Wyatt was repeating cult jargon about "trans women are women." He also presented himself as entitled to tell a woman why women are not entitled to exclude men from girls' and women's spaces. This is aggressive misogyny. Wyatt also refers to people he knows who apparently claim to be "trans" and want to be left alone, as if "trans" is both real and has a clear definition when it in fact does not.
This young man asserts that people who claim to “identify as” the opposite sex can “transcend biology.” I’d be curious to know what other biological facts of mammalian existence he believes can be “transcended.” Urination? Breathing? Eating? The dependency of eyesight on light receptors in the retina? Saliva? Stomach acid? It boggles the mind that the mammalian sex system alone, of all our biology, is an opt-in/ opt-out fantasy.
I wonder if this young man is interested in dating or having a relationship with a 'transwoman'? So many are (as the saying goes) trans rights activists in the streets and TERFs in the sheets.
He’s being honest — he’s a true believer in gender identity ideology, even if he doesn’t realize that’s what it is. I see the same thing among many of the moms in my circle. They genuinely believe some people are born with the “brains” or “souls” of the opposite sex, and it makes perfect sense to them. Trying to talk about it feels like reasoning with a self-righteous fundamentalist or evangelical Christian — they don’t believe in God or Christ; they know. It’s an inner certainty. That’s why, to me, it’s up to governments and other institutions of authority to recognize and properly classify this as a belief system.
Yes, exactly — that’s such a good way to put it. It really does mirror a kind of faith, just without recognizing itself as one. The belief feels rational because it borrows the language of science, but the conviction underneath it — that people know their “inner gender” — is pure certainty, almost like revelation. They don’t see it as belief; they see it as truth. That’s what makes it so hard to challenge — you sound like a crazy person to them just for asking questions, or a bigot if you don’t agree.
The difference is, in religion we’ve learned to acknowledge that beliefs are beliefs — which is why the separation of church and state exists. But with gender ideology, we don’t have that separation. It’s the opposite: the belief has become embedded in institutions as if it were objective truth.
What I find very weird and not normal is how many educated reasonable liberal and left leaning people now talk about children "being born in the wrong body," as if that concept had always been part of everyones' cultural understanding. And when challenged about the strange aspects of their belief and the sudden normalization of it by educated people, the believers have strong negative reactions and seem shocked that someone might not believe or confess belief in the "wrong body" dogma, whatever it means. Then they reassert their belief, usually justifying it by referring to somebody they know who is an example of a person who was born in the wrong body and who is allegedly "trans."
I completely agree that this is a kind of religious thinking, about soul-like beings that have a sex and are completely at odds with the bodies "in which" they live, but that is wonderful because they will emerge from their previous form in transformed radiance and persistent joy. But usually when people suddenly convert to some new crackpot religion they want to tell other people about their conversion experience, and they are certainly aware that they didn't always think how they do since that experience. And they know that other people know that they used to not talk about people being born in the wrong bodies. Those levels of awareness seem to not exist for the gender preachers. The gender preachers appear to be entranced, determined to repeat mantras that really make no sense, and they do not seem to know that this has happened to them within a short period of time. It's so weird to be on the outside of this mass madness and not be a part of it.
Trans allies and activists don’t even realize it’s a belief about gender they hold. It’s just fact. And they might not even realize they are activists. They just think they are good people doing what’s right. Exactly like you noticed — there’s no moment of “I’ve discovered something new,” no personal awakening story. And I know that because… that was me.
I didn’t suddenly convert into some new ideology — I just slid into it without noticing. My whole life I’d already supported lesbian rights. Gay rights too, but especially lesbian rights, because that was the feminism I grew up with through my mom. And I’ve always been really sensitive to racism. A lot of my childhood was in a very rural place where racism and homophobia were just… normal. I saw it all the time. And as an extra-sensitive, stand-up-for-the-underdog type of kid, all that bigotry really stuck with me. By my teens I was outspoken about it — lost friends, even. But I felt good about being that kind of person. And for the record, that’s still me…except I know more now. I’m wiser.
And then there was performing arts and drama. I was big into theatre — improv, lip syncing, all of it. I had a few friends who called themselves transsexual back then. Two were very effeminate gay men, and one was a very butch lesbian. They transitioned socially, but they weren’t policing language or forcing their way into opposite-sex spaces. The “trans women” changed with the men backstage. They just wanted to be called their chosen names — and sometimes “sister, girl, or she” in a playful, casual way between friends — and left alone about it. That was it.
So I was already an ally. Supporting them was just basic decency. I saw firsthand what homophobia did to people, so of course I wanted to be on the side of kindness. I honestly thought “trans rights are human rights” was simply the next step after gay rights. I genuinely just assumed the science had discovered a “trans brain,” and that “trans kids” were a real biological category. I thought the increase in visibility was because more people were learning, or because the internet had made homophobia worse or something.
I didn’t question any of it. I took all of it on faith — without realizing it was faith.
It wasn’t until I started being personally affected by the removal of single-sex spaces and groups — (which is a whole separate post) and seeing the absolute abuse women were facing — that I woke up. Watching how quickly women and girls were socially ostracized for literally just describing reality, like “that male who goes by a female name,” was shocking. The sheer vitriol coming from people I thought were on my side made alarm bells go off. And seeing in my community how many teens were suddenly trans and non-binary, talking about it on the bus. It was an obvious fad like punk rock was. Something was wrong here, and it wasn’t coming from the outside — it was inside the movement.
So, like I had always done as an LGBT ally and a feminist, I started listening to the women who nobody would listen to. Especially the lesbian women losing their jobs and being cancelled for saying what was true. And the mothers whose daughters were suddenly saying they were boys. That’s when I really woke up.
But I had to trust my gut. I had to tune in to the people being harmed. And once I found the stories of detransitioners, that settled it for me. The real-world harm I had only been suspicious of was actually happening.
I don’t want to go on forever and ever here.
But I don’t judge people for believing in trans or gender identity ideology because I did too. Full on.
But why do the people STILL believe in this, even after everything they could have observed, like you did? I was admittedly late to the gender critical party, probably even later than you (my preoccupation with the harms of the Covid response distracted me for years), and never thought much about it. I also had this vague notion that trans was similar to being gay. My first brush with transgenderism was seeing our neighbor's son at a party in 2019 or early 2020, wearing women's clothing, and thinking he must be gay. If only! I learned shortly after, when he had gone on estrogen, that he was "non-binary" and we were supposed to refer to him as "she". I still didn't think much of it, although I was vaguely aware of the problems as I had read Jesse Singal's 2018 Atlantic piece. Then in 2023 there was Jamie Reed's article, and I also listened to the podcast about the "Witch Trials of JK Rowling". After that, I read Helen Joyce's book, and from there immersed myself fully in the gender critical world, which led to my finding out that I had a high-risk son (gender nonconforming, autistic, probably gay).
I'm not sure under how much of a rock one has to live to still be an uncritical ally. I sometimes wonder if people just don't want to look too closely because they want to keep believing that they are supporting a good cause. They don't fully understand this issue, but fear that questioning it would be unkind. The narrative that trans is the new gay has been awfully effective in shutting down any critical thinking.
media guidelines prevent most media outlets from publishing articles that show two sides of this story. millions have come to believe that dysphoric kids commit suicide more than other kids (totally untrue) or that gender meds help some kids (again another lie). these claims are based on activists meaningless online polls and other activist claims media published without the slightest checks.
a year or two ago a girl named nex (daphney) benedict died by suicide. she IDd as non binary and had a flight at school a few days prior. politicians and media went ga ga proclaiming her death was an example of trans harassment, even tho it was reported at the time that Daphne started the fight and it was a pretty minor fight. any kf these news outlets could have easily found out Daphne was raped repeatedly by her father when she was 9. he had been in prison for years for it and was let out and a 13 days before Daphnie commited suidid he failed to register as a sex offender and there was probably a lot of family drama since that led to him being re arrested
Thank you for sharing so much of your story here, you have helped me to understand better how someone could convert gradually, without noticing that anything untoward is happening.
It's an inner certainty that they believe to be perfectly rational. That's what makes it different from a religion, where people are aware it is a belief. They think there is evidence behind the claim that some, whom they call "trans people", have a "gender identity" at odds with their body, just like there is evidence for the fact that some people are gay. They think there is evidence that "trans people", as defined above, have existed for thousands of years, and that this "fact" invalidates any analysis involving social contagion, internalized homophobia, or fetishism. If you tell them that what they think is knowledge is actually a belief, they will be very offended.
It is certainly true that a lot of "trans identified people" are now saying that they "always knew for certain" that they were members of the opposite sex, or at least that they always wanted to be. I believe that a very small number of such people really exist, although I would not draw the conclusion that they represent "real trans."
During the Nineties, when the "trans" phenomenon was beginning to ramp up culturally, the men I met who talked about "gender issues" did not express certainty about their "gender identity" or what they wanted to do about it. They knew they liked to dress in women's clothes but did not have set ideas about what that meant about them. "Trans" activism was just getting going and there was no powerful international movement pressuring people to conform or confess to specific fixed beliefs. "Gender questioning" individuals had a lot more room then to explore what their experiences meant to them, and their decisions about transitioning or not evolved over a course of years in many cases.
It is so unfortunate that "trans" became a fundamentalist belief system, and so much more unfortunate that the ruling class across Western Civ became so enamored of it.
Yes - good point about long periods of coming to terms with oneself.
Also "I've always known" is what they needed to tell doctors for a while there to get the drugs they wanted, before doctors starting dispensing drugs no questions asked.
Now the trans ID gives them a way to understand gender-nonconforming tendencies besides "maybe I'm gay" or "I just happen to like dresses/sports and that has nothing to do with maleness or femaleness." Now it's "Oh, I must be trans."
Yes, the sense of certainty about knowing what one is has replaced the waxing and waning of various uncertain identities that is so normal and common in adolescents.
Whatever happened to critical thinking? Answer: we turned the education of our children over to Silicon Valley, that's what happened to critical thinking. Young people are crowd-sourced these days: their thinking is influenced by their peers, not their training in philosophy or rhetoric. They value the opinions of their peers, not the veracity of their opinions. Of course there are many exceptions, but this is how it seems to me. Wyatt seems very nice, and much like a reed, which bends in the face of the wind but always bounces back. No matter what you said, he was going to return to his default, pre-determined position.
Yes. And yet... to continue your botanical metaphor... seeds take time to grow. And his father supports my views. 25-year-olds do change their minds over time. I have to be an optimist to do this work. Will report back in 10 years. :-)
My extremely liberal son and I have had many good conversations about the trans issues but one thing that really made a point with him was when I said that I’ve been married to his dad for decades and that’s the only penis I have seen or want to see now that I’m old. I asked him if he can understand that from his mom’s perspective. When he then thought about me actually being in a situation where I might be subjected to strange peens he was grossed out. 🤔 interesting how that works.
You were right to end this conversation with this cloaked misogynist when you did. You have more patience than I would have.
When he said "I see gender roles as transcending biology", that was IT.
He doesn't think women exist as a separate sex, and that is the height of misogyny...the denial that women exist as a sex that is separate from male biology.
"We ended the online chat there, with a man claiming that some women have “male biology.” I can’t count the number of times I’ve heard discussions devolve to this same bizarre verbal gerrymandering."
Over the last five years ago, on various social media platforms, I've heard the justification for this idea that some women have "male biology" put forward. The conversation often focuses on the very tiny number of people who have a DSD. Those with a DSD is something like 1 in 5000 people. Yet, it is commonly argued by transactivists that all trans people have a DSD.
The truth is that the vast majority of people who identify as trans do not have a DSD.
Trans activists have tried to include women with poly cystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS) into the group of women with a "male biology." Yet, while women with PCOS have somewhat elevated testosterone, it is not elevated into the male range. So it cannot be argued in any sense that women with PCOS are "biologically male."
Online forums endlessly fixate on the corner cases.
Meanwhile, 99.98% of women are unambivalently female, with female levels of testosterone, female genitals, and an XX 23rd chromosome.
Almost all trans identifying individuals, at least 99% of them, are unambivalently biologically male or biologically female.
The tiny number of individuals (less than 1 in 5000) who have a DSD generally can still be differentiated as male or female at the chromosomal level.
This is a red herring that has been constantly trotted out by the trans cult . They need something desperately, and have found it in DSD , but it really has no legs.
Yes - DSDs are used to confuse and justify, but trans allies also, as in this case, simply believe that any male can make the statement, based on his inner conviction or fondness for dresses or whatever he wants, that he "is" a woman. That's all it takes. Magical thinking.
I do think that a common kind of male arrogance plays into this. Some men really do think that women are inferior. This plays out in several ways . . . these men don't think that women are intellectual equals, so they gloss over the arguments that women make; they don't consider the voiced experiences of women to be as real as male experiences; and they consider women to be biologically inferior, so see no problem when female biology is edited out with hormones and surgery.
Wow. And, of course, this isn't all men, but I have definitely experienced the kind of arrogance you are describing coming from some males, Mariah. I would add that this also means they do NOT listen to women's voices and start to get that "glazed" look in their eyes when we are talking, because they are waiting for us to take a breath so that they can lecture us.
Yeah, I think he was trying to listen, too, as best as his schema would let him. I did write another comment to this that said he was still a cloaked misogynist because he didn't believe women exist as a sex separate from male biology. 25 isn't young to me, and I am closer to that age. His prefrontal cortex should be formed by this point.
I'm sorry, but as much as he tries to be "fair", I just can't care too much what a 25 year old man thinks about women's right to privacy, dignity and safety when he has zero skin in the game. I can't imagine the hubris it takes to lecture a female athlete and lesbian about what it means to be a woman and that women are obligated to make their world smaller to accommodate confused (or worse) men. Who else does he feel he has moral authority over out of curiosity?
I get it. As noted in my final comment, I would not have had that much patience (or interest) if I didn't know his dad. Still, for me it was a valuable conversation -- including because it generated your comment - thanks - and many others.
I think we might be making a mistake when we claim it's biology vs ideology. None of us would claim faith and love aren't important or are less important than something that can be measured. It's ideology vs ideology. It's the ideology of biology vs the ideology of self identity. This puts us on firmer ground while avoid invalidating someone else's thoughts just because they aren thoughts. It also allows us to address his statement about 'transcending' biology. Transcendence is the language of spiritually, belief, and religion. Is he arguing that he should get to compel others to align with this bar of 'transcendence.?'
If we pivot back to ideology of biology, we can start with the patriarchy. How ideology of biology was used to oppress women. As a society we have changed our ideology of biology to promote value that protect women because we can't deny the physical reality of the cultural significance of the Delta between men and women. Title IX was a summit of sorts of pursuing justice and helping marginalized people and it was rooted in a justice driven expression of the ideology of biology.
Ughh I'm rhetorically back to a place that I understand to be not exactly aligned with women who come to the gender battle from a place of protecting womens spaces from men. I come to it from being the dad of a female.
I think what I'm tactically suggesting is that to win hearts and minds, we must not invalidate too soon. This exchange with the 25 year old male achieves that.
This is where I get into some trouble with gen crit feminists I think.
The idea that sex can be thought felt declared or believed into is not weak or poor or harmful or inferior to sex realist arguments just because it is an idea, and sex realists have 'reality'.
If we invalidate before we engage we don't win.
We need to draw them in closer so that we can more effectively deliver a meaningful rhetorical punch.
We have a new kitten in the house. She chases a string on a stick. At first she is all immediate action going full speed at the end of the string. I jerk it away before she gets to it.
She learns. I enjoy the game so I bring the string closer . She learns patience and waits until the string is close to pounce.
The idea that sex can be, “felt, declared, or believed” is false. That’s the important difference from sex realist claims, which are based in empirical fact. We are not talking about idea versus idea, but facts versus fantasies. Subjective fantasies do not have the truth value of facts. “You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.” Invalidation, when done honestly, does not require validating the invalid.
Thanks Elizabeth. It seems that we both agree that sex based rights for women and self-id gender supremacy are incompatible and there can't be a compromise. Either men can self - id their way into women's spaces or they can't because women are born and the status of being female is immutable . We both align with the latter.
It also seems that this is a matter of law and win or lose it will happen in the realm of law. I'm suggesting this... Looking at the preamble to the constitution I read the purpose of the constitution to be establishing welfare, justice, etc.
There is no mention of biology.
And we don't initially need to mention biology.
We agree laws that allow men to self id into women's sports teams, and changing rooms at rec centers, and prisons, and rape crisis centers do not promote general welfare or justice or domestic tranquility.
The word biology wasn't even invented until 1766, if chatgpt is any good, and wasn't used commonly for another 40 years.
And yet it stands to reason that the lack of general welfare and justice for women has been a thing for millennial.
People have always known men are stronger and more violent than women and that their violence is often directed at women.
As a democracy, do we continue to make and develop laws like Title IX that protect women from the inate strength and violence of men? Do we still believe that the idea of giving females their own spaces protected and free of men is a good idea that promotes the general welfare? (YES).
Or do we do we upend two hundred years of pursuing a more perfect union so as to hold in supremacy the idea of men's thoughts feelings and beliefs over the idea that women should be protected because of biology?
Okay, this is the furthest I've been and to flesh this out.
Another thought... The words woman and mother are ancient and sacred and universal in every language ever spoken. Being female is immutable and always has been, long before we understood the SRY gene, and long before we started injecting females with testosterone and not following up with them 10 years later.
Your willingness to do the hard work of engaging in circumstances like these is commendable. Even if there is no chance of changing minds, so long as conversations like these are respectful, they can be informative for understanding the thinking—which can be useful for later such conversations. What this also brought to mind was an email exchange I had with a former colleague who I have known for decades. His only child, of whom he is understandably proud, given the child’s achievements and desire to do good in the world, is an MD and precepts med students at a gender clinic. He thought I might benefit from hearing her thoughts on this. In this instance I demurred, judging that such a conversation would not end well. Which is all to say how much I admire your composure and steady hand on the rudder here. 🎩
My thoughts are that Wyatt is dense and his lesbian friends are living a terrible lie. My heart wept at reading the internalized lesbophobia he described in a positive light. Tear down this gender shit, tear down its enablers, tear down the brainwashers. It's war on women and girls, *especially* lesbians.
Yes, Land of Red Fruit. I often describe it as a battle against biology. They are trying to cancel biology (biological women and men). I don't have patience for people like this indoctrinated male unless they show some kind of window of opportunity to get heard, and when he said "I see gender roles as transcending biology", I knew Mariah couldn't get "in".
If you want to watch, here's a 5-minute Video of me saying, among other things, "BIOLOGY ALWAYS WINS":
Used to be? They still are. If they are attracted to women, the only way it would make sense to say they “used” to be lesbians is if they’ve changed their sex to male, which of course they haven’t. They are women who are sexually attracted to other women despite whatever identity they have proclaimed or whatever they’ve done to their bodies. If you accept the idea that lesbians who have transitioned “used” to be lesbians, you commit yourself to accepting the claim that heterosexual men who transition are now lesbians. Nope.
Females, who are sexually attracted to other females, are lesbians; changing words, or one’s physical appearance with medical or surgical intervention, doesn’t change reality.
“Trans men” are, and always will be, women.
It’s truly remarkable the mental gymnastics this younger generation performs to appear “kind”.
“But why even consider arguing? Why not just listen, learn, and give this women’s sports expert the benefit of the doubt?” Excellent point, Mariah. Still, despite claiming that “people by and large deserve the benefit of the doubt,” his immediate response was to argue—a contradiction I see all too often. Many profess open-mindedness, but become even more entrenched in their views when confronted with new information. I find myself facing this pattern repeatedly, though I’m not an expert like you. The more I read, the more I study, and the more I share research with friends who ask, in hopes of sparking genuine conversation, the more they seem to shut down and rely on familiar talking points. I get that it’s hard to question popular beliefs or admit you might have been wrong, but it’s disheartening when meaningful discussion is dismissed before it even begins. Stay strong, Mariah!
You too, Chela. In person, and with friends, so far I have a pretty good track record of figuring out ways to talk about this that opens people’s minds. It’s a lot harder with strangers, online, and with people fully immersed in gender ideology. Mostly, I switch the subject back to women - to help people consider our needs & rights to counter their indoctrination into feeling protective of “trans people” which usually means men. But when I hit the “trans women are women” brick wall, that shuts down conversation.
Wyatt was repeating cult jargon about "trans women are women." He also presented himself as entitled to tell a woman why women are not entitled to exclude men from girls' and women's spaces. This is aggressive misogyny. Wyatt also refers to people he knows who apparently claim to be "trans" and want to be left alone, as if "trans" is both real and has a clear definition when it in fact does not.
This young man asserts that people who claim to “identify as” the opposite sex can “transcend biology.” I’d be curious to know what other biological facts of mammalian existence he believes can be “transcended.” Urination? Breathing? Eating? The dependency of eyesight on light receptors in the retina? Saliva? Stomach acid? It boggles the mind that the mammalian sex system alone, of all our biology, is an opt-in/ opt-out fantasy.
I wonder if this young man is interested in dating or having a relationship with a 'transwoman'? So many are (as the saying goes) trans rights activists in the streets and TERFs in the sheets.
Good question. And if not, why not, since Wyatt is a straight man (as he is in this case) and "transwomen are women"? Why not "transcend biology"?
He’s being honest — he’s a true believer in gender identity ideology, even if he doesn’t realize that’s what it is. I see the same thing among many of the moms in my circle. They genuinely believe some people are born with the “brains” or “souls” of the opposite sex, and it makes perfect sense to them. Trying to talk about it feels like reasoning with a self-righteous fundamentalist or evangelical Christian — they don’t believe in God or Christ; they know. It’s an inner certainty. That’s why, to me, it’s up to governments and other institutions of authority to recognize and properly classify this as a belief system.
Yes, exactly — that’s such a good way to put it. It really does mirror a kind of faith, just without recognizing itself as one. The belief feels rational because it borrows the language of science, but the conviction underneath it — that people know their “inner gender” — is pure certainty, almost like revelation. They don’t see it as belief; they see it as truth. That’s what makes it so hard to challenge — you sound like a crazy person to them just for asking questions, or a bigot if you don’t agree.
The difference is, in religion we’ve learned to acknowledge that beliefs are beliefs — which is why the separation of church and state exists. But with gender ideology, we don’t have that separation. It’s the opposite: the belief has become embedded in institutions as if it were objective truth.
What I find very weird and not normal is how many educated reasonable liberal and left leaning people now talk about children "being born in the wrong body," as if that concept had always been part of everyones' cultural understanding. And when challenged about the strange aspects of their belief and the sudden normalization of it by educated people, the believers have strong negative reactions and seem shocked that someone might not believe or confess belief in the "wrong body" dogma, whatever it means. Then they reassert their belief, usually justifying it by referring to somebody they know who is an example of a person who was born in the wrong body and who is allegedly "trans."
I completely agree that this is a kind of religious thinking, about soul-like beings that have a sex and are completely at odds with the bodies "in which" they live, but that is wonderful because they will emerge from their previous form in transformed radiance and persistent joy. But usually when people suddenly convert to some new crackpot religion they want to tell other people about their conversion experience, and they are certainly aware that they didn't always think how they do since that experience. And they know that other people know that they used to not talk about people being born in the wrong bodies. Those levels of awareness seem to not exist for the gender preachers. The gender preachers appear to be entranced, determined to repeat mantras that really make no sense, and they do not seem to know that this has happened to them within a short period of time. It's so weird to be on the outside of this mass madness and not be a part of it.
Trans allies and activists don’t even realize it’s a belief about gender they hold. It’s just fact. And they might not even realize they are activists. They just think they are good people doing what’s right. Exactly like you noticed — there’s no moment of “I’ve discovered something new,” no personal awakening story. And I know that because… that was me.
I didn’t suddenly convert into some new ideology — I just slid into it without noticing. My whole life I’d already supported lesbian rights. Gay rights too, but especially lesbian rights, because that was the feminism I grew up with through my mom. And I’ve always been really sensitive to racism. A lot of my childhood was in a very rural place where racism and homophobia were just… normal. I saw it all the time. And as an extra-sensitive, stand-up-for-the-underdog type of kid, all that bigotry really stuck with me. By my teens I was outspoken about it — lost friends, even. But I felt good about being that kind of person. And for the record, that’s still me…except I know more now. I’m wiser.
And then there was performing arts and drama. I was big into theatre — improv, lip syncing, all of it. I had a few friends who called themselves transsexual back then. Two were very effeminate gay men, and one was a very butch lesbian. They transitioned socially, but they weren’t policing language or forcing their way into opposite-sex spaces. The “trans women” changed with the men backstage. They just wanted to be called their chosen names — and sometimes “sister, girl, or she” in a playful, casual way between friends — and left alone about it. That was it.
So I was already an ally. Supporting them was just basic decency. I saw firsthand what homophobia did to people, so of course I wanted to be on the side of kindness. I honestly thought “trans rights are human rights” was simply the next step after gay rights. I genuinely just assumed the science had discovered a “trans brain,” and that “trans kids” were a real biological category. I thought the increase in visibility was because more people were learning, or because the internet had made homophobia worse or something.
I didn’t question any of it. I took all of it on faith — without realizing it was faith.
It wasn’t until I started being personally affected by the removal of single-sex spaces and groups — (which is a whole separate post) and seeing the absolute abuse women were facing — that I woke up. Watching how quickly women and girls were socially ostracized for literally just describing reality, like “that male who goes by a female name,” was shocking. The sheer vitriol coming from people I thought were on my side made alarm bells go off. And seeing in my community how many teens were suddenly trans and non-binary, talking about it on the bus. It was an obvious fad like punk rock was. Something was wrong here, and it wasn’t coming from the outside — it was inside the movement.
So, like I had always done as an LGBT ally and a feminist, I started listening to the women who nobody would listen to. Especially the lesbian women losing their jobs and being cancelled for saying what was true. And the mothers whose daughters were suddenly saying they were boys. That’s when I really woke up.
But I had to trust my gut. I had to tune in to the people being harmed. And once I found the stories of detransitioners, that settled it for me. The real-world harm I had only been suspicious of was actually happening.
I don’t want to go on forever and ever here.
But I don’t judge people for believing in trans or gender identity ideology because I did too. Full on.
But why do the people STILL believe in this, even after everything they could have observed, like you did? I was admittedly late to the gender critical party, probably even later than you (my preoccupation with the harms of the Covid response distracted me for years), and never thought much about it. I also had this vague notion that trans was similar to being gay. My first brush with transgenderism was seeing our neighbor's son at a party in 2019 or early 2020, wearing women's clothing, and thinking he must be gay. If only! I learned shortly after, when he had gone on estrogen, that he was "non-binary" and we were supposed to refer to him as "she". I still didn't think much of it, although I was vaguely aware of the problems as I had read Jesse Singal's 2018 Atlantic piece. Then in 2023 there was Jamie Reed's article, and I also listened to the podcast about the "Witch Trials of JK Rowling". After that, I read Helen Joyce's book, and from there immersed myself fully in the gender critical world, which led to my finding out that I had a high-risk son (gender nonconforming, autistic, probably gay).
I'm not sure under how much of a rock one has to live to still be an uncritical ally. I sometimes wonder if people just don't want to look too closely because they want to keep believing that they are supporting a good cause. They don't fully understand this issue, but fear that questioning it would be unkind. The narrative that trans is the new gay has been awfully effective in shutting down any critical thinking.
they believe it due to a slate of misinformation.
media guidelines prevent most media outlets from publishing articles that show two sides of this story. millions have come to believe that dysphoric kids commit suicide more than other kids (totally untrue) or that gender meds help some kids (again another lie). these claims are based on activists meaningless online polls and other activist claims media published without the slightest checks.
a year or two ago a girl named nex (daphney) benedict died by suicide. she IDd as non binary and had a flight at school a few days prior. politicians and media went ga ga proclaiming her death was an example of trans harassment, even tho it was reported at the time that Daphne started the fight and it was a pretty minor fight. any kf these news outlets could have easily found out Daphne was raped repeatedly by her father when she was 9. he had been in prison for years for it and was let out and a 13 days before Daphnie commited suidid he failed to register as a sex offender and there was probably a lot of family drama since that led to him being re arrested
Thank you for sharing so much of your story here, you have helped me to understand better how someone could convert gradually, without noticing that anything untoward is happening.
Fascinating & surely descriptive of many well meaning people’s experience. Thanks.
It's an inner certainty that they believe to be perfectly rational. That's what makes it different from a religion, where people are aware it is a belief. They think there is evidence behind the claim that some, whom they call "trans people", have a "gender identity" at odds with their body, just like there is evidence for the fact that some people are gay. They think there is evidence that "trans people", as defined above, have existed for thousands of years, and that this "fact" invalidates any analysis involving social contagion, internalized homophobia, or fetishism. If you tell them that what they think is knowledge is actually a belief, they will be very offended.
It is certainly true that a lot of "trans identified people" are now saying that they "always knew for certain" that they were members of the opposite sex, or at least that they always wanted to be. I believe that a very small number of such people really exist, although I would not draw the conclusion that they represent "real trans."
During the Nineties, when the "trans" phenomenon was beginning to ramp up culturally, the men I met who talked about "gender issues" did not express certainty about their "gender identity" or what they wanted to do about it. They knew they liked to dress in women's clothes but did not have set ideas about what that meant about them. "Trans" activism was just getting going and there was no powerful international movement pressuring people to conform or confess to specific fixed beliefs. "Gender questioning" individuals had a lot more room then to explore what their experiences meant to them, and their decisions about transitioning or not evolved over a course of years in many cases.
It is so unfortunate that "trans" became a fundamentalist belief system, and so much more unfortunate that the ruling class across Western Civ became so enamored of it.
Yes - good point about long periods of coming to terms with oneself.
Also "I've always known" is what they needed to tell doctors for a while there to get the drugs they wanted, before doctors starting dispensing drugs no questions asked.
Now the trans ID gives them a way to understand gender-nonconforming tendencies besides "maybe I'm gay" or "I just happen to like dresses/sports and that has nothing to do with maleness or femaleness." Now it's "Oh, I must be trans."
Yes, the sense of certainty about knowing what one is has replaced the waxing and waning of various uncertain identities that is so normal and common in adolescents.
Whatever happened to critical thinking? Answer: we turned the education of our children over to Silicon Valley, that's what happened to critical thinking. Young people are crowd-sourced these days: their thinking is influenced by their peers, not their training in philosophy or rhetoric. They value the opinions of their peers, not the veracity of their opinions. Of course there are many exceptions, but this is how it seems to me. Wyatt seems very nice, and much like a reed, which bends in the face of the wind but always bounces back. No matter what you said, he was going to return to his default, pre-determined position.
Yes. And yet... to continue your botanical metaphor... seeds take time to grow. And his father supports my views. 25-year-olds do change their minds over time. I have to be an optimist to do this work. Will report back in 10 years. :-)
My extremely liberal son and I have had many good conversations about the trans issues but one thing that really made a point with him was when I said that I’ve been married to his dad for decades and that’s the only penis I have seen or want to see now that I’m old. I asked him if he can understand that from his mom’s perspective. When he then thought about me actually being in a situation where I might be subjected to strange peens he was grossed out. 🤔 interesting how that works.
Yes, creative tactic! 😂
Hi Mariah,
You were right to end this conversation with this cloaked misogynist when you did. You have more patience than I would have.
When he said "I see gender roles as transcending biology", that was IT.
He doesn't think women exist as a separate sex, and that is the height of misogyny...the denial that women exist as a sex that is separate from male biology.
Yup. TWAW slams the door. And reveals a lot.
"We ended the online chat there, with a man claiming that some women have “male biology.” I can’t count the number of times I’ve heard discussions devolve to this same bizarre verbal gerrymandering."
Over the last five years ago, on various social media platforms, I've heard the justification for this idea that some women have "male biology" put forward. The conversation often focuses on the very tiny number of people who have a DSD. Those with a DSD is something like 1 in 5000 people. Yet, it is commonly argued by transactivists that all trans people have a DSD.
The truth is that the vast majority of people who identify as trans do not have a DSD.
Trans activists have tried to include women with poly cystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS) into the group of women with a "male biology." Yet, while women with PCOS have somewhat elevated testosterone, it is not elevated into the male range. So it cannot be argued in any sense that women with PCOS are "biologically male."
Online forums endlessly fixate on the corner cases.
Meanwhile, 99.98% of women are unambivalently female, with female levels of testosterone, female genitals, and an XX 23rd chromosome.
Almost all trans identifying individuals, at least 99% of them, are unambivalently biologically male or biologically female.
The tiny number of individuals (less than 1 in 5000) who have a DSD generally can still be differentiated as male or female at the chromosomal level.
This is a red herring that has been constantly trotted out by the trans cult . They need something desperately, and have found it in DSD , but it really has no legs.
Yes - DSDs are used to confuse and justify, but trans allies also, as in this case, simply believe that any male can make the statement, based on his inner conviction or fondness for dresses or whatever he wants, that he "is" a woman. That's all it takes. Magical thinking.
I do think that a common kind of male arrogance plays into this. Some men really do think that women are inferior. This plays out in several ways . . . these men don't think that women are intellectual equals, so they gloss over the arguments that women make; they don't consider the voiced experiences of women to be as real as male experiences; and they consider women to be biologically inferior, so see no problem when female biology is edited out with hormones and surgery.
And they’ll lie through their teeth to support their false agenda. No decent man would do that.
Wow. And, of course, this isn't all men, but I have definitely experienced the kind of arrogance you are describing coming from some males, Mariah. I would add that this also means they do NOT listen to women's voices and start to get that "glazed" look in their eyes when we are talking, because they are waiting for us to take a breath so that they can lecture us.
It didn’t feel like that in this case. I think he was trying hard to listen and be respectful. He’s also just 25. Which sounds quite young to me.
Yeah, I think he was trying to listen, too, as best as his schema would let him. I did write another comment to this that said he was still a cloaked misogynist because he didn't believe women exist as a sex separate from male biology. 25 isn't young to me, and I am closer to that age. His prefrontal cortex should be formed by this point.
Yes, and that’s what I was getting at by challenging his refusal to believe me as an expert. Would he have believed a male expert?
Of course, he would !
Can’t say for certain in this case, but in general, the evidence is overwhelming that men underweight the expertise and lived experience of women.
I'm sorry, but as much as he tries to be "fair", I just can't care too much what a 25 year old man thinks about women's right to privacy, dignity and safety when he has zero skin in the game. I can't imagine the hubris it takes to lecture a female athlete and lesbian about what it means to be a woman and that women are obligated to make their world smaller to accommodate confused (or worse) men. Who else does he feel he has moral authority over out of curiosity?
THIS is so well-said, Former Dem, and I cracked a smile:
"I can't imagine the hubris it takes to lecture a female athlete and lesbian about what it means to be a woman".
He is in the circus and his puppeteers are clowns.
I get it. As noted in my final comment, I would not have had that much patience (or interest) if I didn't know his dad. Still, for me it was a valuable conversation -- including because it generated your comment - thanks - and many others.
I think we might be making a mistake when we claim it's biology vs ideology. None of us would claim faith and love aren't important or are less important than something that can be measured. It's ideology vs ideology. It's the ideology of biology vs the ideology of self identity. This puts us on firmer ground while avoid invalidating someone else's thoughts just because they aren thoughts. It also allows us to address his statement about 'transcending' biology. Transcendence is the language of spiritually, belief, and religion. Is he arguing that he should get to compel others to align with this bar of 'transcendence.?'
If we pivot back to ideology of biology, we can start with the patriarchy. How ideology of biology was used to oppress women. As a society we have changed our ideology of biology to promote value that protect women because we can't deny the physical reality of the cultural significance of the Delta between men and women. Title IX was a summit of sorts of pursuing justice and helping marginalized people and it was rooted in a justice driven expression of the ideology of biology.
Ughh I'm rhetorically back to a place that I understand to be not exactly aligned with women who come to the gender battle from a place of protecting womens spaces from men. I come to it from being the dad of a female.
I think what I'm tactically suggesting is that to win hearts and minds, we must not invalidate too soon. This exchange with the 25 year old male achieves that.
This is where I get into some trouble with gen crit feminists I think.
The idea that sex can be thought felt declared or believed into is not weak or poor or harmful or inferior to sex realist arguments just because it is an idea, and sex realists have 'reality'.
If we invalidate before we engage we don't win.
We need to draw them in closer so that we can more effectively deliver a meaningful rhetorical punch.
We have a new kitten in the house. She chases a string on a stick. At first she is all immediate action going full speed at the end of the string. I jerk it away before she gets to it.
She learns. I enjoy the game so I bring the string closer . She learns patience and waits until the string is close to pounce.
The idea that sex can be, “felt, declared, or believed” is false. That’s the important difference from sex realist claims, which are based in empirical fact. We are not talking about idea versus idea, but facts versus fantasies. Subjective fantasies do not have the truth value of facts. “You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.” Invalidation, when done honestly, does not require validating the invalid.
Thanks Elizabeth. It seems that we both agree that sex based rights for women and self-id gender supremacy are incompatible and there can't be a compromise. Either men can self - id their way into women's spaces or they can't because women are born and the status of being female is immutable . We both align with the latter.
It also seems that this is a matter of law and win or lose it will happen in the realm of law. I'm suggesting this... Looking at the preamble to the constitution I read the purpose of the constitution to be establishing welfare, justice, etc.
There is no mention of biology.
And we don't initially need to mention biology.
We agree laws that allow men to self id into women's sports teams, and changing rooms at rec centers, and prisons, and rape crisis centers do not promote general welfare or justice or domestic tranquility.
The word biology wasn't even invented until 1766, if chatgpt is any good, and wasn't used commonly for another 40 years.
And yet it stands to reason that the lack of general welfare and justice for women has been a thing for millennial.
People have always known men are stronger and more violent than women and that their violence is often directed at women.
As a democracy, do we continue to make and develop laws like Title IX that protect women from the inate strength and violence of men? Do we still believe that the idea of giving females their own spaces protected and free of men is a good idea that promotes the general welfare? (YES).
Or do we do we upend two hundred years of pursuing a more perfect union so as to hold in supremacy the idea of men's thoughts feelings and beliefs over the idea that women should be protected because of biology?
Okay, this is the furthest I've been and to flesh this out.
Another thought... The words woman and mother are ancient and sacred and universal in every language ever spoken. Being female is immutable and always has been, long before we understood the SRY gene, and long before we started injecting females with testosterone and not following up with them 10 years later.
Meant to type ' avoid invalidating someone's thought just because they are thoughts '
Your willingness to do the hard work of engaging in circumstances like these is commendable. Even if there is no chance of changing minds, so long as conversations like these are respectful, they can be informative for understanding the thinking—which can be useful for later such conversations. What this also brought to mind was an email exchange I had with a former colleague who I have known for decades. His only child, of whom he is understandably proud, given the child’s achievements and desire to do good in the world, is an MD and precepts med students at a gender clinic. He thought I might benefit from hearing her thoughts on this. In this instance I demurred, judging that such a conversation would not end well. Which is all to say how much I admire your composure and steady hand on the rudder here. 🎩
Thanks so much. Totally get it why you declined.
My thoughts are that Wyatt is dense and his lesbian friends are living a terrible lie. My heart wept at reading the internalized lesbophobia he described in a positive light. Tear down this gender shit, tear down its enablers, tear down the brainwashers. It's war on women and girls, *especially* lesbians.
Yes, Land of Red Fruit. I often describe it as a battle against biology. They are trying to cancel biology (biological women and men). I don't have patience for people like this indoctrinated male unless they show some kind of window of opportunity to get heard, and when he said "I see gender roles as transcending biology", I knew Mariah couldn't get "in".
If you want to watch, here's a 5-minute Video of me saying, among other things, "BIOLOGY ALWAYS WINS":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EluKBYxKrsM
We are doomed.
“I Know Many Trans Men Who Used to Be Lesbians”
Used to be? They still are. If they are attracted to women, the only way it would make sense to say they “used” to be lesbians is if they’ve changed their sex to male, which of course they haven’t. They are women who are sexually attracted to other women despite whatever identity they have proclaimed or whatever they’ve done to their bodies. If you accept the idea that lesbians who have transitioned “used” to be lesbians, you commit yourself to accepting the claim that heterosexual men who transition are now lesbians. Nope.
Females, who are sexually attracted to other females, are lesbians; changing words, or one’s physical appearance with medical or surgical intervention, doesn’t change reality.
“Trans men” are, and always will be, women.
It’s truly remarkable the mental gymnastics this younger generation performs to appear “kind”.
“But why even consider arguing? Why not just listen, learn, and give this women’s sports expert the benefit of the doubt?” Excellent point, Mariah. Still, despite claiming that “people by and large deserve the benefit of the doubt,” his immediate response was to argue—a contradiction I see all too often. Many profess open-mindedness, but become even more entrenched in their views when confronted with new information. I find myself facing this pattern repeatedly, though I’m not an expert like you. The more I read, the more I study, and the more I share research with friends who ask, in hopes of sparking genuine conversation, the more they seem to shut down and rely on familiar talking points. I get that it’s hard to question popular beliefs or admit you might have been wrong, but it’s disheartening when meaningful discussion is dismissed before it even begins. Stay strong, Mariah!
You too, Chela. In person, and with friends, so far I have a pretty good track record of figuring out ways to talk about this that opens people’s minds. It’s a lot harder with strangers, online, and with people fully immersed in gender ideology. Mostly, I switch the subject back to women - to help people consider our needs & rights to counter their indoctrination into feeling protective of “trans people” which usually means men. But when I hit the “trans women are women” brick wall, that shuts down conversation.