would consider a 13-year old boy or girl to be an “adult” as that term is used socially. And the same is true of the meaning of the word “women.” Just as the names of the different species of grasshoppers — and perhaps the too finely drawn distinctions between those species — are constructs (as you admit), the term women is also a construct. And the thing about constructs is that they can, and do, change. Just as there may be a correction to the lists and names of grasshopper species as entomologists dig deeper, we are now seeing a societal change in the meaning of “women” to encompass not just “human females” but also individuals who desire to live as females and who have taken steps to change their gender identities. And that is one way in which language evolves: terms that are constructs can change over time. What I don’t understand is why it makes a difference. You have precise biological terms — human female — that can be used to describe that group when it is biologically necessary to do so. We have another term “women” that is now taking on a broader meaning. No one is likely to mistake the use of those different terms given the context of the situations. If we want to discuss whether trans women should be permitted to use what we’ve historically designated as “Women’s” bathrooms, or participate in historically “Women’s” sports, we can, and should, have those discussions. There is no danger that conceding the meaning of women to include trans women automatically means that trans women can now do anything that human females had been permitted to do before. In fact the debates we’ve been having over these issues shows that no one is confused. So it seems to me that while you might say that trans women are not “human females”, society has now said that trans women are “women.”
"There is no danger that conceding the meaning of women to include trans women automatically means that trans women can now do anything that human females had been permitted to do before. In fact the debates we’ve been having over these issues shows that no one is confused."
No danger? No confusion? Really...?
Tell that to the girls and women who have been displaced by biological males in female sports competitions, who lost titles, medals, scholarships, etc.. Or maybe tell that to the growing numbers of detransitioners whose confusion was fostered and supported to the point of mutilating—in some cases sterilizing—their perfectly healthy bodies before gaining enough clarity to realize their mistake.
"Woman"—whether linguistically or conceptually—has been understood throughout human history to signify an adult human female. Claiming it can suddenly be expanded to include a subset of males who adopt it based on their self-perception, without upending cultural and social order, is a harmful delusion.
I disagree. "Society" hasn't decided, after thousands of years, to redefine what "women" means. A loud, bullying minority of trans activists are trying to ram their ideology into society.
This isn't a natural evolution of language. As I've heard elsewhere, this is men wanting to drape themselves in the clothing of "womanhood" and wear it like a costume.
I don’t disagree that there is a group of activists pushing for this change, but I won’t claim to know their reasons for doing so. If enough of the rest of society don’t have a problem with the change in meaning, then the new meaning will stick, whether you call that “natural” evolution or not. With respect to your comment about men wanting to drape themselves in the clothing of womanhood, how do you explain the females who want to transition to male, which appear to be the larger cohort at present? What is their motivation for wanting to be called “men?”
To be honest I think that's a related but separate issue. It's more complicated than I can give appropriate time to but personally I believe it's primarily a social issue.
Social media especially, seems almost tailor made to destroy the sanity of girls. The world was better off when the internet was "just for geeks".
I've heard the same idea (that it's primarily a social issue) from Bari Weiss, Katie Herzog and Jesse Singal, but I'm not sure if I agree. It seems too drastic a change to want to make to your physical identity to be the result of social pressure alone, without any underlying gender dysphoria to support it. But I haven't looked into the issue extensively enough to form an opinion. I do note, though, that people don't seem to be as upset about calling trans men men as they are about calling trans women women.
Trans men aren’t trying to gain access to male spaces for obvious reasons and because they’re biologically female and never the loudest voices in the TRA movement understand why there are segregated spaces based on Sex. I can tell you from personal experience I have an 18 year old daughter that after having multiple friends come out as trans or non binary that she suddenly with no previous gender dysphoria or any symptoms of even gender non conformity announces she is non binary wants to stop her period, chop off her breasts and never have children.
I am a wonderful mother and always have loved my daughters unconditionally. We parents that have our daughters announce this out of the blue know we know it is because of social contagion, a desire to withdraw from the pressure of teen girl drama, competition with looks and all the rest of puberty issues. I have practically a PhD in this subject because more than anything I see this for exactly what it is… and knowing the way adolescence brains are still developing and their absolute lack of any kind of foresight, all of it is so obvious and us adults and parents need to push back because we know our kids better than anyone. We’ve been watching them from their very first breath and all we do is love and care for them. We want them to grow up healthy with all their body parts intact and this trend is insidious and very very dangerous.
I can't help but feel this is another form of the Pied Piper dark force out there trying to tear families apart. Foment confusion, alienation and ultimately self-expression through self-mutilation or rebellion that gouges the hearts of parents.
I'm not a construction plant engineer but I'm pretty sure that's an excavator, not a bulldozer.
I'd hate to misgender the poor vehicle, though.
Indeed. It looks my "alt text" caption didn't go through--it's there now. I was hoping for an allusion to Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. Yellow...yellow...but yes, an excavator (I think?), not a bulldozer.
Eh...enough people are thrown by the wrong object there that I changed it. Ah well.
Digging and exploring a better construct to raise than steamrolling or destroying.
Ah…..the voice of informed sanity. Thank you. Shared.
I really appreciated your discussion of this on the podcast; this post is also lovely, including the beautiful photos at the end.
Perhaps because I am a successful product of the feminist movement, I have trouble wrapping my head around trans activism. Most specifically, I harbor no judgment or prejudice toward any male or female who prefers to present to the world ambiguously or in a non-conforming way, for whatever reason. It seems like rather a setback to me that one needs to claim womanhood in order to wear makeup and high heels-- a setback both for people who argue for the rights of men to do such things, and for feminism.
A gay friend once told me he was wary of the "marriage" movement because he thought it was turning an issue most people could agree with (legal and social contracts for same-sex couples) into a deliberate act of aggression toward this particular social construct. I disagreed with him, but now think he may have been ahead of his time. The trans movement is harming the goodwill many of us have toward human beings who just want to enjoy the rights and freedoms they deserve by insisting on co-opting a prior category. This time, however, as you pointed out, they are not dealing with a social construct. They are attempting to appropriate a word that actually describes something humans didn't invent. Thank you so much for providing a biologist's perspective; it's the one I am hoping that Ketanji Brown Jackson had in mind when she deferred the question.
I, too, hope that KBJ had precisely this in mind--this simple, obvious definition of woman--when she deferred the question.
You raise a point that I had not before considered, with regard to gay marriage. So many landmines! And yet...fascinating. And yes, I absolutely (already) agree with you that the trans movement is harming the goodwill that most of us already had toward people who want to be free to live lives that are in accordance with how they feel.
I tend to try to distinguish "true trans" people from "Trans Rights Activists" here--the former specifically have very little in common with the latter, and very much wanting not just civil rights, but also privacy. But it's a tough sell, this distinction, in part because: who can cleanly judge the boundary? There are many cases that are not "edge cases," of course, but many that are, and all of the TRAs will *claim* to be in the former class; while other people, now utterly fed up, may claim that the former class doesn't exist at all.
A Twitter comment the other day noted that KBJ wholeheartedly approved of the idea of having more women on the supreme court but couldn't define woman on the spot. What would have been an ideal answer to this question?
I agree. I feel that judging others as physical humans is not right. Judging their actions is legitimate but it is an opinion. Then it’s personal. Is it right ? Is it wrong? And yes of course the category of sex is immutable. The choice to remain in that category is personal. I feel that choice should only be made at adulthood if it involves medical chemical changes. Until then the guardian can lessen social pressure by allowing a child to be what the child wants to be and explaining there will be problems. The same as short people have and disabled people and allergic people. The child hopefully will have the strength to stand against prejudice and figure out what he or she wants and go forward with bravery and grace. It’s not easy but you will be a better human for it.
The headline and subhead alone are worth the price of admission!! Thank you for the laugh, the clarity and the reality.
So logically laid out! Thank you! Will be sharing this as this topic comes up, which UGGH! it keeps doing.
I've been contemplating on the the public perception of science for some time now, and I may write about it fairly soon, but I find that there's been a capture of the language used in science by the public (most notably those within the social sciences) to misconstrue or misappropriate the language for their own narrative.
Take, for example, that we don't describe trans people with the dichotomous terminology of "sex" and "gender". In fact, there's a large paradox in the way we describe a trans person as a "Male to Female Transwoman". How is it that, even within this framework, can we conflate gender and sex and use both to define a trans person within the same phrase? At the same time we are arguing that there's a difference between sex and gender (which I absolutely agree with) we are bastardizing the terms and conflating them. In that regard I believe the term sex has been co-opted by the social scientists to describe things that were exclusively biological in nature, and by having scientists use such phrases as "male to female transwoman" we are arguing against their narrative by fighting on their territory.
COVID has shone a light on the concept of science possibly requiring their own form of language gatekeeping. We can see how the definition of vaccines have been changed to suit the needs of the medical establishment even though it runs counter to the actual, intended definition. But I'm also seeing the same thing with respect to "gain-of-function" with many arguing that gain of function research is only nefarious in intent and that it is done with the sole purpose of making a virus more deadly, which I would argue is not the case.
I would love to hear from the perspective of both you and Bret in how the science community properly addresses the co-opting going on in regards to the language of science that defends the actual intent of scientists' use of such terms with public perception and misappropriation.
There is a lot here. One of many things to say is that I haven't seen anyone argue (not to say that it hasn't happened) that gain-of-function is "only nefarious in intent," but what I do think--what both Bret and I have argued, as have others--is that it is now revealed to be a dangerous approach, used by people who do not know what they do not know.
If we are talking specifically about serial passaging here, the fact is that "we" have done it precisely because selection has more tools at its disposal, and can make changes more quickly, than people can. We are, precisely by seeking out serial passaging as a method, admitting that selection is more powerful than we are. Furthermore, we cannot control the results that we will get.
Of course this research isn't inherently nefarious--that sounds like the plot of a comic book, not of real life. But the research *is* potentially both very dangerous, and uncontrollable.
For me, I don't see evil everywhere, but I do see hubris (nearly?) everywhere, and it is the arrogance of the "scientists" and "health authorities" in charge that has, largely, gotten us into our current mess.
I've seen it in a few places which is why I was curious as to how the science community should approach the topic of science terms being adopted by the mainstream and misused. Most recently I believe Robert Barnes has mentioned on Viva Frei's Sunday podcast that gain of function refers to making viruses more transmissible and more virulent. I enjoy both Viva and Barnes but I find it a bit ironic when Viva prefaces many of the vaccine discussions with "we are not scientists/doctors" but Barnes defines what gain of function is.
I certainly fall within the same camp as both you and Bret. In fact, I think more recent evidence suggests that SARS-COV2 was an attempt to get ahead of possible future pathogens and was developed to serve as a model for a possible new pathogen. Ironically, I actually find that the quick turnaround time for these "effective" mRNA vaccines would counter the need for gain of function research. If the concern is that a virus may emerge within the near future and these so-called effective vaccines were created in such record time, can't we make a case that we have the technology to properly deal with any novel future pathogen without the need to create models that may accidentally be released?
Regardless, I definitely agree with your rationale, and as it comes to gender and the whole argument with the trans community I hope we can discuss such ideas more openly and scientifically.
Viva Frei and Robert Barnes are delightful. A discovery that wouldn't have been made without the Truckers Convoy in Canada!
I discovered them a few years back. I enjoy Viva as playing the Devil's advocate role but he's also become far less naïve and so it's been nice seeing him develop and becoming more vocal.
It seems obvious to me, but then again I identify as not needing a biologist to define a female for me.
Love that glamour shot in the montage. From the 90's? Loved that time of my life and how we looked and felt.
My sister lives in a small town in WI and a young child in her friends' school has identified as a "furry" wears cat ears and requested a litter box. I remember wanting a pony as a young child but never thought I could actually request to be one- only Tabitha on "Bewitched" could twinkle her nose for that. This nonsense must stop. What are we doing to our children? If this has reached the Midwest I truly fear we have a very big problem on our hands.
This is really silly. You are using a biologists definition of 'female' to make meaningless noise about the legal definition of 'woman.'
Are you going to use a biological definition of 'sightless' to complain about people who are 'legally blind?' Would you like to use a biologists definition of 'parent' to nullify all adoptions?
Howard Writing Dangerous Arguments.
Maybe you could address further the pitfalls of societies and species adding complexity to their lives. It is the complicated disorganized mess we generate in the interest of improving our lives that is doing us in, and at times is being conveniently weaponized. Noted authors like Jared Diamond have examined the issue. The ever increasing human drive toward complexity will be our demise. Didn't Terrence McKenna make this point? Understood under the influence of psychedelics no less, which may feel spiritual and life transforming as it simplifies our perception toward oneness? True species intelligence and survival may best embrace principles of simplicity. So where it applies here is why are we making the genders, sexes so complex? On purpose? With a treacherous set of rules and a rainbow of fine grained distinctions. Is complexification a path to destruction? Who or what is driving it?
I diverse. Page 146 of “A Hunter-Gather’s Guide” you write ‘A handful of ancestors came into the new world with Stone Age technology, & invented writing, astronomy,architecture, & city states along the way, pace of change being far too rapid to be attributable to genes. It took place on the software side.’ The stones age people who populated the American continent came from N.E. Asia. We call them Indians.They drew symbolic pictures. Would one state, it was the European migrants who caused the fast paced of the cultural software? The journey to astrology to astronomy began in eastern & Western Europe.
Thank you Heather, a wonderful and lucid description of a woman:)
Of the four words you use in your premise — women, adult, human and female — only 2 have biological meanings that would also apply socially, or in general conversation: human and female. Your definitions of those terms would not be objectionable at a cocktail party or in a lab. However, that is not true of your definition of adult as an individual who has “attained the average age of first reproduction for their species.” While that definition is fine for a biological discussion, I doubt that many people would consider a 13-year old boy or girl to be an “adult” as that term is used socially. And the same is true of the meaning of the word “women.” Just as the names of the different species of grasshoppers — and perhaps the too finely drawn distinctions between those species — are constructs (as you admit), the term women is also a construct. And the thing about constructs is that they can, and do, change. Just as there may be a correction to the lists and names of grasshopper species as entomologists dig deeper, we are now seeing a societal change in the meaning of “women” to encompass not just “human females” but also individuals who desire to live as females and who have taken steps to change their gender identities. And that is one way in which language evolves: terms that are constructs can change over time. What I don’t understand is why it makes a difference. You have precise biological terms — human female — that can be used to describe that group when it is biologically necessary to do so. We have another term “women” that is now taking on a broader meaning. No one is likely to mistake the use of those different terms given the context of the situations. If we want to discuss whether trans women should be permitted to use what we’ve historically designated as “Women’s” bathrooms, or participate in historically “Women’s” sports, we can, and should, have those discussions. There is no danger that conceding the meaning of women to include trans women automatically means that trans women can now do anything that human females had been permitted to do before. In fact the debates we’ve been having over these issues shows that no one is confused. So it seems to me that while you might say that trans women are not “human females”, society has now said that trans women are “women.”
"There is no danger that conceding the meaning of women to include trans women automatically means that trans women can now do anything that human females had been permitted to do before. In fact the debates we’ve been having over these issues shows that no one is confused."
No danger? No confusion? Really...?
Tell that to the girls and women who have been displaced by biological males in female sports competitions, who lost titles, medals, scholarships, etc.. Or maybe tell that to the growing numbers of detransitioners whose confusion was fostered and supported to the point of mutilating—in some cases sterilizing—their perfectly healthy bodies before gaining enough clarity to realize their mistake.
"Woman"—whether linguistically or conceptually—has been understood throughout human history to signify an adult human female. Claiming it can suddenly be expanded to include a subset of males who adopt it based on their self-perception, without upending cultural and social order, is a harmful delusion.
I disagree. "Society" hasn't decided, after thousands of years, to redefine what "women" means. A loud, bullying minority of trans activists are trying to ram their ideology into society.
This isn't a natural evolution of language. As I've heard elsewhere, this is men wanting to drape themselves in the clothing of "womanhood" and wear it like a costume.
I don’t disagree that there is a group of activists pushing for this change, but I won’t claim to know their reasons for doing so. If enough of the rest of society don’t have a problem with the change in meaning, then the new meaning will stick, whether you call that “natural” evolution or not. With respect to your comment about men wanting to drape themselves in the clothing of womanhood, how do you explain the females who want to transition to male, which appear to be the larger cohort at present? What is their motivation for wanting to be called “men?”
To be honest I think that's a related but separate issue. It's more complicated than I can give appropriate time to but personally I believe it's primarily a social issue.
Social media especially, seems almost tailor made to destroy the sanity of girls. The world was better off when the internet was "just for geeks".
I've heard the same idea (that it's primarily a social issue) from Bari Weiss, Katie Herzog and Jesse Singal, but I'm not sure if I agree. It seems too drastic a change to want to make to your physical identity to be the result of social pressure alone, without any underlying gender dysphoria to support it. But I haven't looked into the issue extensively enough to form an opinion. I do note, though, that people don't seem to be as upset about calling trans men men as they are about calling trans women women.
Trans men aren’t trying to gain access to male spaces for obvious reasons and because they’re biologically female and never the loudest voices in the TRA movement understand why there are segregated spaces based on Sex. I can tell you from personal experience I have an 18 year old daughter that after having multiple friends come out as trans or non binary that she suddenly with no previous gender dysphoria or any symptoms of even gender non conformity announces she is non binary wants to stop her period, chop off her breasts and never have children.
I am a wonderful mother and always have loved my daughters unconditionally. We parents that have our daughters announce this out of the blue know we know it is because of social contagion, a desire to withdraw from the pressure of teen girl drama, competition with looks and all the rest of puberty issues. I have practically a PhD in this subject because more than anything I see this for exactly what it is… and knowing the way adolescence brains are still developing and their absolute lack of any kind of foresight, all of it is so obvious and us adults and parents need to push back because we know our kids better than anyone. We’ve been watching them from their very first breath and all we do is love and care for them. We want them to grow up healthy with all their body parts intact and this trend is insidious and very very dangerous.
I can't help but feel this is another form of the Pied Piper dark force out there trying to tear families apart. Foment confusion, alienation and ultimately self-expression through self-mutilation or rebellion that gouges the hearts of parents.