Part 3: Reversing the Damage of “Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters”. Education.
Chapter Four
This chapter focuses on the school system, seeming to imply some sort of conspiracy to indoctrinate kids into gender “ideology” via lesson plans provided by activists (who secretly hope those kids will identify as part of the LGBT community). There’s no evidence to support this, of course.
Concern is expressed about California parents being unable to opt their children out of instruction pertaining to gender identity and sexual orientation despite being able to opt them out of general sex education. The reasoning for this is to prevent bullying focused on gender and/or sexuality. Shrier (2020) asserts that we should treat everyone fairly and equally, punishing students who choose to bully others. While bullying shouldn’t be tolerated and a general attitude of treating others well is a good idea, it doesn’t follow that we should exclude explicit instruction concerning gender and sexual orientation.
Principles of Stereotyping and Prejudice
Our brains have a tendency to categorize things, whether those things are objects or human beings. While this helps us make sense of the world and quickly perceive our surroundings without difficulty, it leads to a number of biases and cognitive errors (Whitley & Kite, 2010).
We commonly differentiate between ingroups (groups we belong to) and outgroups (groups we don’t belong to). Outgroups are often perceived unfairly. For example, the ultimate attribution error refers to the phenomenon by which people are more likely to explain negative ingroup behavior as a result of situational factors and negative outgroup behavior as due to personal, enduring characteristics (Whitley & Kite, 2010). While members of our group get the benefit of the doubt with situational concerns factored in, outgroup members are assumed to have some intrinsic flaw that led to their negative behaviors. The reverse is also true; positive behaviors from an outgroup are often attributed to situational factors while positive behaviors from an ingroup member are due to some stable, intrinsic trait (Whitley & Kite, 2010).
Furthermore, the outgroup homogeneity effect demonstrates that people tend to perceive members of an outgroup as fairly similar while noticing the diversity of their ingroups. Of course, this might be explained by a lack of exposure to outgroup members. Perhaps people see members of some outgroup as “the same” because they haven’t really interacted with them (Whitley & Kite, 2010). If this is the case, then it’s reasonable to suspect that exposure to members of an outgroup could potentially mitigate some of this biased thinking. Said exposure doesn’t necessarily have to be in-person and could be done via educational programs meant to introduce students to minority groups. This is a primary reason that explicit instruction on gender identity and sexual orientation in schools is a good idea even in cases where bullying is given zero-tolerance.
Additionally, illusory correlations (incorrectly connecting two things, such as a specific behavior and one’s race) can be solidified after a single instance (Whitley & Kite, 2010). If one exposure to a negative action by an outgroup member can lead to the entire group being categorized as intrinsically predisposed to said negative behavior, it’s critical to break down these stereotypes and help people recognize biased thinking.
As children form beliefs and attitudes, it makes sense (in light of the above evidence that our brains often take shortcuts that can sometimes influence our perceptions toward entire social groups) to introduce them to minority groups in a way that’s accessible and demonstrates said groups are composed of diverse individuals.
Shrier (2020) says that part of the reason gender stereotypes are perpetuated is in part because the educators are teaching said stereotypes. However, children often learn stereotypes indirectly (Whitley & Kite, 2010). A parent might not say “you cannot play with cars because only boys play with cars” to their daughters, but they might not allow them to choose traditionally masculine toys at a store, only agreeing to purchase a toy consistent with gender stereotypes. Associations can be made in the absence of explicit explanations. Silence doesn’t eliminate the associations our brains are constantly making, and it certainly doesn’t help reduce bias.
Acknowledging Diversity, Oh My!
Shrier (2020) seems to think that by teaching students about gender nonconformity, it takes away from women’s achievements. By acknowledging that a woman demonstrated gender nonconformity when she accomplished some feat, that’s stealing her achievement as a woman. Except it isn’t. If the class is discussing a woman who behaved outside of expected gender roles, that is by definition gender nonconformity. It doesn’t make her less of a woman (or less feminine). It is simply meant to illustrate that by doing what she did, when and where she did it, was outside of the expectations for women.
You could also argue that by pointing out her nonconformity you are emphasizing her womanhood as you’re referring to the additional struggles she had to endure simply by being a woman. If the goal is to discuss the individual, it’s important to include context, and context often necessarily involves gender, age, race, year, location etc.
Biological Nonsense?
Shrier (2020) says gender identity education is “biologically nonsensical” from a scientific standpoint. There is no citation provided and it’s antithetical to current scientific discourse.
We don’t have a complete understanding of gender and sex scientifically. There is a lot we don’t know and can’t currently fully explain. However, there isn’t evidence that it’s a biological impossibility to be trans-identified; in fact there’s evidence to the contrary [1].
The sexual differentiation of the genitalia happens before the sexual differentiation of the brain [1]. Specifically, differentiation of the genitalia typically occurs within the initial two months of pregnancy, while differentiation of the brain occurs in the second half [2]. If these are two separate events, then it’s at least possible there can be a mismatch [1].
Without going too in-depth on some of the neuroimaging studies (there’s a lot of nuance and debate with regard to sample sizes, sample types, tasks performed during imaging, controlling for sexual orientation, etc.), there is evidence that while the whole brain volume of trans-identified adolescents (no hormone therapy undertaken at time of study) matched their natal sex, specific regions of the brain had volumes that were closer to the sex they identified with [3].
While there is much work to be done on this topic, the general conclusion is that specific brain phenotypes for female-to-male and male-to-female identified individuals seems to exist [3]. In fact, a study on the perception of one’s own body showed that female-to-male identified individuals had a brain connectivity profile that differed from both cisgender males and females [4]. Of course, it’s impossible to say at this time whether this difference is intrinsic to gender dysphoria itself or due to mental and behavioral responses to gender dysphoria. Nevertheless, these studies illustrate that there are neural structures and functions that might differ in those who experience gender dysphoria when compared to those who don’t.
Chapter Five
The 5th chapter focuses primarily on parental accounts, containing several misconceptions and references to stereotypical beliefs/behaviors. For example, one mother said that while homosexuality has always been around, being transgender is new (this is justified by her claim that she worked in the fashion industry). Obviously it isn’t new [5], but the notion was based on stereotypical reasoning. The stereotype = gays flock to the fashion industry. Trans people weren’t as visible in said industry, therefore they didn’t exist.
Shrier (2020) includes the following quote from one of the mothers: “When you’ve stopped puberty with puberty blockers and go straight to cross-sex hormones, you absolutely guarantee that you will be infertile”. If an individual doesn’t go through their natal puberty and undergoes hormone therapy, infertility is a real possibility. However, it also depends on pubertal development that had already occurred prior to starting blockers [6].
She seems to use the above quote to promote the idea that medical professionals aren’t to be trusted as they’re casually damning children to infertility (Shrier, 2020). On the contrary, this is an issue that’s being actively discussed and researched. Some of the issues being addressed include: options for preserving future fertility (and feasibility of said options), difficulties in navigating informed consent discussions when parents want preservation of eggs or sperm but the minor child does not, and ultimately the best way to manage the disadvantages that come along with beginning hormone therapy immediately after puberty suppression in light of the major advantages conferred to patients [6, 7].
A Weird Turn
The author wonders if parents had been more aggressive in opposing their child’s behavior, they would not have transitioned in the end. The examples she gives include opposing when their child wants to join a gay straight alliance or being less supportive when their child wants to wear men’s clothing to a prom (Shrier, 2020). Not only does this seem to promote homophobia, sexism, and the reinforcement of gender stereotypes (which she previously asserted teachers were discussing way too much in the previous chapter), it’s well established that overly strict parenting generally isn’t the way to produce psychologically healthy children [8].
She also completely misrepresents therapy, saying that “therapy is predicated on the conceit that our thoughts and feelings must always be monitored” (Shrier, 2020, p. 138). The general thesis seems to be that kids are too easily drawn to therapy and have too many diagnosable conditions/specific terminologies with which to describe their emotional states. This leads to pathologizing everything; all thoughts and actions have to be analyzed.
This is a stretch of course. Having a wider vocabulary to accurately convey your feelings to others sounds like a generally neat thing, doesn’t it? There’s no reason to presume that by doing so, teens are automatically self-diagnosing themselves or thinking they need emergency therapy. An alternate thesis could be that critically analyzing our thoughts and/or actions can often be beneficial in understanding ourselves and how we relate to others.
In the next article, chapters 6 and 7 will be covered.
Non-Hyperlinked References
Shrier, A. (2020). Irreversible damage: The transgender craze seducing our daughters. Regnery Publishing, a division of Salem Media Group.
Whitley, B.E., & Kite, M.E. (2010). The psychology of prejudice and discrimination. Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
