When the Mirror Talks Back: A Master Class in Missing the Point

An Inconvenient Truth About Satire

Sometimes the universe delivers a gift so perfect, you wonder if it's performance art. Enter

Holly MathNerd

(@hollymathnerd), whose comment on my satirical piece about oblivious parents of trans kids demonstrates exactly the behavior my satire was critiquing, except they did it unironically. It's like watching someone read "A Modest Proposal" and responding, "This Swift fellow makes some troubling admissions about Irish dietary preferences."¹

Now, Holly's comment might seem like just one person's opinion, but it perfectly exemplifies a broader pattern in anti-trans rhetoric: the weaponization of psychological terminology, the transformation of human existence into ideological warfare, and the spectacular inability to recognize irony when it's spelled out in 72-point font. Let’s take a look:

To be fair Holly, I don’t just satirize that other PITT site - I also fact-check and debunk, and often respond with open letters as well.

And yes, I'm writing a whole article about this. If analyzing dehumanization is "narcissistic," then every civil rights movement in history was a personality disorder. Martin Luther King Jr.'s "Letter from Birmingham Jail"? Classic Cluster B behavior, apparently.

Let's dive in.

What Satire Actually Is (A Primer for the Confused)

First, let's establish what satire is and isn't, since this seems to be a point of confusion. Satire is a literary device that exposes absurdity through exaggeration. It's not journalism. It's not meant to be "balanced." Jonathan Swift didn't provide equal time to pro-baby-eating perspectives. George Orwell didn't ensure the pigs in "Animal Farm" got to share their side of the story.

In my piece, I created Jordan Miller, a parent so oblivious they couldn't recognize their child's transition despite some hilariously obvious signs:

• Finding HRT prescriptions

• Seeing "GENDER VOICE THERAPY LLC" on credit card statements

• Multiple clear conversations

• A legal name change

• A sticky note literally saying "YOUR CHILD IS TRANS"

But here's what Holly missed: I gave Jordan humanity. They weren't a cartoon villain twirling their mustache. They had genuine confusion and attempts at understanding. They demonstrated love for their child, however misdirected. They engaged in self-reflection: "I've always been a bit of a control freak." I borrowed from the original their own words. I gave them a victorian novelist aspirations in a somewhat tongue-in-cheek effort to give their personality some depth.

I understood Jordan's mental state well enough to create a three-dimensional character whose obliviousness feels tragically real. Now, this is satire, not high literature - the characterization is deliberately streamlined, which is precisely how satire works. Which brings us to...

Theory of Mind: Let's Get Clinical

Holly accuses my satire of showing "no theory of mind whatsoever for anyone but the transgender person — ever." This is a fascinating claim that reveals they don't understand what theory of mind actually is. Or they do and they just abused it for the purposes of trying to score rhetorical points.

What's particularly revealing is that last word: "ever." Holly isn't just critiquing my satire—they're revealing a pre-existing belief that trans people are categorically incapable of theory of mind for anyone except ourselves. According to them, all trans people—teachers, parents, healthcare workers, therapists, social workers—are psychologically incapable of understanding non-trans perspectives. Ever.

Let that sink in. Holly read one satirical piece and used it as confirmation that millions of trans people suffer from a fundamental cognitive deficit. They didn't suddenly develop this sweeping psychological theory from my article. They came to it already believing trans people are mentally defective. My satire simply became their latest piece of "evidence."

That's not analysis; it's confirmation bias in action. Holly saw what they expected to see because they were already looking for proof. They're using my satire as a Rorschach test, projecting their existing beliefs onto it rather than actually engaging with what I wrote. They could have read a trans person's grocery list and somehow concluded it demonstrated narcissistic personality disorder.

But let's examine their claim properly. What exactly is "theory of mind"?

Theory of mind is the cognitive ability to understand that others have different mental states, thoughts, beliefs, intentions, and desires. It's the understanding that others have intentions, desires, beliefs, perceptions, and emotions different from one's own. Simply put, it's recognizing that other people have their own inner experiences and perspectives.

Now, does my satire demonstrate theory of mind? Let's see:

• I portrayed Jordan's complex internal landscape: confusion, love, self-doubt, poetic aspirations, control issues

• I understood their perspective well enough to satirize it: You can't effectively parody what you can't comprehend

• I showed multiple viewpoints: Jordan's obliviousness, Alex's frustration, the therapist's professional concern, the friend's well-meaning confusion

• I created believable motivations for each character: Everyone had reasons for their behavior, even if misguided

The irony here is exquisite. Holly demonstrates no theory of mind for trans experiences - they can't grasp why Alex might be frustrated after two years of misgendering, why deadnaming hurts, or why trans people might have valid anger. Yet they accuse us of the deficit they're displaying.

What Holly seems to want isn't theory of mind but uncritical validation of the parent's perspective. They're confusing "understanding someone's mental state" with "agreeing with and centering someone's mental state." I can understand why a parent might be confused while still critiquing their harmful behavior. That's literally what theory of mind allows us to do.

And before someone says I'm being cruel or mean—critiquing harmful ideas isn't cruel. Conflating the two is how discrimination persists. I'm not attacking Holly as a person; I'm examining their arguments and the broader pattern they represent.

The ‘Cluster B’ Smear Campaign

Now let's address the elephant in the room: Holly's claim that my article demonstrates "how the Cluster B disorders are inherent to the trans movement."

This is a relatively new tactic in anti-trans rhetoric, one I have been hearing with increasing frequency, particularly among certain circles of anti-trans folks. It is attempting to medicalize and pathologize trans identity and advocacy as narcissistic personality disorder. It's a way to dismiss trans people's legitimate grievances as "narcissistic rage" rather than justified anger at discrimination.

Let me be clear: I AM addressing their critique. I'm just not accepting their premise that trans people are narcissists. There's a difference between deflecting criticism and rejecting dehumanization disguised as criticism.

The irony here is exquisite. Holly's comment itself displays several traits they're projecting onto trans people:

• Grandiosity: Believing their interpretation of my satire should be spread widely as proof of trans people's mental illness

• Lack of empathy: Completely missing the trans child's suffering in the piece

• Projection: Accusing others of what they're demonstrating

• Entitlement: Expecting not to be blocked despite deliberate disrespect

Furthermore, this is nothing we have not seen before. There are striking historical parallels where we see this same tactic of medicalizing and pathologizing marginalized groups' legitimate demands for rights. It is a well-worn playbook that's been used against virtually every civil rights movement.

Black Civil Rights Movement:
During the civil rights era, white authorities routinely pathologized Black resistance. White people marshaled the language of science to attribute black resistance to various forms of derangement, stupidity, and psychosis. The history of pathologizing Black resistance to white oppression has its roots in U.S. slavery, when nineteenth century medical professionals invented diagnoses to explain why enslaved people might want freedom.

Gay Rights Movement:
The parallel with LGBTQ rights is particularly striking. Homosexuality was classified as a mental illness in the DSM until 1973. After Freud's death in 1939, most psychoanalysts came to view homosexuality as pathological. It wasn't until sustained activism during the gay rights movement that cultural norms shifted and what was considered pathological changed. The removal of homosexuality from the DSM came after years of protests and advocacy.

Women's Suffrage:
During the Victorian era, women who advocated for their rights were routinely diagnosed with "hysteria" and other invented mental illnesses. Victorian era diagnoses of hysteria functioned as forms of women's oppression, pathologizing women who stepped outside prescribed gender roles.

The pattern is clear: when marginalized groups demand equality, the dominant group often responds by inventing or misapplying psychiatric diagnoses, framing legitimate anger as mental illness, using "scientific" language to maintain existing power structures, and/or dismissing civil rights advocacy as pathological behavior. Often attempting to create a stereotype of the latter.

Sound familiar? Holly's "Cluster B" accusation is just the latest iteration of this centuries-old tactic. It's particularly ironic given that the very process of depathologizing marginalized identities has been a cornerstone of civil rights progress.

Good Faith vs. Bad Faith: My Actual Blocking Policy

Holly preemptively cast themselves as a martyr: "I expect that they/them will block me because of my critical views." The mocking use of pronouns alone signals bad faith, but let's give them the benefit of the doubt and be thorough.

I don't block people for critical views. I block for:

• Cruelty born of prejudice or bigotry

• Deliberately disrespectful behavior

• Trolling tactics

• Bad faith engagement

What's the difference? Let me illustrate:

Good faith criticism: "I think this satire overlooks the genuine concerns parents have about medical decisions for their children."

Bad faith dehumanization: "This proves trans people have Cluster B disorders."

See the difference? One engages with ideas; the other pathologizes an entire demographic. And no, "trans people deserve respect" and "trans people are mentally ill" aren't equivalent positions deserving equal consideration. Some ideas don't merit a seat at the table of civil discourse, particularly those that ignore or are completely devoid of facts.

Good faith disagreement actually helps prevent echo chambers. It sharpens arguments, challenges assumptions, and prevents intellectual stagnation. I actively seek thoughtful criticism because surrounding yourself only with agreement serves no one well. I have a lovely series of the longest notes I have written on substack with a self-avowed “gender critical feminist” wherein we have a lovely exchange of ideas that demonstrate precisely this. We disagreed on fundamental premises but maintained mutual respect throughout.

But there's a difference between intellectual diversity and hosting your own degradation ceremony. I don't need an echo chamber because I'm not afraid of being wrong. But I also don't need to platform people who think my existence is a personality disorder.

And before anyone says "See? Trans people can't take criticism!" - I'm literally responding to criticism right now. What I won't do is pretend that diagnosing an entire community with personality disorders constitutes legitimate critique.

The "Ideological Enemy" Framework

Perhaps most revealing is Holly's language about maintaining "information sources from one's ideological enemies." They're not engaging with human experiences or seeking understanding - they're conducting opposition research. Trans people aren't individuals with valid experiences; we're enemy combatants in their ideological culture war.

Holly talks about studying "the enemy" as if it's some brave intellectual exercise. Meanwhile, I'm over here actually engaging with people who disagree with me, so long as they can manage basic human respect. I take in articles, papers, reviews, and other media critical of trans people and fact check the content, provide context, background, and analysis both of the facts and the rhetoric. I try to educate others on how to identify the rhetorical devices and fallacies, and keep things based on what we know - facts. So I ask, who's really in the echo chamber here?

This framework is very revealing. When you view someone's existence as an ideological position rather than a human reality, you've already abandoned any pretense of good faith engagement.

The Perfect Self-Own

Here's what makes Holly's comment so remarkable: They looked at a satire about parents who refuse to see their trans children and responded by... refusing to see trans people as fully human. They literally enacted the behavior being satirized while accusing the satirist of lacking empathy.

It's like watching someone read "The Boy Who Cried Wolf" and concluding, "This proves shepherds are pathological liars." They've taken my satire and weaponized it as evidence, treating it like a confession rather than recognizing it as literary criticism of societal behaviors demonstrated by a group of people.

Holly read a piece about parents ignoring their trans children's needs and thought, "Yes! This proves trans people are the narcissists!" That's like watching Jurassic Park and concluding the real villain was the goat, or reading 1984 and thinking, "Big Brother makes some valid points about surveillance."

They wanted to spread my satire widely not because they understood its message, but because they thought it proved their preconceptions about trans people being mentally ill. That's not media literacy; that's confirmation bias wearing academic language like a designer label on a knockoff bag.

Holly's Logical Fallacy Buffet

We can’t have an inconvenient truth article without deconstructing the rhetoric and highlighting the logical fallacies! Holly serves us up a veritable smorgasboard of fallacies:

1. Hasty Generalization (The Crown Jewel)
"There is no theory of mind whatsoever for anyone but the transgender person — ever, as these essays show."

Holly takes ONE satirical piece and extrapolates to ALL trans people having a fundamental cognitive deficit. That's like reading "The Onion" article about area man and concluding all men in all areas behave identically.

Even if we give them some grace and recognize that they are not basing this off my one satirical story, the fact remains they are still making a hasty generalization.

2. Ad Hominem (Medical Edition)
"showcase how the Cluster B disorders are inherent to the trans movement"

Rather than engaging with arguments about trans rights or parental support, Holly attacks trans people as mentally ill. Classic ad hominem - attacking the person rather than the position.

3. Strawman Fallacy
Holly claims the satire shows trans people lack theory of mind, when it actually shows a parent's obliviousness. They're arguing against a position the satire never took.

4. Circular Reasoning/Begging the Question
Holly uses the satire as "proof" of what they already believed. Their logic: "Trans people are narcissists, therefore this satire proves trans people are narcissists, which proves trans people are narcissists."

5. False Cause (Post Hoc)
"as these satirical essays show" - Holly assumes the satire CAUSES or PROVES their belief, rather than recognizing they're projecting pre-existing beliefs onto it.

6. Appeal to Martyrdom/Self-Victimization
"I expect that they/them will block me because of my critical views"

Pre-emptively casting themselves as a victim while deliberately being disrespectful (note the mocking pronoun usage).

7. Poisoning the Well
The contemptuous use of pronouns, "they/them," signals bad faith before even making their argument.

And for the sake of clarity, I default to “they/them” pronouns in all my articles, as I do not presume to know other’s pronouns. It is the most respectful position I can take. My own pronouns are not they/them, but I find those to be perfectly polite and have no issue with others using them for me unless/until I clarify. The way Holly writes them in her comment, the intent is clearly contemptuous.

8. False Dilemma
"information sources from one's ideological enemies"

Frames this as ideological warfare with only two sides - enemies or allies. No room for nuance or good faith disagreement.

9. Composition Fallacy
Taking characteristics they (wrongly) attribute to one piece of writing and applying them to an entire movement.

10. Appeal to Consequences
"should make it to a wider audience" - Suggesting the satire should be spread not because it's true, but because it would support their agenda.

11. Genetic Fallacy
Dismissing trans perspectives because they come from trans people (who they've pre-diagnosed as mentally ill).

12. Non Sequitur
The entire logical chain: Satire about oblivious parents → Trans people are narcissists → Should be spread widely. None of these follow from each other.

13. Confirmation Bias
This is technically a cognitive bias and not a fallacy, but widely recognized nonehteless. We see this in their interpreting the satire to confirm pre-existing beliefs about trans people

Holly has created a veritable logical fallacy casserole: each ingredient terrible on its own, but truly spectacular in combination. This isn't argumentation; it's a prime example in how NOT to construct a logical argument.

The irony? In trying to prove trans people lack cognitive abilities, Holly demonstrated their own struggles with basic logic and reasoning. It's projection all the way down.

The Mirror Never Lies

Satire functions as a mirror, reflecting society's absurdities back at itself. Holly looked into that mirror and saw something that disturbed her - not because the mirror was flawed, but because she didn't like what it showed.

Consider the following: My satire held up a mirror to parents who refuse to see their trans children. Holly gazed into that mirror and saw... what, exactly? A parent so wrapped up in their own narrative they can't recognize their child's reality? Someone whose "concern" masks willful ignorance? A person who mistakes their discomfort for their child's problem?

Whatever Holly saw in that reflection, she couldn't bear to acknowledge it. Perhaps because acknowledging it would mean examining her own behavior toward trans people. So she did what people often do when confronted with uncomfortable truths about themselves - she projected. She accused the mirror of narcissism. She diagnosed the mirror with personality disorders. She declared the mirror lacked empathy.

This is why satire is such a powerful device, and the most telling thing about it is not the satirical piece itself, but how people respond to it. The response often reveals far more about the reader than the satire itself ever could. Satire acts as a litmus test for people's actual beliefs and biases - and Holly's reaction tells us everything.

Looking back to Holly’s comment, in trying to prove trans people lack theory of mind, they revealed their own inability to understand trans experiences. In accusing us of Cluster B disorders, they displayed the very traits they projected onto us. In warning they'd be blocked for "critical views," they engaged in deliberate disrespect that would get them blocked anywhere civil discourse is valued.

The satirical mirror showed Holly something about herself she couldn't accept, so she shattered it with accusations and diagnoses. But here's the thing about mirrors - breaking them doesn't change what they reflected.

Sometimes the best response to satire isn't analysis, it's becoming a living example of what's being satirized. In that sense, Holly didn't just miss the point; they became it.

And that, dear readers, is why we keep writing. Not for the Hollys of the world, who've already decided we're the enemy. But for the trans kids reading their parents' words in pieces like the original², seeing their pain dismissed as narcissism, their existence reduced to ideology.

For them, we hold up mirrors. Even when some people refuse to see what's reflected back.

---

Special thanks to Holly MathNerd for providing such a perfect demonstration of my satirical thesis. No additional research was required.

1. See “A Modest Proposal" by Jonathan Swift.

2. Like the ones I included at the end of the article in that screenshot - the ones being systematically removed from comment sections while parent testimonials remain untouched. Only empathy for these parents is valid, apparently.