Discussion about this post

User's avatar
EB's avatar

I liked your use of 'sociogenic illness' as an explanatory framework when you first put it out on this substack, I think you've done a fantastic job of fleshing it out! A few things that occurred to me as I was reading: we have two theories of gender floating around on the left. There is the notion of gender as a purely social construct that underpins systemic oppression (a notion that has now crept to include sex itself as well), and there is also a quasi-biological explanation of gender, in which gender has a biological origin, but one that is somehow entirely separate from sex. I'm not sure how either could happen in a sexually reproducing, sexually dimorphic primate, but whatever.

The former is part of the radical, neo-marxian assault on all that is Western modernity; the latter a sort of psuedo-scientific flanking maneuver conducted by people who can't quite swallow the anti-scientific radicalism of so much 'social theory,' but still feel the need to deconstruct gender for the sake of the revolution.

As for me, it doesn't seem terribly surprising that a creature such as us would come preloaded with some minimal instructions for identifying and attracting mates to reproduce with (just like every other frickin' critter on earth), and that such instructions would work pretty well for most everyone, as nature doesn't play games when it comes to successful reproduction, but then again, I'm a crotchety, science-loving old geezer with a marginally useful PhD in anthropology (which includes a background in archaeology and human ecology and evolution), so my understanding is a bit warped on this topic.

I totally agree that the definition of gender dysphoria has become ossified for critics. 'Idiom of distress' is another fantastic intuition you've had here--it's been clear to anyone who's been reading up on this that gender dysphoria was already a mixed bag way back in the 20th century. Now it's more like a big tent than a mixed bag, and it just keeps growing! Gender dysphoria is a belief for which a sort of convergent cultural evolution has been occurring, and now, all paths lead to trans. The problem the critics have had is mistaking description for explanation (and basically letting go of explanation). Basically, it was already a fuzzy category, but as you've noted, today's critics have been too focused on the changing demographics, rather than the actual mental illness itself. And, one can understand why: it's a hornets nest. If one can do something to get folks to think twice before transitioning kids, why get bogged down with swarms of angry hornets? There's not much pay off in it, and A LOT of danger. Better to throw a diagnostic rope around gender dysphoria without going near any alternative explanation. In fact, maybe they're really just throwing the left a bone, perhaps conceding tactically, rather than out of any firm commitment. Again, what's the percentage in suggesting the whole thing is essentially a mental illness in today's political climate (unless you're Matt Walsh, but the avowed right has other parameters to consider)?

The comparison to eating disorders is another profound insight, and the link there to the phenomenon of social contagion. We don't like to think of mental illness as something we can catch, but oddly enough that's just the human culture instinct at work (albeit in a rather extreme example): we catch other people's behavior literally all the time, it's practically the essence of human behavior, it's our primary survival adaptation, that's how culture works! Indeed, if we didn't catch it unconsciously (although we can do so consciously as well), the culture instinct wouldn't be nearly as effective. The question is one of susceptibility, not of whether such contagion can occur. And what you've done a brilliant job of capturing are the distinct social pressures that have led very different demographics to 'catch' a similar affliction! Another example of this phenomenon is the Tourette's thing on TikTok (also autism, OCD, and myriad other ailments). Catching mental illness (aka self-diagnosing) is all the rage with the kids these days! And for exactly the reason you've identified for the awkward straight 'trans' kids: being mentally ill beats the hell out of being boring and evil! And for gay/lesbian kids dealing with homophobia, it's easier than the alternatives (look at Iran, this is still going on there, it helps the mullahs sleep at night!).

If you don't already have a graduate degree in anthropology, you should know that your analysis is truly insightful! If I was on your dissertation committee, I'd fear for your viability in the academic job market, but I'd applaud your amazing analytic chops. Kudos for a fantastic piece of work!

Expand full comment
Heyjude's avatar

I think you are right. While some people may have problems, "transitioning" is not the solution. As I've said before, medical science is not capable of "transitioning" a man to a woman (or vice versa). The claim is akin to alchemy.

And what of the young people who feel some sort of discomfort with their biological gender? As you implied, that may be a problem for which we haven't found a solution. But I think that for whatever reason, the incidence of a serious problem is grossly exxagerated. That seems to be our current MO. Greatly exaggerate what MIGHT happen ( these kids will all commit suicide!) and ignore what actually happens.

Anecdotal at best, but I'm sure it influences my view:

I have twin stepdaughters. At about age 6, one of the twins instructed her father and me that she was no longer Lucy; she was a boy and wanted to be called Joe. So we tried to remember to call her Joe, and she corrected us each time we slipped up. We took it in stride and treated it as entirely normal. The "Joe" phase lasted about 6 mo.

She is now 43, happily married and the mother of 3 beautiful children. We sometimes laugh together about the "Joe" phase.

I shudder to think what might have happened to her if she were 6 years old today.

Expand full comment
47 more comments...

No posts