“Actually trans” is equivalent to “actually anorexic” It is as if the medical community is enthusiastically affirming the anorexic’s “fatness” and prescribing iatrogenic weight loss interventions, including surgery. It’s complete madness.
As much as I like Andrew Sullivan, he frequently misses the mark on women’s issues. What appeared to take him over the edge was the transitioned children never being able to achieve orgasm. As important as that is, as a mother it’s secondary to keeping a child’s body whole and fertility intact until their brains have fully matured. Trans is something a person does, not something a person is.
Thanks for this. I have a loved one who is a gay man. When we was young he was effeminate and we knew before he did that he was gay. He also wanted to make his external genitalia go away to which his family replied,"No, you're made exactly the way you're meant to be." I shudder to think what would have happened had he been born 15 years later in, say, California. His parents might have lost custody of him. Two questions: One, what is the reason this is being pushed as a political agenda? Why? Two, why does Sullivan think the only loss to children is an orgasm? Healthy sexual function includes more than just orgasm: the ability to reproduce, genitals that can properly eliminate urine, freedom from a lifetime of pharmaceuticals, ability to nurse a child, painful hourly expanding of a fake vagina etc... He's got only a tiny part of the picture.
Good read. What Sullivan doesn't get could fill a great lake. He used to be decent, but has gone, oh I don't where, but off the rails for sure.
Interesting title for a Substack. I'm glad to see there are rational democrats on this subject. It's a shame, a crime really, that not one single elected democrat, anywhere, has the, er, balls to call out this trans madness. If anybody can point to one--just one--I'm happy to stand corrected.
Thanks. We're a nonprofit organization of longtime Democrats and liberals striving to expose the nonsense and shift the narrative. There are a LOT of us out here. You're welcome to join us at www.di-ag.org :)
Sullivan is relatively new to the issue I think. I listened to a podcast with him a couple of years ago. He was very dismissive of ‘women’s spaces’ but his ears pricked up when he realized gay kids are being harmed. I think like a lot of people who weren’t peaked at birth or didn’t know the extent of the harm, he doesn’t want to let go of the idea that trans is a real thing (it isn’t!) for some people, including some children.
"The suggestion that a “trans child” is anything but a construction is a serious problem." Precisely. "Transgender" is akin to "anorexic." These are "real but not true" body dysphorias. As KB77 (fellow commentor) notes, validating "gender dysphoria" is as idiotic and delusional as validating an anorectic's view of herself. Agreed this is simply madness, a catch-all "diagnosis" -- uniquely susceptible to social contagion in large part because it IS being validated, and confers special status -- that functions as an "aha!" answer to multiple mental/emotional health issues. It's no coincidence that this "answer" makes huge and in some instances lifelong profits for the gender industry.
Andrew is a gay man, and he is unable/unwilling to see Gender Ideology as being harmful to women. His objections exist solely in the realm of the medicalized treatment of minors, with his most serious concern related to the impact of these treatments on orgasmic potential. He IS correct that “Gender-affirming” care of children is the medical scandal of our generation. But this ideology also harms women, through all the pathways well known to this Substack’s readers. This harm, his refusal to listen to the concerns of women and believe that they are true, irritates me to no end. I believe that he actually does think that there are “true trans” - he has said as much in some of his podcasts - his argument goes along the lines of “the human brain, mystery mystery, who can say”. Really “getting this” requires that he sees women as people, with the right to define our own category and maintain sex-based boundaries. That isn’t going to happen because he holds firm to his male-centric POV.
It is true what you say about Andrew Sullivan, but it should be noted that he is of the "old school" gay men....the ones who fought the system during the AIDS epidemic. That cohort of gay men didn't get along well with lesbians until they needed to be taken care of in their final days (AIDS)....and it was the lesbians tending to the sick/dying. In any case, he may be incorrect with his wording (trans kids), but he is correct in his theory....and for that his essay will reach a greater audience (for the good) because people will be familiar with the phrase "trans kid" and what it involves. I read his scathing article/essay as a "win" for ALL kids.
No one's "actually trans," when you get right down to it. They can offer up all the arguments and excuses they want, but either they think they're trans because brain in the wrong body or they think they're trans because prefers the stereotypes attached to the opposite sex, and neither is actually trans: one's a delusion, the other is just pure-D sexist bullshit. Neither should hold legal status equivalent to sex class (woman or man).
YES YES YES to all of this! I scream into the large, dark, cultish ideological void when I hear someone ALMOST get it right and then say the infuriating, "Well, of course some kids...." NO NO NO. Listen to Helen Joyce educate Peter Boghossian on this very subject: https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=ZG9_lcln7FU
It takes time and exposure to recognize the full depths of the gender madness. There will be no shortcuts. It is only step by painful step, that we will get there. Sullivan’s call for Levine’s resignation is one such step.
I’m not entirely sure Sullivan’s “actually trans” really means he believes children can be trans. He’s definitely being imprecise here—but what he might mean is that children, by definition, cannot know whether they are “actually trans.” Whether or not he thinks of “trans” as a pathology, even when expressed by adults, is another question. But IF he means that there is such a thing as a trans child, that’s an issue.
But even if he means that, he clearly does not think that medical interventions are acceptable for treating them.
are medical interventions acceptable to anyone wallowing in self-hatred, a false delusion or a sexual fetish. However this obsession manifests, stunted growth, opposite sex hormones and surgeries on healthy people should be abolished. these are crimes against humanity.
This argument also works well against 99% of elective cosmetic surgery, right? Is there a legal distinction you wish to draw between the woman who gets breast implants to conform to what she thinks men expect of her, and the man who gets breast implants to make himself into a version of the type of woman he most desires?
Then there are the body modification fans who get horns implanted into their foreheads, or those who’d rather have liposuction and tummy tucks every so often than accept that they are not going to have perfect abs and a flat stomach.
Elective, non-necessary cosmetic surgeries are big business even without trans—and though I think that most of these surgeries are unnecessary, and motivated by unrealistic body ideals leading to self-hatred, no one has been protesting elective cosmetic surgeries even if we feel those who get them are sad individuals.
The thing to do is to make it clear that gender reassignment surgery IS cosmetic surgery. This becomes even more apparent when reviewing recent recommendations for vaginoplasty, which suggest making “vulvaplasty” instead—that is, the appearance of a vagina that has absolutely no depth (it’s non-functional for sexual purposes but looks realistic).
If we understood that these surgeries are MERELY COSMETIC, and have an exceedingly high rate of complications, I feel parents would not be standing in line to mutilate their children. But on the other hand, if you’re an adult male and want to pay a surgeon to give you a vulvaplasty, I don’t see any distinction between that and other kinds of cosmetic surgery we routinely shrug our shoulders at and say “that’s not my thing, but…. You do you….”
Yes exactly. The original purpose of the "Dutch Study" on children was to create, in the end, transwomen who could "pass." Going through male puberty pretty much stops anyone from passing. Therefore, they must find the trans people while still children in order to prevent that pesky puberty!
Johns Hopkins shut down their sex change (I like to call a spade a spade) services in the late 20th century because they did not see positive long term outcomes. Follow up does not seem to be as common as it used to be but signs are pointing to a repeat of history.
I agree that transgenderism is a meaningless concept, and that it should never be applied to children, a view being increasingly adopted throughout the world. I do think that there will always be adults who want to f-up their bodies for cosmetic, spiritual, or emotional reasons, which cannot be verified objectively by outside observers. We will see if that examination will be applied to adult sex change services. Countries with government health care will have more incentive to analyze the efficacy as there are only so many funds to go around. In the US, it's a profit machine for "care" givers.
> "Johns Hopkins shut down their sex change (I like to call a spade a spade) services ..."
If you want to do that -- calling a spade a spade -- then I think you should at least put "sex change" in big 24 pt. neon-coloured quotes. Absolutely no one changes sex -- at least no human will ever do so, although clownfish and several hundred other species are capable of it.
Something that evolutionary biologist Colin Wright once underlined even if he's a bit clueless about the actual biological definitions for the sexes:
Wright: "What if I woke up and my reproductive anatomy had somehow inexplicably changed from a functional penis and testes to a functional vagina and ovaries? Would I cease to be male? 100% YES! I would absolutely now be a female."
Though technically speaking, according to standard biological definitions, people have to have functional testes or ovaries to qualify for membership cards in the categories "male" and "female". See:
“Actually trans” is equivalent to “actually anorexic” It is as if the medical community is enthusiastically affirming the anorexic’s “fatness” and prescribing iatrogenic weight loss interventions, including surgery. It’s complete madness.
Ok that hit me in the gut. I have long thought about the anorexia analogy, but never thought of it quite like this.
As much as I like Andrew Sullivan, he frequently misses the mark on women’s issues. What appeared to take him over the edge was the transitioned children never being able to achieve orgasm. As important as that is, as a mother it’s secondary to keeping a child’s body whole and fertility intact until their brains have fully matured. Trans is something a person does, not something a person is.
Yes, he’s still missing the mark. Odd set of priorities.
when does a brain actually fully develop. One can be caught in a delusion at any age.
Trans is a fiction, promoted by the pharmaceutical companies and the medical industrial complex. It is a money maker.
Ellie, you nailed it. Failing to hold the line on the false notion of a "trans child" provides a wide-open avenue for harming kids.
Thanks for this. I have a loved one who is a gay man. When we was young he was effeminate and we knew before he did that he was gay. He also wanted to make his external genitalia go away to which his family replied,"No, you're made exactly the way you're meant to be." I shudder to think what would have happened had he been born 15 years later in, say, California. His parents might have lost custody of him. Two questions: One, what is the reason this is being pushed as a political agenda? Why? Two, why does Sullivan think the only loss to children is an orgasm? Healthy sexual function includes more than just orgasm: the ability to reproduce, genitals that can properly eliminate urine, freedom from a lifetime of pharmaceuticals, ability to nurse a child, painful hourly expanding of a fake vagina etc... He's got only a tiny part of the picture.
*cheers from the rooftops
Love, love your emoji. Perfect TERF definition!!
Good read. What Sullivan doesn't get could fill a great lake. He used to be decent, but has gone, oh I don't where, but off the rails for sure.
Interesting title for a Substack. I'm glad to see there are rational democrats on this subject. It's a shame, a crime really, that not one single elected democrat, anywhere, has the, er, balls to call out this trans madness. If anybody can point to one--just one--I'm happy to stand corrected.
Thanks. We're a nonprofit organization of longtime Democrats and liberals striving to expose the nonsense and shift the narrative. There are a LOT of us out here. You're welcome to join us at www.di-ag.org :)
I’m already doing plenty, trust me.
Thanks for putting a finger on it!!
Sullivan is relatively new to the issue I think. I listened to a podcast with him a couple of years ago. He was very dismissive of ‘women’s spaces’ but his ears pricked up when he realized gay kids are being harmed. I think like a lot of people who weren’t peaked at birth or didn’t know the extent of the harm, he doesn’t want to let go of the idea that trans is a real thing (it isn’t!) for some people, including some children.
Good clear observation.
Six easy points:
Trans is a delusion.
All clinical checklists for delusion are met by trans.
All medical help for delusion never affirms.
Medicine itself states affirmation is harmful.
Data on affirmation harm in delusions is widespread.
Medicine only needs to follow medical practice.
"The suggestion that a “trans child” is anything but a construction is a serious problem." Precisely. "Transgender" is akin to "anorexic." These are "real but not true" body dysphorias. As KB77 (fellow commentor) notes, validating "gender dysphoria" is as idiotic and delusional as validating an anorectic's view of herself. Agreed this is simply madness, a catch-all "diagnosis" -- uniquely susceptible to social contagion in large part because it IS being validated, and confers special status -- that functions as an "aha!" answer to multiple mental/emotional health issues. It's no coincidence that this "answer" makes huge and in some instances lifelong profits for the gender industry.
Words matter. Language matters.
Yes, transgender is one thing: a word.
Yes! That's all it is.
Andrew is a gay man, and he is unable/unwilling to see Gender Ideology as being harmful to women. His objections exist solely in the realm of the medicalized treatment of minors, with his most serious concern related to the impact of these treatments on orgasmic potential. He IS correct that “Gender-affirming” care of children is the medical scandal of our generation. But this ideology also harms women, through all the pathways well known to this Substack’s readers. This harm, his refusal to listen to the concerns of women and believe that they are true, irritates me to no end. I believe that he actually does think that there are “true trans” - he has said as much in some of his podcasts - his argument goes along the lines of “the human brain, mystery mystery, who can say”. Really “getting this” requires that he sees women as people, with the right to define our own category and maintain sex-based boundaries. That isn’t going to happen because he holds firm to his male-centric POV.
It is true what you say about Andrew Sullivan, but it should be noted that he is of the "old school" gay men....the ones who fought the system during the AIDS epidemic. That cohort of gay men didn't get along well with lesbians until they needed to be taken care of in their final days (AIDS)....and it was the lesbians tending to the sick/dying. In any case, he may be incorrect with his wording (trans kids), but he is correct in his theory....and for that his essay will reach a greater audience (for the good) because people will be familiar with the phrase "trans kid" and what it involves. I read his scathing article/essay as a "win" for ALL kids.
Thanks for articulating this for me. I couldn’t pin it down. I pick up the undercurrent of dismissal of women too
Very well said. Sullivan's misogyny is thinly veiled.
No one's "actually trans," when you get right down to it. They can offer up all the arguments and excuses they want, but either they think they're trans because brain in the wrong body or they think they're trans because prefers the stereotypes attached to the opposite sex, and neither is actually trans: one's a delusion, the other is just pure-D sexist bullshit. Neither should hold legal status equivalent to sex class (woman or man).
YES YES YES to all of this! I scream into the large, dark, cultish ideological void when I hear someone ALMOST get it right and then say the infuriating, "Well, of course some kids...." NO NO NO. Listen to Helen Joyce educate Peter Boghossian on this very subject: https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=ZG9_lcln7FU
It takes time and exposure to recognize the full depths of the gender madness. There will be no shortcuts. It is only step by painful step, that we will get there. Sullivan’s call for Levine’s resignation is one such step.
I’m not entirely sure Sullivan’s “actually trans” really means he believes children can be trans. He’s definitely being imprecise here—but what he might mean is that children, by definition, cannot know whether they are “actually trans.” Whether or not he thinks of “trans” as a pathology, even when expressed by adults, is another question. But IF he means that there is such a thing as a trans child, that’s an issue.
But even if he means that, he clearly does not think that medical interventions are acceptable for treating them.
are medical interventions acceptable to anyone wallowing in self-hatred, a false delusion or a sexual fetish. However this obsession manifests, stunted growth, opposite sex hormones and surgeries on healthy people should be abolished. these are crimes against humanity.
This argument also works well against 99% of elective cosmetic surgery, right? Is there a legal distinction you wish to draw between the woman who gets breast implants to conform to what she thinks men expect of her, and the man who gets breast implants to make himself into a version of the type of woman he most desires?
Then there are the body modification fans who get horns implanted into their foreheads, or those who’d rather have liposuction and tummy tucks every so often than accept that they are not going to have perfect abs and a flat stomach.
Elective, non-necessary cosmetic surgeries are big business even without trans—and though I think that most of these surgeries are unnecessary, and motivated by unrealistic body ideals leading to self-hatred, no one has been protesting elective cosmetic surgeries even if we feel those who get them are sad individuals.
The thing to do is to make it clear that gender reassignment surgery IS cosmetic surgery. This becomes even more apparent when reviewing recent recommendations for vaginoplasty, which suggest making “vulvaplasty” instead—that is, the appearance of a vagina that has absolutely no depth (it’s non-functional for sexual purposes but looks realistic).
If we understood that these surgeries are MERELY COSMETIC, and have an exceedingly high rate of complications, I feel parents would not be standing in line to mutilate their children. But on the other hand, if you’re an adult male and want to pay a surgeon to give you a vulvaplasty, I don’t see any distinction between that and other kinds of cosmetic surgery we routinely shrug our shoulders at and say “that’s not my thing, but…. You do you….”
Yes exactly. The original purpose of the "Dutch Study" on children was to create, in the end, transwomen who could "pass." Going through male puberty pretty much stops anyone from passing. Therefore, they must find the trans people while still children in order to prevent that pesky puberty!
Johns Hopkins shut down their sex change (I like to call a spade a spade) services in the late 20th century because they did not see positive long term outcomes. Follow up does not seem to be as common as it used to be but signs are pointing to a repeat of history.
I agree that transgenderism is a meaningless concept, and that it should never be applied to children, a view being increasingly adopted throughout the world. I do think that there will always be adults who want to f-up their bodies for cosmetic, spiritual, or emotional reasons, which cannot be verified objectively by outside observers. We will see if that examination will be applied to adult sex change services. Countries with government health care will have more incentive to analyze the efficacy as there are only so many funds to go around. In the US, it's a profit machine for "care" givers.
> "Johns Hopkins shut down their sex change (I like to call a spade a spade) services ..."
If you want to do that -- calling a spade a spade -- then I think you should at least put "sex change" in big 24 pt. neon-coloured quotes. Absolutely no one changes sex -- at least no human will ever do so, although clownfish and several hundred other species are capable of it.
Something that evolutionary biologist Colin Wright once underlined even if he's a bit clueless about the actual biological definitions for the sexes:
Wright: "What if I woke up and my reproductive anatomy had somehow inexplicably changed from a functional penis and testes to a functional vagina and ovaries? Would I cease to be male? 100% YES! I would absolutely now be a female."
https://x.com/SwipeWright/status/1240781010800979968
Though technically speaking, according to standard biological definitions, people have to have functional testes or ovaries to qualify for membership cards in the categories "male" and "female". See:
https://academic.oup.com/molehr/article/20/12/1161/1062990 (see the Glossary)
https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-3-319-16999-6_3063-1
https://twitter.com/pwkilleen/status/1039879009407037441 (Oxford Dictionary of Biology)
From the first of those links, the Journal of Molecular Human Reproduction:
"Female: Biologically, the female sex is defined as the adult phenotype that produces the larger gametes in anisogamous systems.
Male: Biologically, the male sex is defined as the adult phenotype that produces the smaller gametes in anisogamous systems."