When an Infectious Disease Scientist Catches a Bad Case of Transmisia

An Inconvenient Truth about Dr. Torrance Stephens' article

Credentials. Historical memory. And transgender rights. Three things that shouldn’t be in conflict, but here we are.

Today we’re going to talk about Dr.

Torrance Stephens

(@crim3j0nes), a respected infectious disease scientist[1] who studied how prejudice literally kills Black men, who can trace scientific racism from the 1800s to today, and who published an article asking trans people to ‘show me your eggs.’ Because apparently, 2025 is the year we weaponize public health degrees against vulnerable communities. Again.

Meet Torrance Stephens, PhD

Now, you might be wondering, ‘Who is Torrance Stephens?’ Well, according to their own bio and some internet searching, they’re a 62-year-old Morehouse alum with a background in psychology, biology, and chemistry, who’s spent decades in academia at places like Emory University School of Public Health, Morehouse School of Medicine, and Clark Atlanta University. They are an author of several essays and books, as well as a failed mayoral candidate for Palmetto, Georgio in 2019. Their primary research interest? African American men’s health. Which makes their recent pivot to attacking transgender people all the more puzzling, unless, of course, you understand that sometimes folks with credentials use them as a truncheon and shield while punching down.

So let’s dive into their recent masterpiece, ‘Show Me Your Eggs Man’, an article they decided to drop in my comments section, and have ourselves a conversation about what happens when someone who knows exactly how science was weaponized against their own community decides to pick up that same weapon and aim it at trans folks. And why that should concern all of us.

Though this is a bit lengthy, I feel it is a pretty quick read. That said, if you wanted all the context, intent, and nuance wrapped up to go, the closest I can come up with is this:

’You understand how these exact arguments were weaponized against your community, so why are you using them against others?’

---

The Biology Blunder

Stephens opens with what they clearly think is a mic-drop moment: ‘if you come into this world with balls… you are not a woman.’

Here’s the thing, and I’m going to use small words here because apparently a PhD in infectious disease doesn’t cover basic endocrinology, biological sex is far more complex than external genitalia[2]. We’re talking about chromosomes (which aren’t always XX or XY), hormones, internal reproductive structures, secondary sex characteristics, and yes, brain structure[2][3][4]. But hey, why let decades of medical research get in the way of a good ‘yo momma’ joke, right?

And let’s talk about intersex conditions, something Stephens conveniently ignores. Complete androgen insensitivity syndrome (CAIS) results in XY individuals who develop as phenotypically female. 5-alpha reductase deficiency leads to individuals assigned female at birth who masculinize during puberty. These aren’t rare anomalies, intersex people make up 1-2% of the population, about as common as redheads.

Moreover, brain structure research has shown that transgender individuals’ brains more closely resemble their experienced gender than their assigned sex in multiple regions. But here’s the real kicker, we don’t chromosome test people before using pronouns in daily life. Did Stephens demand a karyotype before calling his mother ‘she’? Of course not. Because in real life, we recognize gender through social presentation, not microscopic cell analysis

The Semantic Silliness

Their argument that the prefix ‘trans’ proves transition is impossible? That’s like saying ‘automobiles’ can’t move because they’re ‘auto’ (self) mobile. It’s a semantic game, not science. Medical transition demonstrably changes numerous sex characteristics, from hormone levels to fat distribution to muscle mass. No, we can’t change chromosomes with current technology, but sex is bimodal, not binary, existing on multiple spectrums that can be medically altered.

The Mask Slips: When ‘Science’ Becomes Slurs

Perhaps nothing reveals the true nature of Stephens’ ‘scientific’ analysis more than when they abandon all pretense of objectivity. Consider this gem:

‘Representatives and supporters of the Transgender community the way I see things are mostly estrogen-saturated, triple shot, oat-milk, latte-drinking Soyed-up, bitch-made mutha fuckas.’

Ah yes, the language of rigorous academic discourse. Nothing says ‘infectious disease scientist’ quite like gendered slurs and coffee order shaming. I understand that this is his brand, he says what he likes in the way he likes. Good for him! This is not doing him any favors though, particularly from someone who claims to value scientific inquiry?

Even more telling is their rhetorical descent into absurdity:

‘No normal human believes a man is a woman because they speak it, unless they are under the control of some MK Ultra Bohemian Grove world of wizardry, instead of reality. I’ve only seen ruby slippers in a movie with Judy Garland.’

While this reads as sarcastic hyperbole rather than genuine conspiracy theory, it reveals something important: when your position requires comparing accepting trans people to CIA mind control and secret societies, even sarcastically, you’re admitting you have no actual scientific argument. You’re just expressing incredulity dressed up as analysis. Pander some more for those dollar dollars!

The Bigot’s Recycling Bin: Same Arguments, Different Target

After watching Stephens’ mask slip, it’s worth noting something remarkable: every single argument he makes against transgender people has been used before. Against Black people. Against gay people. Against women. The script never changes - only the target does. Let’s examine this greatest hits collection of recycled bigotry (for the sake of length, I have paraphrased these):

The Pattern Is Clear

What’s remarkable isn’t that these arguments are wrong, it’s that they’re literally the same arguments. The bigot’s playbook hasn’t been updated in 200 years:

1. Claim ‘science’ and ‘biology’ support your prejudice

2. Pretend the marginalized group already has equality

3. Paint them as dangerous to ‘normal’ people

4. Especially dangerous to children

5. Dismiss their identity as mental illness

6. Cherry-pick crimes to paint them as violent

7. Claim their demands for respect are attacks on you

The only thing that changes is the target.

For a man who’s written about scientific racism, who studies health disparities, who should understand how these exact arguments were used against his own people, this isn’t just hypocrisy - it’s a betrayal of history itself.

As James Baldwin wrote: ‘We can disagree and still love each other unless your disagreement is rooted in my oppression and denial of my humanity and right to exist.’

Dr. Stephens, you’re not making new arguments. You’re not bringing fresh scientific insights. You’re just pulling the same moldy bigotry out of history’s trash bin, dusting it off, and aiming it at a new target. And we see you.

---

The ‘What Rights?’ Fallacy: An Example in Historical Amnesia

Stephens asks, ‘What rights do they not have compared to other citizens?’

Oh honey. Bless your heart. Let’s count the ways shall we[5][6]? While we’re at it, let’s note how this exact same question was asked about Black Americans during Jim Crow, about gay people during the AIDS crisis, and about women before suffrage. Funny how bigots always recycle the same playbook.

The Right to Exist Safely

This isn’t about ‘hurt feelings,’ it’s about the right to exist safely, the ability to walk down the street, use the restroom, go to school, or live openly without fear of harassment, violence, or legal penalty. To have the law protect me like it protects everyone else.

Katy Montgomerie’s comprehensive list[6] shows that in many places, transgender people literally lack the right to exist, with countries criminalizing transgender identity itself. But even in the U.S.:

• Bathroom bills criminalize using facilities matching one’s gender identity[7]

• Transgender people are four times more likely to be victims of violent crime[8]

• 1 in 4 transgender people have faced a bias-driven assault[9]

Remember when Black Americans were arrested for using ‘whites only’ facilities? Same energy, Doc.

The Right to Access Healthcare

Stephens dismisses concerns about healthcare access while over 100,000 transgender youth currently live in states where their right to essential, evidence-based care has been taken or is at imminent risk. [10]

The systematic denial includes:

• Bans on gender-affirming care for minors AND adults (some states proposing bans up to age 26) [11]

• Criminal penalties for doctors who provide care [12]

• Insurance bans preventing coverage of medically necessary treatment [13]

• Forced detransition of youth already receiving care [14]

This mirrors exactly how the medical establishment once pathologized homosexuality and denied HIV/AIDS treatment. But sure, Doc, tell us more about ‘preferential treatment.’

The Right to Participate Fully in Public Life

Stephens might want to check his notes on what ‘equal citizenship’ actually means. Because transgender people are systematically excluded from public life through[16]:

• Sports bans that bar trans youth from playing with their peers - over 20 states have enacted these [18]

• Military service restrictions that treat trans service members as unfit despite exemplary records [19]

• Employment discrimination - trans people face unemployment rates twice the national average [16]

• Educational barriers - from being denied dormitory housing to being barred from school activities [15]

• Public accommodations discrimination - denied service at restaurants, hotels, and businesses [17]

These are part of a larger effort to erase trans folks from daily life.

When you are denied access to public spaces or forced to deny who you are in order to operate in the world, you have lost your right to full citizenship. But you already know this, Dr. Stephens. Remember when Black Americans couldn’t eat at lunch counters? When women couldn’t join professional organizations? When gay people were banned from federal employment and the Military? Same playbook, different decade.

The Right to Equal Protection Under the Law

For someone studying health disparities, Stephens seems remarkably unbothered by legal disparities:

• Name and gender marker changes - byzantine legal processes that vary wildly by state, with some states banning changes entirely [24]

• Parental rights - trans parents losing custody battles simply for being trans [25]

• Prison placement - trans people housed according to assigned sex at birth, facing astronomical rates of assault [26]

• Police discrimination - 58% of trans people report mistreatment by law enforcement [23]

• Hate crime exclusions - many jurisdictions don’t include gender identity in hate crime laws [22]

• ‘Trans panic’ defenses - where murderers claim a victim’s trans status justified violence [26]

The same legal system that once upheld slavery, denied women property rights, and criminalized homosexuality now denies trans people equal protection. But sure, Dr. Stephens, tell us more about how they already have all the same rights.

If you want a handy breakdown by country (and state) of what rights are lacking for trans folks, feel free to reference this handy compiled list [27]:

https://katymontgomerie.medium.com/what-rights-dont-trans-people-have-228c728f564a

---

The Words Can’t Harm Claim: Memphis Has Entered the Chat

This is where Stephens’ argument becomes not just wrong, but offensively hypocritical. Here’s a 62-year-old Black man from Memphis, a city that was literally the site of Dr. King’s assassination, claiming words can’t harm? Is he for real?

The Historical Reality Stephens Ignores:

During Segregation and Jim Crow, the N-word wasn’t ‘just a word’, it was a tool of dehumanization that justified violence, lynching, and systemic oppression. Those ‘Whites Only’ signs weren’t mere suggestions; they enforced apartheid in public spaces. When literacy tests asked impossible questions like ‘How many bubbles in a bar of soap?’ they weren’t testing reading ability, they were denying voting rights. And ‘Separate but equal’? That wasn’t just a phrase, it codified second-class citizenship into law.

Stephens is from Memphis, where Dr. King was assassinated the day after delivering his ‘I’ve Been to the Mountaintop’ speech, you know, words that threatened the status quo. So much they got him killed. Where sanitation workers marched with signs reading ‘I Am a Man’, words asserting their basic humanity, in the face of dehumanization. Where segregationists used slurs and threats to maintain racial terror, words wielded as weapons to keep an entire population subjugated.

The Modern Reality: From Street Corners to Social Media

Today, we see the same weaponization of language playing out digitally. We have stochastic terrorism, when public figures use inflammatory rhetoric that predictably inspires ‘lone wolf’ violence. Look at how Libs of TikTok posts targeting specific LGBTQ+ events are directly followed by bomb threats and armed protests. The pattern is undeniable: target with words, followers attack with weapons.

Then there’s cyberbullying, which research links to increased rates of depression, anxiety, and suicide[28]. Hate speech exposure causes measurable changes in brain structure and PTSD symptoms in targeted populations[29]. The CDC itself recognizes bullying, including verbal abuse, as an Adverse Childhood Experience (ACE) that can have lifelong health impacts.[30]

The Irony When Your Own Words Show You Get It

In another Substack post, Stephens writes about ‘From Scientific Racism to Scientific Sexism’,[46] showing they DO understand how language and pseudo-science have been weaponized! They write about how C.G. Jung and G. Stanley Hall used ‘scientific’ language to promote racist ideas about non-white people being ‘primitive’ or ‘less developed.’ Yet here they are, using their scientific credentials to promote the exact same kind of pseudoscientific bigotry against transgender people!

---

The Fallacy Factory: A Catalog of Bad Faith Arguments

When you strip away the credentials and the verbose prose, what’s left in Stephens’ article is a greatest hits collection of logical fallacies and rhetorical tricks. Let’s catalog them, shall we?

False Equivalence

How to spot it: Comparing two completely different things as if they’re the same

Example from the article:

‘When I was 5, I remember to this day that I wanted to be Spaceghost when I grew up. It’s terrifying to think that if I grew up in the 2000s to 2010s instead of the 1960s and 1970s, it would’ve been possible for my parents to put me through a sex change if I randomly said, ‘I’m a girl.’’

How to counter it: Point out the fundamental differences. Wanting to be a fictional character is childhood fantasy play. Gender dysphoria is a persistent, clinically significant condition that must be insistent, persistent, and consistent across multiple contexts and over time. No medical professional would prescribe treatment based on a random statement, the clinical guidelines require extensive evaluation.

Notes: This is perhaps the most common anti-trans argument, conflating gender identity with random whims or fantasies. It demonstrates either ignorance of clinical standards or deliberate misrepresentation.

Straw Man

How to spot it: Misrepresenting someone’s position to make it easier to attack

Example from the article:

‘Why can’t these people be what they want to be in private? Why are they so obsessed with forcing it on everyone else?’

How to counter it: Trans people aren’t ‘forcing’ anything on anyone. They’re asking for basic rights - to use bathrooms, receive healthcare, and exist in public without discrimination. That’s not ‘forcing it on everyone.’

Notes: This frames basic civil rights as aggressive demands, a classic technique to make the marginalized seem like the oppressors.

Slippery Slope

How to spot it: Claiming that accepting X will inevitably lead to ridiculous outcome Y

Example from the article:

‘Pretty soon, we won’t be able to call them children, they’ll only accept ‘less aged adults’.’

How to counter it: Ask for evidence of this progression. Point out that respecting trans identities hasn’t led to the collapse of language or society in places with strong trans protections.

Notes: The same argument was used against gay marriage (‘next people will marry animals!’). It’s fear-mongering disguised as concern.

Appeal to Ridicule

How to spot it: Mocking an idea to make it seem absurd rather than addressing it seriously

Example from the article:

‘No normal human believes a man is a woman because they speak it, unless they are under the control of some MK Ultra Bohemian Grove world of wizardry’

How to counter it: Mockery isn’t an argument. Millions of medical professionals, scientists, and yes, ‘normal humans’ understand and accept trans identities based on evidence, not ‘wizardry.’

Notes: When you have to invoke conspiracy theories and magic to make your point, you’ve already lost the argument.

Ad Hominem

How to spot it: Attacking the person rather than their argument

Example from the article:

‘Representatives and supporters of the Transgender community the way I see things are mostly estrogen-saturated, triple shot, oat-milk, latte-drinking Soyed-up, bitch-made mutha fuckas.’

How to counter it: Point out that insults aren’t arguments. If your position is strong, you don’t need to resort to name-calling.

Notes: Nothing says ‘I have no actual argument’ quite like devolving into gendered slurs about coffee preferences.

False Dichotomy

How to spot it: Presenting only two options when more exist

Example from the article:

‘You have either XX or XY genes, no matter how you dress or who you sleep with.’

How to counter it: This ignores intersex conditions, chromosomal variations (XXY, XO, etc.), and the fact that sex is determined by multiple factors beyond chromosomes. Biology is more complex than a binary.

Notes: For someone claiming scientific authority, ignoring the existence of intersex people (1-2% of the population) is remarkably unscientific.

Burden of Proof Reversal

How to spot it: Making claims without evidence, then demanding others disprove them

Example from the article:

Claims about research grants: ‘$10M in DEI Grants for colleges to study Transgender Lab Animals’ with zero citations or sources

How to counter it: The person making the claim must provide evidence. Without grant numbers, institutions, or any verifiable information, these claims are meaningless.

This catalog shows that even though he provides some links and attempts to create some semblance of academic veneer, Stephens’ article is just a collection of the same tired fallacies used against every marginalized group throughout history. When you can’t argue the science, apparently you just throw every logical fallacy at the wall and hope something sticks. But there is more, yes more, in that the things he cites as evidence to support his position actually undermine his argument.

---

The Source Check: When Citations Backfire

Let’s examine every source Stephens provides and see what they actually say versus how he uses them. Spoiler alert: most of them prove the opposite of his points.

The Suicide Study He Misrepresents

His claim: ‘the suicide risk in transgender people is higher than in the general population and seems to occur during every stage of transitioning’ - implying transition causes suicide

The actual study (PMC7317390): Yes, suicide risk remains elevated throughout transition stages. But the research identifies the actual causes:

• ‘Interpersonal and environmental microaggressions’

• ‘Internalized self-stigma’

• ‘Past experiences of prejudice or maltreatment’

The study doesn’t say transition causes suicide - it says discrimination persists at every stage, therefore suicide risk persists. He’s literally using evidence of ongoing discrimination to justify more discrimination.

The Violence Papers That Prove Him Wrong

Stephens lists six papers about violence, claiming they show no research on trans people being violent. Let’s see what they actually document:

1. ‘Violence against transgender people: A review of United States data’ - Documents systematic violence AGAINST trans people

2. ‘Gender violence revisited’ - About trans people as VICTIMS

3. ‘Hate crimes and violence against the transgendered’ - Literally about hate crimes targeting trans people

4. ‘Gender identity and hate crimes’ - Violence AGAINST trans people in LA

5. ‘The intersection of gender identity and violence’ - Victimization of trans college students

6. ‘Institutional Violence Perpetrated against Transgender Individuals’ - Healthcare violence AGAINST trans people

His conclusion: ‘You will be hard pressed to find’ data on trans violence

This is like citing six studies about lynching and concluding Black people must be violent because there aren’t studies about Black violence. The abundance of research on violence AGAINST trans people shows they’re overwhelmingly victims, not perpetrators.

Ok, if this conlusion drawn hurts your brain because it doesn’t follow logically, you are not alone. It absolutely doesn’t, and deserves a closer look becauseThis is absolutely backwards reasoning.

The ABSENCE of research on trans violence isn't suspicious - it's because there's no significant pattern to study. Meanwhile, the ABUNDANCE of research on violence against trans people shows where the actual problem lies.

Does this mean there are no trans people who did something wrong or engaged in a violent act or crime? Of course not! Do we judge the entirety of a group based on the actions of a few? No! It isn’t right when people do this due to racism and it isn’t right when you do the same thing to trans people!

And to answer the excellent follow on question I know you were thinking because I know I was when I read it: ‘what community can you find such data on in the first place?’

Excellent question!

The Answer: NONE.

If you're doing ethical science, the answer is ‘none’.

We don't study entire demographic groups for ‘propensity for violence’ because:

• It's scientifically invalid (violence is behavioral, not inherent to identity)

• It's ethically wrong (it assumes group guilt)

• It's methodologically flawed (confuses correlation with causation)

The only times we've seen such ‘research’ historically:

• Racist pseudoscience claiming Black people are inherently violent

• Anti-Semitic ‘research’ on Jewish ‘criminal tendencies’

• Sexist studies on women's ‘hysteria’ and emotional instability

• Homophobic ‘research’ linking gay men to pedophilia

Stephens is literally recycling the same playbook: ‘We need to study if [marginalized group] is dangerous!’ And shame on him because he should known better.

The Cherry-Picked Crime Stories

The Racist Playbook Parallel: This is EXACTLY how racist media has demonized Black communities for centuries:

• Cherry-pick crimes by Black individuals

• Claim media ‘won’t cover it’ (while citing media coverage)

• Use these to characterize entire population

• Ignore that Black people are disproportionately VICTIMS of crime

Using his logic we see that there are approximately ~40 million Black Americans, should we judge all by individual crimes? Likewise, there are approximately ~165 million women in the US, should we characterize all women by female criminals? Similarly, there are about ~1.6 million trans people in the US and he found 4-5 cases.

As the saying goes: ‘The plural of anecdote is not data.’ But apparently, for Stephens, a handful of crime stories equals scientific evidence, but only when it’s about trans people.

---

The Dr. Sims Comparison

In a stunning display of historical amnesia, Stephens writes:

‘These physicians are no different than Dr. J. Marion Sims and his experimental surgery practiced on enslaved Black women in the 19th century, in my view.’

Let’s be crystal clear about what Stephens is doing here. They’re comparing modern doctors following established medical protocols with informed consent to a man who performed surgical experiments on enslaved women WITHOUT anesthesia or consent.

This isn’t just historically inaccurate, it’s deeply offensive to the memory of those women who suffered actual medical torture. Dr. Sims performed experimental surgeries on enslaved women. Lucy, Anarcha, Betsey,[37] and others whose names we'll never know without anesthesia, claiming they didn't feel pain the same way white women did[38]. These women had no ability to consent, no ability to refuse, no recourse for the agony inflicted on them in the name of ‘medical advancement.’

Modern gender-affirming care involves extensive informed consent, psychological evaluation, and medical oversight. Patients can stop treatment at any time. Though not every trans person seeks any or all surgeries, the surgeons who do provide this care are skilled professionals who aren't experimenting on anybody. To compare doctors following established protocols with a man who tortured enslaved women is not just wrong - it's a grotesque appropriation of Black women's suffering to score rhetorical points. For a Black man from Memphis to make this comparison shows either profound historical ignorance or a willingness to exploit Black suffering for rhetorical points.

The Suicide Statistics Switcheroo

Here’s where our infectious disease scientist really shows they should stick to their lane. They claim that the argument about transgender youth suicide risk ‘is not and has never been supported scientifically.’

False. The actual research is devastating and clear:

According to peer-reviewed studies, ‘Transgender and nonbinary (TGNB) youth report more than four times greater rates of suicide attempts compared with their cisgender peers.’ [43] That’s not a small statistical variance, that’s a crisis.

The research identifies specific ‘intervenable risk factors: interpersonal and environmental microaggressions, internalized self-stigma, and adverse childhood experiences’. [44] Notice the word ‘intervenable,’ these are factors we can address through support and acceptance.

Consider that suicide is the second leading cause of death among adolescents in the United States, [45] and transgender youth are at four times higher risk. Stephens is literally dismissing interventions that could save children’s lives.

Multiple studies confirm:

• Transgender youth with supportive families have a 93% reduction in suicide attempts [42]

• Access to gender-affirming care is associated with lower rates of suicidality [32][33]

• The research explicitly states we must ‘assess the risk of suicide among transgender and gender-nonconforming patients and discuss past experiences of prejudice or maltreatment to prevent further victimization’[41]

But hey, why trust the American Academy of Pediatrics[35], the American Medical Association [36], or literally every major medical organization when you’ve got… feelings?

The DEI Derangement

Stephens ends with complaints about research grants studying transgender health in animal models. You know, the same kind of basic research that’s fundamental to understanding human biology. But when it involves transgender health, suddenly it’s ‘pushing an agenda’?

This from someone whose Substack bio proudly proclaims they’re ‘not woke’ and writes ‘what I think’ without caring about ‘correct grammar’? [31]

Let's pause here on that ‘not woke’ proclamation. Dr. Stephens, do you even know what ‘woke’ means? It's not some leftist buzzword, it comes from your own community. ‘Stay woke’ meant to be aware of your physical surroundings at all times, and evolved to being aware, staying conscious of racial injustices and systemic oppression.

When you proudly declare you're ‘not woke,’ you're literally saying you're not aware, not conscious. You're telling us you choose ignorance. And then you wonder why we question your analysis? A Black man from Memphis bragging about not being aware of systemic oppression while parroting white supremacist talking points about ‘wokeness’? That's not independent thinking - that's following the exact white supremacy playbook designed to keep us divided.

Now, back to where we were…

Sounds like someone’s pushing their own agenda while projecting harder than an IMAX theater.

Let’s be clear about why animal research matters in medicine. Every single medication you’ve ever taken, from aspirin to antibiotics to vaccines, was tested on animals first. Animal models are the foundation of understanding biological processes before human trials.

If Stephens objects to studying hormone effects in animal models, he should object to ALL medical research. But he doesn’t, he only objects when it might help trans people. That’s not principled scientific critique; it’s selective outrage driven by prejudice.

Moreover, understanding how hormones affect various species helps us understand fundamental biological processes. This research benefits everyone, from treating hormonal conditions to understanding reproductive health to developing new therapies. But apparently, if it might also help trans people, it’s suddenly ‘pushing an agenda.’

The Grift That Keeps On Griftng…

Perhaps the saddest irony isn’t just that a Black scientist from Memphis is recycling the same pseudoscientific bigotry used against his own people. It’s that he’s monetizing it. Both articles end with the same refrain: Bitcoin wallets, Venmo links, Dogecoin addresses, and pleas for ‘$5, $50, $500, or more.’

Maybe that is the real inconvenient truth here - that transmisia pays. That wrapping hatred in academic credentials and historical parallels can turn bigotry into a subscription model. Stephens knows his history well enough to recognize charlatans when he sees them in the past. He just can’t see the one staring back at him from his Substack dashboard, hand outstretched for donations.

The Bottom Line

Here’s the inconvenient truth about Torrance Stephens: They’re a credentialed scientist who’s decided that their expertise in infectious disease somehow qualifies them to make sweeping pronouncements about endocrinology, psychology, and human rights. They’ve been banned from Twitter and YouTube, not for ‘thought crimes’ as they claim, but likely for the same kind of transmisic content we’re seeing here.

When someone with legitimate scientific credentials uses them to spread misinformation and bigotry, it’s not just wrong, it’s dangerous. It gives a veneer of respectability to hatred. It’s the academic equivalent of a doctor prescribing bleach for COVID.

And for the sake of clarity: Stephens has a PhD, not an MD. He’s a research scientist, not a physician. He doesn’t treat patients, prescribe medications, or have clinical training in endocrinology or gender medicine. Yet here he is, telling actual medical doctors, the ones with MDs, residencies, and relevant specializations, that they’re doing medicine wrong.

This isn’t about identity, it’s about integrity. When someone uses their academic credentials and even their own community’s history of oppression as weapons against another marginalized group, that’s not just bad science, it’s moral bankruptcy.

So no, Dr. Stephens, we won’t be showing you our eggs, our chromosomes, or anything else. What we will show you is the door because in 2025, we’re done pretending that wrapping bigotry in a PhD makes it anything other than what it is: fear, ignorance, and hate dressed up in a lab coat.

For a man from Memphis who should know the power of words to heal and to harm, who should understand how science has been weaponized against marginalized communities, who has spent decades studying health disparities, this isn’t just bad science. It’s a betrayal of everything his education and heritage should have taught him.

Sometimes the most dangerous misinformation comes with a CV attached. And sometimes, the saddest thing isn’t ignorance - it’s watching someone who knows better choose worse.

---

Citations

[1] Torrance Stephens (0000-0001-6168-3675) - ORCID. https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6168-3675

[2] Ainsworth, C. (2015). Sex redefined. Nature, 518(7539), 288-291. DOI: 10.1038/518288a

[3] García-Acero, M., et al. (2020). Disorders of sex development: Genetic characterization of a patient cohort. Molecular Medicine Reports, 21(1), 97-106. https://doi.org/10.3892/mmr.2019.10819

[4] Guillamon, A., Junque, C., & Gómez-Gil, E. (2016). A review of the status of brain structure research in transsexualism. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 45(7), 1615-1648. DOI: 10.1007/s10508-016-0768-5

[5] TransVitae. (2025). What rights have been taken from transgender people? https://www.transvitae.com/what-rights-have-been-taken-from-transgender-people/

[6] Montgomerie, K. (2023). What rights don’t trans people have? Medium. https://katymontgomerie.medium.com/what-rights-dont-trans-people-have-228c728f564a

[7] Kurth, A. E., Puckett, J. A., & Anderson-Carpenter, K. D. (2021). Legislation restricting access to public restrooms and changing facilities for transgender individuals in Texas (US): A qualitative analysis of testimony. International journal of transgender health, 22(4), 440–453. https://doi.org/10.1080/26895269.2021.1905580

[8] Flores, A. R., et al. (2021). Gender identity disparities in criminal victimization. Williams Institute. https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/publications/trans-crime-victimization/

[9] James, S. E., et al. (2016). The Report of the 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey. National Center for Transgender Equality. https://transequality.org/sites/default/files/docs/usts/USTS-Full-Report-Dec17.pdf

[10] See [5] above.

[11] Movement Advancement Project. (2024). Healthcare laws and policies. https://www.lgbtmap.org/equality-maps/healthcare_laws_and_policies

[12, 13] Ibid.

[14] See [5] above.

[15] Kosciw, J. G., et al. (2020). The 2019 National School Climate Survey. GLSEN. https://www.glsen.org/research/2019-national-school-climate-survey

[16, 17] See [9] above.

[18] Human Rights Campaign. (2024). Anti-transgender sports bans. https://www.hrc.org/press-releases/anti-transgender-sports-bans-violate-new-proposed-title-ix-rules

[19] Palm Center. (2021). Report on transgender military service. https://www.palmcenter.org/

[20,21] See [11] above.

[22] FBI. (2023). Hate crime statistics. https://www.fbi.gov/services/cjis/ucr/hate-crime

[23] Lambda Legal. (2024). Protected and served? Survey of LGBT/HIV contact with police, courts, and prisons. https://www.lambdalegal.org/protected-and-served

[24-27] See [6] above.

[28] Kowalski, R. M., et al. (2014). Bullying in the digital age: A critical review and meta-analysis of cyberbullying research among youth. Psychological Bulletin, 140(4), 1073-1137. DOI: 10.1037/a0035618

[29] Mays, V. M., & Cochran, S. D. (2001). Mental health correlates of perceived discrimination among lesbian, gay, and bisexual adults in the United States. American Journal of Public Health, 91(11), 1869-1876. DOI: 10.2105/ajph.91.11.1869

[30] Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2023). About adverse childhood experiences. https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/aces/about.html

[31] About Torrance. (n.d.). Substack. https://torrancestephensphd.substack.com/about

[32] Turban, J. L., et al. (2022). Access to gender-affirming hormones during adolescence and mental health outcomes among transgender adults. PLOS ONE, 17(1), e0261039. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0261039

[33] Tordoff, D. M., et al. (2022). Mental health outcomes in transgender and nonbinary youths receiving gender-affirming care. JAMA Network Open, 5(2), e220978. DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.0978

[35] Rafferty, J., et al. (2018). Ensuring comprehensive care and support for transgender and gender-diverse children and adolescents. Pediatrics, 142(4), e20182162. DOI: 10.1542/peds.2018-2162

[36] American Medical Association. (2019). AMA reinforces opposition to restrictions on transgender medical care. https://www.ama-assn.org/press-center/press-releases/ama-reinforces-opposition-restrictions-transgender-medical-care

[37]Harvard Gazette. (2023, March). How Lucy, Betsey, and Anarcha became foremothers of gynecology. https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2023/03/how-lucy-betsey-and-anarcha-became-foremothers-of-gynecology/

[38]New-York Historical Society. (n.d.). Life story: Anarcha, Betsy, and Lucy. https://wams.nyhistory.org/a-nation-divided/antebellum/anarcha-betsy-lucy/

[41] Narang, P., Sarai, S. K., Aldrin, S., & Lippmann, S. (2018). Suicide Among Transgender and Gender-Nonconforming People. The primary care companion for CNS disorders, 20(3), 18nr02273. https://doi.org/10.4088/PCC.18nr02273

[42] Travers, R., Bauer, G., Pyne, J., Bradley, K., Gale, L., & Papadimitriou, M. (2012, October 2). Impacts of strong parental support for trans youth. Children's Aid Society of Toronto and Delisle Youth Services. https://transpulseproject.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Impacts-of-Strong-Parental-Support-for-Trans-Youth-vFINAL.pdf

[43] Price, M. N., & Green, A. E. (2023). Association of Gender Identity Acceptance with Fewer Suicide Attempts Among Transgender and Nonbinary Youth. Transgender health, 8(1), 56–63. https://doi.org/10.1089/trgh.2021.0079

[44] Austin, A., Craig, S. L., D'Souza, S., & McInroy, L. B. (2022). Suicidality Among Transgender Youth: Elucidating the Role of Interpersonal Risk Factors. Journal of interpersonal violence, 37(5-6), NP2696–NP2718. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260520915554

[45] "Suicide". The National Institute of Mental Health. Retrieved March 25, 2023.

[46] Stephens, T. (2025). From scientific racism to scientific sexism, the swindlers of science rear their ugly heads again. ThoughtCrime: Jones From PartsUnknown Banned From Twitter. https://torrancestephensphd.substack.com/p/from-scientific-racism-to-scientific