“Do as I say, not as I do”

About six months after I stopped identifying as transgender, I waded into the discourse on Twitter. I began by following other “detransitioners” and expanded from there. When you speak as someone who is critical of sex-trait modification, you end up attracting all different kinds of people. 

You attract radical feminists, who have been railing against the concept of “gender identity” and discussing its impact on the rights of women for decades. 

You attract parents of trans-identifying children, who are desperately seeking answers regarding an intervention that is being pushed on people younger and younger.

I’d watched as people with certain “marginalized” identities were given credibility and authority, and bad faith actors weaponized those identities in order to gain power and abuse others.

You attract concerned health care professionals, who see something dangerous happening within the medical system and want to correct it. 

You attract social conservatives, who want to maintain traditional values that have guided society for many years.

You attract people whose values come from religion – also traditional, but with perhaps more of an emphasis on morality and spiritual well-being.

You attract gay men and lesbian women, whose orientation is challenged by an ideology which posits that “homosexual” can mean attraction to both sexes (so long as the opposite sex has a special identity).

And you attract what might be termed old-school transsexuals, who tend to frame sex-trait modification exclusively as a treatment for “gender dysphoria” and who are discontented with the mainstream trans rights movement.

(…and I certainly haven’t named every kind of person you may attract.)

Together, these people make up what social justice leftists have taken to calling the “anti-gender movement” (e.g., see Wikipedia for a biased explanation). They tend to give the impression that everyone in the “movement” has a common goal and common values. This simply isn’t true. Many of these people don’t even consider each other allies. Radical feminists often won’t work with social and religious conservatives due to conflicting opinions on abortion, for example.

I was fresh out of social justice culture when I joined Twitter and highly critical of what I’d just left behind – not just the ideology around transgenderism, but around leftist identity politics as a whole. I’d watched as people with certain “marginalized” identities were given credibility and authority, and bad faith actors weaponized those identities in order to gain power and abuse others. The result was a movement full of narcissistic leaders who could not be criticized, lest you be deemed a bad person and ex-communicated. (Note: I’ve observed the same dynamics in parts of the “anti-gender movement.”)

I was still calling myself a leftist at this time, though. I was simply a dissident leftist instead. To me, “left” was progressive (and therefore correct), and I still wanted to be seen as a “good” person. I didn’t want my friends to think I was “transphobic,” just that I had concerns that should be taken seriously. I also wanted to remain in touch with my friends who were still transitioned; I hoped that if they ever changed their minds one day, they could come to me.

If your goal is to reach the left on the topic of sex-trait modification, then using identity politics to your advantage might be a decent strategy. Because of this, I was quite willing to work with heterodox transsexuals early on. These are primarily people who were satisfied with their own “treatments,” but believed that medical professionals needed to re-adopt the restrictions that once existed, particularly for people under the age of 18. They also tended to emphasize “gender dysphoria” as a medical condition in need of treatment rather than the mainstream emphasis on “gender identity” as a natural human variation.

I believe this remains what is considered a “moderate” view for most: that there is an exceedingly small number of people who truly need to have their sex traits chemically and surgically modified and who must live in the “gender role” of the opposite sex or else they will be forever miserable, and therefore all of the health risks outweigh the benefits.

This is now exactly as convincing to me as the idea that there is an exceedingly small number of people who truly need to have their legs amputated and live as disabled people or else they will be forever miserable, and therefore all of the health risks outweigh the benefits.

That is to say, it is no longer convincing to me at all.

Two years ago, I wrote a blog post during which, in part, I defended transsexuals in the movement. I described the concerns people had — “the very act of existing as an ‘out’ transsexual is seen as ‘promoting’ an unhealthy lifestyle” — with some reservations. I also argued that “detransitioning” isn’t accessible for every person and that “having transsexuals who openly condemn the mainstream trans rights movement is — I think — important.”

I believe these people are victims of “gender medicine” as much as I am — not necessarily “bad” people, but people who are fundamentally self-harming.

I no longer have reservations about those concerns (I now agree that being an “out” transsexual is promoting an unhealthy lifestyle), and I disagree with my former beliefs (I think “detransition” is often more accessible than people are willing to admit, and I don’t think it’s necessarily “important” to have transsexuals who openly condemn the mainstream trans rights movement).

Because this is a departure from things I’ve said in the past, I think it deserves a well-thought-out explanation.

I also want to acknowledge that there is no way to write this that will not be taken as condescending to “happy” transsexuals, in the same way that telling people who believe they have an incongruent gender identity that they are wrong will be taken as condescending, and in the same way that telling someone who is reliant on alcohol that they need to go to rehab will be taken as condescending.

My intention is not to force anyone to “detransition.” I have a right to my opinion about someone’s actions (in this case, their choice to medicalize and present themselves as the opposite sex). That is not the same thing as imposing on their behaviour. We all have free will.

My intention is also not to force anyone to disassociate themselves from individual transsexuals. My criticisms are primarily with medicalization and secondarily with how transsexuals try to justify it for themselves. I believe these people are victims of “gender medicine” as much as I am — not necessarily “bad” people, but people who are fundamentally self-harming.

My intention is twofold: to provide an opinion on a specific medical and psychosocial intervention and its effects, based on everything I have seen — not only in the past three years, but since I started “questioning my gender” fifteen years ago; and to explain why I have changed my mind about presenting “happy” transsexuals as role models just because they’re telling minors to wait.

You may have assumed that, after three years involved in the discourse and a lot of exposure to dissident transsexuals, I would have begun to accept that there were indeed people who truly benefited from the intervention. The opposite is true. The more I met, the less convinced I became. Many give the outward appearance of “successfully” living in an opposite-sex “gender role” while quietly having difficulties in their personal lives that have been caused or exacerbated by chemically and surgically altering their bodies and trying to live in an opposite-sex “gender role.”

Then I started meeting detransitioners whose stories were literally the exact same… and who still realized the whole thing was bullshit.

But it wasn’t only meeting transsexuals that changed my mind. It was also meeting detransitioners.

My personal story is very much one born of social influence. I was a tomboy my whole life (save for a feminine phase in my teens), but I did not have any distress around my gender when I was young. I was different from other girls, but I was also different from other children in general. Not like the girls, but not necessarily like the boys either.

When I stopped identifying as transgender, I very quickly stopped believing that anyone was “born in the wrong body,” but I did think it was possible that some people were benefiting from medicalization — perhaps some rare cases who have had persistent dysphoria their entire lives, as most of these “old school” transsexuals said they did. 

Then I started meeting detransitioners whose stories were literally the exact same… and who still realized the whole thing was bullshit. I also met people who had what could be termed childhood dysphoria but who were managing it without medicalizing.

And I just can’t ignore it anymore.

One of the traps of sex-trait modification, though, is that you often feel more distress the further into it you get.

I have framed sex-trait modification as a coping mechanism for a long time. Medicalization does not “cure” one’s distress around being male or female in the same way that antidepressants don’t cure depression. It may alleviate distress, but if you can never stop medicalizing, the problem has not actually been resolved.

One of the traps of sex-trait modification, though, is that you often feel more distress the further into it you get. A TikTok video recently made rounds on Twitter of a man explaining exactly this: that every step he took in changing his body fed his desire to change more. (“Some things I have dysphoria about now that I never had before.”) At first, he only wanted his face to change, but the feeling of being “affirmed” spurred him on. He used to be okay with being androgynous, but now he wants to be able to “pass” seamlessly as a woman.

He frames this as having his experience “evolve” through the process when, if you take a step back, the treatment is clearly exacerbating his distress. First, he is convinced that he is not a man. Then, as he begins obscuring his biological sex (e.g., softening of skin, growing breast tissue, etc.), each step he takes that makes him look more “female” (to him) gives him a little thrill. Then the thrill wears off, he becomes more anxious and desperate regarding the traits giving away that he is male, and he starts looking for a new “embodiment goal.”

If that sounds a bit like an addiction, it’s because it is. He is psychologically reliant on being affirmed in his delusion that he is a woman. It’s masking something else for him. Whether it’s internalized homophobia, a paraphilic disorder, or something else entirely, I don’t know. But it is not healthy for him.

The transsexuals who boast that medicalization “worked” for them are, essentially, high-functioning addicts. They may have gotten lucky with surgery results; they may be holding regular employment; they may still have their families; their lives may not have fallen apart. But they are still psychologically reliant on being affirmed.

They’ll try to convince you they’re not, though. They may claim they don’t care what pronouns you use for them… then become upset or accuse you of being “disrespectful” when you use sex-based ones. They may acknowledge they aren’t actually the opposite sex… then continue to use the opposite-sex washroom.

Some seem to think that, if they say the right things, they will be entitled to special privileges. And other people are indeed falling for this! If someone says “use whatever pronouns you like,” they will often get their preferred pronouns. (“I respect her pronouns because she gave me a choice.” No, you got manipulated, and he knew exactly what he was doing.)

They often try to separate themselves out from other people who identify as “trans” by pointing out those who have clearly been socially influenced as “fake,” condemning over-the-top bad behaviour, and mocking people who don’t “pass.” This is all done to create the illusion that there are “real” transsexuals: the ones who were not influenced online, who behave appropriately, and who blend in seamlessly. (And by the way, mocking people who don’t “pass” often coerces them into medicalizing if they haven’t.)

I don’t believe there are “real” transsexuals. I don’t even believe “gender dysphoria” is a legitimate condition anymore.

Ultimately, they want to be coddled the same way TRAs expect to be coddled. They won’t insist that “trans women are women,” but they will insist that there are “true” transsexuals or that transition “works” for some people, and if you don’t agree with them, well, you’re transphobic — or at least an extremist of some kind. I mean, it’s a black-and-white take, isn’t it?

But “men can never be women” is also a black-and-white take.

Sometimes the truth isn’t “nuanced.” And sometimes it is very uncomfortable.

I don’t believe there are “real” transsexuals. I don’t even believe “gender dysphoria” is a legitimate condition anymore. Distress is merely a symptom with varying causes, none of which is “incongruence” between one’s sex and one’s identity, and none of which should be “treated” by helping someone dissociate from their body and denying reality.

What there are, are people who altered their bodies and decided it was worth the risks. I’m not saying they aren’t happy; I’m saying they aren’t healthy. Messing with your endocrine system and removing healthy body parts to assuage your troubled mind is objectively a bad idea.

So what’s the draw here? Why are “happy” old-school transsexuals so invested in the “anti-gender movement”?

I don’t believe most of them are primarily interested in stopping harm from happening to others. Instead, I believe they’re scrambling to try and protect themselves. They don’t want to lose access to their addiction, whether it be exogenous hormones or their ability to quietly enter opposite-sex spaces, and the complete insanity of the mainstream trans rights movement has put that access under threat.

Telling children to wait until they’re 18 is not solving the problem. If these kids think there are “real” transsexuals, they will be convinced that they are one themselves.

Most of them focus almost exclusively on criticizing pediatric sex-trait modification, because anyone with half a brain knows that chemically altering the sex traits of children, sterilizing them, and/or cutting off their healthy body parts in service of a psychiatric condition is entirely unethical. Restricting access until the age of 18 is the easiest position to take while still ensuring that medicalization will be available to them as adults.

This doesn’t make them good role models, though. How can they be? “Hey kids, transition was the right thing for me, I can’t live without it, but you have to wait until you’re 18.” Like telling kids not to do drugs while smoking crack.

“Do as I say, not as I do.”

Claiming that sex-trait modification “worked” for you is still proposing it as a viable option. It is still marketing for the gender industry. Telling children to wait until they’re 18 is not solving the problem. If these kids think there are “real” transsexuals, they will be convinced that they are one themselves. It is doing nothing for children, except maybe guaranteeing that they’ll show up at a Planned Parenthood looking for hormones on their 18th birthday — and some of the transsexuals in the movement quite openly have no problem with that. It doesn’t matter if the kid’s been brainwashed their entire childhood.

Indeed, many of my clashes with the purported “good ones” have been over the fact that I don’t believe sex-trait modification should be offered as a medical treatment at any age.
One seemed surprised when I got hostile with him after he told a detransitioned woman that there was nothing wrong with the fact that she’d gotten a testosterone prescription from Planned Parenthood after a single 30-minute phone call as an adult. (“I support detransitioners; I’m on your side.” If you’re in support of doing away with safeguarding for adults, we are not on the same side.)

Some have conceded that there appeared to be negligence in my case, but others have thrown the good old “take some personal responsibility” line at me when I said that what happened to me simply should not have happened. 

Perhaps unsurprising to many, a couple of these “reasonable” transsexuals have come off as manipulative narcissists after I got to know them privately.

And one more inconvenient fact to point out before moving on…

Most of these transsexuals are same-sex attracted. This inadvertently pushes the message to young gays and lesbians that medicalizing our gender non-conformity is “good” for some of us.

One of the strongest messages we have is that medicalization is often “transing the gay away.” How do we square that with putting mastectomized lesbians and castrated gay men up as examples of “real” transsexuals for whom medicalization “worked”?

We don’t. Absolutely not.

As someone recovering from medicalization, I have struggled to process while around people who are actively engaging in and singing the praises of the thing that irreversibly altered my life for the worse. It’s annoying, to say the least. For others, though, it’s dangerous.

The curse of being “moderate” is that you end up alienating both sides of the debate.

Those who have acknowledged sex-trait modification as a coping mechanism and are trying to figure out how to disengage with it as much as possible are, essentially, addicts in recovery. Whether the addiction continues to affect them, and how much, differs from person to person. The detrans subreddit often has people saying that they’re “jealous” of those who continue to medicalize or that they’re constantly thinking about “re-transitioning” (in other words, relapsing).

By definition, “high-functioning” addicts are rather stable. They make medicalization look good, but it’s a false front. They give off the impression that everything is fine even though they don’t have control over the addiction and are creating health issues for themselves. (This false front doesn’t only influence young people who think they are born in the wrong body, but also influences people in recovery. It’s tempting to plug yourself back into the Matrix rather than face reality.)

Contrarily, those newly in recovery are extremely unstable. They recognize they have a problem, their worlds have been pulled out from under them, and they are often trying to completely rebuild their lives from scratch. If they seem more erratic than high-functioning transsexuals, it’s because one of these groups is upheaving their lives to live in reality and restore their health, and the other is not.

If a “transsexual” and a “detransitioner” held mirrors up to each other, we would both see ourselves.

Every “transsexual” is a potential “detransitioner.” Every “detransitioner” was once a “transsexual.”

I am done with the pretense that the “good ones” are separate and apart from everyone else who has undergone the same intervention. My story may not be your story, but your story is invariably the story of one of my friends.

I said at the beginning that I cannot tell anyone what to do. But if your question is actually “well, what would you have me do?” this is my answer: stop going by a name that traditionally invokes the opposite sex; stop requesting “preferred” pronouns; stop presenting yourself in a way that explicitly intends to deceive others about your sex; and stop telling people that sex-trait modification is “good.”

I have compassion for every person who has irreversibly altered their body and does not know how to move forward. Some people will continue to be mistaken for the opposite sex for the rest of their lives, and not every moment has to be a teaching moment. I don’t expect anyone to be “correcting” strangers every single time. I certainly don’t. 

My alternate answer, which I imagine people of all stripes will not like, is to stop being “out” and go stealth. You might not be living in reality, but you shouldn’t be influencing others to do the same.

I was originally willing to work with transsexuals because I thought it would be more convincing to the left. I thought if I could reference “reasonable” transsexuals who believed the same thing I did, that people might listen to my arguments. It turns out that identity politics doesn’t work that well for dissident transsexuals. They just get accused of being self-loathing instead of being taken seriously.

It didn’t matter that transsexuals agreed with me. I didn’t convince anyone to listen. I made compromises that both disturbed my recovery and alienated people who would have otherwise agreed with me, and I still ended up losing my existing friends.

Many moderates have decided that they must work with transsexuals on this matter for the same reason I did. They think it gives legitimacy to their arguments. Again, I recognize that this is a strategy some will continue to employ and that I will not be able to stop them from doing so.

The curse of being “moderate” is that you end up alienating both sides of the debate. The “moderate” orgs I’ve been involved with have a high turnover rate. It’s not hard to figure out why. Trying to compromise with extremes is very stressful. Even people within the orgs can’t agree on which compromises to make.

It’s certainly not an enviable position to be in.

I’m solo from here on out.

You can read the original at: Some Nuance, Please – “Do as I say, not as I do”