One of the things I'd most likely to have updated resources on and see addressed is the biology. I've not kept up to date; the work of Anne Fausto-Sterling, the concept of dynamic systems development, the understanding that biology is social, some input from ANT - all those things I'd like to have a 2024 version of, ready to go. It's amazing how crude, 19th century, and high-school basic most of our understandings of biology can be - and how people assume that this level of crude (mis) understanding equips them to speak authoritatively about sex. Actually, I want to see the whole concept of 'sex' problematised and unravelled in the public discourse. It's a placeholder for a zillion tiny things, it's not even a thing in itself. For me, getting people to realise that NOBODY's body neatly aligns with some imaginary coherent dualist "bio sex" is important work. Thanks for this resource. Their fear and hate is so huge that they have enormous energy to power their mythologies out into a cishet world that's all too happy to receive them. If we can be funny, creative, smart, and throw around a bit of reality-checking, it'll be good.
Kat serving up more prejudice and misinformation - Let's analyze!
Logical Fallacies:
- Appeal to Authority: Citing non-experts (Dawkins, Wright) on sex development
- False Equivalence: Comparing sex development complexity to historical medical scandals
- Hasty Generalization: Reducing complex biological systems to simple binary
- Cherry Picking: Citing a single controversial paper while ignoring vast body of research
- Ad Hominem: Implying sinister "nefarious purposes" behind scientific consensus
- Straw Man: Misrepresenting the argument about biological complexity as denying reproduction
- Cherry Picking: Citing a single paper while ignoring vast body of contradicting research
- Appeal to Authority: Using a postdoc's opinion piece as definitive science
Misrepresentations:
- Claims "renowned scientists" while citing primarily non-specialists in sex development
- Presents a single paper as "comprehensive review" while ignoring broader scientific literature
- Falsely equates understanding biological complexity with denying reproductive basics
- Conflates disorders of sexual development with the broader spectrum of sex characteristics
The irony of telling an anthropologist to "educate themselves" about biology while demonstrating precisely the crude, oversimplified understanding they critiqued is remarkable. This response perfectly exemplifies the high-school-level biology understanding that reduces complex developmental systems to binary absolutes - exactly what actual biological research has moved beyond.
Modern developmental biology, endocrinology, and genetics all recognize sex development as a complex process involving multiple genes, hormones, and environmental factors. The "binary and immutable" argument ignores decades of research showing that biological sex characteristics exist on a spectrum, even while reproductive roles may be dimorphic.
Oh, and the link Kat provides? I should make an article debunking that thing, and in fact, I shall do that. Suffice it to say the following summary:
The paper's fundamental flaw is assuming that recognizing biological complexity somehow threatens evolutionary theory or genetics. This is nonsensical - modern developmental biology enhances our understanding of these processes rather than contradicting them. Marinov's fear that accepting complexity will lead to "rejection of science" reveals ideological rather than scientific motivations.
Marinov's treatment of intersex conditions is particularly problematic, making sweeping claims about fertility that contradict medical literature. Many intersex individuals are fertile, and the paper's dismissal of their existence as "errors" rather than natural variation shows a poor understanding of developmental biology.
This is another textbook example of why evidence-based resources are crucial - to counter oversimplified rhetoric with actual scientific understanding, and ideological assertions with empirical evidence.
All this, and I now have a new PITT article to work on, hooray!
NB: Important info about anything linked to nas.org:
The National Association of Scholars (NAS):
- Founded in 1987 specifically to "confront the rise of campus political correctness"
- Originally called the "Campus Coalition for Democracy"
- Founded with the goal of preserving "Western intellectual heritage"
- Is a political advocacy organization, not a scientific or academic publisher
This context is important because:
1. The paper cited above by Kat appears in "Academic Questions," which is NAS's journal, not a peer-reviewed scientific journal
2. This explains why a postdoctoral researcher's opinion piece is being presented as authoritative science
3. The publication venue suggests this is more of a political/ideological piece than a scientific review
This significantly changes how we should evaluate this paper. Rather than being peer-reviewed research published in a scientific journal (like Nature, Science, or developmental biology journals), this is an opinion piece published in an advocacy organization's journal. In short, this is, like, just their opinion.
I really appreciate the thorough breakdown of Kat's flawed arguments here, particularly calling out the NAS for what it is (not scholarly, not peer-reviewed, and not science), but also for highlighting the complexity of intersex variation. That seems to be one aspect of this topic not often discussed openly and with respect to those individuals who are intersex.
This says nothing to the point Robin was making/echoing.
If you cannot constructively engage with the substance of the points, and continue to be insulting and engage in this trolling/spammy behavior, then you will find yourself unable to comment again.
This is a fantastic idea, I’ve been reading through the other PITT Substack (the horrendous one) and have been noticing how similar they all are. I Honestly can’t understand how parents can be so manipulative and cruel to their own children. It’s nothing short of disgusting how they will attempt to coerce their children out of being trans, not to mention the language they use in describing them, your kids trans not some kind of hideous gargoyle…
I can only hope that we get to see that in our lifetime, but from what I’ve read I have my doubts, gender critical beliefs seem to be heavily conspiratorial. They seem to think of transness as a disease that can be cured with enough isolation and guilt, their arguments are completely unfalsifiable, their sources unquestionable, and all facts to the contrary are dismissed as trans ideology. It’s very much pulled from the same playbook as antivaxers.
Gender is simply the social construct society has built up around the biological. Under your definition long hair, painted nails, makeup, the roles we play in society, and how we are treated are all biological traits??? That makes no sense we need separate categories to distinguish between the social and biological. I’m also assuming what you meant by trans not existing, is that you think trans identities are invalid. What is your criteria for a valid vs. invalid identity? I’m guessing it’s only trans people that you invalidate…
I tend to have a dark sense of humor, probably a coping mechanism, so I generally have to laugh at the hysterics they work themselves into. That being said reading the things they post only makes me love the LGBTQ+ community more. I find myself wanting to build a world where we can all live our lives fully, openly and authentically, where people don’t have to fear being rejected by their parents, where no one has to live in suffering for so long that it becomes your normal.
It was that site that inspired me to make this one, as a direct counter-narrative. It has evolved a bit since then, but the main purpose and impetus is the same. I too, found myself wanting to help build a world where everyone can simply live, love, and exist openly and for who and what we are, without shame, fear, prejudice, or hate. Where those whose families are broken due to coming out, who find themselves estranged, may find solace, refuge, facts, and support. Maybe it helps people process things and, hopefully, bring families back together.
- The claim that "trans does not exist" is demonstrably false. Gender identity and transgender individuals are recognized by major medical and psychological organizations worldwide.
- The use of loaded terms like "mutilation" is an emotionally manipulative mischaracterization of gender-affirming care.
Logical Fallacies:
- False Dichotomy: Presenting the issue as only "intact bodies" vs. "mutilation"
- Appeal to Nature: Suggesting that only birth-assigned characteristics are "natural" or valid
- Hasty Generalization: Making sweeping statements about all trans experiences
- Appeal to Emotion: Using inflammatory language ("mutilation") to provoke an emotional rather than rational response
Gender-affirming care is evidence-based healthcare, delivered through careful medical oversight and established standards of care. Supporting children in exploring their identity is fundamental to good parenting and demonstrably improves outcomes. The manufactured outrage ignores medical consensus and empirical evidence.
The "wrong body" narrative is indeed metaphorical - it describes a feeling, not a literal belief. Just as someone might say they "feel trapped" in a situation, trans individuals may use this metaphor to describe their experience. It's disingenuous to weaponize this metaphor by taking it literally.
Denying the existence of the trans people (or the concept of trans) is equivalent to denying gravity - you can dispute the terminology or underlying mechanisms, but you cannot deny the observable reality. The scientific consensus is clear, supported by decades of research and clinical experience. Like flat-earth theories, trans denial requires actively ignoring overwhelming evidence and expert consensus.
"Denying the existence of the trans people (or the concept of trans) is equivalent to denying gravity - you can dispute the terminology or underlying mechanisms, but you cannot deny the observable reality. The scientific consensus is clear, supported by decades of research and clinical experience. Like flat-earth theories, trans denial requires actively ignoring overwhelming evidence and expert consensus."
Repetition doesn't make your position true, especially when it contradicts established scientific evidence. The gravity comparison is particularly revealing, and I was hoping you would respond this way, as your response actually strengthens this analogy:
While we can observe and measure gravity's effects - objects falling, planetary orbits, gravitational lensing - physicists still debate its fundamental nature. We know it exists, we can predict its effects with remarkable accuracy, but:
- Why it's so much weaker than other fundamental forces
Yet despite these unknowns, no credible scientist claims "gravity doesn't exist" simply because we can't fully explain its mechanism. Similarly:
- We can observe and measure the effects of gender identity across cultures and time
- We can document consistent clinical outcomes in treatment
- We can study its biological and psychological components
- The fact that aspects remain under research doesn't negate its existence
This parallel actually strengthens the argument: Just as we don't need to fully understand gravity's quantum mechanics to know it's real and work with its effects, we don't need to fully understand every aspect of gender identity to recognize its reality and provide appropriate care.
For someone expressing concerns about others' intellectual capacity, you've demonstrated precisely why complex topics require nuanced understanding rather than reductive arguments. Medical consensus and clinical evidence support the reality of gender identity, just as surely as we accept gravity based on what we can measure and prove.
This is such a great idea! This will be an incredibly valuable resource for people who want to push back against anti-trans propaganda, but don't feel they have the necessary facts and citations to do so.
Kat serving up her brand of prejudice and bigotry to prove my points - Let's observe!
Logical Fallacies:
- Circular Reasoning: Using "trans doesn't exist" to prove itself
- Ad Hominem: Dismissing the entire effort as an "evil cult"
- False Dichotomy: Presenting sex as purely binary when biological science recognizes more complexity
- Begging the Question: Assuming the conclusion ("sex is immutable") in the premise
- Loaded Language: Using "lies" and "cult" to poison the well
The collaborative project described isn't about "defending" anything - it's about documenting and sharing evidence-based information. Facts, Data, Science - you know, everything your position is not based on. Like the fact that major medical organizations, scientific institutions, and researchers worldwide recognize gender identity and support gender-affirming care isn't a "cult" - it's scientific consensus.
The accusation that people are "working hard to come up with lies" is particularly ironic given that the project's stated goal is to compile existing scientific evidence and research. If the evidence against your position seems overwhelming, perhaps it's worth considering why that might be. Consider that what few papers that try to do so are constantly retracted and removed from the publisher due to severe flaws, misrepresentations, and poor methodology. Almost as if it wasn't...very...scientific after all.
Kat's simplistic assertions about sex and gender ignore decades of biological and social science research. The existence of trans people isn't dependent on anyone's belief system - they exist as demonstrably as any other human demographic, with documented histories across cultures and throughout time.
The defensive tone of "And there's nothing you can do about it" actually reveals an awareness that society is moving toward greater understanding and acceptance of gender diversity, despite resistance from those clinging to oversimplified biological determinism.
This is a perfect textbook example of why this resource project is needed - to counter rhetoric with research, and ideology with evidence. It provides a factual foundation that can't be dismissed without looking, well, like this.
![People with Inconvenient Truths about Transphobes [PITT]](https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_36,h_36,c_fill,f_webp,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep,g_auto/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F704ba0db-3e10-4112-9364-c2f224d0cfae_500x500.png)
One of the things I'd most likely to have updated resources on and see addressed is the biology. I've not kept up to date; the work of Anne Fausto-Sterling, the concept of dynamic systems development, the understanding that biology is social, some input from ANT - all those things I'd like to have a 2024 version of, ready to go. It's amazing how crude, 19th century, and high-school basic most of our understandings of biology can be - and how people assume that this level of crude (mis) understanding equips them to speak authoritatively about sex. Actually, I want to see the whole concept of 'sex' problematised and unravelled in the public discourse. It's a placeholder for a zillion tiny things, it's not even a thing in itself. For me, getting people to realise that NOBODY's body neatly aligns with some imaginary coherent dualist "bio sex" is important work. Thanks for this resource. Their fear and hate is so huge that they have enormous energy to power their mythologies out into a cishet world that's all too happy to receive them. If we can be funny, creative, smart, and throw around a bit of reality-checking, it'll be good.
Kay not understanding what binary means is peak TERF. Binary means two. Not mostly two, not three, two. Sex is a bimodal distribution ie. a spectrum.
Kat serving up more prejudice and misinformation - Let's analyze!
Logical Fallacies:
- Appeal to Authority: Citing non-experts (Dawkins, Wright) on sex development
- False Equivalence: Comparing sex development complexity to historical medical scandals
- Hasty Generalization: Reducing complex biological systems to simple binary
- Cherry Picking: Citing a single controversial paper while ignoring vast body of research
- Ad Hominem: Implying sinister "nefarious purposes" behind scientific consensus
- Straw Man: Misrepresenting the argument about biological complexity as denying reproduction
- Cherry Picking: Citing a single paper while ignoring vast body of contradicting research
- Appeal to Authority: Using a postdoc's opinion piece as definitive science
Misrepresentations:
- Claims "renowned scientists" while citing primarily non-specialists in sex development
- Presents a single paper as "comprehensive review" while ignoring broader scientific literature
- Falsely equates understanding biological complexity with denying reproductive basics
- Conflates disorders of sexual development with the broader spectrum of sex characteristics
The irony of telling an anthropologist to "educate themselves" about biology while demonstrating precisely the crude, oversimplified understanding they critiqued is remarkable. This response perfectly exemplifies the high-school-level biology understanding that reduces complex developmental systems to binary absolutes - exactly what actual biological research has moved beyond.
Modern developmental biology, endocrinology, and genetics all recognize sex development as a complex process involving multiple genes, hormones, and environmental factors. The "binary and immutable" argument ignores decades of research showing that biological sex characteristics exist on a spectrum, even while reproductive roles may be dimorphic.
Oh, and the link Kat provides? I should make an article debunking that thing, and in fact, I shall do that. Suffice it to say the following summary:
The paper's fundamental flaw is assuming that recognizing biological complexity somehow threatens evolutionary theory or genetics. This is nonsensical - modern developmental biology enhances our understanding of these processes rather than contradicting them. Marinov's fear that accepting complexity will lead to "rejection of science" reveals ideological rather than scientific motivations.
Marinov's treatment of intersex conditions is particularly problematic, making sweeping claims about fertility that contradict medical literature. Many intersex individuals are fertile, and the paper's dismissal of their existence as "errors" rather than natural variation shows a poor understanding of developmental biology.
This is another textbook example of why evidence-based resources are crucial - to counter oversimplified rhetoric with actual scientific understanding, and ideological assertions with empirical evidence.
All this, and I now have a new PITT article to work on, hooray!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
NB: Important info about anything linked to nas.org:
The National Association of Scholars (NAS):
- Founded in 1987 specifically to "confront the rise of campus political correctness"
- Originally called the "Campus Coalition for Democracy"
- Founded with the goal of preserving "Western intellectual heritage"
- Is a political advocacy organization, not a scientific or academic publisher
This context is important because:
1. The paper cited above by Kat appears in "Academic Questions," which is NAS's journal, not a peer-reviewed scientific journal
2. This explains why a postdoctoral researcher's opinion piece is being presented as authoritative science
3. The publication venue suggests this is more of a political/ideological piece than a scientific review
This significantly changes how we should evaluate this paper. Rather than being peer-reviewed research published in a scientific journal (like Nature, Science, or developmental biology journals), this is an opinion piece published in an advocacy organization's journal. In short, this is, like, just their opinion.
I really appreciate the thorough breakdown of Kat's flawed arguments here, particularly calling out the NAS for what it is (not scholarly, not peer-reviewed, and not science), but also for highlighting the complexity of intersex variation. That seems to be one aspect of this topic not often discussed openly and with respect to those individuals who are intersex.
This says nothing to the point Robin was making/echoing.
If you cannot constructively engage with the substance of the points, and continue to be insulting and engage in this trolling/spammy behavior, then you will find yourself unable to comment again.
This is a fantastic idea, I’ve been reading through the other PITT Substack (the horrendous one) and have been noticing how similar they all are. I Honestly can’t understand how parents can be so manipulative and cruel to their own children. It’s nothing short of disgusting how they will attempt to coerce their children out of being trans, not to mention the language they use in describing them, your kids trans not some kind of hideous gargoyle…
I can only hope that we get to see that in our lifetime, but from what I’ve read I have my doubts, gender critical beliefs seem to be heavily conspiratorial. They seem to think of transness as a disease that can be cured with enough isolation and guilt, their arguments are completely unfalsifiable, their sources unquestionable, and all facts to the contrary are dismissed as trans ideology. It’s very much pulled from the same playbook as antivaxers.
Gender is simply the social construct society has built up around the biological. Under your definition long hair, painted nails, makeup, the roles we play in society, and how we are treated are all biological traits??? That makes no sense we need separate categories to distinguish between the social and biological. I’m also assuming what you meant by trans not existing, is that you think trans identities are invalid. What is your criteria for a valid vs. invalid identity? I’m guessing it’s only trans people that you invalidate…
I tend to have a dark sense of humor, probably a coping mechanism, so I generally have to laugh at the hysterics they work themselves into. That being said reading the things they post only makes me love the LGBTQ+ community more. I find myself wanting to build a world where we can all live our lives fully, openly and authentically, where people don’t have to fear being rejected by their parents, where no one has to live in suffering for so long that it becomes your normal.
It was that site that inspired me to make this one, as a direct counter-narrative. It has evolved a bit since then, but the main purpose and impetus is the same. I too, found myself wanting to help build a world where everyone can simply live, love, and exist openly and for who and what we are, without shame, fear, prejudice, or hate. Where those whose families are broken due to coming out, who find themselves estranged, may find solace, refuge, facts, and support. Maybe it helps people process things and, hopefully, bring families back together.
It can be so hard to read those things, especially knowing many of them were written about real families with real kids who deserve love.
What do we have here folks? Let's break it down:
Factual Inaccuracies & Misrepresentations:
- The claim that "trans does not exist" is demonstrably false. Gender identity and transgender individuals are recognized by major medical and psychological organizations worldwide.
- The use of loaded terms like "mutilation" is an emotionally manipulative mischaracterization of gender-affirming care.
Logical Fallacies:
- False Dichotomy: Presenting the issue as only "intact bodies" vs. "mutilation"
- Appeal to Nature: Suggesting that only birth-assigned characteristics are "natural" or valid
- Hasty Generalization: Making sweeping statements about all trans experiences
- Appeal to Emotion: Using inflammatory language ("mutilation") to provoke an emotional rather than rational response
Gender-affirming care is evidence-based healthcare, delivered through careful medical oversight and established standards of care. Supporting children in exploring their identity is fundamental to good parenting and demonstrably improves outcomes. The manufactured outrage ignores medical consensus and empirical evidence.
The "wrong body" narrative is indeed metaphorical - it describes a feeling, not a literal belief. Just as someone might say they "feel trapped" in a situation, trans individuals may use this metaphor to describe their experience. It's disingenuous to weaponize this metaphor by taking it literally.
Denying the existence of the trans people (or the concept of trans) is equivalent to denying gravity - you can dispute the terminology or underlying mechanisms, but you cannot deny the observable reality. The scientific consensus is clear, supported by decades of research and clinical experience. Like flat-earth theories, trans denial requires actively ignoring overwhelming evidence and expert consensus.
"Denying the existence of the trans people (or the concept of trans) is equivalent to denying gravity - you can dispute the terminology or underlying mechanisms, but you cannot deny the observable reality. The scientific consensus is clear, supported by decades of research and clinical experience. Like flat-earth theories, trans denial requires actively ignoring overwhelming evidence and expert consensus."
So brilliantly put!!
Repetition doesn't make your position true, especially when it contradicts established scientific evidence. The gravity comparison is particularly revealing, and I was hoping you would respond this way, as your response actually strengthens this analogy:
While we can observe and measure gravity's effects - objects falling, planetary orbits, gravitational lensing - physicists still debate its fundamental nature. We know it exists, we can predict its effects with remarkable accuracy, but:
We don't fully understand:
- How gravity works at the quantum level
- Whether gravitons (theoretical gravity particles) exist
- How it interacts with other fundamental forces
- Why it's so much weaker than other fundamental forces
Yet despite these unknowns, no credible scientist claims "gravity doesn't exist" simply because we can't fully explain its mechanism. Similarly:
- We can observe and measure the effects of gender identity across cultures and time
- We can document consistent clinical outcomes in treatment
- We can study its biological and psychological components
- The fact that aspects remain under research doesn't negate its existence
This parallel actually strengthens the argument: Just as we don't need to fully understand gravity's quantum mechanics to know it's real and work with its effects, we don't need to fully understand every aspect of gender identity to recognize its reality and provide appropriate care.
For someone expressing concerns about others' intellectual capacity, you've demonstrated precisely why complex topics require nuanced understanding rather than reductive arguments. Medical consensus and clinical evidence support the reality of gender identity, just as surely as we accept gravity based on what we can measure and prove.
This is such a great idea! This will be an incredibly valuable resource for people who want to push back against anti-trans propaganda, but don't feel they have the necessary facts and citations to do so.
Kat serving up her brand of prejudice and bigotry to prove my points - Let's observe!
Logical Fallacies:
- Circular Reasoning: Using "trans doesn't exist" to prove itself
- Ad Hominem: Dismissing the entire effort as an "evil cult"
- False Dichotomy: Presenting sex as purely binary when biological science recognizes more complexity
- Begging the Question: Assuming the conclusion ("sex is immutable") in the premise
- Loaded Language: Using "lies" and "cult" to poison the well
The collaborative project described isn't about "defending" anything - it's about documenting and sharing evidence-based information. Facts, Data, Science - you know, everything your position is not based on. Like the fact that major medical organizations, scientific institutions, and researchers worldwide recognize gender identity and support gender-affirming care isn't a "cult" - it's scientific consensus.
The accusation that people are "working hard to come up with lies" is particularly ironic given that the project's stated goal is to compile existing scientific evidence and research. If the evidence against your position seems overwhelming, perhaps it's worth considering why that might be. Consider that what few papers that try to do so are constantly retracted and removed from the publisher due to severe flaws, misrepresentations, and poor methodology. Almost as if it wasn't...very...scientific after all.
Kat's simplistic assertions about sex and gender ignore decades of biological and social science research. The existence of trans people isn't dependent on anyone's belief system - they exist as demonstrably as any other human demographic, with documented histories across cultures and throughout time.
The defensive tone of "And there's nothing you can do about it" actually reveals an awareness that society is moving toward greater understanding and acceptance of gender diversity, despite resistance from those clinging to oversimplified biological determinism.
This is a perfect textbook example of why this resource project is needed - to counter rhetoric with research, and ideology with evidence. It provides a factual foundation that can't be dismissed without looking, well, like this.
I think Kat needs a hobby. I mean something constructive, rather than this odd obsession with policing how total strangers experience their gender.
I would suggest therapy but I’m not sure she would be into that, she might have to dig deeper into why she spends all day attacking trans people…
I find knitting to be very therapeutic AND you get garments or toys when you finish a project!