Medicalization of Gender Non-Conformance
This piece originally appeared in the book, The Gender Paradox, Chapter 16: The Gaslighting Ideology. It was completed in December of 2019. Minor edits were made for cohesion.
Illustration by Cynthia (@PTElephant).
Most people are not willing to bend their concept of reality, along with their language, to ideologically possessed authoritarians. And yet, while gender activists receive a severe pushback from the public, the powerful among us continue to instantiate strong social constructionist ideology into our laws and policies, and now, these beliefs are being directed at children.
In the mind of the radical social constructionist, if you cannot convince adults that sex exists on a spectrum and that it can be changed, then perhaps you can direct your attention to the malleable minds of children, from whom the dismantling of sex can be achieved.
In the early chapters of this book, I discussed how social constructionist ideologues inversed the nature of sex and gender. Gender-critical feminists from the Beauvoir tradition viewed sex (male/female) as a biological reality and gender as the system of values, beliefs, and practices constructed around sex. It was the gender-critical feminists, not the strong social constructionists, who believed males and females should not be defined by gender stereotypes and societally determined gender roles.
However, beginning in the 1990s with queer theory, Judith Butler inversed this view: biological sex was now the system of values, beliefs, and practices constructed around gender. Gender identity, the internal sense of your own gender, was now your ultimate essence, not sex.
Through the inversion of the nature versus nurture dichotomy, Butler theorized that the systems around biological sex were constructed through nurture, and that one’s internal gender identity was formed from some ephemeral sense of one’s ‘nature.’ If biological sex was constructed, then perhaps it could also be deconstructed, dismantled, and changed so that discrimination based on the male-female category could be eliminated.
To the horror of gender-critical feminists who believe that it is the values and beliefs around gender, not sex, which must be deconstructed, the strong social constructionist ideology is now being weaponized to indoctrinate gender non-conforming children into believing they were born in the wrong body. And this is where the third and final case study into the gaslighting tactics of the gender ideologues begins.
Pathologizing Gender Non-Conformity
As children grow up and learn who they are, it is not uncommon for them to play with gender-atypical toys. For instance, boys may find themselves interested in people-oriented activities such as playing with dolls rather than things-oriented activities which involve playing with mechanical objects like trains and trucks. Such gender-atypical play is perfectly healthy and normal, as we should not expect children to fit within a stereotypical mold.
However, in recent years, the philosophy of deconstructing gender has become rather insidious due to the conflation of gender with sex. Now, from the doctrines of the social constructionist ideology, gender-atypical play has quickly become both pathologized and medicalized. It has been pathologized through the idea that gender-atypical behavior means that the child has been born into the wrong body, and medicalized through the idea that such gender-atypical play requires transition to the opposite sex.
A 2019 study presented by NBC claimed that children who identify with gender-atypical toys and clothes are likely to be transgender, which is to say, to have a gender identity which is opposite of your birth sex. To justify this claim, the researchers interviewed transgender children from ages 3 to 12 and asked them how much they felt like a boy or girl based on what toys and clothes they liked:
“The transgender kids showed strong preferences for toys and clothing typically associated with their gender identity, not their assigned sex, the study found. Their preferences did not appear to differ based on how long they had lived as their current gender.”[1]
The kids were smart: they recognized that they enjoyed playing with toys stereotyped to be opposite of their biological sex. For instance, a boy playing with dolls may realize that mostly girls, not boys, play with dolls. Because of this, he may think that he was born in the wrong body, and if he was born in the wrong body, then perhaps he should transition to become a girl.
Ironically, such thinking relies on the child to believe in rigid gender stereotypes, namely, that only girls, not boys, play with dolls. One might think that such a correlation between being transgender and liking opposite sex toys is strong. However, the study had one major flaw:
“One limitation of the study is that all the transgender kids lived in families that affirmed their current gender identity, the study team notes.”[2]
In other words, the study only interviewed kids whose parents reinforced the idea that their children were the opposite sex; it did not study actual cases of gender dysphoria, but rather, used cases where the parents reinforced gender stereotypes on their child.
Without understanding that one can be gender non-conforming and not be transgender, the children believed themselves to be the opposite sex, and their parents, rather than dismantling gender stereotypes, applied stereotypes onto them: if you’re a boy who plays with dolls, then you’re actually a girl. This is the first step in pathologizing gender non-conformance: transforming gender-atypical play into something which must be treated medically through hormone replacement therapy and genital mutilation.
Here the study reported by NBC reaffirms the idea of Judith Butler, that sex is socially constructed and gender identity is innate:
“The current study ‘helps to confirm the unique and separate reality of gender and how it is distinct from biological sex and socialization. It supports the idea that gender is inherent and separate from biological sex which would seem to then come down on the side of nature as opposed to nurture.’”
The researchers claimed this study showed that gender identity comes down on the side of nature and that it is separate from sex. In other words, if you’re a boy who plays with female-typical toys, then you have a gender identity of female, and therefore, are a female. As we have shown throughout the book, especially in Chapter 9 on the development of gender identity, such ways of thinking reinforce gender stereotypes.
Such logic can only result in child abuse, as it requires you to gaslight children into thinking they have been born into the wrong body. It requires that you reinforce the gender stereotypes feminists wish to dismantle, and it requires that you treat your biological boy as a girl. Such logic is sexist and dangerous.
Just because someone plays with gender-atypical toys does not mean they are the opposite sex; or, in the words of evolutionary biologist Heather Heying:
“Suggesting that boys or men who enjoy engaging in traditional female-typical gender norms are actually girls or women is regressive, misogynistic, reality-denying garbage.”[3]
As the claims of the study reached the mainstream, others began speaking out against what they viewed as a regressive ideology of reinforcing gender stereotypes onto children:
“This is backwards,” said one feminist and researcher, “Playing with toys and wearing clothes that are typical for the opposite sex is the main reason a child is labeled trans. (If you don’t believe me, read any interview with parents of trans kids. It’s all ‘he loved dolls and pink’ or ‘she insisted on short hair.’)”[4]
One father of a young adult also responded to the NBC study with clarity in regards to stereotyping young children:
“My daughter was a typical tomboy with older brothers and thought of herself as a boy when younger. She still likes toys typical for boys. She is 24 and would be the last person to say she’s a boy. Likes and interests do not make your gender.”[5]
Other commentators, like Chad Felix Greene (a gay, self-described non-binary man), responded with confusion: why are we reinforcing gender stereotypes?
“This would require clothing and toys to be strictly male or female,” he wrote, “I thought we all decided clothing and toys were gender neutral? Also what is this psychic ability children possess that enables them to determine the gender of clothing and toys so young?”[6]
“I’m confused,” said another person, “If gender roles are a social construct, then why do boys and girls who may identify with traditionally opposite-gender toys/clothes need to conform to that gender identity, since it doesn’t match their own? [Social constructionists] scream about gender roles then rigidly reinforce them.”[7]
“In order to make gender identity work,” wrote Greene, “the Left has had to rewrite all gender theory. Basically, if a boy likes trucks he is a boy and if he likes dolls he is a girl. To prove transgenderism, they have even resorted to supernatural ‘sensing’ of gender.”[8]
In response to all of this, political commentator and beekeeper Matt Walsh then reinforced the idea that a feminine boy is not a transgender girl; he’s simply a boy who likes feminine toys and clothes:
“If the claim is that ‘transgender girls’ are simply boys who identify with the things that society has arbitrarily and artificially associated with girls, then a transgender girl is by no means and in no way a girl. He would be, at most, a feminine boy.”[9]
A gender-critical feminist and commentator also explored the dangers of reinforcing such gender stereotypes onto gender non-conforming children:
“Are adults seriously willing to see gender non-conforming children mistakenly set on a pathway that begins with puberty blockers leading to hormone treatments and life-changing surgeries, all of which can lead to them being sterile?”[10]
Because gender-atypical play is now associated with an ‘innate’ gender identity and not innocuous toy preferences, social constructionists have ironically pathologized and medicalized gender non-conformance. If a boy or girl exhibits gender-atypical behavior and preferences, then social constructionist ideology says that the child’s gender identity is opposite of their birth sex; if it is opposite of their birth sex, then this gender identity must be actualized through hormone replacement therapy and genital surgery so that they can become a full ‘male’ or ‘female.’ Ironically, nothing is more regressive, abusive, and sexist than that.
In response to the strong social constructionist ideology which relegates boys and girls to dangerous stereotypes, one feminist quickly responded with an alternative: boys and girls should be taught to accept their bodies, to accept themselves for who they are, and to realize that just because they like gender-atypical toys does not mean they are the opposite sex:
“How about this,” she wrote, “Tell your child that no one can change sex; that they were born in a perfect body and that they can do anything they like while living in that body. It defines what sex they are. It does not define what person they are.”[11]
Reinforcing a strong social constructionist ideology of sex and gender means that one is also reinforcing an infantile view of what sex and gender is. Just because a boy puts on a dress does not mean he becomes a girl as if some religious sacrament has taken place.
While it is certainly true that young children may believe they actually become what they act out (such as a boy becoming a girl through wearing a dress), this is because young children are not able to separate sex and gender into categories. Their understanding of sex and gender is incredibly limited:
“Developmental studies show that young children have only a superficial understanding of sex and gender (at best). For instance, up until age 7, many children often believe that if a boy puts on a dress, he becomes a girl. This gives us reason to doubt whether a coherent concept of gender identity exists at all in young children. To such extent as any such identity may exist, the concept relies on stereotypes that encourage the conflation of gender with sex.”[12]
Accepting Sex Differences in Behavior
Knowing that young children have limited concepts of sex and gender and cannot separate fantasy (such as becoming a girl through wearing a dress) from reality, we should not be enforcing gender stereotypes onto them and treating them as though they are the opposite sex simply because they enjoy gender-atypical toys; in other words, we should not be conflating biological sex with gender stereotypes.
We should allow for the wide variety of behavior within the category of male and female without making children think they are stuck in the wrong body, lest we want to reinforce rigid stereotypes; or, in the words of endocrinologist William Malone and evolutionary biologist Colin Wright:
“In the case of an adolescent female whose behavior, personality traits and preferences are more ‘masculine’ than most girls and most boys, she could be led to incorrectly conclude that she is really a male, born in the wrong body. That child’s parents could become confused as well, noticing how ‘different’ their child’s behavior is from their own, or from that of their peers.
In reality, that child simply exists at the end of a behavioral spectrum, and ‘sex-atypical’ behavior is part of the natural variation exhibited both within and between the sexes. Personality and behavior do not define one’s sex.”[13]
Thus, variation within the male and female category does not mean that a child is actually the opposite sex; it just means that they are exhibiting gender-atypical behavior, and that’s okay! (Male and female behavior has plenty of overlap, but this does not mean that biological sex can be changed.)
When social constructionists fail to understand this critical point about variation within male and female behavior, gendered behavior is often conflated with biological sex, and this conflation is then pushed onto children:
“In most cases, the thing that is now called ‘gender identity’ likely is simply an individual’s perception of how their own sex-related and environmentally influenced personality compares to same and opposite sexed people. Put another way, it’s a self-assessment of one’s stereotypical degree of ‘masculinity’ or ‘femininity,’ and it’s wrongly being conflated with biological sex.
This conflation stems from a cultural failure to understand the broad distribution of personalities and preferences within sexes and the overlap between sexes.”[14]
If you remember how much emphasis I put on understanding bimodal distributions, where male and female behavior falls within two averages and significant overlap, then you can also understand how gender-atypical play can exist in boys and girls: there is plenty of variation within males and females.
Once again, gender-atypical behavior is simply a behavior which does not fall within the average of male and female distribution; it is by definition atypical, and yet this does not mean that a boy or girl exhibiting such atypical behavior is actually the opposite sex. Perhaps the social constructionist ideologues can realize this critical point so we can put an end to the proliferation of the sexual, psychological, and physical abuse of children.
“Surely the progressive position would be for children and adults with no care for their biological sex to express their gender in whatever way makes them comfortable?” writes one doctor.
“So for a boy to wear a dress and still be a boy and a girl to play football and still be a girl. Why force children, before they have the capacity to choose, into a gender box? Why not just let them be, and allow them to explore gender as part of their development. Quit forcing patriarchal gender labels onto children. Why are woke ‘progressives’ acting like the patriarchy’s useful idiots?”[15]
Medicalizing Gender Non-Conformance
As the social constructionists refuse to realize they are playing in to traditionalist views of gender, they continue to push transgender ideology onto young kids who exhibit gender non-conformance. Such ideological gaslighting makes children believe they are actually the opposite sex, which transforms harmless gender-atypical play into a pathology supposedly requiring medical treatment.
Because social constructionist ideology has proliferated into the mainstream, clinics for sex reassignment have begun to experience an over-diagnosing of gender dysphoria in gender non-conforming children. For example, in the United Kingdom, the Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS) received more than 2,500 children applicants for gender reassignment in the last year alone, compared to only 77 a decade ago.[16]
Because of the proliferating medicalization of gender non-conformance, more and more children are now being treated with hormones and surgically altered to align with their perceived ‘gender identity’ along with their parents’ encouragement and society’s affirmation. In the past three years, thirty-five psychologists who refused to take part in the sexual abuse of children resigned from the GIDS; they have raised concerns about giving young children hormones and puberty blockers while altering their genitalia:
“We are extremely concerned about the consequences for young people,” said one of the psychologists, “For those of us who previously worked in the service, we fear that we have had front row seats to a medical scandal.”[17]
Staff at the GIDS are under immense legal and social pressure to treat these children as quickly as possible, with little time for a thorough evaluation into what the children are experiencing. As of now, there’s only one pathway through the service, and that is through the medical alteration of the child’s physiology and anatomy.[18] Half of the children visiting the clinic are put on drugs to block the mechanisms which initiate puberty; such use of puberty blockers are considered by clinicians to be an irreversible form of treatment which halts healthy sexual development.[19]
Once these drugs are administered, the child is given cross-sex hormones to further differentiate their anatomy and physiology.[20] These kids are often as young as 12. As these children grow older, they often realize such medical intervention was a mistake and decide to detransition to their sex.[21] [22] [23]
Many detransitioners reported that the current culture was a major factor in them deciding to transition in the first place: “Mainly the thing that was fueling me was that I didn’t fit in, and then I was slowly drip-fed this idea that you could change sex,” said one detransitioner.[24]
As social constructionist ideologues push the idea that sex can be changed at whim, the pressure to transition has become so great that any questioning of the child’s medical treatment from the clinicians may brand the psychologists as transphobes:
“[The psychologists] described a service where they are constrained in the work they can do with a patient for fear of being called ‘transphobic.’ The psychologist said: ‘The alarm started ringing for me…I didn’t feel able to voice my concerns, or when I did I was often shut down by other affirmative clinicians.’”[25]
As the gender ideologues continue to gaslight innocent children into believing their gender-atypical play means they were born in the wrong body, international studies have shown a strong correlation between childhood gender dysphoria and homosexuality. In fact, the correlation is so strong that 85% of children who have gender dysphoric feelings grow out of it during puberty and often come out as gay.[26]
And yet, despite this, social constructionist ideologues continue to pathologize and medicalize gender-atypical behavior to the detriment of children’s later fertility:
“Instead of offering counseling, medical professionals now are commonly telling children that they may have been ‘born in the wrong body.’ This new approach, called ‘gender affirmation,’ makes gender dysphoria less likely to resolve, pushing children down the path toward irreversible medical and surgical interventions.
If aggressive transition options are pursued early in puberty, the combination of puberty-blocking drugs, followed by cross-sex hormones, will result in permanent infertility.”[27]
Ironically, such ‘gender affirmation’ actually enflames feelings of gender dysphoria:
“Telling a child that he or she was born in the wrong body pathologizes ‘gender non-conforming’ behavior and makes gender dysphoria less likely to resolve.”[28]
Because it is impossible to fully change one’s sex (as this would require alteration of sex-specific genes in the brain, a restructuring of sex-differentiated neurons, and a surgical replacement of all internal reproductive structures) it is nothing short of gaslighting to tell a child their gender non-conforming behavior means they are the opposite sex.
Rather than dealing with the problem at hand through psychological treatment, such gaslighting tactics of ‘gender affirmation’ create more pathological and maladaptive coping strategies than if the child learned to accept themselves, which is to say, to accept the sex they were born with:
“The fact is, no child is actually born in the wrong body. Adults should expand their understanding of what normal male and female behavior and preferences look like--which would lead them to appreciate that being male or female comes with a wider range of personalities preferences, and possibilities than old stereotypes would have us believe.”[29]
Abandoning Gender Stereotypes
Ending gender stereotypes for good means 1) reinforcing the idea that biological sex cannot be changed and 2) allowing gender-atypical behavior in boys and girls without telling them they were born in the wrong body. Ending gender stereotypes also means we must put a stop to gaslighting tactics which manipulate reality to fit within an ideological agenda. Gaslighting children by telling them they are actually the opposite sex is not progressive; it’s child abuse.
We must abandon the social constructionist view that sex is a malleable social construct and that it can be changed at whim. We do this not because we are transphobic to those who suffer from gender dysphoria, but because we wish to allow the wide diversity of human behavior to express itself without pathologizing and medicalizing gender-atypical traits.
You are not transphobic if you believe that young children should not make life-altering decisions which can create real gender dysphoria resulting in sexual, psychological, and physical trauma. You are not transphobic if you believe that a kid should be able to express themselves for who they are while reaffirming their biological reality of being born a male or female. And finally, you are not transphobic if you are protecting the innocence of children who need guidance and wisdom when it comes to sex and gender, not an ideology which masks its perversion through compassion and acceptance.
For the sexual health of our children, it’s time to put an end to the gaslighting; it’s time to stop being swayed by those who wish to have power over us and our children. It’s time to stop letting our words be taken over by postmodern ideologues who want nothing more than power, influence, and control.
It’s time we stand for those who have been hurt by the social constructionist ideology, who have been medically and psychologically abused so its doctrines can be solidified, and it’s time we stand for those who have suffered from the reality of gender dysphoria.
Once we allow for the wide variation of human behavior within the categories of male and female, we will see a more tolerant, more progressive, and more enlightened society. And only when we accept that individuals differ, rather than trying to equalize and dismantle all categories through the force of law, will we finally have true liberty. Doing so will dismantle constraining gender stereotypes while reaffirming our male-female reality.
As the decades pass, let this be known: the theory of strong social constructionism will see its judgment day.
Once the gaslighting ideology begins to die and those who have been sexually abused by its doctrines witness the psychological destruction laid about before them, they will turn back to our institutions and wonder why our society let them damage beyond repair the priceless qualities which nature bestowed upon them; or, in the words of Sinead, a young Scottish woman who de-transitioned:
“Referrals to Scottish Gender Services for kids aged just 4 to 10 have risen by more than 80% in a year. The coming decade will see a slew of young adults with altered bodies and no sexual function, who will turn to the National Health Service and ask, ‘Why did you let us do this to ourselves?’” [30]
We are 100% independently funded. If you like our work, consider making a donation.
[1] Chiu, J. (2019). Trans children sense their gender identities at young ages, study suggests. NBC.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Heying, H. (2019). In response to NBC study. Twitter.
[4] Joyce, H. (2019). In response to the NBC study. Twitter.
[5] BTC. (2019). In response to the NBC study. Twitter.
[6] Greene, C.F. (2019). In response to the NBC study. Twitter.
[7] Curtis, A. (2019). In response to the NBC study. Twitter.
[8] Greene, C.F. (2019). In response to the NBC study. Twitter. 2.
[9] Walsh, M. (2019). In response to the NBC study. Twitter.
[10] Gender is harmful. (2019). In response to the NBC study. Twitter.
[11] Woman Is Biology. (2019). In response to the NBC study. Twitter.
[12] Malone, W., Wright, C., & Robertson, J. (2019). No one is born in the ‘wrong body.’ Quillette.
[13] Ibid.
[14] Ibid.
[15] Thorne, A. (2019). In response to the NBC study. Twitter.
[16] Lockwood, S. & Lambert, H. (2019). NHS ‘over-diagnosing’ children having transgender treatment, former staff warn. Sky News.
[17] Ibid.
[18] Lockwood, S. & Lambert, H. (2019).
[19] Schmidt, L., Levine, R. (2015). Psychological outcomes and reproductive issues among gender dysphoric individuals. Endocrinology Metabolism Clinics of North America, 44, 773-785.
[20] Carmichael, P., et al. (2021). Short-term outcomes of pubertal suppression in a selected cohort of 12 to 15 year old young people with persistent gender dysphoria in the UK. PLoS One, 16(2).
[21] Drummond, K. D., Bradley, S. J., Peterson-Badali, M., & Zucker, K. J. (2008). A follow-up study of girls with gender identity disorder. Developmental Psychology, 44(1), 34–45.
[22] Ristori, J., Steensma, TD. (2016). Gender dysphoria in childhood. Int Rev Psychiatry, 28(1), 13–20.
[23] Singh, D., et al. (2021). A follow-up study of boys with gender identity disorder. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 12.
[24] Lockwood, S. & Lambert, H. (2019).
[25] Ibid.
[26] Ristori, J., Steensma, T. (2015).
[27] Malone, W., Wright, C., & Robertson, J. (2019).
[28] Ibid.
[29] Malone, W., Wright, C., & Robertson, J. (2019).
[30] ImWatson91. (2019). In response to the medicalization of gender non-conformance. Twitter.
