Talk about avoidance! I've asked questions, nice easy ones, and all you want to do is blather on about how much disdain you have for how I asked them. I really don't want to go to all the trouble of creating a pseudo-academic essay when the audience is ideologically captured. As I said, you won't accept any source I provide as authentic if it goes against your bias. So, conversationally, I put questions about the topic to you and you dodged them, like the intellectual coward you are. You cited Pink News, FFS! 🤣 What a blowhard, appropriating the acronym of a group that gives vivid first-hand accounts of the damage caused by gender to families, just to try to look clever. Have you read anything from the real PITT? Harrowing stuff. Your content meanwhile is foppish faux-intellectual wankery. Too scared to challenge your biased beliefs about gender, you project your insecurities onto others. 🥱
Okay folks, I am just going to make this comment because this response provides us with some interesting things to take note of.
Notice how Stan attacks me ("intellectual coward," "blowhard," "foppish faux-intellectual wankery") but not my evidence? Claims my sources are biased but provides zero counter-sources? Admits refusing to provide citations with the pre-fabricated excuse that "the readers" are "ideologically captured"? Ends with projection accusations while literally projecting their own avoidance and behaviors onto me?
Meanwhile, I answered every substantive question - I just refused to validate their fallacious framing, and called that framing out. So we receive a string of insults, their projection, and the childish "you are too chicken" goad.
As if I didn't arrive to the position I hold without doing the work.
For those keeping score:
1. My comments: 25+16 citations, 5 direct questions answered
They just didn't like my answers or what the research actually shows.
They make the claim that we are all "ideologically captured," but what does that look like? Someone who engages with the questions asked and the evidence, or someone who just has excuses for why they don't - and will get angry and cast insults in the process?
Folks, when someone abandons evidence for insults, they're not debating anymore, they're just having feelings in public.
The data, and this response of Stan's, speaks for itself.
Stay safe out there folks, look out for each other, and enjoy your weekend! ☮️🏳️⚧️🏳️🌈
I think it would be difficult to find a better example of how an echo chamber functions than your beginning a post with, "Okay folks". You're very keen to point out what you dislike about my contributions (mostly that I won't waste time pandering to your style guide) without turning your critical eye towards the obvious bias that underpins your position. Your selection of "evidence" is guided by confirmation of this bias. You dodged difficult questions. You counted "fallacies" but haven't named them. What a tedious exercise this has been.
"Being trans isn't a belief system; it's an irrefutable part of who people are."
There is no objective evidence that proves the condition of "being transgender" is anything but a belief. The diagnosis of gender dysphoria is based upon examination of a person's claim to feel a certain way. In young people particularly, the presentation is very similar to those individuals suffering from anorexia nervosa. What is particularly bizarre about this similarity is when a person makes claims about their embodiment that relate to their weight and body shape they are treated as though they are seriously unwell. But if similar claims are made about their gender these claims are affirmed, and a pathway to experimental medicine is opened. Trans identity is a condition of the mind, yet the ideology insists that treatment is necessary (despite simultaneously insisting that it is a *natural* condition) and that this treatment is performed on the body. Truly bizarre. Fundamentally contradictory. Also truly grotesque in the manner in which it targets children. The cause of distress over one's body is what should be paramount in treatment of a child presenting with such. Instead they are affirmed in their beliefs. The autistic girl who fears pubertal changes has nothing in common with the adult man who gets sexual gratification from adopting a feminine persona, yet they are lumped together into the same category: "trans". Why? Who benefits from closing the proximity between children and adult sexuality?
1. Gender Dysphoria and Anorexia are two different things, with two very different manifestations, that require very different treatment. Do you understand what those differences are and why? I suggest you read up on both with some of the more current studies out there to get a better grasp on the topics, otherwise you will fall victim to the superficial false equivalency you just made here.
2. How many decades does it take for a treatment to no longer be considered experimental? Gender affirming care has been around for over 40 years in the more modern iteration we have today. Even longer if you consider the very first beginnings. In short, this is not experimental. To deny the plethora of data, science, and studies that stand in opposition to your position and claim is truly the bizarre and contradictory thing on display here.
3. The co-occurrence of autism and gender diversity is well-documented in research. Studies show that autistic people are more likely to be transgender and this intersection presents unique experiences in gender identity formation. This intersection is a legitimate area of clinical attention, not inappropriate "lumping together."
4. "The cause of distress over one's body is what should be paramount in treatment of a child presenting with such" It is, that is called "gender dysphoria" and the treatment of it is well established and generally understood. Did you know that affirmation doesn't mean uncritically accepting all statements but providing supportive care during thorough assessment? Again, to deny decades of data and research is, well, weird.
5. What men are you talking about, re: sexual gratification? Can you cite some peer-reviewed studies that discuss this that are not debunked or discredited? So no Blanchard, etc - unless you are willing to deal with the *many* studies that refute their findings and claims? Furthermore, do you realize that this, I guess "paraphilia" you describe is documented and diagnosed as something quite different and quite distant from gender dysphoria, and has nothing to do with being trans? Why even go there when it is neither indicated or necessary? Did you just do an appeal to emotion and fear mongering?
1. Yes, two different things, but similar presentations. Don't you agree? There's even been instances of social contagion involving the two conditions that bear more scrutiny. You're not into scrutiny. You're into obfuscation.
2. "Gender affirming care" is such an odious euphemism. The use of "puberty blockers" is still considered to be experimental because of the very poor quality of evidence of their efficacy. See the Cass review. There is no scientific consensus on this matter, as you would agree if you were honest.
3. What do you think is the connection between autism and a susceptibility to confusion about gender identity? Do you think that there is a corollary between the huge increase in ASD diagnoses and transgender identity in children, in particular girls?
4. Gender dysphoria isn't the *cause* of distress about one's gendered experience. It's the term used by some people to describe it. Along with autism, it's been shown that past trauma, including sexual trauma, is a very common comorbid presentation with gender dysphoria. That would be a likely cause for a child's discomfort, but to suggest that treating this distress might resolve gender confusion constitutes "conversion therapy" in many situations. It's strange that you don't mention that, given how much you think you know.
5, etc. The existence of sexual paraphilia is the really inconvenient truth about transgender ideology, isn't it? I don't need to cite Blanchard or even mention autogynephilia because of the very long history of men getting dressed up in women's attire to get their jollies. These same men claim transgender identities in this era because it enables them a degree of legitimacy they previously could not enjoy. Which places them adjacent to confused children, who must be even more confused by the association than to begin with. Another fact about men claiming transgender identities is that they are significantly more likely to be imprisoned for crimes of a sexual nature than the rest of the male population. That's well documented (I have not been providing footnotes or references because you won't be convinced unless you are brave enough - honest enough - to research these things for yourself) and hardly surprising.
So the question remains - why do you wish to make distressed children occupy the same category in society as adult males with sexual paraphiliae? By force-teaming trans with the LGB you're already bringing sexuality into the world of children who have yet to explore sexual attraction, why? Do you not think that this, along with the damage caused by early exposure to pornography, might be causing children to be afraid of what their own post-adolescent lives might entail? Probably not, but why not?
I wrote a point-by-point rebuttal, and I may still make an article of it yet. Considering how many fallacies I had to wade through the first time around, only to be confronted with even more, and you have not managed to engage with any of my points substantively? This is sealioning or "JAQing off."
Troll tactics and bad-faith argumentation. Let's not forget the surest sign of defeat - retreating to ad hominems!
Here is the pattern:
- Asks seemingly earnest questions
- Ignores substantive answers
- Repeats original claims with slight variations
- Refuses to provide evidence
- Demands others do more work ("research these things for yourself")
Observe:
Point 1: Asked if Stan understands the differences between gender dysphoria and anorexia, suggested reading current studies.
Stan's Response: "yes....but" and simply reasserted the same false equivalence without demonstrating any understanding of the differences.
Point 2: Noted 40+ years of gender-affirming care history, asked how long before it's not "experimental."
Stan's Response: Still called it "experimental" without addressing the 40-year timeline you provided. Invokes "Cass review" while ignoring all the criticism and flaws that have been thoroughly documented.
Point 3: Cited well-documented research on autism-gender diversity co-occurrence.
Stan's Response: Ignored the research, just repeated claims about "confusion" and "susceptibility."
Point 4: Explained affirmation involves thorough assessment, not uncritical acceptance.
Stan's Response: Ignored this clarification entirely, continued mischaracterizing affirmative care.
Point 5: Asked for peer-reviewed citations about the "sexual gratification" claim, noted it's distinct from gender dysphoria.
Stan's Response: Provided zero citations, admitted "I have not been providing footnotes," and continued conflating unrelated conditions.
Stan didn't answer a single direct question I posed, didn't engage with any evidence I presented, and explicitly refused to provide the citations requested. They simply restated their original positions with more words but zero substantive engagement. All while somehow managing to produce even more logical fallacies.
I see no need to give a good-faith response in light of this behavior. I will paraphrase and drop the facts. If enough readers want the long form version, I will write up the rebuttal into an article.👍
For the readers: Stan claims gender dysphoria is a social contagion similar to anorexia, particularly affecting autistic and traumatized youth who need therapy rather than "experimental" gender-affirming care. They assert transgender women are disproportionately sexual predators and that including transgender identity with LGB sexualizes children. They provide zero citations while demanding others "do their own research" to discover these supposed truths.
The Rebuttal in Three Sentences:
Gender dysphoria involves no perceptual distortion unlike anorexia, gender-affirming care has existed since 1988 with 93% of studies showing positive outcomes, and transgender youth experience trauma FROM discrimination, not the reverse[1-18].
Actual data shows transgender people are overwhelmingly victims; 47% experiencing sexual assault, 4x more likely to face violence, while perpetrators are predominantly cisgender men in positions of trust[19-25].
Stan's exclusive focus on attacking transgender people while showing zero engagement with organizations supporting the vulnerable populations they claim to protect reveals this isn't child protection, it's exploitation of vulnerable groups as rhetorical weapons against transgender existence.
Fallacy count in his response: 22! 😱
Anything past this point will just be needing the last word - let me know what fallacies you think Stan has made and why, or if you want to see this rebuttal as an article. 🖖
Citations (some are articles that link relevant studies, at least one is a thorough analysis and compilation - use these for the analysis or not, but the studies are linked for transparency):
A good idea! I may have to make one. I think there may be a generator for transphobia bingo cards, but now I wonder if they do make a privilege one. Hmmmm....
It's interesting to find a corner of substack with this point of view. There are large areas of substack where you get nothing but gender critical posts.But I don't find this to be an especially thoughtful rebuttal. It consist mostly of ad hominem attacks, and whenever there are actual arguments, they are aimed at positions I specifically reject. I do not say that trans people should be excluded from women's sports, nor do I say that they should be excluded from women's changing areas, and I give reasons why I believe this.
So my original reply turned into something long enough to be its own article.
Instead of going that route for now, I will let the readers be the judge of whether or not my rebuttal is thoughtful and substantively engages with your points, or if it "consist[s] mostly of ad hominem attacks"
If anyone wants to point out the ad hominem(s) I made, that would be hilarious. We could make it into a learning moment this way!
Remember, an ad hominem attacks the person's character rather than their argument.
For example: "You're wrong because you're a jerk" is an ad hominem.
Not an Ad hominem: "Your position as someone unaffected by these policies makes your 'moderation' suspect"
How many did I make? Does it really constitute most of my rebuttal? What fallacy has Teed made by making his claims above? As a hint, as yourself "what fallacy engages in a broad accusation based on a singular or small occurrence?"
What rhetorical strategy is being put into play here?
What has Mr. Rockwell failed to do with his comment here, and what do you think that means?
Often I find that criticism of those who stand on a platform of privilege think that criticism of their position, content, or ideas somehow constitutes a personal attack. Either I will receive more man/cisplaining, or I will get the deflection decathalon, and sometimes served patronizingly so.
Thanks Mr. Rockwell for proving the point while missing it. It has given this opportunity for a learning moment/exercise, and it spawned a book idea.
While your response surely does not consist "mostly of ad hominem attacks," I do think it is reasonable to say that the opening paragraphs do.
You refer to "confidence, arrogance, or ignorance," "cisplaining," "a bingo card of privilege," a "Mount Olympus of unexamined advantage" from which "they've descend from on high [to] explain to the merely trans mortals," the "audacity of the unaffected" to "write about struggles you will never face" - all before addressing a single word he wrote.
I daresay that if someone had written about you in a similar vein, you'd call it poisoning the well. The whole attitude expressed there is not "your arguments are dumb," it's "how dare you have an opinion on the matter."
However, once you got to the actual text, to engaging with what he wrote, that changed and your argument was cogent and while sometimes dismissive, it was deservedly so in the context of the referenced content you were presenting.
Which means, I hold, if the first couple of paragraphs had been at the end, as a conclusion rather than a preamble, that he had shown his "detachment" from the real impacts on the real lives of the real people whose rights he would make subject to political manipulation, there would have been no basis for his complaint. Unfortunately, they weren't, giving him the opportunity to avoid a real response.
I'll end with my own mini-bio: I'm a 76-year-old cis straight white male who subscribes to your substack precisely because of the information and references to be gained by your footnotes.
This is exactly the kind of thoughtful engagement that makes these discussions worthwhile. Thank you for taking the time to provide such detailed feedback!
You've identified something crucial: the difference between logical validity and rhetorical effectiveness. You're absolutely right that my opening created a functional poisoning of the well, even if it wasn't one in the strict logical sense.
Here's the distinction I'd make (and I'd love your thoughts on this): Those observations about privilege weren't saying "dismiss him because he's privileged" (which would be ad hominem), but rather "his distance from these impacts shapes his 'moderate' framing" (which is relevant context). However - and this is where your critique lands perfectly - by front-loading it, I created a rhetorical vulnerability that you describe. Same content at the END would have felt earned; at the BEGINNING it feels presumptive. Lesson learned, and I am glad that I can revise and tweak this response accordingly.
The irony isn't lost on me that in an essay about rhetorical traps, I set one for myself. Your point about giving Rockwell an escape hatch is particularly sharp - I handed him exactly what he needed to avoid the substantive engagement.
Your structural suggestion (observations as conclusion rather than preamble) is strategically sound. I should have started with an evidence first, context after approach. Let the arguments demonstrate the detachment before naming it. I admit, I went for the lazy hook. This is not something I spent a week refining, as I do with other long-form articles.
I greatly appreciate that you engage with both the substance AND the strategy of these pieces. The fact that you subscribe specifically for the footnotes and information - and offer this caliber of constructive criticism - represents exactly the kind of good-faith dialogue that actually moves things forward.
Thank you for the lesson and reminder in tactical improvement. Next piece, I'll let the arguments do the heavy lifting first.
P.S. - The fact that you noted the shift in quality once I engaged with the actual text is the most validating critique I could receive. That's the writer I want to be consistently.
Thanks for your kind reply, especially since I was concerned that my opening paragraphs would seem hostile enough that you wouldn't get to the "However." I'm glad you did.
Just a few quick observations.
"observations about privilege weren't saying 'dismiss him because he's privileged' (which would be ad hominem)"
One of my rules for communication is that "what you say isn't as important as what the other person hears." I'd rather suspect seeing a response that began with "cisplaining" and a reference to Mount Olympus felt damn personal. So while the intent may have been descriptive rather than dismissive, I can easily see how it could and I suspect did come across as the latter.
I'd also say that despite my having said for the sake of simplicity that your first paragraphs should have been at the end, there's no reason they couldn't have been threaded through (although I'd leave the Mount Olympus bit until the end).
For example, as part of the tweaking, you could look for a spot where it'd be appropriate to say something like "This raises the issue of his distance from the topic. It's said that distance can give you objectivity, but it also can create a false sense of 'balance' that gives personal opinion equal weight to lived experience and so loses track of real life impacts. So it is here." And then going on about the basis for saying that, including his insulation from the effects of his proposals.
I freely confess I am too effing lazy to go back to your piece to suggest such a spot, so I'll leave it at that.
ST-DS9 wins by a tribble over ST-TOS. I watched the premiere of ST in 1966, so it holds an important place in my heart, but DS9 and it's serialized story, the wide variety of characters…it was so satisfying.
Movie? I'll go with ST2-The Wrath of Khan and close behind is ST8-First Contact.
I have a hard time choosing because I like so many different things from all the series, but I have a special place in my heart for DS-9 as well. The call-back episodes, the serialization with ability to see the nuance of the characters grow and change? Some powerful episodes. TNG is a close second, if only because that was the series that really pulled me into the trek universe and taught me so much.
For movies? First Contact I think is a great pick, and I think my personal favorite as well. I have a fond place in my heart for the The Undiscovered Country because it was the first ST movie I was able to see in the theater with my father. That, and a Shakespeare quoting Klingon? Young me was sold!
From Captain Von Trapp to General Chang, Christopher Plummer was always a treat to watch on screen.
I think the first ST you see becomes "your" ST. My daughter's is Voyager.
Have you made the Trek to Ticonderoga and the Star Trek Set Tour? The sets from TOS are there and they are in the process of building out the sets from the Enterprise D.
I really love Voyager too. I enjoyed what they were trying to do: bring in the best of what they learned from DS-9; show serialization and character evolution, but also provide the TNG exploration/dilemmas/challenges with a means to make it "all new" (mostly) again. I have so much love for Janeway as a character, but also the entire crew. Each crew member had some aspect to their character that resonated with me. To say nothing of the perspectives they explored and exposed throughout the show, in a way that was not possible from TNG. I never understood the discontent Voyager received, even if I can appreciate some of the criticisms of certain episodes, show direction, and yes, especially the salamanders.
No, I have not made the Trek to Ticonderoga or the Star Trek Tour. I would love to tour the sets, and sit on the bridges of the various Enterprises. Particularly Enterprise D. This sounds like a dream vacation to me! Maybe someday I will manage to do so <3
I hear you Kenzie, and I know you know better, and we agree on the points made :)
I know it was facetious, and I liked it! I wanted to paint the reality and implications to it to contrast it, because it was a perfect setup for the ethical/moral precedent to be made. It was not meant as a criticism towards you :)
That was a sort of "brain dump reaction" wherein I went "Oh! We can totally talk about this thing that is relevant (and I think) pretty cool to put out there"
Hey, congrats on another milestone being ticked off, done, and dusted Kenzie! Baby steps is how we get stuff done!
I find the same moral and ethical arguments apply here as they did for being gay, as there was a period of time where people wanted irrefutable proof that gay people were really gay. Yes, we have a brain scan we can do, or a gene we can look at, or other less accurate things but it always boils down to a need for something consistent so it can be diagnostic. And that is the trouble with any internal, subjective, self experience that differentiates one from a statistical mean: there is rarely any one test, but a confluence of indicators. So for one person test A may fail where test B may pass. The best we can ever hope for is indicative tests and a convergence of evidence.
The ethical and moral issues come in to play when we end up in a society as you describe in your comment. I know you were being a bit glib and I appreciate that because I would have a very similar snark comeback to it as well :)
Good humor and intent aside, down this path leads to some very dark historical repeats that I do not think anyone in their left mind will ever want to see play out again by those in their right. Down this path leads madness. To the worst kind of labeling, segregation, and demonstrable harm. History has proven to us no matter how civilized we believe ourselves to be as a whole, no matter how "well intentioned" and "compassionate," the moment we can believe we are objectively and rationally able to devalue and differentiate "the other" in some measure of objective scientific detachment is the moment where we have embraced wholesale dehumanization of our fellow humans, and worse: we will have taught our children to do the same. Teaching them to be able to devalue any life ultimately corrupts them completely, making them capable of devaluing anyone.
We have seem some very terrible historical precedents surrounding some dark periods in history. I believe that as the targets have shifted over time, each generation struggles with these echoes of the past that managed to ripple forward.
There is only one reason to have diagnostic tools to determine whether someone has gender dysphoria: To be sure that if they receive GAC, it will actually help reduce their gender dysphoria. It doesn't dehumanize somebody to medically diagnosed them. If somebody appears to have diabetes, they need to find out whether they really have it so you can decide whether or not to give them insulin. You don't base your prescriptions on whether someone identifies as a diabetic.
Teed, what makes you feel you have a place in this discussion, much less that you should be a decision maker? Another white man who can’t bear knowing events are occurring that don’t center him?
Decisions and discussions regarding a group should center that group, with others functioning as allies. You are making matters even worse by using your privileged voice to encourage harm to a vulnerable group. Step back and sit down.
I don't have a personal army that will enable me to enforce decisions on this or any other topic. I'm just a guy posting thoughts about this subject, based on extensive readings and correspondence with active members of both sides of this debate. My opinions have changed and re-focused as I have talked to both sides, and when they change, I say so. I have a right to do that, just as you have the right to express your bigoted opinion that my sex and skin color denies me that right.
Your diabetes analogy reveals the fundamental category error at the heart of your manifesto. Diabetes is a medical condition requiring treatment. Gender identity is an aspect of human identity requiring recognition.
When someone with diabetes needs insulin, we don't make them use separate bathrooms until diagnosed, or have other patients vote on their treatment. We don't require brain scans BEFORE acknowledging they feel unwell, nor do we call their symptoms a "social contagion" or dismiss their symptoms as trendy.
Your framing reveals that you see trans identity as primarily pathological rather than a natural variation of human experience. The diagnostic tools you champion aren't just for "helping" - they're gatekeeping mechanisms for basic dignity and recognition.
Regarding Janet's comment: Pointing out that discussions about a marginalized group should center that group isn't bigotry - it's basic ethics. When men wrote laws about women's bodies, when white people decided Black people's rights, when straight people voted on gay marriage - was it "bigotry" to say those voices shouldn't dominate those discussions?
You have every right to express your thoughts. And we have every right to point out that your "extensive readings" don't substitute for lived experience, that your "correspondence with both sides" doesn't make you neutral, and that your positioning as someone who will never face these struggles makes your "moderate compromises" suspect. (Still not an ad hominem, by the way)
The fact that you immediately cry "bigotry" when someone suggests you shouldn't be centering yourself in discussions about trans rights is... instructive. It's the same defensive move we see when any privileged group is asked to step back and listen. It's fragility masquerading as victimhood.
This is the manifestation of the old adage "When those accustomed to privilege encounter equality, it feels like oppression."
You're not being silenced for your sex and skin color. You're being asked to recognize that on this topic, your voice shouldn't be the loudest in the room. That's not bigotry - it's recognizing whose stakes are highest, and respecting the voices that are central to this issue at hand. In this case, trans folks.
Your "opinions have changed" as you've talked to both sides? Great. Here's another opportunity for growth: Consider that writing manifestos about other people's rights might not be your lane, no matter how much reading you've done.
P.S. - "I don't have a personal army" is quite the strawman. No one accused you of having enforcement power. We're pointing out that your privileged voice advocating for "compromises" on trans rights contributes to a climate where actual enforcement (legislation, discrimination, violence) becomes more likely. Your words have consequences, even without an army.
Thank you for sharing something so deeply personal and powerful. Your story cuts straight through the theoretical debates to the heart of what's at stake.
Your experience perfectly illustrates why Rockwell's "diagnostic tools" framework is so dangerous. Here you were, in crisis, finally receiving a diagnosis - and then... nothing. No treatment pathway. No support. Just a label and 12 sessions with someone who admitted she knew nothing about trans people. The fact that you had to turn to overseas pharmacies for survival while therapists "acknowledged" your identity but offered no guidance. This is the system Rockwell wants to bring back.
The bitter irony in all that? You needed self-diagnosis and self-advocacy not because the system was too permissive, but because it failed you at every turn. And this was your reality while experiencing and being in real crisis.
Your point about "the fringes" is crucial - Rockwell frames edge cases as reasons to restrict everyone, but your story shows that those on the margins are often there BECAUSE of systemic failures, not in spite of safeguards.
I'm so glad you have a supportive therapist now and are planning your Pride celebration for 2026! The fact that it's taken decades to get here through attempts, crisis, and medical neglect - that's the real story of trans healthcare. Not "social contagion" or "rushing into transition," but years and decades of fighting for basic recognition and care. Your journey shows how trans care was finally improving - until the recent wave of restrictions. More safeguards and gatekeeping will only make situations like yours more common, not less.
Thank you for your kind words about my work. But honestly? Stories like yours; the courage to share them and the resilience to survive them, that's what really matters. You've said more in one comment about why gatekeeping kills than I could in a dozen essays.
Your wing lady sounds amazing, BTW, and I am happy you found her!
![People with Inconvenient Truths about Transphobes [PITT]](https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!YttD!,w_120,h_120,c_fill,f_webp,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F704ba0db-3e10-4112-9364-c2f224d0cfae_500x500.png)
Talk about avoidance! I've asked questions, nice easy ones, and all you want to do is blather on about how much disdain you have for how I asked them. I really don't want to go to all the trouble of creating a pseudo-academic essay when the audience is ideologically captured. As I said, you won't accept any source I provide as authentic if it goes against your bias. So, conversationally, I put questions about the topic to you and you dodged them, like the intellectual coward you are. You cited Pink News, FFS! 🤣 What a blowhard, appropriating the acronym of a group that gives vivid first-hand accounts of the damage caused by gender to families, just to try to look clever. Have you read anything from the real PITT? Harrowing stuff. Your content meanwhile is foppish faux-intellectual wankery. Too scared to challenge your biased beliefs about gender, you project your insecurities onto others. 🥱
Okay folks, I am just going to make this comment because this response provides us with some interesting things to take note of.
Notice how Stan attacks me ("intellectual coward," "blowhard," "foppish faux-intellectual wankery") but not my evidence? Claims my sources are biased but provides zero counter-sources? Admits refusing to provide citations with the pre-fabricated excuse that "the readers" are "ideologically captured"? Ends with projection accusations while literally projecting their own avoidance and behaviors onto me?
Meanwhile, I answered every substantive question - I just refused to validate their fallacious framing, and called that framing out. So we receive a string of insults, their projection, and the childish "you are too chicken" goad.
As if I didn't arrive to the position I hold without doing the work.
For those keeping score:
1. My comments: 25+16 citations, 5 direct questions answered
2. Stan's comments: 0 citations, 0 questions answered, 6+ personal insults
They just didn't like my answers or what the research actually shows.
They make the claim that we are all "ideologically captured," but what does that look like? Someone who engages with the questions asked and the evidence, or someone who just has excuses for why they don't - and will get angry and cast insults in the process?
Folks, when someone abandons evidence for insults, they're not debating anymore, they're just having feelings in public.
The data, and this response of Stan's, speaks for itself.
Stay safe out there folks, look out for each other, and enjoy your weekend! ☮️🏳️⚧️🏳️🌈
I think it would be difficult to find a better example of how an echo chamber functions than your beginning a post with, "Okay folks". You're very keen to point out what you dislike about my contributions (mostly that I won't waste time pandering to your style guide) without turning your critical eye towards the obvious bias that underpins your position. Your selection of "evidence" is guided by confirmation of this bias. You dodged difficult questions. You counted "fallacies" but haven't named them. What a tedious exercise this has been.
"Being trans isn't a belief system; it's an irrefutable part of who people are."
There is no objective evidence that proves the condition of "being transgender" is anything but a belief. The diagnosis of gender dysphoria is based upon examination of a person's claim to feel a certain way. In young people particularly, the presentation is very similar to those individuals suffering from anorexia nervosa. What is particularly bizarre about this similarity is when a person makes claims about their embodiment that relate to their weight and body shape they are treated as though they are seriously unwell. But if similar claims are made about their gender these claims are affirmed, and a pathway to experimental medicine is opened. Trans identity is a condition of the mind, yet the ideology insists that treatment is necessary (despite simultaneously insisting that it is a *natural* condition) and that this treatment is performed on the body. Truly bizarre. Fundamentally contradictory. Also truly grotesque in the manner in which it targets children. The cause of distress over one's body is what should be paramount in treatment of a child presenting with such. Instead they are affirmed in their beliefs. The autistic girl who fears pubertal changes has nothing in common with the adult man who gets sexual gratification from adopting a feminine persona, yet they are lumped together into the same category: "trans". Why? Who benefits from closing the proximity between children and adult sexuality?
There is a lot to unpack here Stan.
1. Gender Dysphoria and Anorexia are two different things, with two very different manifestations, that require very different treatment. Do you understand what those differences are and why? I suggest you read up on both with some of the more current studies out there to get a better grasp on the topics, otherwise you will fall victim to the superficial false equivalency you just made here.
2. How many decades does it take for a treatment to no longer be considered experimental? Gender affirming care has been around for over 40 years in the more modern iteration we have today. Even longer if you consider the very first beginnings. In short, this is not experimental. To deny the plethora of data, science, and studies that stand in opposition to your position and claim is truly the bizarre and contradictory thing on display here.
3. The co-occurrence of autism and gender diversity is well-documented in research. Studies show that autistic people are more likely to be transgender and this intersection presents unique experiences in gender identity formation. This intersection is a legitimate area of clinical attention, not inappropriate "lumping together."
4. "The cause of distress over one's body is what should be paramount in treatment of a child presenting with such" It is, that is called "gender dysphoria" and the treatment of it is well established and generally understood. Did you know that affirmation doesn't mean uncritically accepting all statements but providing supportive care during thorough assessment? Again, to deny decades of data and research is, well, weird.
5. What men are you talking about, re: sexual gratification? Can you cite some peer-reviewed studies that discuss this that are not debunked or discredited? So no Blanchard, etc - unless you are willing to deal with the *many* studies that refute their findings and claims? Furthermore, do you realize that this, I guess "paraphilia" you describe is documented and diagnosed as something quite different and quite distant from gender dysphoria, and has nothing to do with being trans? Why even go there when it is neither indicated or necessary? Did you just do an appeal to emotion and fear mongering?
For a more comprehensive breakdown of your comment and the logical fallacies it contains, and it contains *many*, I've compiled a detailed analysis here: https://pittpeople.substack.com/p/list-of-bad-arguments-by-transmisic
1. Yes, two different things, but similar presentations. Don't you agree? There's even been instances of social contagion involving the two conditions that bear more scrutiny. You're not into scrutiny. You're into obfuscation.
2. "Gender affirming care" is such an odious euphemism. The use of "puberty blockers" is still considered to be experimental because of the very poor quality of evidence of their efficacy. See the Cass review. There is no scientific consensus on this matter, as you would agree if you were honest.
3. What do you think is the connection between autism and a susceptibility to confusion about gender identity? Do you think that there is a corollary between the huge increase in ASD diagnoses and transgender identity in children, in particular girls?
4. Gender dysphoria isn't the *cause* of distress about one's gendered experience. It's the term used by some people to describe it. Along with autism, it's been shown that past trauma, including sexual trauma, is a very common comorbid presentation with gender dysphoria. That would be a likely cause for a child's discomfort, but to suggest that treating this distress might resolve gender confusion constitutes "conversion therapy" in many situations. It's strange that you don't mention that, given how much you think you know.
5, etc. The existence of sexual paraphilia is the really inconvenient truth about transgender ideology, isn't it? I don't need to cite Blanchard or even mention autogynephilia because of the very long history of men getting dressed up in women's attire to get their jollies. These same men claim transgender identities in this era because it enables them a degree of legitimacy they previously could not enjoy. Which places them adjacent to confused children, who must be even more confused by the association than to begin with. Another fact about men claiming transgender identities is that they are significantly more likely to be imprisoned for crimes of a sexual nature than the rest of the male population. That's well documented (I have not been providing footnotes or references because you won't be convinced unless you are brave enough - honest enough - to research these things for yourself) and hardly surprising.
So the question remains - why do you wish to make distressed children occupy the same category in society as adult males with sexual paraphiliae? By force-teaming trans with the LGB you're already bringing sexuality into the world of children who have yet to explore sexual attraction, why? Do you not think that this, along with the damage caused by early exposure to pornography, might be causing children to be afraid of what their own post-adolescent lives might entail? Probably not, but why not?
I wrote a point-by-point rebuttal, and I may still make an article of it yet. Considering how many fallacies I had to wade through the first time around, only to be confronted with even more, and you have not managed to engage with any of my points substantively? This is sealioning or "JAQing off."
Troll tactics and bad-faith argumentation. Let's not forget the surest sign of defeat - retreating to ad hominems!
Here is the pattern:
- Asks seemingly earnest questions
- Ignores substantive answers
- Repeats original claims with slight variations
- Refuses to provide evidence
- Demands others do more work ("research these things for yourself")
Observe:
Point 1: Asked if Stan understands the differences between gender dysphoria and anorexia, suggested reading current studies.
Stan's Response: "yes....but" and simply reasserted the same false equivalence without demonstrating any understanding of the differences.
Point 2: Noted 40+ years of gender-affirming care history, asked how long before it's not "experimental."
Stan's Response: Still called it "experimental" without addressing the 40-year timeline you provided. Invokes "Cass review" while ignoring all the criticism and flaws that have been thoroughly documented.
Point 3: Cited well-documented research on autism-gender diversity co-occurrence.
Stan's Response: Ignored the research, just repeated claims about "confusion" and "susceptibility."
Point 4: Explained affirmation involves thorough assessment, not uncritical acceptance.
Stan's Response: Ignored this clarification entirely, continued mischaracterizing affirmative care.
Point 5: Asked for peer-reviewed citations about the "sexual gratification" claim, noted it's distinct from gender dysphoria.
Stan's Response: Provided zero citations, admitted "I have not been providing footnotes," and continued conflating unrelated conditions.
Stan didn't answer a single direct question I posed, didn't engage with any evidence I presented, and explicitly refused to provide the citations requested. They simply restated their original positions with more words but zero substantive engagement. All while somehow managing to produce even more logical fallacies.
I see no need to give a good-faith response in light of this behavior. I will paraphrase and drop the facts. If enough readers want the long form version, I will write up the rebuttal into an article.👍
For the readers: Stan claims gender dysphoria is a social contagion similar to anorexia, particularly affecting autistic and traumatized youth who need therapy rather than "experimental" gender-affirming care. They assert transgender women are disproportionately sexual predators and that including transgender identity with LGB sexualizes children. They provide zero citations while demanding others "do their own research" to discover these supposed truths.
The Rebuttal in Three Sentences:
Gender dysphoria involves no perceptual distortion unlike anorexia, gender-affirming care has existed since 1988 with 93% of studies showing positive outcomes, and transgender youth experience trauma FROM discrimination, not the reverse[1-18].
Actual data shows transgender people are overwhelmingly victims; 47% experiencing sexual assault, 4x more likely to face violence, while perpetrators are predominantly cisgender men in positions of trust[19-25].
Stan's exclusive focus on attacking transgender people while showing zero engagement with organizations supporting the vulnerable populations they claim to protect reveals this isn't child protection, it's exploitation of vulnerable groups as rhetorical weapons against transgender existence.
Fallacy count in his response: 22! 😱
Anything past this point will just be needing the last word - let me know what fallacies you think Stan has made and why, or if you want to see this rebuttal as an article. 🖖
Citations (some are articles that link relevant studies, at least one is a thorough analysis and compilation - use these for the analysis or not, but the studies are linked for transparency):
[1] National Eating Disorders Association. (n.d.). NEDA: Eating disorders support, awareness & recovery. https://www.nationaleatingdisorders.org/
[2] Anorexia nervosa and gender dysphoria: A clinical case. (2024). PMC, Article PMC9566740. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9566740/
[3] Evidence undermines 'rapid onset gender dysphoria' claims. (2023, August 24). Scientific American. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/evidence-undermines-rapid-onset-gender-dysphoria-claims/
[4] 'Social contagion' isn't causing more youths to be transgender, study finds. (2022, August 3). NBC News. https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-health-and-wellness/social-contagion-isnt-causing-youths-transgender-study-finds-rcna41392
[5] Serano, J. (2023, February 21). All the evidence against transgender social contagion. Medium. https://juliaserano.medium.com/all-the-evidence-against-transgender-social-contagion-f82fbda9c5d4
[6] Gender-affirming care is not experimental, part II. (2022, July 3). Science-Based Medicine. https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/gender-affirming-care-is-not-experimental-part-ii/
[7] Is puberty delaying treatment 'experimental treatment'? (2020). PMC, Article PMC7430465. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7430465/
[8] Critically appraising the Cass report: Methodological flaws and unsupported claims. (2025, May 10). BMC Medical Research Methodology. https://bmcmedresmethodol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12874-025-02581-7
[9] Yale Law School. (2024, July 2). An evidence-based critique of the Cass Review. https://law.yale.edu/sites/default/files/documents/integrity-project_cass-response.pdf
[10] see 9 above
[11] Analysis finds strong consensus on effectiveness of gender transition treatment. (2018, April 1). Cornell Chronicle. https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2018/04/analysis-finds-strong-consensus-effectiveness-gender-transition-treatment
[12] Autism spectrum disorder and gender dysphoria/incongruence: A systematic review. (2023). PMC, Article PMC10313553. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10313553/
[13] Cooper, K., et al. (2021). The lived experience of gender dysphoria in autistic adults. PMC, Article PMC9014767. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9014767/
[14] Approaching autism diagnosis and care through the lens of intersectionality. (2023). PMC, Article PMC10729615. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10729615/
[15] Traumatic stress and resilience among transgender and gender diverse youth. (2024). PMC, Article PMC10914351. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10914351/
[16] Attachment patterns and complex trauma in adults diagnosed with gender dysphoria. (2018). PMC, Article PMC5799708. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5799708/
[17] Conversion therapies and access to transition-related healthcare. (2018). PMC, Article PMC6318517. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6318517/
[18] Interrogating gender-exploratory therapy. (2023). PMC, Article PMC10018052. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10018052/
[19] Statistics: Perpetrators of sexual violence. (2014, June 25). RAINN. https://rainn.org/facts-statistics-the-scope-of-the-problem/statistics-perpetrators-of-sexual-violence/
[20] Prevalence of sexual assault in a cohort of transgender and gender diverse people. (2024). PMC, Article PMC10110792. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10110792/
[21] Physical and/or sexual abuse is associated with increased psychological distress. PMC, Article PMC5564039. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5564039/
[22] Transgender people over four times more likely than cisgender people to be victims of violent crime. Williams Institute. https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/press/ncvs-trans-press-release/
[23] Experiences of transgender prisoners. (2021). PMC, Article PMC6830990. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6830990/
[24] LGBTQ people on sex offender registries in the US. (2022, May 18). Williams Institute. https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/publications/lgbtq-sex-offender-registries/
[25] Evidence and data on trans women's offending rates. (2021, February 12). UK Parliament. https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/18973/pdf/
The bingo card of privilege 😂 I think we need a graphic to go along
A good idea! I may have to make one. I think there may be a generator for transphobia bingo cards, but now I wonder if they do make a privilege one. Hmmmm....
It's interesting to find a corner of substack with this point of view. There are large areas of substack where you get nothing but gender critical posts.But I don't find this to be an especially thoughtful rebuttal. It consist mostly of ad hominem attacks, and whenever there are actual arguments, they are aimed at positions I specifically reject. I do not say that trans people should be excluded from women's sports, nor do I say that they should be excluded from women's changing areas, and I give reasons why I believe this.
So my original reply turned into something long enough to be its own article.
Instead of going that route for now, I will let the readers be the judge of whether or not my rebuttal is thoughtful and substantively engages with your points, or if it "consist[s] mostly of ad hominem attacks"
If anyone wants to point out the ad hominem(s) I made, that would be hilarious. We could make it into a learning moment this way!
Remember, an ad hominem attacks the person's character rather than their argument.
For example: "You're wrong because you're a jerk" is an ad hominem.
Not an Ad hominem: "Your position as someone unaffected by these policies makes your 'moderation' suspect"
How many did I make? Does it really constitute most of my rebuttal? What fallacy has Teed made by making his claims above? As a hint, as yourself "what fallacy engages in a broad accusation based on a singular or small occurrence?"
What rhetorical strategy is being put into play here?
(hint: I wrote about it here: https://pittpeople.substack.com/p/anatomy-of-an-anti-trans-argument)
What has Mr. Rockwell failed to do with his comment here, and what do you think that means?
Often I find that criticism of those who stand on a platform of privilege think that criticism of their position, content, or ideas somehow constitutes a personal attack. Either I will receive more man/cisplaining, or I will get the deflection decathalon, and sometimes served patronizingly so.
Thanks Mr. Rockwell for proving the point while missing it. It has given this opportunity for a learning moment/exercise, and it spawned a book idea.
Okay, since you asked:
While your response surely does not consist "mostly of ad hominem attacks," I do think it is reasonable to say that the opening paragraphs do.
You refer to "confidence, arrogance, or ignorance," "cisplaining," "a bingo card of privilege," a "Mount Olympus of unexamined advantage" from which "they've descend from on high [to] explain to the merely trans mortals," the "audacity of the unaffected" to "write about struggles you will never face" - all before addressing a single word he wrote.
I daresay that if someone had written about you in a similar vein, you'd call it poisoning the well. The whole attitude expressed there is not "your arguments are dumb," it's "how dare you have an opinion on the matter."
However, once you got to the actual text, to engaging with what he wrote, that changed and your argument was cogent and while sometimes dismissive, it was deservedly so in the context of the referenced content you were presenting.
Which means, I hold, if the first couple of paragraphs had been at the end, as a conclusion rather than a preamble, that he had shown his "detachment" from the real impacts on the real lives of the real people whose rights he would make subject to political manipulation, there would have been no basis for his complaint. Unfortunately, they weren't, giving him the opportunity to avoid a real response.
I'll end with my own mini-bio: I'm a 76-year-old cis straight white male who subscribes to your substack precisely because of the information and references to be gained by your footnotes.
Carry it on.
This is exactly the kind of thoughtful engagement that makes these discussions worthwhile. Thank you for taking the time to provide such detailed feedback!
You've identified something crucial: the difference between logical validity and rhetorical effectiveness. You're absolutely right that my opening created a functional poisoning of the well, even if it wasn't one in the strict logical sense.
Here's the distinction I'd make (and I'd love your thoughts on this): Those observations about privilege weren't saying "dismiss him because he's privileged" (which would be ad hominem), but rather "his distance from these impacts shapes his 'moderate' framing" (which is relevant context). However - and this is where your critique lands perfectly - by front-loading it, I created a rhetorical vulnerability that you describe. Same content at the END would have felt earned; at the BEGINNING it feels presumptive. Lesson learned, and I am glad that I can revise and tweak this response accordingly.
The irony isn't lost on me that in an essay about rhetorical traps, I set one for myself. Your point about giving Rockwell an escape hatch is particularly sharp - I handed him exactly what he needed to avoid the substantive engagement.
Your structural suggestion (observations as conclusion rather than preamble) is strategically sound. I should have started with an evidence first, context after approach. Let the arguments demonstrate the detachment before naming it. I admit, I went for the lazy hook. This is not something I spent a week refining, as I do with other long-form articles.
I greatly appreciate that you engage with both the substance AND the strategy of these pieces. The fact that you subscribe specifically for the footnotes and information - and offer this caliber of constructive criticism - represents exactly the kind of good-faith dialogue that actually moves things forward.
Thank you for the lesson and reminder in tactical improvement. Next piece, I'll let the arguments do the heavy lifting first.
P.S. - The fact that you noted the shift in quality once I engaged with the actual text is the most validating critique I could receive. That's the writer I want to be consistently.
Thanks for your kind reply, especially since I was concerned that my opening paragraphs would seem hostile enough that you wouldn't get to the "However." I'm glad you did.
Just a few quick observations.
"observations about privilege weren't saying 'dismiss him because he's privileged' (which would be ad hominem)"
One of my rules for communication is that "what you say isn't as important as what the other person hears." I'd rather suspect seeing a response that began with "cisplaining" and a reference to Mount Olympus felt damn personal. So while the intent may have been descriptive rather than dismissive, I can easily see how it could and I suspect did come across as the latter.
I'd also say that despite my having said for the sake of simplicity that your first paragraphs should have been at the end, there's no reason they couldn't have been threaded through (although I'd leave the Mount Olympus bit until the end).
For example, as part of the tweaking, you could look for a spot where it'd be appropriate to say something like "This raises the issue of his distance from the topic. It's said that distance can give you objectivity, but it also can create a false sense of 'balance' that gives personal opinion equal weight to lived experience and so loses track of real life impacts. So it is here." And then going on about the basis for saying that, including his insulation from the effects of his proposals.
I freely confess I am too effing lazy to go back to your piece to suggest such a spot, so I'll leave it at that.
Glad you're around.
Once again, an irrefutable argument in a clear, concise, and powerful form.
Hey, thanks for the lovely compliment!
Totally off topic, but I couldn't help but notice a neat clue in your pfp.
What is your favorite star trek series and movie?
ST-DS9 wins by a tribble over ST-TOS. I watched the premiere of ST in 1966, so it holds an important place in my heart, but DS9 and it's serialized story, the wide variety of characters…it was so satisfying.
Movie? I'll go with ST2-The Wrath of Khan and close behind is ST8-First Contact.
I have a hard time choosing because I like so many different things from all the series, but I have a special place in my heart for DS-9 as well. The call-back episodes, the serialization with ability to see the nuance of the characters grow and change? Some powerful episodes. TNG is a close second, if only because that was the series that really pulled me into the trek universe and taught me so much.
For movies? First Contact I think is a great pick, and I think my personal favorite as well. I have a fond place in my heart for the The Undiscovered Country because it was the first ST movie I was able to see in the theater with my father. That, and a Shakespeare quoting Klingon? Young me was sold!
From Captain Von Trapp to General Chang, Christopher Plummer was always a treat to watch on screen.
I think the first ST you see becomes "your" ST. My daughter's is Voyager.
Have you made the Trek to Ticonderoga and the Star Trek Set Tour? The sets from TOS are there and they are in the process of building out the sets from the Enterprise D.
I really love Voyager too. I enjoyed what they were trying to do: bring in the best of what they learned from DS-9; show serialization and character evolution, but also provide the TNG exploration/dilemmas/challenges with a means to make it "all new" (mostly) again. I have so much love for Janeway as a character, but also the entire crew. Each crew member had some aspect to their character that resonated with me. To say nothing of the perspectives they explored and exposed throughout the show, in a way that was not possible from TNG. I never understood the discontent Voyager received, even if I can appreciate some of the criticisms of certain episodes, show direction, and yes, especially the salamanders.
No, I have not made the Trek to Ticonderoga or the Star Trek Tour. I would love to tour the sets, and sit on the bridges of the various Enterprises. Particularly Enterprise D. This sounds like a dream vacation to me! Maybe someday I will manage to do so <3
This is really well done.
Hey Dan, thanks for the compliment, glad you liked it!
I hear you Kenzie, and I know you know better, and we agree on the points made :)
I know it was facetious, and I liked it! I wanted to paint the reality and implications to it to contrast it, because it was a perfect setup for the ethical/moral precedent to be made. It was not meant as a criticism towards you :)
That was a sort of "brain dump reaction" wherein I went "Oh! We can totally talk about this thing that is relevant (and I think) pretty cool to put out there"
Hey, congrats on another milestone being ticked off, done, and dusted Kenzie! Baby steps is how we get stuff done!
I find the same moral and ethical arguments apply here as they did for being gay, as there was a period of time where people wanted irrefutable proof that gay people were really gay. Yes, we have a brain scan we can do, or a gene we can look at, or other less accurate things but it always boils down to a need for something consistent so it can be diagnostic. And that is the trouble with any internal, subjective, self experience that differentiates one from a statistical mean: there is rarely any one test, but a confluence of indicators. So for one person test A may fail where test B may pass. The best we can ever hope for is indicative tests and a convergence of evidence.
The ethical and moral issues come in to play when we end up in a society as you describe in your comment. I know you were being a bit glib and I appreciate that because I would have a very similar snark comeback to it as well :)
Good humor and intent aside, down this path leads to some very dark historical repeats that I do not think anyone in their left mind will ever want to see play out again by those in their right. Down this path leads madness. To the worst kind of labeling, segregation, and demonstrable harm. History has proven to us no matter how civilized we believe ourselves to be as a whole, no matter how "well intentioned" and "compassionate," the moment we can believe we are objectively and rationally able to devalue and differentiate "the other" in some measure of objective scientific detachment is the moment where we have embraced wholesale dehumanization of our fellow humans, and worse: we will have taught our children to do the same. Teaching them to be able to devalue any life ultimately corrupts them completely, making them capable of devaluing anyone.
We have seem some very terrible historical precedents surrounding some dark periods in history. I believe that as the targets have shifted over time, each generation struggles with these echoes of the past that managed to ripple forward.
There is only one reason to have diagnostic tools to determine whether someone has gender dysphoria: To be sure that if they receive GAC, it will actually help reduce their gender dysphoria. It doesn't dehumanize somebody to medically diagnosed them. If somebody appears to have diabetes, they need to find out whether they really have it so you can decide whether or not to give them insulin. You don't base your prescriptions on whether someone identifies as a diabetic.
Teed, what makes you feel you have a place in this discussion, much less that you should be a decision maker? Another white man who can’t bear knowing events are occurring that don’t center him?
Decisions and discussions regarding a group should center that group, with others functioning as allies. You are making matters even worse by using your privileged voice to encourage harm to a vulnerable group. Step back and sit down.
I don't have a personal army that will enable me to enforce decisions on this or any other topic. I'm just a guy posting thoughts about this subject, based on extensive readings and correspondence with active members of both sides of this debate. My opinions have changed and re-focused as I have talked to both sides, and when they change, I say so. I have a right to do that, just as you have the right to express your bigoted opinion that my sex and skin color denies me that right.
Mr. Rockwell,
Your diabetes analogy reveals the fundamental category error at the heart of your manifesto. Diabetes is a medical condition requiring treatment. Gender identity is an aspect of human identity requiring recognition.
When someone with diabetes needs insulin, we don't make them use separate bathrooms until diagnosed, or have other patients vote on their treatment. We don't require brain scans BEFORE acknowledging they feel unwell, nor do we call their symptoms a "social contagion" or dismiss their symptoms as trendy.
Your framing reveals that you see trans identity as primarily pathological rather than a natural variation of human experience. The diagnostic tools you champion aren't just for "helping" - they're gatekeeping mechanisms for basic dignity and recognition.
Regarding Janet's comment: Pointing out that discussions about a marginalized group should center that group isn't bigotry - it's basic ethics. When men wrote laws about women's bodies, when white people decided Black people's rights, when straight people voted on gay marriage - was it "bigotry" to say those voices shouldn't dominate those discussions?
You have every right to express your thoughts. And we have every right to point out that your "extensive readings" don't substitute for lived experience, that your "correspondence with both sides" doesn't make you neutral, and that your positioning as someone who will never face these struggles makes your "moderate compromises" suspect. (Still not an ad hominem, by the way)
The fact that you immediately cry "bigotry" when someone suggests you shouldn't be centering yourself in discussions about trans rights is... instructive. It's the same defensive move we see when any privileged group is asked to step back and listen. It's fragility masquerading as victimhood.
This is the manifestation of the old adage "When those accustomed to privilege encounter equality, it feels like oppression."
You're not being silenced for your sex and skin color. You're being asked to recognize that on this topic, your voice shouldn't be the loudest in the room. That's not bigotry - it's recognizing whose stakes are highest, and respecting the voices that are central to this issue at hand. In this case, trans folks.
Your "opinions have changed" as you've talked to both sides? Great. Here's another opportunity for growth: Consider that writing manifestos about other people's rights might not be your lane, no matter how much reading you've done.
P.S. - "I don't have a personal army" is quite the strawman. No one accused you of having enforcement power. We're pointing out that your privileged voice advocating for "compromises" on trans rights contributes to a climate where actual enforcement (legislation, discrimination, violence) becomes more likely. Your words have consequences, even without an army.
Come back after you've educated yourself about the realities of the modern medical system.
Thank you for sharing something so deeply personal and powerful. Your story cuts straight through the theoretical debates to the heart of what's at stake.
Your experience perfectly illustrates why Rockwell's "diagnostic tools" framework is so dangerous. Here you were, in crisis, finally receiving a diagnosis - and then... nothing. No treatment pathway. No support. Just a label and 12 sessions with someone who admitted she knew nothing about trans people. The fact that you had to turn to overseas pharmacies for survival while therapists "acknowledged" your identity but offered no guidance. This is the system Rockwell wants to bring back.
The bitter irony in all that? You needed self-diagnosis and self-advocacy not because the system was too permissive, but because it failed you at every turn. And this was your reality while experiencing and being in real crisis.
Your point about "the fringes" is crucial - Rockwell frames edge cases as reasons to restrict everyone, but your story shows that those on the margins are often there BECAUSE of systemic failures, not in spite of safeguards.
I'm so glad you have a supportive therapist now and are planning your Pride celebration for 2026! The fact that it's taken decades to get here through attempts, crisis, and medical neglect - that's the real story of trans healthcare. Not "social contagion" or "rushing into transition," but years and decades of fighting for basic recognition and care. Your journey shows how trans care was finally improving - until the recent wave of restrictions. More safeguards and gatekeeping will only make situations like yours more common, not less.
Thank you for your kind words about my work. But honestly? Stories like yours; the courage to share them and the resilience to survive them, that's what really matters. You've said more in one comment about why gatekeeping kills than I could in a dozen essays.
Your wing lady sounds amazing, BTW, and I am happy you found her!
Here's to May 2026. 🏳️⚧️💜
https://teedrockwell.substack.com/p/brain-scans-can-tell-us-important?r=l7a9l
you already have a link to my Moderate Gender Manifesto in PITT's article, if you want to read it. This article linked above might interest you.