Reality’s Last Stand is a reader-supported publication. Please consider becoming a paying subscriber or making a one-time or recurring donation to show your support.

Subscribe now

About the Author

George M. Perry is a sports performance coach and writer in Houston, TX. His work on cancelation covers mental health, free speech and defamation law, institutional failures, moral panics, neuroscience, history, media, and more. Most everything is on Substack at Abuse of Process.

Usually, it’s someone from the outside joking that the whole academy, perhaps even all of society, is acting like a sociology department. Forty years ago, a sociology professor remarked to his dean, “Isn’t it a terrifying thought that the whole world may be becoming what our sociology department already is?” The professor, Kenneth Westhues of the University of Waterloo in Ontario, Canada, had already seen enough of a phenomenon that would sweep him up a few years later and become his main academic focus: workplace mobbing.

Workplace mobbing, cancelations, social eliminations… “There’s no need to get hung up on nomenclature. What matters is the horrific process, not the label,” Westhues says. He made a strong case for “social eliminations” in his 2005 book, The Envy of Excellence: Administrative Mobbing of High-Achieving Professors. “Cancelation” has the most currency in our culture and is my preferred term. “Workplace mobbing,” though, has gained the most traction in academia.

Higher education was the main focus of the workplace mobbing cases discussed at this year’s Niagara Conference on Workplace Mobbing. Presenters offered their analyses of why the frequency and intensity of workplace mobbing in academia have only increased since Westhues described universities as “settings where something odd and evil is afoot, something scarier and more elemental than occasional instances of professorial misconduct.”

“Why universities?” Ann Marie Flynn asked. “Because you get away with it.”

Flynn was the chair of the chemical engineering department at Manhattan College (now Manhattan University) until she became the target of a textbook case of university mobbing.

“The only way you can stop a mobbing is from the top down,” Flynn said. “But the university is very flat compared to the org chart of a company. There’s the faculty, the dean, the provost, the chancellor, and the president. It’s a very short pyramid.”

This means there are few institutional firebreaks once a mobbing begins.

Read more

Reality’s Last Stand is a reader-supported publication. Please consider becoming a paying subscriber or making a one-time or recurring donation to show your support.

Subscribe now

There are conflicting reports regarding current trends in transgender identification among youth. Some recent commentaries reported plummeting rates of transgender identification among US youth, and a European newspaper declared “the gender revolution is over.” Yet SEGM’s reanalyses identified serious methodological limitations in those original analyses, rendering their conclusions unreliable.

Our analysis of US college data, subsequently referenced by the New York Times, indicated that, as of spring 2025, the rates of trans identification on US campuses were at an all-time high, although possibly reaching a plateau.

We have now updated our analysis with data through the end of 2025. The new data suggest that our previous conclusion of a possible plateau was premature. Instead, we see yet another increase in trans identification, with 9 percent of females and 5 percent of males on undergraduate campuses reporting a sex-incongruent gender identity—an all-time high. We present our detailed findings below.

Note: The source of our analysis is the American College Health Association’s National College Health Assessment (NCHA), which is a large sample from US colleges and graduate schools. NCHA has surveyed 2.5 million students at more than 1,000 higher-education institutions over the last 26 years, repeating the survey every spring and fall. To date, this represents the most robust dataset of US college students.

Summary:

• Transgender identification on US college campuses is at an all-time high and has increased 37-fold since 2000.

• 9 percent of female and 5 percent of male undergraduates have a sex-incongruent gender identity.

• Nonbinary identities outnumber binary trans identities by roughly 3 to 1.

RLS Readers: Save 50% on SEGM’s 2026 Conference

The Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine (SEGM) is bringing leading researchers, clinicians, patients, parents, and legal experts to Washington, DC, November 5–7, for its 2026 conference, “Rethinking Youth Gender Medicine: Charting a Path Forward.”

Over three days, speakers will examine what the evidence on youth gender medicine actually shows, where important uncertainties remain, and what ethical and responsible care should look like going forward.

SEGM has generously extended a special 50% discount to Reality’s Last Stand readers on both in-person and livestream tickets! Use promo code RLS-SAVE50% when registering.

This special rate may not last forever, so register soon if you plan to attend.

1. The rate of transgender self-identification is currently at an all-time high

The most straightforward way to establish the trend in transgender identification is to rely on the self-reported answer to the question regarding one’s identity as “transgender.” Such a question has been part of the NCHA survey since its inception in 2000, although the question and answer wording underwent several changes.

According to this question, 5.2% (just over 1 in 20) of college students self-identify as transgender as of fall 2025 (see Figure 1).

Figure 1

It remains unknown how much of the 2015 increase is attributable to the change in question wording. Previous versions of the survey asked about gender in general, with “transgender” as one of the response options; starting in fall 2015, students were asked directly, “Do you identify as transgender?” However, as these are the best available data, we report the full series, which indicates a 37-fold (3,600 percent) increase in transgender identification since 2000.

2. Females are more likely than males to report a sex-incongruent identity

In addition to a direct question about one’s self-identification as “transgender,” the NCHA survey also provides a calculated measure built on a comparison of the respondents’ self-reported sex and gender identity. A mismatch between the two indicates a sex-incongruent identity (see questionnaire design below). By this measure, 9 percent of college females and 5 percent of males have a sex-incongruent identity as of fall 2025. The rate among females is nearly double that of males (see Figure 2).

Figure 2

3. Nonbinary identities dominate—but have reached a plateau

The data indicate that nonbinary transgender identities outnumber binary transgender identities roughly 3:1 (see Figure 3). The trends differ between binary and nonbinary trans identities. While “trans man” and “trans woman” identities have continued to increase since 2015—with yet another increase in the fall of 2025—”nonbinary” identities have plateaued since approximately 2022. As of fall 2025, these identities are hovering at levels four times as high as a decade ago.

Figure 3

Conclusion: Trans identification in college youth is at an all-time high

As of fall 2025, transgender identification on US undergraduate college campuses is at an all-time high, with 9 percent of females and 5 percent of males identifying as transgender/nonbinary or otherwise sex incongruent. Nonbinary identities are dominating the trend but have plateaued. At the same time, cross-sex identities are continuing to increase.

Notably, the rate of transgender self-identification among undergraduates in our data is higher than that reported from CDC survey data for a comparable age group (18–24-year-olds) in the same year (3.7–3.9 percent in 2022 in our data vs 2.8 percent in the CDC survey data). Several factors likely contribute to this difference. Our data are unweighted, and about 70 percent of respondents are female, a group with higher rates of transgender identification. In addition, our data reflect college students, whereas the CDC survey data are nationally representative of all young adults. It is likely that the rate of transgender identification is higher among college students than among young adults in general. At the same time, the numbers are close enough to consider the data a fairly reliable indicator of year-over-year trends.

→Methodological Appendix

Use promo code RLS-SAVE50% when registering to save 50% on online or in-person tickets.

If you enjoyed this free article, please consider upgrading to a paid subscription or making a recurring or one-time donation below to show your support. Reality’s Last Stand is a reader-supported publication, and your help is greatly appreciated.

Subscribe now

Share

If you enjoyed this article, you may also like…

Methodological Appendix

Sample

The source of our analysis is the American College Health Association’s National College Health Assessment (NCHA), which is a large sample from US colleges and graduate schools. NCHA has surveyed 2.5 million students at more than 1,000 higher-education institutions over the last 26 years. The respondents’ average age is 20, and about 70% of respondents are female.

The survey is done every spring and fall, with the spring wave averaging 57,000 undergraduate respondents and the fall wave averaging 29,000. Participation varies from one survey period to the next and was lower in the most recent year: about 47,000 undergraduate respondents in spring 2025 and about 16,000 in fall 2025, compared with about 79,000 and 24,000 in 2024.

Questionnaire design

NCHA has measured transgender identification in three ways:

1. A direct question about transgender identity (since 2000). NCHA has asked students about transgender identification since its inception in 2000, when it reported a prevalence of 0.14%. The question wording has changed twice. From spring 2000 through spring 2008, the question stated, “Which of the following best describes you?” with “transgendered” as one of the possible responses. From fall 2008 through spring 2015, the question wording was “What is your gender?” with “transgender” as one of the possible responses. Starting in fall 2015, the question wording changed to “Do you identify as transgender?” with a binary “yes/no” response.

2. A question about the specific gender identity (since fall 2015). Another NCHA survey question asks participants, “Which term do you use to describe your gender identity?” Alongside “woman or female” and “man or male,” students can also select “trans man,” “trans woman,” or nonbinary-type identities such as “non-binary,” “genderqueer,” “genderfluid,” and “agender.”

3. A calculated variable, “RSEX” (since spring 2021). Rather than relying exclusively on identity-related self-reports, the researchers themselves classify students as “Cisgender” or “Trans/Gender Non-conforming” by comparing the answers to three questions: sex assigned at birth (Question 67A: male, female, intersex), the direct question in item 1 (Question 67B), and the gender identity question in item 2 (Question 67C) (see the spring 2021 ACHA report, p. 3). Consistency between the reported sex and the two gender identity questions leads to a “cisgender” designation. Any discrepancy triggers the “trans/gender non-conforming” designation. Therefore, this designation is best understood as a broad proxy for transgender identification. In our report, we refer to it as “sex incongruent” since “gender non-conforming” has several meanings, some of which are not supported by the methodology (e.g., someone merely dressing in a gender non-conforming way would not meet the definition of RSEX “gender non-conforming”—an actual discrepancy between self-reported sex and self-reported identity is necessary).

Limitations

These findings have limitations, largely stemming from the methodology for this sample (not all college campuses participated, the participating campuses differ from one survey period to the next, and students could self-select). One of the most obvious limitations is that female students were more likely to participate than male students. And, since female students were also more likely to report a transgender/nonbinary identity, the overall rate of transgender identification is likely overestimated. However, the female response bias appears consistent across recent years and is unlikely to distort the trend, which continues to climb.

In addition, the wording of the question about transgender identity has changed twice since 2000, and the NCHA survey cautions against comparing trends between versions of the survey.

We have also analyzed the spring 2026 data, which appear to continue the 2025 trend, but an unusually high share of respondents are missing answers to the sex and gender identity questions (more than 20% of undergraduate students, compared with about 1% in prior survey periods). We have notified ACHA and are withholding the spring 2026 data pending verification of the denominators.

Reality’s Last Stand is a reader-supported publication. Please consider becoming a paying subscriber or making a one-time or recurring donation to show your support.

Subscribe now

About the Author

Dr. Greg Brown is a professor of Exercise Science at the University of Nebraska at Kearney. His research focuses on the effects of nutritional supplements, physiological responses to exercise, and sex differences in sports performance. He has over 60 peer-reviewed publications and is an active member of several professional organizations, including the American College of Sports Medicine and the National Strength and Conditioning Association. He enjoys running, hunting, fishing, and spending time with his family. He and his wife, Amber, have two sons, one daughter in law, and a grandson.

What does the “W” in WNBA mean? That seemingly simple question has recently become surprisingly contentious as the league confronts questions about whether males who identify as women (i.e. “transwomen”) should be eligible to compete in professional women’s basketball. The controversy is only the latest chapter in a much broader debate over whether male athletic advantages can be sufficiently reduced, or even erased, through testosterone suppression to allow transwomen to safely and fairly compete in female sports.

At the center of that debate is a scientific question that is often treated as though it has a simple answer: What kind of evidence would actually demonstrate that male athletic advantage has been erased? A few studies have reported that selected measures of physical fitness in testosterone-suppressed transwomen are no longer statistically different from those of females. But how much can we reasonably conclude from those findings?

When the Individual Doesn’t Follow the Pattern

A simple example from my own classroom helps illustrate the problem. Every semester, I teach an upper-level undergraduate course in exercise physiology, the scientific study of how the human body responds and adapts to physical activity and exercise. One of the concepts students learn is how the nervous system controls muscle force.

A motor unit consists of a single motor nerve and all of the muscle cells it controls. Generally, as the nervous system activates more motor units, the muscle produces more force, allowing us to lift heavier weights. By placing electrodes on the skin over a muscle, we can measure the electrical activity that occurs when the nervous system activates the muscle using a process called electromyography, or EMG. Greater EMG activity generally indicates greater activation of the muscle by the nervous system (30).

In the lab activity used to illustrate this concept, EMG activity is measured in each student as they perform three repetitions of a biceps curl at three different weights. The students enter their results into a spreadsheet, and we calculate the average EMG amplitude for the three repetitions at each weight. We then analyze the class data to determine whether EMG amplitude increases as the weight being lifted also increases. Semester after semester, it does. Having now analyzed data from nearly 1,000 students, the pattern is remarkably consistent: as the weight gets heavier, EMG amplitude increases significantly, illustrating the nervous system’s role in regulating muscle force.

Importantly, however, this conclusion is based on the class as a whole, not on what happened in any single student. That reflects an important principle in biological science: group-level patterns do not require every individual within a group to behave exactly the same way.

Read more

Reality’s Last Stand is a reader-supported publication. Please consider becoming a paying subscriber or making a one-time or recurring donation to show your support.

Subscribe now

About the Author

Kristopher Kaliebe, MD, is a psychiatrist and Professor at the University of South Florida in Tampa. He is Board Certified in Psychiatry, Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, and Forensic Psychiatry. Dr. Kaliebe’s publications and presentations include the effects of digital technologies, gender, psychotherapy, corrections, mind-body medicine, nutrition, and mental health in primary care settings. He is concerned about naïve interventionalism in medicine. You can follow him on X at: @drkaliebe

This article originally appeared on the author’s Substack.

On September 30, NPR published “What’s behind HHS claims that gender-affirming care ‘may’ radicalize.” Its main subject is an August 2026 HHS survey linking “gender ideology” to left-wing authoritarianism.

NPR’s article reads as an attempt to defame the research, rather than report on it. The survey examined a question worth asking: Where the Clinic Meets the Movement: Does Gender Ideology Arm Left-Wing Authoritarian Psychology? It examines links between, and attitudes behind, coercive control coming from the left.

NPR’s charge is that politics is shaping government science. It faults the survey because it was “not peer reviewed” and its data and funding “have also not been made available.” Fair enough. It quotes Adrian Shanker, a former Biden-administration HHS official: “this administration seems to already have the answers for the reports they’re publishing before they start. And they’re partnering with politically-aligned researchers and think tanks to develop reports that meet a political conclusion rather than a scientific one.”

The report’s introduction describes left-wing authoritarianism as “aggression toward perceived oppressors, enthusiasm for top-down censorship and institutional enforcement, and hostility toward conventional social institutions—in short, an authoritarian disposition organized around left rather than right political content.”

Left-wing authoritarianism is a topic NPR would be sensitive about because, through selective reporting, editorializing in content presented as news, and morally elevating progressive attitudes, NPR itself may contribute to these precise authoritarian dynamics. NPR’s attempts to discredit research on this topic appear consistent with its role in the very phenomenon being studied.

It is fair to consider whether a government report is trustworthy when politicians announce the conclusion first, and then gather people committed to that conclusion to write the report. The best way to judge a report is by its content: examine the quality of the logic, analyze the citations, debate the report’s conclusions, and find errors. Sadly, NPR applies skepticism regarding political influence on government reports in only one direction.

Even more upsetting, HHS has placed gender ideology over science under administrations of both parties, with terrible consequences. Internal documents I reviewed for an expert report in Boe v. Marshall show HHS research offices inviting only aligned advocates, turning away detransitioners and parents, and declining a systematic review after being told the evidence in adolescents was missing.

What NPR Says About the 2025 HHS Review

NPR also takes aim at the 2025 HHS review, Treatment for Pediatric Gender Dysphoria: Review of Evidence and Best Practices. It says the review was “originally released in 2025 without peer review or named contributors,” was “mostly authored by well-known advocates against gender-affirming care,” and “included no contributors from major medical groups.”

To borrow a line from NPR’s own story, “originally” is doing important work in that sentence. NPR leaves out that the final report was peer-reviewed and that HHS named its authors on November 19, 2025. I am one of them. I am a member of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and the American Psychiatric Association (APA), and co-author Kathleen McDeavitt, MD, is also a psychiatrist and APA member. We did not write on behalf of those organizations, but the claim that the authors had no ties to major medical groups is not accurate.

The 2025 review’s core is an umbrella review of systematic reviews. That is the same kind of evidence assessment used by health authorities across Europe that led them to restrict pediatric medical transition (PMT). NPR mentions none of that. It says only that doctors “have worked to debunk the ‘low-quality’ claim.” Its evidence for that is that many clinical recommendations would also be classified as resting on low-quality evidence. That is not a rebuttal. It concedes the point. In effect, it makes a misleading comparison by placing elective and experimental sex-change procedures in the same evidentiary category as treatments for serious medical illness like bone fractures and cancer.

NPR continues to mislead the public.

Meanwhile, NPR states that gender-affirming care is “the accepted medical and mental health standard of care.” It also reports that “major medical associations have repeatedly confirmed” it is the best model.

Those are dubious claims, presented as settled facts. I have already written elsewhere about legal activism and the corruption of open scholarly discourse at American medical associations. Medical organizations fused with an ideological movement, filled their panels and committees with activist physicians, stigmatized those raising concerns, and never debated pediatric medical transition or social transition in their journals. The result is a manufactured appearance of consensus through the suppression of scholarly discourse, as I detail in my initial expert report in Boe v. Marshall (pp. 27–51).

NPR’s sources include a former Biden HHS official, two academics, an anonymous HHS staffer, and an attorney with the Transgender Law Center, a co-author of a deceptive Southern Poverty Law Center report. That SPLC report targets those who resist gender ideology or call for evidence-based medicine by stigmatizing them as “hate groups.” Isn’t that an embodiment of left-wing authoritarianism? Shouldn’t NPR be curious about the SPLC’s role in the very phenomenon studied?

The only person quoted defending the HHS work is one of its own authors. NPR also had to append a clarification correcting its own claim about the evidence on violence.

Now Run NPR’s Test on SAMHSA

In October 2015, SAMHSA issued Ending Conversion Therapy: Supporting and Affirming LGBTQ Youth. Apply Shanker’s test to it.

The politics came first. On April 8, 2015, White House adviser Valerie Jarrett wrote that “the overwhelming scientific evidence demonstrates that conversion therapy, especially when it is practiced on young people, is neither medically nor ethically appropriate and can cause substantial harm,” and that “this Administration supports efforts to ban the use of conversion therapy for minors.” By SAMHSA’s own account, “in early April 2015,” SAMHSA and the American Psychological Association “agreed to collaborate” on the report (p. 9). On April 14, Representative Jackie Speier, flanked by the Human Rights Campaign and the National Center for Transgender Equality, called the practice “abusive quackery masquerading as medicine.”

On May 21, Senator Cory Booker introduced S. Res. 184, which defined conversion therapy to include efforts to change “gender identity, or gender expression” and declared it “dangerous and harmful.” Two days earlier, on May 19, Representative Ted Lieu had introduced the Therapeutic Fraud Prevention Act, which would classify commercial conversion therapy aimed at sexual orientation or gender identity as fraud. His partner organizations included the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Human Rights Campaign, the National Center for Lesbian Rights, and the Southern Poverty Law Center. The expert panel did not meet until July 7–8.

The panel was assembled around existing positions. By 2015, the American Psychological Association was already organizationally committed to this ideological project and drew up its list of needed expertise from “existing professional guidelines and resolutions”. They invited “experts” who then nominated others (p. 9). Thirteen people sat on the panel: ten psychologists, two social workers, and one psychiatrist. They included Scott Leibowitz, Laura Edwards-Leeper, and Marco Hidalgo, practitioners of the pediatric gender pathway the report would call appropriate, and Caitlin Ryan, whose Family Acceptance Project supplied the family model the report adopted. The panel also included Mark Yarhouse and Sheri Berenbaum, so it was not uniform. Consensus required only 80 percent agreement, and unanimity was reached in “nearly all instances” (p. 9).

We do not know whether these two members pushed back against the gender identity-related provisions, but even if they did, they would have been outvoted. Observers from LGBTQ human-rights organizations attended. Shanker was concerned about reports influenced by ideologically aligned groups; what about this SAMHSA report?

Critically, this report changed the definition of “conversion therapy.” Conversion therapy previously meant attempts to change sexual orientation. It now morphed into meaning that psychotherapy that helps people come to peace with their body is conversion therapy. There was no review of the evidence on “conversion therapy” for gender identity, but it was claimed to be a harmful process. Psychotherapy for gender identity as conversion therapy is the Trojan horse that underpins much of the changes in clinical practice and across society for the next decade. (See concept creep)

The report also did not soberly review the scant evidence on puberty blockers, hormones, or surgery. Even so, it declared that “social transition and medical intervention are therapeutic approaches that are appropriate for some gender minority youth” (p. 3).

The report’s key premise was persistence: gender dysphoria that worsens at puberty “is unlikely to remit,” and “long-term identification as transgender is likely” (p. 2). It cited professional guidelines and task-force reports to support this. It did not cite long-term outcome studies, because the few that do exist do not support this claim. The theory that gender dysphoria in adolescents leads to long-term transgender identification must hold for both conversion-therapy bans and pediatric medical transition to make sense. It has not held up. See Byrne, “Another Myth of Persistence?”, published in Archives of Sexual Behavior in 2024.

Then the politics came back.

On October 15, Jarrett held a press call on the finished report and said the administration had supported “making it illegal for young people.” In February 2016, Booker, Patty Murray, Speier, and Ted Lieu asked the Federal Trade Commission to treat the practice as fraud. Helping young people accept their sexed bodies was now being framed as fraud, based on this SAMHSA report.

The Same Pattern Inside HHS

HHS did not stop at a 2015 consensus report. Discovery in Boe v. Marshall shows that its research offices kept choosing their audience and declining the review, under the first Trump administration and then under the Biden administration (Kaliebe Supp. Report, ¶¶ 113–161).

On October 22, 2019, the NIH Sexual and Gender Minority Research Office held a listening session and included the Human Rights Campaign, the Trevor Project, Fenway Health, the UCSF transgender center, the National Center for Lesbian Rights, GLSEN, the Center for American Progress, and similar groups. A week earlier, the Kelsey Coalition—parents of gender-nonconforming children who were harmed by medical transition—and a detransitioner who said he represented a community of more than 2,000 asked to be heard. The office replied that invitations were closed, and that the session would not include a detransitioner. The November 2020 session still did not include them. In May 2021, after Gender Health Query asked again to discuss children “undergoing experimental medical treatments that sterilize them,” the office changed the format to a written request for information (Supp. Report ¶¶ 115–152).

HHS also failed to acknowledge a lack of evidence supporting social transition or pediatric medical transition. The American Academy of Family Physicians had asked the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) to review the evidence on puberty blockers, hormones, and surgery in adolescents. On September 1, 2020, Karen Robinson, who led the Johns Hopkins review for WPATH’s Standards of Care 8, told Christine Chang, an associate director at AHRQ, that her team “found little to no evidence about children and adolescents,” and that WPATH was “trying to restrict our ability to publish.” In January 2021, AHRQ declined to conduct the review, pointing to an existing review protocol, which was Robinson’s own (Supp. Report ¶¶ 155–158).

In the spring of 2022, Admiral Rachel Levine, then HHS Assistant Secretary for Health, told NPR that “there is no argument among medical professionals” about the value of gender-affirming care. NPR did not question the dubious claim. When NPR revisited that quote in January 2025, it noted that prominent physicians, including Hilary Cass, had since called for caution. WPATH leaders knew better then. Privately, they called Dr. Levine “our best cheerleader” and agreed not to contradict Dr. Levine’s false pronouncements. Other internal documents acknowledge that “a global consensus on ‘puberty blockers’ does not exist” (Supp. Report ¶ 110).

In 2020, HHS was told that WPATH’s own evidence team found little or no evidence supporting PMT in adolescents. Through the end of the Biden administration, HHS continued to promote both pediatric medical transition and social transition, downplaying risks and overstating potential benefits.

NPR, to this day, parrots this misinformation. Who is being political?

One Standard

The SAMHSA conversion therapy report was commissioned after a political pledge, written by clinicians whose model it endorsed, and quietly inserted a Trojan horse that justified social transition and pediatric medical transition. In doing so, it endorsed coercively remaking society by prioritizing gender identity over biological sex, an ideological endeavor.

Activist groups, professional medical organizations, and the federal government fused. A well-meaning effort to push back against homophobia and to help gender-nonconforming young people became the vehicle to empower a divisive ideology that has harmed children, damaged trust in medicine and psychiatry, and spread strife well beyond the clinic.

Now that the public has pushed back and many states have enacted legislative restrictions, these same organizations cry that politics should stay out of clinical care. The medical organizations should have considered the effects of politics on medicine in 2015, and over the next decade, as they politicized this issue, creating a false appearance of consensus by stacking tender panels/committees, suppressing debate, denouncing those urging caution, calling it consensus and claiming those opposed are politically motivated.

One of the signers, the American Academy of Family Physicians, is the same organization that asked HHS in 2020 for a systematic review of puberty blockers, hormones, and surgery in adolescents. AHRQ declined, and HHS did not complete such a review until 2025. Yet the AAFP now invokes “evidence-based standards of patient care” to push back against what they claim is political interference.

By comparison, the recent HHS report NPR criticizes makes tempered claims about left-wing authoritarianism. It’s fine to debate the merits of that report; it is also fine to debate whether NPR has been a tool of left-wing authoritarianism:

• Did NPR stigmatize and attempt to marginalize those who would not go along with gender ideology?

• Did NPR promote left-wing authoritarianism in government policies, the courts, schools, and universities?

• Did NPR harm children by its lack of honesty about the known risks and benefits of PMT?

• Does NPR believe that free speech and open exchange of ideas on gender is tolerable in our society?

RLS Readers: Save 50% on SEGM’s 2026 Conference

The Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine (SEGM) is bringing leading researchers, clinicians, patients, parents, and legal experts to Washington, DC, November 5–7, for its 2026 conference, “Rethinking Youth Gender Medicine: Charting a Path Forward.”

Over three days, speakers will examine what the evidence on youth gender medicine actually shows, where important uncertainties remain, and what ethical and responsible care should look like going forward.

SEGM has generously extended a special 50% discount to Reality’s Last Stand readers on both in-person and livestream tickets! Use promo code RLS-SAVE50% when registering.

This special rate may not last forever, so register soon if you plan to attend.

If you enjoyed this free article, please consider upgrading to a paid subscription or making a recurring or one-time donation below to show your support. Reality’s Last Stand is a reader-supported publication, and your help is greatly appreciated.

Subscribe now

Share

If you enjoyed this article, you may also like…

Sources

NPR, September 30, 2026 (updated October 2): “What’s behind HHS claims that gender-affirming care ‘may’ radicalize”

HHS author announcement, November 19, 2025: press release

HHS report, foreword and executive summary: PDF

SAMHSA, October 2015: Ending Conversion Therapy: Supporting and Affirming LGBTQ Youth (page numbers refer to the PDF’s printed pages)

Valerie Jarrett, April 8, 2015: Petition response on conversion therapy

S. Res. 184, 114th Congress: congress.gov

Kaliebe K. Supplemental Expert Report (executed Feb. 2, 2024). Boe v. Marshall, No. 2:22-cv-184-LCB (M.D. Ala.), ECF No. 557-16 (filed May 27, 2024; unsealed): Alabama Attorney General exhibit

Byrne A. Another myth of persistence? Arch Sex Behav. 2024;53(10):3705–9. doi:10.1007/s10508-024-03005-1

American Academy of Family Physicians, American Academy of Pediatrics, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, American College of Physicians, American Osteopathic Association, and American Psychiatric Association, May 1, 2025: “Leading physician groups oppose infringements on medical care, patient-physician relationship”

Kaliebe K. Expert Report. Boe v. Marshall, No. 2:22-cv-184-LCB (M.D. Ala.), ECF No. 591-9 (filed June 24, 2024), pp. 27–51: CourtListener

Rep. Ted Lieu, May 19, 2015: Therapeutic Fraud Prevention Act press release

AHRQ Effective Health Care Program, July 17, 2020: Nominated topic, Treatments for Gender Dysphoria in Transgender Youth (AAFP request)

AHRQ, Jan. 8, 2021: Topic Brief: Treatments for Gender Dysphoria in Transgender Youth

NPR, Jan. 6, 2025: “Dr. Rachel Levine focused on her job at HHS. Still, anti-trans politics followed her”

Fox News, May 1, 2022: “Rachel Levine says pediatricians all agree on importance of ‘gender-affirming care’ for children”

Orwell G. Nineteen Eighty-Four. London: Secker & Warburg; 1949. Part 1, ch. 7.

Reality’s Last Stand is a reader-supported publication. Please consider becoming a paying subscriber or making a one-time or recurring donation to show your support.

Subscribe now

About the Authors

Lee Jussim is a Distinguished Professor of Psychology at Rutgers University New Brunswick, a social psychologist, and was Criminal Justice Program Chair in 2008, Psychology Department Chair from 2010-2013 and 2018-2022, and Anthropology Acting Chair, 2023-2024. His work focuses political extremism; stereotypes, prejudice, and discrimination; and reform and improvement of psychology’s methods and practices. His most recent book is Virtuous Nonsense: Progressive America’s Epistemic Crisis.

Ohad Fedida is a Ph.D. student in Social Psychology at Rutgers University, working under the supervision of Dr. Lee Jussim. His research focuses on social contagion, extremism, and authoritarianism. His work has been published widely.

Colin Wright is an evolutionary biologist, Senior Fellow at The Manhattan Institute, and the CEO and Editor-in-Chief of Reality’s Last Stand. His work focuses on the science and public policy of sex and gender. His writing has appeared in The Wall Street Journal, the New York Post, Newsweek, City Journal, The Washington Examiner, and other leading news outlets and scientific journals.

Nearly identical versions of this post are appearing here and at Lee Jussim’s Unsafe Science.

Preface

This post is the first of what will be a multi-part response to critics of the HHS report “Where the Clinic Meets the Movement: Does Gender Ideology Arm Left-Wing Authoritarian Psychology?,” that was produced with researchers at the Network Contagion Research Institute (NCRI), Rutgers University, and The Manhattan Institute.

The report was very transparent and careful about its findings, which was the discovery of a strong positive association between the endorsement of major professional organizations’ gender-affirming recommendations and left-wing authoritarianism, as well as support for political violence.

In the wake of its publication, it has received both praise and criticism. In our view, only an exceedingly small minority of that criticism has been serious and offered in good faith, while the rest can only be described as absurd distortions of our work fueled by an activist moral panic.

In this series, we will respond to both the reasonable objections and the most unhinged misrepresentations. This first installment simply summarizes what we did and found. For now, we are leaving responses to the weird mix of political denunciations and actual epistemic criticisms to subsequent posts.

Summary Up Front

1. We were contacted by The Network Contagion Research Institute (NCRI) to collaborate on this research. We did. The full report can be found here.

2. We abstracted recommendations regarding transgender people and those experiencing gender dysphoria (wanting to be a different sex than the one they were born as) from the American Psychological Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychiatric Association, and the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, and turned them into agree/disagree questions. We referred to this as the Clinical Gender Affirmation Scale (CGAS).

3. We pre-registered predictions that the CGAS would correlate with leftwing authoritarianism (LWA) and with peoples’ expressed willingness to justify political violence. It did.

4. The critical response from many media outlets and individual academics has ranged from alarmist and absurd (the large majority) to genuine but wrong or misguided (the small minority).

Research Questions

1. How well does LWA correlate with CGAS?

2. Does LWA predict CGAS over and above ideology? Put differently, does ideology explain away any correlation between CGAS and LWA?

3. Do CGAS and LWA correlate with justifications for political violence?

Statement of Limitations

1. This report did not address:

   1. Quality of clinical care for anyone, including transgender people or those expressing gender dysphoria.

   2. Beliefs and attitudes held by transgender people or those with gender dysphoria.

   3. Engaging in political violence.

   4. Correlates of rightwing authoritarianism (RWA) or rightwing extremism. There is a massive literature that has focused exclusively on RWA without assessing LWA.

This report is a drop in the bucket in correcting that imbalance. Regardless, no one should conclude that this report finds the left more extreme or more supportive of violence than the right, because it was not assessed.

2. We created the CGAS to begin this line of research. It has never been used before.

3. We had a national sample of Americans. We did not have a sample of clinical professionals, transgender people, or those with gender dysphoria; as such our empirical findings are not an assessment of the beliefs and attitudes held by a sample of such people. The sample was obtained through Cloud Research, which is an opt in sample. Although our sample was matched on major U.S. demographics, it is not a fully representative sample.

4. The research is nonexperimental, meaning that strong causal interpretations are not justified, although nonzero correlations do justify speculations about possible causal mechanisms.

5. The online HHS version linked above did not report basic descriptive statistics for the variables in the report. We rectified that here.

Background

From the report:

Left-wing authoritarianism (LWA) is the construct at the center of this study. It describes a psychological profile characterized by aggression toward perceived oppressors, enthusiasm for top-down censorship and institutional enforcement, and hostility toward conventional social institutions—in short, an authoritarian disposition organized around left rather than right political content (Costello et al., 2022).

The study itself addressed whether endorsement of the official positions of clinical institutions regarding “gender affirmation” is associated with LWA. Because one of the components of LWA is aggression towards supposed oppressor groups, we also predicted that such endorsement would also correlate with support for political violence against rightwing targets.

The report repeatedly refers to “gender ideology.” This is a contested term. Many of the report’s detractors deny there is any such thing, and claim it is just a catch-all term for those on the right to dismiss, denigrate, or derogate trans people.

We disagree. Sociologist Callie Burt (2026) described Gender Identity Ideology as follows in the peer reviewed journal Theory and Society.1 Indeed, this appears in a section titled “Gender Orthodoxy” to capture the idea that these are a set of dogmatic beliefs, highly contested in both the academic literature and wider society. According to Burt, Gender Identity Ideology has three main components:

1. Sex-constructionism: Rather than being biologically defined and consisting of two types, male and female, sex is a social construction imposed on an underlying continuum of ‘sex traits.’

2. Gender-identity essentialism: All humans have an innate gender identity—as a deeply felt, internal sense of their own ‘gender,’ whether they are male/man or female/woman, which is independent of their sex.

3. Gender-identity precedence: Whether one is a man/boy or woman/girl (both or neither) is determined by gender identity, not sex.

We believe the report did a pretty good job of constructing a preliminary assessment of some of the beliefs related to this ideology. But read on, and decide for yourselves.

The Leftwing Authoritarianism (LWA) Scale

Measures of leftwing authoritarianism are psychological measures. They measure people’s beliefs and attitudes regarding whether conventional practices and norms and traditional values should be torn down. They also assess support for doing so in ways that violate the rights of supporters of those conventional practices, norms, and values, e.g., through censorship or political violence. Such measures do not address anything about whether any particular government or powerful actor or organization is authoritarian, though they do predict people’s likelihood of supporting powerful authoritarian actors in support of leftist political goals.

There are multiple measures of LWA out there, but (and in contrast to some of our critics who focused on supposed weaknesses of measures we did not use) we focus here on the one we actually used (Costello et al., 2022; Costello & Patrick, 2023). Contra some of the claims out there, the LWA scale we used is one of the most highly validated scales in social and political psychology. It is psychometrically sound, responses are approximately normally distributed across the set of response options, and it moderately to strongly correlates with dogmatism, political intolerance, support for violence against opposing partisans, social vigilantism (think, “Twitter mobs”), and banning “offensive” speakers (Costello et al., 2022). It also has been found to moderately to strongly correlate with antisemitism, antiZionism (Allington et al., 2023; Bertram & Krispenz, 2026; Conway et al, 2023; Zulberg et al, 2026), and a series of authoritarian policies for dealing with COVID (e.g., prohibiting “misinformation,” surveillance of churches, restricting the right to protest against govt actions, restricting rights to trial by jury and banning firearms sales – Manson, 2020). It also correlates with “critical social justice attitudes” (Selterman & Bernstein, 2026, this includes endorsing things like having fewer white authors on university reading lists). It also correlates with endorsement of blasting (denigrating) opponents and trying to intimidate them (Hart et al, 2024).

On top of the validity evidence, there is far more evidence for the measurement and psychometric soundness of the LWA scale (Costello et al., 2022; Costello & Patrick, 2023; Lambert et al., 2024) than for many other scales in common use in social and political psychology (Hussey & Hughes, 2020), including most measures of rightwing authoritarianism.

Clinical Gender Affirmation Scale (CGAS)

The Clinical Gender Affirmation Scale (CGAS) was developed to reflect the recommendations of major professional organizations’ recommendations for treatment of and interactions with transgender people and those experiencing gender dysphoria. The following table shows how we created questions about laypeople’s endorsement of those recommendations:

Table 1.

The left column presents quotes from the professional organizations. The right column presents how we abstracted their key recommendations to turn them into an assessment of how much people endorsed those recommendations. The five questions shown in the righthand column:

1. Were assessed on a 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) scale (with each answer option labeled). That is, people were asked how strongly they agreed or disagreed with each statement.

2. Responses on the five questions were averaged.

3. The reliability of the CGAS was high, Cronbach’s alpha = .95.

Some Notes on the CGAS

Inasmuch as this is the first use of the CGAS, it has not been previously validated. However, as Costello (2023) correctly put it:

… early self-report measures of psychological variables are often informed by a priori theories, without which the development of indicators would be mostly arbitrary (e.g., without a preliminary theory of depression, it would be challenging to construct potential items for a depression scale). Critically, these early measures can then be used to modify the theories on which these are based (Westen & Rosenthal, 2003) … the development of theory and measurement of variables that cannot be directly observed often proceeds iteratively and mutually, with theory shaping measurement and measurement, in turn, shaping theory. This process is known as construct validation bootstrapping or “exploratory test construction”

Thus, results based on the CGAS should be considered preliminary. However, one form of validity is correlation with hypothesized variables it is supposed to be related to. The only way to assess that is to conduct the study. Which we did.

Another form of validity is construct validity. Do the questions measure what they are supposed to measure? Any reader can judge for themselves whether our questions did a good job of abstracting the ideas and claims made by the professional organizations shown in Table 1 above.

Justification for Political Violence

Four items assessed the justification of political violence: (1) setting fire to ICE buildings, (2) damaging the property of wealthy people, (3) killing Donald Trump, and (4) violence against police. The two theoretically focal killings, Charlie Kirk (killed by a putative trans activist) and Brian Thompson (the Luigi Mangione target), were assessed with the same scale. Items were preceded by brief factual descriptions of each event and rated on a 5-point scale:

• 1 - Not at all justified

• 2 - Slightly justified

• 3 - Somewhat justified

• 4 - Mostly justified

• 5 - Completely justified.

Internal consistency was good (α = .86).

Several points about this measure are worth mentioning:

1. Our measures assessed endorsed justification for violence, not actually engaging in violence.

2. Our methods and measures avoided known pitfalls in assessment of support for political violence. This article pointed out that many questionnaires produce higher apparent than actual levels of support for political violence because of known pitfalls. For example, some had vague questions. They highlighted this question from prior research as an example:

“How much do you feel it is justified for [respondent’s own party] to use violence in advancing their political goals these days?” But the estimand measured by this survey item is unclear because it leaves ambiguous what “violence” refers to.

In contrast to the measure criticized above, our measures did not ask about vague “violence.” They quite specifically asked about killing particular people or bombing particular types of buildings.

Another problem is what they referred to as “disengaged” (i.e., inattentive) respondents. Our methods stringently ensured all respondents included in all analyses passed not one, not two, but a slew of attention and quality checks.

There were two attention checks and three bot/AI agent checks that also doubled as attention checks. Two instructed respondents to pick one particular answer (e.g., choose “puce” as their favorite color). The three bot/AI agent checks also doubled as attention checks. The bot/AI agent checks we used were the most rigorous we found and were validated in pre-registered research that detected over 97% of bots while only miscategorizing about 4% of humans as bots (Affonso, 2026). Affonso found that the bot/AI agent checks achieved this when used as follows: exclude a respondent if they failed all three bot/AI agent checks. Therefore, any respondent who failed either of our two main attention checks or all three bot/AI agent checks were excluded. From the report:

We recruited 1,305 U.S. adults through CloudResearch Connect. Data collection began after preregistration on the Open Science Framework (OSF: n2cqj). 97 participants were excluded for failing one or more attention checks, failing all three bot-detection items, completing the survey in under six minutes, having duplicate IDs, or incomplete responses, yielding a final analytic sample of N = 1,208.

We are confident we removed at least most, and probably all, inattentive/disengaged participants. We respectfully submit that our methods were state-of-the-art with respect to identifying and removing inattentive and fake participants.

Findings

One of the very few criticisms of our report that we consider justified is that we did not report basic descriptive statistics for the variables assessed. We should have and we correct that here. Full descriptives for all variables included here are reported at the end of this post.

We now turn to the answers to our three research questions:

1. How well does CGAS correlate with LWA?

2. If nonzero, does LWA predict CGAS over and above ideology? Put differently, does the ideology explain away any correlation between CGAS and LWA?

3. Do CGAS and LWA correlate with justifications for political violence?

All correlations reported below are Spearman’s rho and all regression results are from ordinal regressions because most variables were ordinal and some were not normally distributed.

1. How well did the CGAS correlate with LWA?

LWA correlated .54 with CGAS. The average effect size in social psychology corresponds to a correlation of .22. Anything over .50 places in the top 5% of relationships found in social psychology.

Did LWA predict CGAS beyond mere ideology?

Measures of authoritarianism, both LWA and RWA, are purposely confounded with ideology. This is because one of the most common manifestations of authoritarianism is intolerance of the other side. This can be expressed as support for aggression against and censorship of the other side, along with other heavy-handed govt or authority measures that deprive people on the other side of basic rights (Manson, 2020). Because authoritarian attitudes and impulses disproportionately target the other side, questions are designed to target one side or the other. LWA questions target the right; RWA questions target the left.

This, however, raises a problem that we turned into an empirical question. The problem is that, when LWA (or RWA) correlates with something, one does not know whether this is because of the ideological component or authoritarianism per se (or both!) are driving the correlation. The empirical solution, however, is straightforward: Use both LWA and political ideology as simultaneous predictors of some outcome, as in regression or a structural equation model. If LWA predicts the outcome over and above ideology, one has evidence that it is the authoritarianism per se that is driving some portion of the correlation.

We found that both LWA (β=.33) and ideology (β=.51) predicted CGAS scores (both p’s<.001). In other words, over and above ideology, LWA did indeed predict CGAS scores. However, over and above LWA, ideology predicted CGAS scores, and this relationship was stronger than that for LWA.

2. Did CGAS and LWA predict support for political violence against rightwing/rich/powerful targets?

They clearly did:

Table 2. N = 1,192. Entries are fully standardized coefficients (β) with 95% confidence intervals from proportional-odds ordinal regressions; each violence item was regressed simultaneously on LWA and political identity (higher = more left-wing). LWA = left-wing authoritarianism; CGAS = Clinical Gender Affirmation Scale. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

LWA was a strong predictor of how much people justified violence targeting rightwing, rich, and powerful targets. The CGAS correlations were more modest, but still higher than most found in most social psychology research.

Did LWA predict support for this type of political violence over and above political ideology?

It did:

Table 3. N = 1,192. Entries are fully standardized coefficients (β) with 95% confidence intervals from proportional-odds ordinal regressions; each violence item was regressed simultaneously on CGAS and political identity (higher = more left-wing). LWA = left-wing authoritarianism; CGAS = Clinical Gender Affirmation Scale. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

But LWA? Those are some hefty coefficients. People high in LWA justified violence against these targets at substantially higher levels than did those low in LWA. To give a feel for these relationships, the next table compares justification for political violence among those on the low (3 or lower) vs. high (5 or higher) ends of the LWA scale for willingness to justify the murder of United Health Care CEO Brian Thompson.

Nearly all 418 people low in LWA declared that the murder was completely unjustified (which is why the mean is just above 1, “not at all unjustified”). In contrast, the mean for the 176 people high in LWA is just above 3, “somewhat justified.” One of the major components of LWA is “anti-hierarchical aggression” (Costello et al., 2022). This result is consistent with their and others’ findings that LWA predicts support for repression, intimidation and political violence targeting the rich, those high in status, and those on the political right (Costello & Patrick, 2023; Hart et al., 2024; Manson, 2020; Zulberg et al., 2026).

This analysis is very interesting. The political identity coefficients hover barely above 0. This means that, even for these rightwing, rich, and powerful targets, liberals did not particularly strongly justify violence much more than did conservatives. This is good news, at least for those of us who think willingness to justify such violence is itself corrosive to a liberal democratic society.

We are still analyzing the data. We know from the Table 3 analysis that political identity mostly disappears when controlling for LWA, which was not done in this analysis. It seems likely that political identity would evaporate here too when we do conduct that analysis.

Similarly, we know from the very first analyses reported herein that CGAS had a pretty hefty correlation with LWA of .54. It’s possible, then, that, were we to control for LWA, the CGAS relationship with justification for political violence would be greatly reduced. Put differently, maybe endorsing these sorts of extreme transgender beliefs only predicts justification of political violence because those who endorse them tend to be high on LWA. Assessing the simultaneous relations of LWA, CGAS and political ideology/identity to our justification for political violence variables is on our to-do list.

Conclusions

The findings nicely replicate prior work finding LWA correlates with support for political violence (Costello et al, 2023). Furthermore, we raised the possibility that “transgender ideology” as operationalized here by endorsement of CGAS items arms LWA in three ways (from the report):2

First, it specifies perceived sources of harm: Republicans/political conservatives, individuals not identifying as LGBTQ, Christians/religious conservatives, and law enforcement appear in the literature as groups or institutions associated with negative attitudes toward individuals who identify as transgender, restrictive policy preferences, discrimination, or mistreatment of individuals who identify as transgender.

Second, it mandates institutional norm enforcement: non-affirmation is framed as

clinically harmful to patients, and clinicians are instructed to work with families and institutions to promote acceptance and “affirmation” … Within the proposed model, this provides authoritarian psychology with a mechanism for norm enforcement: dissent from “affirmation” can be construed not merely as disagreement, but as inducing physical harm, thereby making compelled affirming speech, institutional discipline, and intervention against parental resistance appear morally necessary and clinically protective.

Third, it reorders conventional sex and family norms. The clinical literature and

professional guidelines increasingly frame gender identity as not reducible to biological sex. They recommend “affirmation” of asserted names, pronouns, and “gender expression”; and emphasize that family, school, and clinical environments should support “affirmation,” with rejecting responses treated as risk factors for psychological distress and suicidality … Within the proposed model, this supplies LWA with a third form of ideological fuel: a conventional order to dismantle. As such, biological-sex classifications and traditional parental or familial authority are seen as structures of harm requiring a moralized project of institutional correction.

Each component is specific, actionable, and derives from clinically endorsed consensus positions. Thus, gender ideology identifies the type of oppressor and oppressed classes about which people high in LWA are particularly concerned; it seeks top-down censorship and control over those who do not conform to its dictates, something those high in LWA generally endorse when applied to “oppressors;” and third, it seeks to exercise that control in a project that aspires to overturn the status quo with respect to sex and family, and overturning the status quo is something those high in LWA generally endorse.

Epiprologue

What is an epiprologue? Well, it is simultaneously an epilogue to this post, and a prologue to posts to come. You will not be surprised to discover that some leftwing media had a total meltdown over this report, accusing us of all sorts of vile things.

Desperately Seeking an Ethics Violation

Several of the media reports pointed out, correctly, that the report did not state that it had IRB approval. One interpretation is that this is some sort of weird insinuation that it didn’t. Wouldn’t it be great (from the critics and denouncers standpoint) if the whole effort was one big ethics violation?

It did. Rutgers IRB approved the project in June, 2026.

Interestingly, the presumption seems to be “if it had IRB approval, it would have been reported.” But this is not the case. Reporting IRB approval is a mixed bag, even at peer reviewed journals. Some require it, others don’t. Offhand, it is easy to find plenty of peer reviewed publications that do not mention whether the research received IRB approval (e.g., Castanho Silva et al, 2020; Sevincer et al, 2023)

Similarly, we have been contacted by some reporters interested in unreported conflicts of interest (COIs, it is indeed a reasonable ethical standard for researchers to report financial conflicts of interest. None of us on this post received a dime from any source for this project; nor did Rutgers University or The Manhattan Institute. We have no COI.

Call us chastised. Denouncers are often sociopaths, making stuff up, or insinuating it (which protects against defamation suits to some degree), in order to delegitimize those they denounce. We will definitely report such information going forward.

Epistemic Criticisms and Garden Variety Denunciations

There was also a weird mix of false or irrelevant epistemic criticisms, and garden variety progressive denunciations. These criticisms will be fully addressed in upcoming posts. To give you a preview:

Epistemically false: We have been accused of using an invalid measure of LWA. This is absurd given the validity evidence described in the section above titled “The LWA Scale.” Of course those making this absurd claim have shown no sign that they are even aware of the evidence. Indeed, some of the criticisms of the LWA scale may reflect the misbegotten belief that we just invented it in ways that rigged the results of the study to confirm our hypotheses, rather than using a pre-existing, well-established, well-validated scale developed by other researchers and that has now been productively used in many prior studies.

Others, such as a long blog post that will be linked and quoted at length in a subsequent post, vehemently characterized our study as “invalid,” in part by spending hundreds of words supposedly debunking measures of rightwing authoritarianism and a different LWA scale than the one we used. Yes, criticizing scales we did not use really was (a big part of) the basis for declaring our study “invalid.”

Epistemically irrelevant: Our justification for political violence measures have been accused of being invalid because some people avoid extreme options on a scale. The idea is that our justification for violence scale overestimates how much people actually believe violence is justified; it’s just that they do not like using “1” the lowest point on the scale. We doubt it (because of the steps taken to prevent this, described above and because most people did, in fact, choose “1” especially if they were not high on LWA). Still, even in the unlikely event that this is true, it cannot possibly explain the correlations of it with CGAS and LWA.

Denounced again! And then there are the political denunciations. We are in bed with the Trump administration. There is no such thing as “gender ideology,” it’s just a term concocted by far-right transphobes. The report arms the far-right’s attacks on trans people. The conclusions were reached before we conducted the study.

There is more, much more, like this. We could argue that these sorts of denunciations reflect exactly the type of dynamic described in our report … and maybe we will.

RLS Readers: Save 50% on SEGM’s 2026 Conference

The Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine (SEGM) is bringing leading researchers, clinicians, patients, parents, and legal experts to Washington, DC, November 5–7, for its 2026 conference, “Rethinking Youth Gender Medicine: Charting a Path Forward.”

Over three days, speakers will examine what the evidence on youth gender medicine actually shows, where important uncertainties remain, and what ethical and responsible care should look like going forward.

SEGM has generously extended a special 50% discount to Reality’s Last Stand readers on both in-person and livestream tickets! Use promo code RLS-SAVE50% when registering.

This special rate may not last forever, so register soon if you plan to attend.

If you enjoyed this free article, please consider upgrading to a paid subscription or making a recurring or one-time donation below to show your support. Reality’s Last Stand is a reader-supported publication, and your help is greatly appreciated.

Subscribe now

Share

If you enjoyed this article, you may also like…

References

Affonso, F. M. (2026). Brief Commentary: A Framework for Detecting AI Agents in Online Research, Journal of Consumer Research, Volume 53, Issue 3, Pages 619–633, https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucag006

Allington, D., Hirsh, D., & Katz, L. (2023). Antisemitism is predicted by anti-hierarchical aggression, totalitarianism, and belief in malevolent global conspiracies. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 10(1), 155.

Bertrams, A., & Krispenz, A. (2026). Authoritarianism and Antisemitism: A Replication of Previously Found Relationships. Available at SSRN 7098399.

Castanho Silva, B., Jungkunz, S., Helbling, M., & Littvay, L. (2020). An empirical comparison of seven populist attitudes scales. Political Research Quarterly, 73(2), 409-424.

Conway III, L. G., Zubrod, A., Chan, L., McFarland, J. D., & Van de Vliert, E. (2023). Is the myth of left-wing authoritarianism itself a myth?. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 1041391.

Costello, T. H., Bowes, S. M., Stevens, S. T., Waldman, I. D., Tasimi, A., & Lilienfeld, S. O. (2022). Clarifying the structure and nature of left-wing authoritarianism. Journal of Personality And Social Psychology, 122(1), 135.

Costello, T. H., & Patrick, C. J. (2023). Development and initial validation of two brief measures of left-wing authoritarianism: A machine learning approach. Journal of Personality Assessment, 105(2), 187-202.

Fowler, A. (2026). Reassessing Extremism, Polarization, and Constraint with Continuous Policy Questions. Political Behavior, 1-25.

Hart, W., Lambert, J. T., Wahlers, D. E., & Castagna, P. (2024). Resistance is futile: Unveiling the self-presentational arsenal of the left-wing authoritarian. Self and Identity, 23(7-8), 521-534.

Hussey, I., & Hughes, S. (2020). Hidden invalidity among 15 commonly used measures in social and personality psychology. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 3(2), 166-184.

Lambert, J. T., Hart, W., Wahlers, D. E., Hall, B., Cease, C. K., & Castagna, P. (2024). Testing measurement invariance of the Left-Wing Authoritarianism Index-13 (LWAI-13) in a US adult sample. European Journal of Psychological Assessment.

Manson, J. H. (2020). Right-wing authoritarianism, left-wing authoritarianism, and pandemic-mitigation authoritarianism. Personality and individual differences, 167, 110251.

Selterman, D., & Bernstein, N. (2026). The Intersection of social justice and left-wing political beliefs, antisemitism, and perceptions of Israelis and Palestinians. Current Psychology, 45(13), 1161.

Sevincer, A. T., Galinsky, C., Martensen, L., & Oettingen, G. (2023). Political ideology outdoes personal experience in predicting support for gender equality. Political Psychology, 44(4), 829-855.

Zulberg et al (2026). Moral inversion and the rise of authoritarian sympathy. NCRI reports. https://networkcontagion.us/reports/moral-inversion-and-the-rise-of-authoritarian-sympathy/

Footnotes

[1] I rarely mention whether a source is in a peer reviewed journal because this is obvious from ... the source. However, given the frequency with which the critics and denouncers of the report refer to it as not being peer reviewed, and glib dismissals of “gender ideology” as a meaningless term used by the right, I have made an exception here.

[2] Correlational studies, such as this one, cannot demonstrate causality, but they can and do raise causal possibilities.

Reality’s Last Stand is a reader-supported publication. Please consider becoming a paying subscriber or making a one-time or recurring donation to show your support.

Subscribe now

About the Author

The Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine (SEGM) is a nonprofit organization dedicated to promoting evidence-based care for children, adolescents, and young adults with gender dysphoria. Working with researchers and clinicians around the world, SEGM critically evaluates the evidence behind youth gender medicine, develops and supports systematic reviews, analyzes treatment guidelines, and promotes approaches that prioritize long-term outcomes, ethical medical practice, and fully informed consent.

On September 22, 2026, the Portuguese Parliament began a series of public hearings regarding three bills concerning the regulation of pediatric gender medicine (391/XVII/1ª, 479/XVII/1ª and 486/XVII/1ª). As part of this public debate, several professional groups made submissions to the Parliament that contained a number of scientific claims. These groups included the Portuguese Medical Association, the Portuguese Society of Clinical Sexology, and an independent group of health professionals and academics specializing in gender identity. The submissions opposed the proposed restrictions on pediatric gender medicine, although the Portuguese Medical Association acknowledges that the evidence for the psychological benefits of puberty blockers remains limited and of low certainty.

Subsequently, SEGM was contacted by Genspect Portugal, which identified a series of scientific claims within those submissions, and asked us to assess them. SEGM’s position since our inception has been that public debate affecting young patients should be informed by a rigorous, transparent, and methodologically sound evaluation of the available evidence. Consistent with our mission, we took no position on the bills, but assessed the identified claims for accuracy, and submitted our assessment directly to the Portuguese Parliament.

Because the questions discussed are frequently raised in the discussions surrounding pediatric gender medicine, we have adapted our answers for public release, in the hope that they will inform the broader debate.*

RLS Readers: Save 50% on SEGM’s 2026 Conference

The Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine (SEGM) is bringing leading researchers, clinicians, patients, parents, and legal experts to Washington, DC, November 5–7, for its 2026 conference, “Rethinking Youth Gender Medicine: Charting a Path Forward.”

Over three days, speakers will examine what the evidence on youth gender medicine actually shows, where important uncertainties remain, and what ethical and responsible care should look like going forward.

SEGM has generously extended a special 50% discount to Reality’s Last Stand readers on both in-person and livestream tickets! Use promo code RLS-SAVE50% when registering.

This special rate may not last forever, so register soon if you plan to attend.

Ten Myths of Pediatric Gender Medicine

1. “Puberty blockers are fully reversible.”

This claim is incorrect.

1. Previously, the field of pediatric gender medicine operated on the assumption that puberty suppression was fully reversible. This assumption was based on the historical context of using puberty blockers (PB) to stop abnormally early, “precocious,” puberty affecting very young children (before age 8 in girls, and before age 9 in boys). When such children would reach a normative age for puberty, PB would be stopped, and pubertal physical development would resume.

2. However, when PB are used for the treatment of gender incongruence/gender dysphoria (GI/GD), they are given to adolescents at a normal pubertal age, and they are used to interrupt normally timed puberty already underway. Little is known about the long-term impact of such treatments in this context. In 2020, NHS England removed its prior statement that “The effects of treatment with GnRH analogues are considered to be fully reversible, so treatment can usually be stopped at any time…”—and replaced it with the statement that “Little is known about the long-term side effects of hormone or [PB] in children with gender dysphoria.”

3. While the development of secondary sex characteristics will almost certainly resume when PB are used only for a short time and are stopped, there is now evidence that PB may have irreversible effects on bone health, neurocognitive development, and fertility. For example, animal studies suggest that PB have irreversible impacts on neurocognitive function. The findings of recent studies on adolescent natal males treated with PB raise concerns that suppression of male fertility may not be fully reversible; few Portuguese GI/GD youths take advantage of fertility preservation. Studies on adult bone density in natal males commenced on PB in adolescence followed by cross-sex hormones (CSH) show that deficits in bone mineral density do not fully resolve over time, which compromises bone health.

4. It is also well-acknowledged that the majority (over 90%) of those initiating PB for gender incongruence will proceed to take CSH. This high rate of persistence of childhood gender dysphoria contrasts with very low historical rates of persistence observed in the pre-PB era. Thus, it is considered possible that PB may lead to persistence of gender dysphoria, placing children on a pathway toward CSH and surgery.

2. “Puberty blockers have been proven safe.”

This claim is misleading.

1. The long-term safety of PB when administered in the context of GI/GD is not well established. PB have never been properly tested as a treatment for GI/GD, as such, they represent “off-label” (unlicensed) use. The only approved, licensed use of PB in the pediatric context is in the treatment of precocious puberty—an entirely different condition. While off-label use is common in medicine, it is well-established that such use is associated with a markedly worse safety profile than the use of the same drug according to the licensed indication. As such, the safety profile of PB for precocious puberty (PP) cannot be projected to the safety profile of PB for GI/GD.

2. Precocious puberty is a fundamentally different condition from GI/GD. There are important differences in the type of diagnosis (PP is confirmed by objective laboratory test results, while GI/GD is based on subjective self-reports); the timing of initiation of treatment (before the age of 8-9 in PP, and usually in the mid-teens for GI/GD); and the duration of treatment. Importantly, in PP, once the PB are stopped, the body’s own sex hormones resume functioning to progress a child to normal puberty. In GI/GD, over 90% of the time, natal hormone production continues to be suppressed, and instead CSH are used for the rest of one’s life.

3. Despite the fact that gender clinics have used PB for GI/GD for about 25 years, no systematic study of the health effects of such use has taken place. The UK is just now initiating the first-ever controlled trial of the use of PB for GI/GD, and in the meantime, has banned their use in standard medical practice. The trial itself has raised controversy over known harms of GnRHa (gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists, or puberty blockers) use in female adolescents with gynecological problems.

4. As discussed in 1c, in the domains where the effects of PB have been studied—i.e., fertility, bone health, and brain development—concerning signals of harm have emerged. There are additional concerns regarding the adverse effects of PB on sexual function. A recent Dutch study reported that at an average age of 29, over half of those previously treated with PB had at least one sexual dysfunction.

5. Since sex hormones affect every aspect of developing adolescent bodies, it is possible that other as yet unknown harms of the practice of suppressing normally timed puberty will emerge in the years to come.

3. “Gender-affirming hormones improve mental health — and treatment restrictions increase the risk of suicide.”

These claims are incorrect.

1. While certain individual studies continue to claim “proven benefits,” such studies suffer from significant methodological limitations. According to the well-established principles of evidence-based medicine, instead of relying on individual studies that suffer from methodological limitations, one must reference high-quality systematic reviews of evidence when such reviews are available. All high-quality systematic evidence reviews conducted to date cohere in concluding that there is no reliable evidence that PB and CSH improve short-, medium-, or long-term mental health outcomes or decrease suicide risk. A large-scale analysis of psychological outcomes published since the release of the latest systematic reviews using Finnish registry data indicates psychiatric problems of adolescent patients do not decrease—and may even increase—following hormonal treatments of GI/GD adolescents.

2. Every suicide is a tragic event. GI/GD youth are at increased risk of suicidality, although roughly at the same rate as youth with other mental health conditions. Fortunately, suicides among GI/GD adolescents remain rare. Unfortunately, there is no indication that either PB or CSH reduce suicide mortality—a finding confirmed by the recent Finnish health registry study. SEGM’s own analysis noted that the highest rates of suicides were reported by gender clinics that transitioned the highest proportion of their presenting patients.

3. A 2022 U.S. study by Tordoff et al. is frequently cited to assert that endocrine interventions in GI/GD minors reduced suicidality by 73%. However, the Tordoff et al. study suffered from profound methodological flaws, and also misrepresented its own results. The study is highly controversial and its findings cannot be trusted.

4. Other claims that restrictions on PB and CSH use lead to suicides in the UK and the US have likewise been rebutted by research teams and by the independent U.K. Appleby Review.

5. In sum, there is no evidence that bans or restrictions on PB or CSH for the pediatric population increase suicide risk.

4. “Undergoing endogenous (natal) puberty causes harm.”

This claim is overstated and overly simplistic.

1. Normally timed puberty—the development of a child into a sexually and reproductively mature adult—is a crucial life stage and does not constitute a disease or disorder for any child, nor does normally timed puberty constitute a medical treatment harm.

2. Multiple high-quality systematic reviews have found no reliable evidence that PB decrease gender dysphoria or improve mental health outcomes. Because the benefits of PB have not been demonstrated, it would be illogical to claim that not providing PB would cause harm.

3. A significant number of adolescents presenting to pediatric gender clinics are already well advanced into puberty (at Tanner stages 4 and 5), so physical changes associated with puberty have already occurred. Thus, the use of PB, in this common situation, will not make any material difference.

4. For natal females, the main potential advantage of an earlier use of PB is a reduction in the need to later undergo mastectomy. However, to achieve this, PB must be commenced at the very early stages of puberty, which significantly increases the risk of harm, including loss of fertility (at this phase there are only experimental methods of fertility preservation available) and iatrogenic persistence of GI/GD.

5. For natal males, PB at early puberty may decrease the desire for some later surgeries (e.g., facial surgeries) and prevent lowering of voice. However, such early intervention also poses greater risks to fertility (with only experimental fertility preservation options available) and sexual function. PB use in early puberty will also stunt genital growth, necessitating more invasive and complex vaginoplasty surgery with greater risk of complications (one of the patients in the original Dutch studies died from surgical complications for this reason).

5. “High quantity of individual studies claiming benefits overrides low quality of the evidence.”

This is incorrect.

1. This claim shows a fundamental misunderstanding of evidence in medicine. Multiple low-quality studies do not add up to high-quality evidence and common risks of bias and confounding may persist when results are pooled. Systematic and institutional bias can be consistent across studies, leading to consistent results which are nevertheless erroneous. This is exacerbated when there is publication bias.

2. Additionally, and importantly, the evidence for the psychological benefits of PB and CSH in adolescents is not consistent. For example, some studies have suggested PB are associated with an improvement in some mental health outcomes whereas other studies have not found any mental health improvements. While the seminal Dutch study that launched the practice of pediatric gender transition showed PB were associated with mild improvements in several measures of mental health, later prospective clinical studies from the U.K. and the U.S. have not been able to replicate even this modest result.

6. “Pediatric gender medicine should be excused from the requirement to generate reliable evidence because randomized controlled trials are challenging.”

This is misleading.

1. Unfortunately, in the area of pediatric gender medicine, from the very dawn of the practice when only a single patient had undergone pubertal suppression, gender clinicians already asserted that randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in this area of medicine are not possible. RCTs can be difficult—especially in pediatric medicine—but they are done nonetheless, for example in pediatric oncology.

2. In the UK, the PATHWAYS PB randomized delayed-start controlled trial has commenced (participants are randomly assigned to two groups: one starts PB immediately, while the other starts 12 months later). This at least demonstrates that RCTs are possible in this field, albeit with some methodological limitations.

3. However, the low or very low certainty of the evidence for PB and CSH does not stem from the lack of RCTs: it is primarily due to a lack of high-quality observational studies, inadequate comparison groups and follow-up, and insufficient control of confounding.

4. According to evidence-based medicine principles, the quality of the evidence alone is never sufficient to make a treatment decision. When the evidence is uncertain, “policy making will require substantial debate and involvement of many stakeholders.” Besides evidence quality, decision-makers should pay special attention to the benefit-harm balance, as well as other contextual factors including patients’ values and preferences and resource considerations.

7. “There is international consensus that hormonal interventions for minors are beneficial, with WPATH, the Endocrine Society, and even the Cass Review all objecting to the restrictions.”

This is incorrect.

1. The World Professional Association for Transgender Health’s standards of care (WPATH SOC 8) and the Endocrine Society Guidelines do not represent international consensus; rather they represent the viewpoint of those clinicians and professionals who support the use of PB and CSH (and surgeries) in minors, while excluding the views of those who do not. Several independent guideline analyses of WPATH SOC 8 and the Endocrine Society guidelines, using an internationally accepted and validated guideline appraisal tool (AGREE II), have found that these guidelines do not meet international standards for trustworthy guidelines, and concluded that they are not recommended for implementation. Recently, the Past President of the Endocrine Society wrote about the problematic conflicts of interest that undermined the trustworthiness of those guidelines.

2. Revelations about the development of WPATH SOC 8 demonstrated that the organization’s leadership suppressed systematic reviews of evidence from publication because the organization was concerned the findings would not support the planned treatment recommendations. Of the 13 registered questions, only three resulted in publications; the remaining 10, including the long-term effects of PB in adolescents, cardiovascular and thrombotic risks of estrogen, and effects on fertility, were evaluated but never published.

3. There is no international professional consensus regarding treatments of GI/GD youth. The health policies of several international jurisdictions now heavily restrict or ban the use of PB and/or CSH in minors—e.g., the U.K., Sweden and Finland, as well as multiple states/ provinces/ territories in the US, Australia and Canada. These changes were made not only because of the very low to low certainty of evidence of benefit, but also for several other reasons. These include an unexplained sharp increase in referral numbers and changed demographics and clinical presentations of those referred—the increase has been driven primarily by adolescent natal females, often with no history of early childhood GI/GD and many reporting a non-binary identity—all of which have raised concerns about the role of social media and peer influence contributing to gender incongruence in young people. Furthermore, little is known about the natural course (i.e., stability of GI/GD) in this new population. There have also been increasing concerns about the harms of these treatments, including increasing reports of detransition and regret. The untrustworthy nature of international guidelines has also become more recognized.

4. The U.K.’s Cass Review has been subject to considerable misrepresentation and inaccurate criticism in the peer-reviewed and gray literature. Various peer-reviewed articles are now available rebutting these erroneous criticisms.

8. “Detransition and regret are rare and usually stem from external pressures and unsupportive environments.”

This statement is misleading.

1. The literature on rates of detransition/regret suffers from serious methodological limitations, including—crucially—high loss to follow-up. Thus, it is quite possible that the studies are substantially underestimating rates of discontinuation, detransition and regret. Current studies report rates ranging from 1.9% to 29.8%; the upper range of the estimates indicates that treatment discontinuation is not rare among recent adolescent cohorts. Treatment discontinuation of this magnitude, before any restrictions were imposed, sends a troubling signal that youth discontinuing what is meant to be life-long treatment will be left with a number of irreversible changes to their bodies, since many of the effects of CSH are permanent.

2. Other studies support the notion that the stability of gender incongruence diagnoses from adolescence through to adulthood is low. For example, a large German study of individuals aged 5–24 at baseline found that persistence of a recorded diagnosis of gender dysphoria (F64, the diagnostic code for gender identity disorders in the ICD-10) was below 50% in every age group, and that among females aged 15–19—the most rapidly rising subpopulation in the field—only 27.3% persisted after five years.

3. Not all people who detransition do so because their gender identity changes and/or they are dissatisfied with or regret the hormones and surgery that they have received, but many do. The studies that have claimed most people who detransition do not regret their transition but rather they do so due to stigma or financial reasons have substantial methodological limitations; i.e., they are either non-representative online surveys which have been promoted on LGBTQ advocacy sites (which will cause a selection bias toward people whose gender identity has not shifted), or they depend on patients returning to clinicians to tell them about detransition—which many do not. For example, one study found only 25% of patients who had detransitioned had informed their clinicians.

4. We also do not know how many people, had they not received treatment as minors (e.g., delaying such treatment to adulthood in the event their GI/GD persisted), would feel about delays in initiation of treatment which enabled them to be at an age where they had the maturity to make the decision for themselves. For example, the study cited by the group of gender identity health professionals and academics to support the statement that regret is rare drew its participants from the US-based Trans Youth Project, whose average age of social transition was 6.49 years, with some children as young as two years old.

9. “The high burden of psychiatric problems found in gender dysphoric youth is due to ‘minority stress’ and should not present a barrier to medically transitioning a minor.”

This claim is overly simplistic.

1. Young people presenting to gender clinics with GI/GD have high rates of psychiatric comorbidities. High rates of psychiatric comorbidity were also a key finding reported in a Portuguese clinical cohort.

2. Claims that this is solely due to minority stress are not supported by the evidence. Studies and reports of clinicians and people who have detransitioned demonstrate that psychiatric and neurodevelopmental conditions, as well as adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) and peer group and social media influences, often predate the emergence of GI/GD. This suggests a complex causal pathway in which various conditions/events—i.e., psychiatric, neurodevelopmental, ACEs, homophobia—may causally contribute to GI/GD rather than a simplistic pathway in which GI/GD leads to minority stress which leads to psychiatric comorbidities.

3. Such potential complex causal pathways are very important to understand and may in themselves be reasons to withhold medical transition. For example, a young person whose GI/GD has developed in the aftermath of homophobic bullying or sexual abuse or whose GI/GD represents part of a psychotic illness ought not to be assessed for PB and CSH for treatment of their GI/GD until their underlying issues have been suitably resolved.

10. “When gender dysphoria intensifies during puberty, it is likely to become a lifelong, permanent condition.”

This claim is not supported by the data.

1. This claim has commonly been made by the proponents of pediatric gender transition, but it remains a mere assertion. No data exist to track the natural trajectory of adolescent GI/GD absent medical intervention, since the youth in the studies were all already referred to gender clinics and were on a path to receiving such interventions, and received them in short order after consultation. The paper cited by the Portuguese Society of Clinical Sexology in support of their claim that adolescent gender dysphoria rarely remits in fact immediately qualifies the quoted statement by adding: “However, little empirical evidence exists to support this association.”

2. It is, however, possible that in today’s climate of trans-advocacy groups and gender clinics promoting medical interventions, young people may be subject to nocebo effects, intensifying their distress: children are exposed to catastrophic and non-evidence based claims, such as that “puberty will be torture” and “children will be at high risk of suicide”. Thus, increasing distress with puberty cannot by itself be considered a reliable indicator of GI/GD that will inherently persist throughout life.

3. The most typical referrals to pediatric gender clinics in recent years are of adolescents who have no history of childhood GI/GD. The natural trajectory of their condition without treatment—either persistence or resolution—is unknown. As discussed in Myth 8, emerging evidence suggests persistence may be especially low for the currently presenting cohorts of adolescents.

   * The wording of the questions and some of the answers has been lightly edited for clarity and precision.

RLS Readers: Save 50% on SEGM’s 2026 Conference

The Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine (SEGM) is bringing leading researchers, clinicians, patients, parents, and legal experts to Washington, DC, November 5–7, for its 2026 conference, “Rethinking Youth Gender Medicine: Charting a Path Forward.”

Over three days, speakers will examine what the evidence on youth gender medicine actually shows, where important uncertainties remain, and what ethical and responsible care should look like going forward.

SEGM has generously extended a special 50% discount to Reality’s Last Stand readers on both in-person and livestream tickets! Use promo code RLS-SAVE50% when registering.

This special rate may not last forever, so register soon if you plan to attend.

If you enjoyed this free article, please consider upgrading to a paid subscription or making a recurring or one-time donation below to show your support. Reality’s Last Stand is a reader-supported publication, and your help is greatly appreciated.

Subscribe now

Share

If you enjoyed this article, you may also like…

Complete List of Linked References

1. Transgender Trend. Are puberty blockers reversible? The NHS no longer says so. Transgender Trend [Internet]. 2020 Jun 30 [cited 2026 Sep 20]. Available from: https://www.transgendertrend.com/nhs-no-longer-puberty-blockers-reversible/

2. Baxendale S. The impact of suppressing puberty on neuropsychological function: A review. Acta Paediatrica. 2024 Feb 9;113(6):1156-67. doi:10.1111/apa.17150

3. Ralph P, Mahoud M, Schlager D, Lee WG, Wafa R, Williamson E, et al. United Kingdom data collection of semen quality in transgender adolescent females seeking fertility preservation. Fertility and Sterility. 2025 Feb;123(2):313-21. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2024.09.006

4. Glória J, Melo JV de, Henriques AR, Pereira C, Sampaio M de L. Gender Incongruence in Adolescents: Experience of a Tertiary Care Center in Portugal. Acta Médica Portuguesa. 2025 Jun 12. doi:10.20344/amp.22705

5. van der Loos MATC, Vlot MC, Klink DT, Hannema SE, Den Heijer M, Wiepjes CM. Bone Mineral Density in Transgender Adolescents Treated With Puberty Suppression and Subsequent Gender-Affirming Hormones. JAMA Pediatr. 2023 Dec 1;177(12):1332. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2023.4588

6. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Treatment for Pediatric Gender Dysphoria: Review of Evidence and Best Practices [Internet]. DHHS; 2025 Nov. Available from: https://opa.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/2025-11/gender-dysphoria-report.pdf

7. Brik T, Vrouenraets LJJJ, de Vries MC, Hannema SE. Trajectories of adolescents treated with gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogues for gender dysphoria. Arch Sex Behav. 2020 Oct;49(7):2611-8. doi:10.1007/s10508-020-01660-8

8. van der Loos MATC, Klink DT, Hannema SE, Bruinsma S, Steensma TD, Kreukels BPC, et al. Children and adolescents in the Amsterdam cohort of gender dysphoria: Trends in diagnostic- and treatment trajectories during the first 20 years of the Dutch protocol. Journal of Sexual Medicine. 2023 Jan 26;qdac029. doi:10.1093/jsxmed/qdac029

9. Carmichael P, Butler G, Masic U, Cole TJ, De Stavola BL, Davidson S, et al. Short-term outcomes of pubertal suppression in a selected cohort of 12 to 15 year old young people with persistent gender dysphoria in the UK. Santana GL, editor. PLoS ONE. 2021 Feb 2;16(2):e0243894. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0243894

10. Wiepjes CM, Nota NM, de Blok CJM, Klaver M, de Vries ALC, Wensing-Kruger SA, et al. The Amsterdam cohort of gender dysphoria study (1972–2015): Trends in prevalence, treatment, and regrets. The Journal of Sexual Medicine. 2018 Apr;15(4):582-90. doi:10.1016/j.jsxm.2018.01.016

11. Cass H. Independent review of gender identity services for children and young people: Final report [Internet]. 2024. Available from: https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukgwa/20250310143933/https://cass.independent-review.uk/home/publications/final-report/

12. Eguale T, Buckeridge DL, Verma A, Winslade NE, Benedetti A, Hanley JA, et al. Association of Off-label Drug Use and Adverse Drug Events in an Adult Population. JAMA Intern Med. 2016 Jan 1;176(1):55. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.6058

13. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Treatment for pediatric gender dysphoria: Appendix 4: Overview of Systematic Reviews [Internet]. Washington, D.C.; 2025 Nov. Available from: https://opa.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/2025-11/gender-dysphoria-report-appendix.pdf

14. King’s College London [Internet]. [cited 2026 Sep 3]. PATHWAYS trial. Available from: https://www.kcl.ac.uk/research/pathways-trial

15. Department of Health and Social Care. Ban on puberty blockers to be made indefinite on experts’ advice [Internet]. 2024. Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/ban-on-puberty-blockers-to-be-made-indefinite-on-experts-advice

16. Jorgensen SCJ. Safeguarding Gaps in the PATHWAYS Trial: Insights from GnRH Analogue Use in Gynecology. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy. 2026 Mar 11;0(0):1-9. doi:10.1080/0092623X.2026.2641107 PubMed PMID: 41811248.

17. van der Meulen IS, Arnoldussen M, van der Miesen AIR, Hannema SE, Steensma TD, de Vries ALC, et al. Sexual satisfaction and dysfunction in transgender adults following puberty suppression treatment during adolescence. J Sex Med. 2025 Aug 1;22(8):1493-503. doi:10.1093/jsxmed/qdaf095

18. SEGM. Sexual satisfaction and dysfunction in transgender adults following puberty suppression treatment during adolescence: SEGM analysis [Internet]. 2025. Available from: https://segm.org/SEGM-Digest-Issue2-2025#VDM

19. Brignardello-Petersen R, Santesso N, Guyatt GH. Systematic reviews of the literature: An introduction to current methods. American Journal of Epidemiology. 2025 Feb 5;194(2):536-42. doi:10.1093/aje/kwae232

20. Dopp AR, Peipert A, Buss J, De Jesus-Romero R, Palmer K, Lorenzo-Luaces L. Interventions for Gender Dysphoria and Related Health Problems in Transgender and Gender-Expansive Youth: A Systematic Review of Benefits and Risks to Inform Practice, Policy, and Research [Internet]. RAND; 2024. Available from: https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA3223-1.html

21. Miroshnychenko A, Roldan Y, Ibrahim S, Kulatunga-Moruzi C, Montante S, Couban R, et al. Puberty blockers for gender dysphoria in youth: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Archives of Disease in Childhood. 2025 Jan 30;110(6):429-36. doi:10.1136/archdischild-2024-327909

22. Miroshnychenko A, Ibrahim S, Roldan Y, Kulatunga-Moruzi C, Montante S, Couban R, et al. Gender affirming hormone therapy for individuals with gender dysphoria aged <26 years: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Archives of Disease in Childhood. 2025 Feb 6;110(6):437-45. doi:10.1136/archdischild-2024-327921

23. Taylor J, Mitchell A, Hall R, Heathcote C, Langton T, Fraser L, et al. Interventions to suppress puberty in adolescents experiencing gender dysphoria or incongruence: A systematic review. Archives of Disease in Childhood. 2024;109:s33-47. doi:10.1136/archdischild-2023-326669

24. Taylor J, Mitchell A, Hall R, Langton T, Fraser L, Hewitt CE. Masculinising and feminising hormone interventions for adolescents experiencing gender dysphoria or incongruence: A systematic review. Archives of Disease in Childhood. 2024;109:s48-56. doi:10.1136/archdischild-2023-326670

25. Ludvigsson JF, Adolfsson J, Höistad M, Rydelius PA, Kriström B, Landén M. A systematic review of hormone treatment for children with gender dysphoria and recommendations for research. Acta Paediatrica. 2023 Apr 17;112(11):2279-92. doi:10.1111/apa.16791

26. Ruuska S, Tuisku K, Holttinen T, Kaltiala R. Psychiatric Morbidity Among Adolescents and Young Adults Who Contacted Specialised Gender Identity Services in Finland in 1996–2019: A Register Study. Acta Paediatrica. 2026 Apr 4;apa.70533. doi:10.1111/apa.70533

27. Biggs M. Suicide by clinic-referred transgender adolescents in the United Kingdom [letter to the editor]. Arch Sex Behav. 2022;51:685-90. doi:10.1007/s10508-022-02287-7

28. Ruuska SM, Tuisku K, Holttinen T, Kaltiala R. All-cause and suicide mortalities among adolescents and young adults who contacted specialised gender identity services in Finland in 1996–2019: A register study. BMJ Ment Health. 2024 Jan;27(1):e300940. doi:10.1136/bmjment-2023-300940

29. SEGM. Suicide Mortality Among Gender-Dysphoric Adolescents and Young Adults in Finland | SEGM analysis [Internet]. 2024 [cited 2026 Sep 20]. Available from: https://segm.org/Suicide-Gender-Dysphoric-Adolescent-Young-Adult-Finland-2024

30. Tordoff DM, Wanta JW, Collin A, Stepney C, Inwards-Breland DJ, Ahrens K. Mental Health Outcomes in Transgender and Nonbinary Youths Receiving Gender-Affirming Care. JAMA Netw Open. 2022 Feb 25;5(2):e220978. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.0978

31. Singal J. Researchers Found Puberty Blockers And Hormones Didn’t Improve Trans Kids’ Mental Health At Their Clinic. Then They Published A Study Claiming The Opposite. (Updated) [Substack newsletter]. Singal-Minded [Internet]. 2022 Apr 6 [cited 2026 Sep 20]. Available from:

32. Cohn J, Sim P, Kerr KF. Methodological considerations for evaluating policy impacts on transgender and non-binary youth suicidality. Nat Hum Behav. 2026 May 28. doi:10.1038/s41562-026-02467-8

33. Lal M. Causal inference from a single treated state: a peer review of Lee et al. (2024) and the exchange that followed. Theor Soc. 2026 Sep 16;55(5):81. doi:10.1007/s11186-026-09746-3

34. Appleby L. Review of suicides and gender dysphoria at the Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust: independent report [Internet]. Department of Health and Social Care; 2024 Jul. Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/review-of-suicides-and-gender-dysphoria-at-the-tavistock-and-portman-nhs-foundation-trust/review-of-suicides-and-gender-dysphoria-at-the-tavistock-and-portman-nhs-foundation-trust-independent-report

35. Sultan C, Gaspari L, Maimoun L, Kalfa N, Paris F. Disorders of puberty. Best Practice & Research Clinical Obstetrics & Gynaecology. 2018 Apr;48:62-89. doi:10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2017.11.004

36. Boogers LS, Reijtenbagh SJP, Wiepjes CM, Van Trotsenburg ASP, Den Heijer M, Hannema SE. Time Course of Body Composition Changes in Transgender Adolescents During Puberty Suppression and Sex Hormone Treatment. The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism. 2024 Jul 12;109(8):e1593-601. doi:10.1210/clinem/dgad750

37. Lahaije FAH, van Setten PA, Levels W, Becking-Malpasso K, Claahsen-van der Grinten HL. GnRH analogues as a monotherapy in transgender and gender diverse adolescents: clinical insights from a single center study. Endocrine Connections. 2025 Jul 7;14(8). doi:10.1530/EC-25-0292

38. Negenborn VL, van der Sluis WB, Meijerink WJHJ, Bouman MB. Lethal necrotizing cellulitis caused by ESBL-producing E. coli after laparoscopic intestinal vaginoplasty. Journal of Pediatric and Adolescent Gynecology. 2017;30:e19-21. doi:10.1016/j.jpag.2016.09.005

39. Guyatt G, Wang Y, Eachempati P, Iorio A, Murad MH, Hultcrantz M, et al. Core GRADE 4: rating certainty of evidence—risk of bias, publication bias, and reasons for rating up certainty. BMJ. 2025 May 13;389:e083864. doi:10.1136/bmj-2024-083864

40. de Vries ALC, Steensma TD, Doreleijers TAH, Cohen‐Kettenis PT. Puberty suppression in adolescents with gender identity disorder: A prospective follow‐up study. The Journal of Sexual Medicine. 2011 Aug;8(8):2276-83. doi:10.1111/j.1743-6109.2010.01943.x

41. Gohil A, Donahue K, Eugster EA. Observations of the effect of gonadotropin-releasing hormone analog treatment on psychosocial well-being in transgender youth and their caregivers – a pilot study. Journal of Pediatric Endocrinology and Metabolism. 2025 Sep 25;38(9):968-72. doi:10.1515/jpem-2025-0108

42. Olson-Kennedy J, Durazo-Arvizu R, Wang L, Wong CF, Chen D, Ehrensaft D, et al. Mental and Emotional Health of Youth after 24 months of Gender-Affirming Medical Care Initiated with Pubertal Suppression [Internet]. 2025. Available from: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2025.05.14.25327614v1 doi:10.1101/2025.05.14.25327614

43. Smith YLS, Van Goozen SHM, Cohen-Kettenis PT. Adolescents with gender identity disorder who were accepted or rejected for sex reassignment surgery: A prospective follow-up study. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry. 2001 Apr;40(4):472-81. doi:10.1097/00004583-200104000-00017

44. Clayton A, Amos AJ, Spencer J, Clarke P. Implications of the Cass Review for health policy governing gender medicine for Australian minors. Australasian Psychiatry. 2025;33(1):89-95. doi:10.1177/10398562241276335

45. Clayton A. Gender-affirming hormone treatment for young people with gender dysphoria: where do we go from here? Arch Dis Child. 2025 Mar 12;archdischild-2025-328478. doi:10.1136/archdischild-2025-328478

46. Van Breukelen GJP. How to improve research methodology in gender care: a non-binary choice. European Journal of Developmental Psychology. 2025 Apr 4;1-21. doi:10.1080/17405629.2025.2485221

47. Guyatt G, Oxman AD, Kunz R, Falck-Ytter Y, Vist GE, Liberati A, et al. Going from evidence to recommendations. BMJ. 2008 May 10;336(7652):1049-51. doi:10.1136/bmj.39493.646875.AE PubMed PMID: 18467413; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2376019.

48. Taylor J, Hall R, Heathcote C, Hewitt CE, Langton T, Fraser L. Clinical guidelines for children and adolescents experiencing gender dysphoria or incongruence: A systematic review of guideline quality (part 1). Arch Dis Child. 2024 Apr 9;109:s65-72. doi:10.1136/archdischild-2023-326499

49. Taylor J, Hall R, Heathcote C, Hewitt CE, Langton T, Fraser L. Clinical guidelines for children and adolescents experiencing gender dysphoria or incongruence: A systematic review of recommendations (part 2). Arch Dis Child. 2024 Apr 9;109:s73-82. doi:10.1136/archdischild-2023-326500

50. Zhang Y, Januś D, Kaltiala R, Karvonen M, Ptak JJ, Yepes-Nuñez JJ. Quality of the World Professional Association for Transgender Health Guideline Standards of Care 8: An Appraisal Using the AGREE II Instrument. Arch Sex Behav. 2026 Feb 19. doi:10.1007/s10508-025-03399-6

51. Dahlen S, Connolly D, Arif I, Junejo MH, Bewley S, Meads C. International clinical practice guidelines for gender minority/trans people: Systematic review and quality assessment. BMJ Open. 2021 Apr;11(4):e048943. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2021-048943

52. Santen R. Intellectual conflicts of interest and the ongoing controversy on guidelines regarding gender-affirming care. Arch Dis Child. 2026 Sep 18;archdischild-2025-328741. doi:10.1136/archdischild-2025-328741

53. Kozlowska K, Hunter P, Clayton A, Kaliebe K, Scher S. Obstacles to progress in paediatric gender medicine. European Journal of Developmental Psychology. 2025 Sep 8;1-31. doi:10.1080/17405629.2025.2546574

54. SEGM. WPATH Influence Undermines WHO’s Transgender Guidelines | SEGM [Internet]. 2024 [cited 2026 Sep 22]. Available from: https://segm.org/wpath-evidence-manipulation-risks-discrediting-WHO-transgender-guidelines

55. Sapir L, Littman L, Biggs M. The U.S. Transgender Survey of 2015 Supports Rapid-Onset Gender Dysphoria: Revisiting the “Age of Realization and Disclosure of Gender Identity Among Transgender Adults” [letter to the editor]. Arch Sex Behav. 2023 Dec 18. doi:10.1007/s10508-023-02754-9

56. Cheung CR, Abbruzzese E, Lockhart E, Maconochie IK, Kingdon CC. Gender medicine and the Cass Review: Why medicine and the law make poor bedfellows. Arch Dis Child. 2025 Mar 19;110(4):251-5. doi:10.1136/archdischild-2024-327994 PubMed PMID: 39401844; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC12013558.

57. Kingdon C, Stingelin-Giles N, Cass H. The Cass Review: Distinguishing fact from fiction. The American Journal of Bioethics. 2025 Jun 3;25(6):5-10. doi:10.1080/15265161.2025.2504397

58. McDeavitt K, Cohn J, Levine SB. Critiques of the Cass Review: Fact-checking the peer-reviewed and grey literature. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy. 2025 Feb 4;1-25. doi:10.1080/0092623X.2025.2455133

59. Cohn J. The detransition rate is unknown. Arch Sex Behav. 2023 Jul;52(5):1937-52. doi:10.1007/s10508-023-02623-5

60. SEGM. Accurate transition regret and detransition rates are unknown | SEGM [Internet]. 2023 [cited 2026 Sep 22]. Available from: https://segm.org/regret-detransition-rate-unknown

61. Roberts CM, Klein DA, Adirim TA, Schvey NA, Hisle-Gorman E. Continuation of gender-affirming hormones among transgender adolescents and adults. Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism. 2022 Apr 22;107(9):e3937-43. doi:10.1210/clinem/dgac251

62. Bachmann CJ, Golub Y, Holstiege J, Hoffmann F. Gender identity disorders among young people in Germany: prevalence and trends, 2013–2022. An analysis of nationwide routine insurance data. Deutsches Ärzteblatt International. 2024 May 31;121:370-1. doi:10.3238/arztebl.m2024.0098

63. SEGM. The Gender Dysphoria Diagnosis in Young People Has a “Low Diagnostic Stability,” Finds a New German Study | SEGM [Internet]. 2024 [cited 2026 Sep 22]. Available from: https://segm.org/gender-dysphoria-diagnosis-desistance-germany

64. Littman L. Individuals treated for gender dysphoria with medical and/or surgical transition who subsequently detransitioned: A survey of 100 detransitioners. Arch Sex Behav. 2021 Nov;50(8):3353-69. doi:10.1007/s10508-021-02163-w

65. Olson KR, Raber GF, Gallagher NM. Levels of satisfaction and regret with gender-affirming medical care in adolescence. JAMA Pediatr. 2024 Oct 21. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2024.4527

66. deMayo BE, Gallagher NM, Leshin RA, Olson KR. Stability and Change in Gender Identity and Sexual Orientation Across Childhood and Adolescence. Monographs Society Res Child. 2025 Aug;90(1-3):7-172. doi:10.1111/mono.12479

67. Taylor J, Hall R, Langton T, Fraser L, Hewitt CE. Characteristics of children and adolescents referred to specialist gender services: a systematic review. Arch Dis Child. 2024 Apr 9;109:s3-11. doi:10.1136/archdischild-2023-326681

68. Kaltiala-Heino R, Sumia M, Työläjärvi M, Lindberg N. Two years of gender identity service for minors: Overrepresentation of natal girls with severe problems in adolescent development. Child Adolesc Psychiatry Ment Health. 2015 Dec;9(1):9. doi:10.1186/s13034-015-0042-y PubMed PMID: 25873995; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4396787.

69. Kozlowska K, McClure G, Chudleigh C, Maguire AM, Gessler D, Scher S, et al. Australian children and adolescents with gender dysphoria: Clinical presentations and challenges experienced by a multidisciplinary team and gender service. Human Systems. 2021 Feb;1(1):70-95. doi:10.1177/26344041211010777

70. Vandenbussche E. Detransition-related needs and support: A cross-sectional online survey. Journal of Homosexuality. 2022 Jul 29;69(9):1602-20. doi:10.1080/00918369.2021.1919479

71. Churcher Clarke A, Spiliadis A. ‘Taking the lid off the box’: The value of extended clinical assessment for adolescents presenting with gender identity difficulties. Clin Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2019 Apr;24(2):338-52. doi:10.1177/1359104518825288

72. Cooper K, Mandy W, Russell A, Butler C. Healthcare clinician perspectives on the intersection of autism and gender dysphoria. Autism. 2023 Jan;27(1):31-42. doi:10.1177/13623613221080315

73. Spencer J, D’Angelo R, Clarke P. Formulation concepts in the care of children and adolescents identifying as transgender or gender diverse. Australas Psychiatry. 2025 Aug 2;10398562251362739. doi:10.1177/10398562251362739

74. Byrne A. Another myth of persistence? Arch Sex Behav. 2024 Nov;53(10):3705-9. doi:10.1007/s10508-024-03005-1

75. Mahfouda S, Moore JK, Siafarikas A, Zepf FD, Lin A. Puberty suppression in transgender children and adolescents. The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology. 2017 Oct;5(10):816-26. doi:10.1016/S2213-8587(17)30099-2

76. Clayton A. Gender-affirming treatment of gender dysphoria in youth: a perfect storm environment for the placebo effect: the implications for research and clinical practice [letter to the editor]. Arch Sex Behav. 2022 Nov 14;52:483-94. doi:10.1007/s10508-022-02472-8

77. Fahrenkrug S, Becker-Hebly I, Herrmann L, Barkmann C, Hohmann S, Bindt C. Onset Age and Internalizing Problems in Adolescents with Gender Dysphoria: Is There an Association? Archives of Sexual Behavior. 2025 Mar 24. doi:10.1007/s10508-025-03118-1

78. Herrmann L, Barkmann C, Fahrenkrug S, Hohmann S, Bindt C, Lammers C, et al. Ten years of a gender identity service for children and adolescents in Germany: demographic and clinical patterns. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2026 Jun 8. doi:10.1007/s00787-026-03080-w

79. Kaltiala-Heino R, Bergman H, Työläjärvi M, Frisen L. Gender dysphoria in adolescence: Current perspectives. AHMT. 2018 Mar;9:31-41. doi:10.2147/AHMT.S135432 PubMed PMID: 29535563; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5841333.

Affiliate Disclosure: This article contains affiliate links. We may earn a commission from purchases made through these links. As an Amazon Associate, RLS earns from qualifying purchases.

Reality’s Last Stand is a reader-supported publication. Please consider becoming a paying subscriber or making a one-time or recurring donation to show your support.

Subscribe now

About the Author

William Costello is a doctoral researcher in evolutionary psychology at the University of Texas at Austin. His work focuses on all aspects of human mating psychology. His research has appeared in American Psychologist, Evolution and Human Behavior, and several other academic journals. He has also appeared on several prominent podcasts, including multiple appearances on Modern Wisdom, discussing evolutionary psychology, relationships, sex differences, and contemporary social issues.

Novig is a new “sports prediction market”. That’s just a sophisticated-sounding way to gamble on sport. Sydney Sweeney owns equity in the business, so saying she has skin in the game is putting it mildly. As its face (and body), she is cashing in on the oldest maxim in marketing: sex sells!

In a controversial advert, American footballs and a strategically placed tennis racket fight a losing battle to cover her curves. The slogan is “No wars. No death. No politics. Just sports.”

One might expect conservatives to be the ones objecting to a naked actress promoting gambling. But instead, an army of progressive scolds has arrived waving banners of concern about women’s sport. This is despite Sweeney arguably epitomizing the archetype they claim to adore. She is an empowered and independent businesswoman, exercising her sexual autonomy, leaning in, and girlbossing. Her body, her choice, after all? Meanwhile, conservatives cheerleading the advert seem to find the opportunity to own the libs more seductive than fidelity to their own principles.

Female athletes are divided too. WNBA player Sophie Cunningham rejected the suggestion that the advert was an attack on women’s sport, saying, “Go do your thing, sis.” Others, such as Ariarne Titmus, called it “a kick in the face” to women who have dedicated their lives to sport.

One Irish radio presenter even suggested that Sweeney had “set women’s sport back forty years in forty seconds.”

What a remarkably low opinion of women’s sport!

Earlier this month, I cheered on Katie Taylor as her farewell fight drew more than 82,000 fans to Croke Park in Dublin. An Olympic gold medalist and undisputed world champion at both lightweight and super-lightweight, she arguably single-handedly put women’s boxing on the world stage through her courage and extraordinary skill.

Quite frankly, I found the presenter’s comments demeaning. The achievements of Katie Taylor and countless other extraordinary sportswomen are not so fragile that Sydney Sweeney’s breasts can undo them, formidable and all as they are.

Sweeney herself responded by sharing nude photographs of athletes, including Megan Rapinoe in ESPN’s Body Issue. Female nudity evidently represents either empowerment or moral panic, depending on who is naked and whose approval she seeks.

Read more

Reality’s Last Stand is a reader-supported publication. Please consider becoming a paying subscriber or making a one-time or recurring donation to show your support.

Subscribe now

About the Authors

Benjamin Ryan is an independent journalist, specializing in science and health care coverage. He is a contributor for The New York Times, The Guardian, NBC News, The Free Press, and The New York Sun. He has also written for the Washington Post, The Atlantic and The Nation, among many others. Follow him on X: @benryanwriter. Visit his website: benryan.net. Subscribe to his Substack: Hazard Ratio

Dr. Colin Wright is an evolutionary biologist, a Manhattan Institute fellow, and the CEO and editor-in-chief of Reality’s Last Stand. His work focuses on the science and public policy of sex and gender. His writing has appeared in The Wall Street Journal, the New York Post, Newsweek, City Journal, The Washington Examiner, and other leading news outlets and scientific journals.

This article was originally published on ’s Substack: Hazard Ratio

During the 24 days between news breaking of Jason Arday’s alleged academic misconduct and serial lying and his death on Aug. 14, a blast radius extended across Cambridge University. In an apparent effort to respond to the mounting public outcry over Dr. Arday’s alleged plagiarism and academic fraud while containing the damage to the august institution’s reputation, Cambridge on Aug. 5 announced an investigation into Dr. Arday’s appointment.

In a statement on the expanding crisis for the university then issued Aug. 12, Cambridge Vice-Chancellor Deborah Prentice said she shared the “concerns” about Dr. Arday’s appointment. But she insisted that his case was an “aberration.”

Or was it—at least where the quality of his scholarship was concerned?

The PhD thesis of a student in Cambridge’s Faculty of Education—in which Dr. Arday held a professorial chair, in the sociology of education, until he resigned hours after the investigation announcement—has been put under what British and Canadian academics have told us is a remarkably long embargo, shielding it from public view until 2031.

Crucially, among the panelists who reviewed the thesis was Dr. Arday himself.

The thesis, which we have obtained and which we review below, raises important questions about whether the Faculty of Education, including Dr. Arday’s own contributions, let down the basic standards of higher education.

The lengthy embargo raises further questions about what Cambridge, which is among the most elite universities in the world, and the paper’s author might have to hide where her scholarship is concerned.

Written by Damilola Folayan, the thesis is entitled Of, but not in: A poetic exploration of how Black women students respond to the coloniality of Oxbridge—referring to the portmanteau of Oxford and Cambridge. It garnered her a coveted Cambridge PhD in 2025. Following what’s known as an autoethnographic style, it is in essence an epic poetry-slam interpretation of the plight of Dr. Folayan and three other black women at Oxbridge and their experiences navigating, with considerable ambivalence, these historically, and still overwhelmingly, white elite institutions.

The sprawling thesis unabashedly thumbs its nose at the rigors and demands of academia even as it demands in return an elite PhD and all the rights and privileges pertaining thereto.

The landing page for Dr. Folayan’s thesis was taken down on Aug. 14, just before news of Dr. Arday’s death broke. This followed our first submission via email of questions, earlier that day, to Cambridge and Dr. Folayan about her thesis. The landing page was put back online at some point in the subsequent weeks.

Dr. Folayan, who did not return requests for comment, submitted her thesis on Nov. 26, 2024, and it was published July 10, 2025. A source who monitored the thesis over this period informed us that the university placed the thesis under an initial one-year embargo. The particular type of embargo the thesis received, called embargoed access, permits the author to release copies upon request at their own discretion.

Various academics familiar with the British system told us it is not uncommon for a university to keep a PhD thesis initially under wraps like this, while, for example, its author seeks to publish it in book form.

But what happened next was more exceptional—and even an apparent violation of university policy—sources tell us.

At some point after July 27—the date when our source was able to freely download Dr. Folayan’s thesis, given it was not under embargo at that time—and before Aug. 9, the university placed a new, five-year embargo on the thesis. This shielded the document until July 10, 2031.

Various academics informed us that in rare cases, PhD theses may be put under lengthy embargos if they contain, for example, information that could violate an individual’s safety. But Dr. Folayan did not receive the type of stricter embargo that would be placed in those circumstances.

The embargo on Dr. Folayan’s thesis appears to violate Cambridge’s own rules for limits on such embargoes, which state: “The maximum embargo permitted is 6 years from the date of first deposit”—not from the date that the thesis was published, as is now the case for Dr. Folayan’s thesis. Given her deposit date, the university rules would appear to place the outer limit at Nov. 26, 2030, which is 226 days before the current expiration date on the embargo.

The records suggest that Dr. Folayan herself requested the embargo extension, given her thesis sits under “embargoed access.” Under this protocol, the thesis author completes an embargo extension form, which a university supervisor then signs (or if the supervisor disagrees, the degree committee weighs in). Or it could be that the university administration broke protocol and applied the embargo itself through this route.

Regardless, the length of the embargo raised eyebrows among our sources in British academia.

“I have never heard of a PhD being embargoed in the social sciences,” Alice Sullivan, a professor of sociology at University College London, told us in an email exchange that took place before Dr. Arday’s death. “Most students are keen to share their work.” She said that if a PhD thesis is shielded for many years, “it is unclear how it could count as a contribution to knowledge.”

A Cambridge spokesperson on Aug. 14 stated, on the contrary: “It is common practice for PhD students to request an embargo on their theses. There are a number of reasons why such a request might be made and in each case a standard protocol is followed.” The spokesperson did not respond to follow-up questions about whether Dr. Folayan’s especially lengthy embargo violated university policy.

The Arday plagiarism scandal broke in the Substack of Nathan Cofnas, an American academic who is a postdoctoral researcher at Ghent University in Belgium, on July 21—11 days after Dr. Folayan’s embargo lifted. Dr. Cofnas told one of us that he first alerted Cambridge to his investigation on July 16. Retraction Watch followed Dr. Cofnas’ article on July 27 with even more explosive reporting about Dr. Arday’s alleged academic misconduct and his apparently aggressive—and temporarily successful—efforts to leverage the legal system to intimidate those who questioned his scholarship and honesty and keep the damning story under wraps.

This means that the new, especially long embargo was placed on a PhD thesis—a piece of scholarship for which Dr. Arday sat on the review panel—after Dr. Arday’s alleged academic misconduct became a major public scandal.

The intense public focus on such offenses and the purported poor quality of Dr. Arday’s academic publications threatened to tarnish Cambridge’s historically sterling reputation. In particular, the Faculty of Education, in which Dr. Arday became the university’s youngest black professor in 2023, found itself under withering scrutiny.

Dr. Sullivan, who, according to her bio, studies “social and educational inequalities in the life course”—similar to the domains of Drs. Arday and Folayan—said that there were academics “doing good work” in Cambridge’s Faculty of Education at large. “I feel for them, because they will now be tainted by association with the Arday scandal,” she said—albeit before Dr. Arday’s death instantly changed the tenor of the public debate over his life and work.

But Dr. Sullivan offered a scathing and unsparing appraisal of Cambridge’s Faculty of Education, saying that “the department as a whole is surprisingly weak, particularly given the advantages of the prestige and perks of Cambridge, which should make it possible for them to hire the very best.”

Hilary Cremin, who heads the Faculty of Education and who in a 2023 BBC interview said that Dr. Arday was “the best in the world” in the research he did, was under particularly scorching scrutiny in the weeks before Dr. Arday’s death. Critics accused Dr. Cremin of pandering to Dr. Arday and overlooking what they asserted was his weak publication record in favor of leveraging his race to paper over Cambridge’s notable lack of diversity where black scholars are concerned.

Dr. Sullivan said that Dr. Cremin “is not someone of the calibre you would expect to head a department at Cambridge.” She suggested that Dr. Cremin was a linchpin in appointing someone with an academic background as thin as Dr. Arday’s, saying, “One of the most important roles of a head of department is to sit on all senior appointment panels and ensure that weak hires are avoided. This is one reason that having an intellectually credible head is essential to a strong department.”

“I am concerned that students at Cambridge have been badly let down,” Dr. Sullivan said. “They deserve better.”

Dr. Folayan’s thesis: a poetic act of defiance

What is a PhD thesis supposed to accomplish? The answer can vary widely by discipline, but the basic expectation is that it is meant to represent a genuine contribution to or advancement of human knowledge. That knowledge doesn’t need to be timeless, like discovering the mass of a carbon atom. It can be narrowly focused. And research methods vary between disciplines. Formal experiments and statistical hypothesis testing are not appropriate or even possible in many fields. Social scientists, including anthropologists, sociologists and other qualitative researchers, often study highly subjective questions that can’t be answered with the tools and precision of the hard sciences.

Dr. Folayan’s thesis asks how black women students experience and respond to what she calls the “coloniality of Oxbridge,” which she describes as the persistence of colonial power, norms and racial hierarchy at Oxford and Cambridge. To answer that question, she relies on conversations she held with three black women who had attended or were attending Oxbridge, infuses their stories with her own experiences through so-called autoethnography, and ultimately spends 70,413 words analyzing the resulting material using so-called Critical Poetic Inquiry.

In other words, she sought a doctorate from one of the world’s greatest halls of higher learning by interviewing three people. Her contribution to human knowledge characterizes two social practices—leaving Oxbridge for London and gathering for potlucks—as forms of “marronage,” a term used to describe the practice of escaping enslavement.

This arguably undisciplined mode of inquiry is not unique to Dr. Folayan. It has spread widely across academia and is arguably one of the central dead weights that have brought down trust in higher education. Dr. Folayan’s thesis takes this already flawed method to an extreme by stirring poetry and political activism into the mix.

Dr. Arday’s own 2015 thesis, for which he was accused of plagiarizing another author, follows a similar approach. It is a lengthy exploration of the travails of just four student teachers in the physical-education discipline. (Specifically, Dr. Arday’s doctorate was in the teaching of P.E., not P.E. itself. Following an investigation Liverpool John Moores University, which awarded him his PhD, cleared him of the plagiarism charge in March. But Dr. Arday was also credibly accused of plagiarism and fraud in other papers he wrote while at other universities, according to The Times.) He otherwise employed autoethnography, which is a fancy word for writing about oneself, in his published work.

Methods should matter and require justification in every field. If a researcher makes claims about reality, there must be some disciplined means of determining whether those claims are true or plausible. Evidence and logic must, at least to some degree, guide one’s interpretation. Alternative explanations have to be considered. It must be clear how a researcher moved from their observations to their conclusions. And, at least in principle, they must stress test their argument by articulating the kind of evidence that would or could have caused them to arrive at a different conclusion. Without such constraints on interpretation, research can no longer be considered an investigation and instead becomes a mere subjective exercise—in expressing what the author already believes or desires to be true.

In short, absent rhetorical and epistemological standards, the academic project falls apart.

But that seems to be exactly what Dr. Folayan would rather. Which is quite convenient, since dispensing with any and all structure clears a much smoother path toward earning a PhD than a course that is bogged down by rigor and strict standards. The complete lack of constraint is what makes Dr. Folayan’s PhD thesis so astonishing. Her subject is remarkably narrow and would typically be considered extremely low-powered for any research project, let alone a PhD. And her thesis does not actually investigate the experiences of her participants in a way that meets even the lowest bar for academic rigor. Instead, the methods are structured in a way that permits her to interpret evidence through a predetermined ideological and political framework that, conveniently enough, pre-emptively shields it from challenges of falsification.

This thesis cannot be considered research in any meaningful, scholarly sense.

The Critical Poetic Inquiry, or CPI, method she uses is, in her words, “distinct from other forms of qualitative inquiry in that it prioritises justice.” What actually constitutes “justice” for the sake of research she leaves undefined. However, “justice” is a subjective moral and political pursuit. It is not a method for determining what is true, which is the ostensibly higher purpose of a PhD thesis. The slam-poetic nature of Dr. Folayan’s thesis causes her to describe her project with terms such as: “a lament, a war cry, a chant and a belly laugh” and “a joyful, painful rupture, a disruption, a deliberate transgression, a riff, and a drum beat… a prayer for all we have lost and for all that we can be.”

She describes her thesis as “a justice-centred project aimed at celebrating and memorialising the lives and experiences of Black women students of Oxbridge, past and present.” She also calls the project “an ode to the ebony women who maroon their way through the HEIs [Higher Education Institutions] they are traditionally shut out of or told to contort themselves to enter into.” Elsewhere it becomes a “love letter,” “poetry,” a “process of healing,” and an aspiring “performance.”

Dr. Folayan has served up a tribute to women such as herself, channeled through an amalgam of poetry and activism. She also inserts herself into the dataset through autoethnography, which in her case means mining her own journals and personal experiences at Cambridge as research material.

The three women she interviewed either volunteered via a social media open call or were acquaintances hand-selected by Folayan herself. Dr. Folayan also infused the interviews with personal bias by sharing her own experiences with the subjects in order to “affirm [the participants’] experiences” through their commonality.

Her methods provide an alternative to, she writes, the “taking up space” model in black feminism. Her alternative route is concerned with how black women at Oxbridge “create alternative spaces to help them remain part of the institutions.”

“Through this work,” Dr. Folayan writes, “I centre the experiences of Black women students who have chosen to be of, but not in the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge.” Elsewhere: “Through this research, I seek to synthesise a recent turn in the development of Black British Womanhood Studies marked by a refusal to play our counters in quiet and cry our tears in private.” She says she writes “because of the beautiful ebony butterflies who escape the oppressive terrains of UK HEIs and invent alternative modes of engaging with and existing in Oxbridge.” She also tells the reader: “This research is a love letter to the ebony beauties who have and are yet to navigate Oxbridge.”

She then offers this:

“In engaging in marronage, the Black women at the centre of this project contradict oppression and oppressive narratives of Black womanhood by forging alternate modes of decolonial existence that refuse to conform to the colonising onto-epistemic foundations of UK HE.”

What observation could even potentially determine whether this interpretation was accurate? What would distinguish “forging alternate modes of decolonial existence” from ordinary friendship, socializing, travel or seeking out people with shared cultural backgrounds? Dr. Folayan does not offer any answers or guidance. When you strip out all the academic jargon of “marronage,” “decolonial existence,” and “onto-epistemic foundations,” she’s simply saying: I feel out of place here.

Remarkably, Dr. Folayan even appears to sense the methodological shortcomings of her own work—and in so doing almost dares the reader to engage in exactly the sort of criticism we’re administering here. “Methodological conundrums have plagued this project since its inception,” she writes, in a moment of meta-analysis, of the genesis of her thesis. “Nothing quite seemed to fit this project and this project did not fit neatly into any methodological framework.” She reports having asked herself, “What is it I’m doing here?” and “Does this even constitute a PhD?”

Her supervisor, Tyler Denmead will, as of October 2026, earn the distinguished title of professor of education at Cambridge. Dr. Denmead, who is white, is the coauthor of the 2025 book Rethinking Critical Race Theory: Education Against Elimination in a Time of Genocide. He recently coauthored scholarly articles with titles that open with the words “White educability,” “White profitability,” and “Reckoning with white empathy.” His next book is at least tentatively entitled The White Rage Curriculum.

Dr. Denmead, who did not respond to requests for comment, apparently did not help Dr. Folayan develop a clearer and more rigorous research design. Instead, Dr. Folayan writes that he “urged me to keep writing poetry.”

The big picture: Dr. Folayan’s ascent through the ranks

According to her LinkedIn page (which was taken down at some point after Aug. 14), Dr. Folayan is a lecturer in equity, diversity and inclusion at Arden University and “a poet-researcher whose work sits at the intersection of social transformation and the sociology of education.” She asserts that she researches “race, gender, and institutional inequalities, with a particular interest in motherhood in higher education and fostering transformative change.”

In addition to receiving her PhD in education from Cambridge, in February 2025, she has worked at the universities of Sheffield, Leeds and Cambridge. She asserts on LinkedIn that she has worked on “projects including Generation Delta, Decolonising the Social Sciences and the Black Professors Project.” While earning her PhD, she also worked in HR and sustainability at Niyo Group, a Birmingham-based tech and training venture that describes itself as “a global technology company that empowers, educates and enables the most under-represented communities.”

Niyo sponsored her PhD, at least in part, and is thanked in the acknowledgements, as is Dr. Arday.

Dr. Folayan is also a poet, having received poetry commissions from the University of Sheffield, from which she received a masters of science in international social change and policy in 2019, and the Royal Academy of Arts, per LinkedIn. She earned her bachelor of science in sociology and education studies from Oxford Brookes University in 2018.

Her ultimate goal is to become a professor and “impact evaluation consultant.”

“Inspired poetry”

Curiously, Dr. Folayan’s “Inspired Poetry” approach does not routinely attempt to reproduce verbatim the words her participants uttered in her interviews. Instead, she funnels those words through a creative process that communicates the women’s “thoughts, patterns and feelings” and captures what she subjectively felt constituted their “essence.” She draws on other scholars’ research and her interview transcripts and then crafts poems around the elements she “felt were important.”

The poems born out of this process then become a new research text that can supposedly reveal even greater intellectual insights.

At no point during this exercise is there an independent check capable of determining whether anything true or useful had actually been discovered—or if it’s pure projection on her part.

But Dr. Folayan did indeed face an independent check: her thesis viva, as the PhD oral examinations are called in the U.K. The review panel included Dr. Arday. We don’t know what went on beyond those closed doors except that they granted her a PhD and validated this thesis as her final product.

And then the thesis was sealed in a vault guarded by the author herself—minus a little over two weeks earlier this summer when the embargo lapsed—for what is now set to be six years all told. Is this the sort of transparency Vice-Chancellor Prentice spoke of when she sought to reassure the Cambridge community about the investigation into Dr. Arday? Will Dr. Arday’s approval of this thesis be a part of that investigation? Or will the embargo thwart such an inquiry?

In her thesis, Dr. Folayan also notes her “somewhat noble motivations,” while revealing, remarkably for someone seeking a doctorate, that writing a thesis was not her preferred medium. She says she underwent the academic task “because of the requirements of the institution in which I hold space.” She states, “If I had it my way, this thesis would be a performance, and all my academic prose would be pauses and platitudes in poetry, but Cambridge does not afford me such privilege, so I opt for Critical Poetic Inquiry.”

Dr. Folayan herself seems incredulous that she’s getting away with writing activist poetry for her education PhD thesis, saying that “yes, this is a thesis, and somehow poetry is an acceptable form of academic inquiry and theorisation.”

She even explains that she was initially drawn to Critical Qualitative Inquiry (of which, according to her, Critical Poetic Inquiry is a subset) because it was a form of “activist research” that was, in part, “concerned with perceived academic rigour.” In other words, she did not prioritize actual academic rigor, just the perception of it in order to achieve her activist goals.

Dr. Folayan is brazenly candid about her rejection of such rigor. She opens with a so-called positionality statement—academic throat clearings that have become de rigueur in social-justice-oriented academia in which the author lists their various racial, gender, socioeconomic and sexual identities—quoting other scholars that her project “does not align with notions of ‘neutral’ research or ‘objective’ researchers.”

She rejects what she calls the “fantasy of objectivity,” and makes evident she believes the utter lack of objectivity resulting from her positionality actually makes her work more, not less, credible. This is because she rejects what she refers to as “Coloniality’s Epistemic Regime,” which is the “colonial power dynamics [that] permeate societies to repress epistemologies that exist outside of coloniality’s frame of reason and rationality.” This repression manifests as “marking criteria, rubrics and journal requirements that favour written knowledge over that which is communicated creatively (i.e. through painting or performance)” and also as “notions that knowledge must be scientifically tested and proven to meet coloniality’s contorted standards of fact.”

While it’s important and valid to acknowledge researcher bias in qualitative research, acknowledging such bias is not the same thing as controlling for it to help establish whether one’s interpretation is true.

Undergirding the thesis’s ideological framework is Dr. Folayan’s proudly defiant rejection of conventional scholarly standards and constraints. She shields her work from criticism by aligning herself with scholars who refuse “to privilege contemporary epistemic modes [of knowing] over Indigenous sciences and epistemes” and favors methodologies that are not “dictated by coloniality’s standards of knowledge production.” She claims the “ambiguity around this project’s status as an acceptable academic work” is a result of it being situated in a colonialist institution. She says her project is “conscious of the confines created by institutional expectations and academic assumptions yet refuses to adopt them.”

Perhaps her clearest effort to reject academic standards while having her academic cake and eating it too, so to speak, comes in her assertion: “Project and product thus remain unsegregated, and my method has not been determined by rigid academic definitions as being an acceptable form of research. My mode of research has been characterised by a refusal to give into the knowledge standards of coloniality which, as noted by Sriprakash et al. (2022), function to uphold White-dominance and hierarchical social orders.”

This thesis produces a paradox: Cambridge is awarding its highest academic credential to a project whose author openly presents accepted academic standards as oppressive constraints to be undermined and resisted. To paraphrase her thesis title, Dr. Folayan wants to be of Cambridge—receive her doctorate—but never adhere to this elite academic institution’s epistemic standards, even as she complains that she feels out of place in this very institution.

Dr. Folayan’s purported “contribution to knowledge” is the discovery of two previously unexplored forms of “marronage”: traveling to London to find community and holding potlucks. London becomes a “historic foothill of escape,” while potlucks are theorized to be an extension of “the maroon tradition of seeking protection in the landscapes of territories ruled by European powers.”

There is good reason to believe that black women at Oxbridge can feel isolated. Blacks comprise only an estimated 3 percent to 4 percent of the undergraduate students accepted at Cambridge and just under 1 percent of the academic staff (actual black professors are even rarer)—a disparity that Cambridge apparently sought to rectify by hiring Dr. Arday, his subpar qualifications notwithstanding. And it’s entirely likely that spending time with friends in London or eating familiar foods with likeminded individuals would make such women feel more at home. Those certainly seem like resonant emotional experiences, potentially worthy of documentation in some forum. But Dr. Folayan devotes tens of thousands of words in a PhD thesis saying that she feels out of place at Cambridge and likes leaving campus to find her place elsewhere and enjoy comfort food.

Simply attaching the vocabulary of slavery to the most ordinary of human interactions does not constitute an argument, analysis, or a new empirical discovery.

As an institution, Cambridge appears to have been incapable of distinguishing between scholarship and a literary act of self indulgence. And astonishingly, the university has sanctioned an exceptionally long embargo that has permitted the contents of this thesis to remain out of view into the next decade.

If there is to be a true reckoning at Cambridge to understand what internal rot Dr. Arday’s interrupted tenure signified, breaking the embargo and taking a hard look at this thesis might be a good place to start.

But that might prove inconvenient to the vice-chancellor’s preordained conclusion that the Arday affair is a mere isolated incident.

This article was originally published on ’s Substack. Subscribe below.

Hazard Ratio: Benjamin Ryan

Independent health and science journalist Benjamin Ryan's Substack focuses on pediatric gender medicine in particular.

If you enjoyed this free article, please consider upgrading to a paid subscription or making a recurring or one-time donation below to show your support. Reality’s Last Stand is a reader-supported publication, and your help is greatly appreciated.

Subscribe now

Share

If you enjoyed this article, you may also like…

Reality’s Last Stand is a reader-supported publication. Please consider becoming a paying subscriber or making a one-time or recurring donation to show your support.

Subscribe now

About the Author

Taylor Trandahl spent years running high-profile digital marketing campaigns in Hollywood before joining conservative media nonprofit PragerU in 2020. There he helped launch and grow Amala Ekpunobi’s YouTube channel to over 2.5 million subscribers as creative producer. He now serves as Executive Producer for her independent media and comments on culture, faith, and current events on YouTube, X, and Instagram.

I live in Nashville, where half a million people recently signed a petition to stop a data center from being built near the zoo. People are worried that it will jeopardize the safety of the animals, waste water, drive up electricity prices, and cause a host of other problems.

All of that sounded really bad, so I decided to look into these claims. But the more I did, the more the opposition began to look like panic rather than reasoned argument. And I’ve started to think the same may be true of the broader data-center debate unfolding across the country, where 7 out of 10 Americans now oppose having a data center built in their area.

It’s not hard to understand why. Almost everything I had heard about data centers framed them negatively.

I had never heard, for instance, that in the small town of Quincy, Washington, tax revenue from data centers helped pay for a new high school, sports complex, hospital, library, police station, and fire department. Data centers created enough jobs to employ 10 percent of the town’s population and helped reduce its poverty rate from 30 percent in 2012 to 6.2 percent in 2024.

I had never heard that teachers in Richland Parish, Louisiana, received $50,000 bonuses thanks to increased tax revenue driven by data centers.

I didn’t know that Loudoun County, Virginia—the “data center capital of the world”—had created 15,000 jobs, increased school budgets by tens of millions of dollars, and poured resources into police and fire departments, libraries, parks, community centers, roads, bridges, child-protection services, and mental-health services—all while cutting property taxes every year for the past decade.

In Ellendale, North Dakota, annual sales-tax collections were about $400,000 before the data-center buildout. In the first seven months of 2026 alone, the town took in $3.5 million. That windfall allowed the small town of 1,100 people to repave its streets, renovate its senior center, and fund public safety, while local restaurants, gas stations, and hotels saw revenues rise by as much as 30 percent. Property values also increased tenfold, while residents’ electric bills fell by an average of $250 per household thanks to the state’s revenue-sharing law.

I didn’t know that for every one of the several hundred jobs created to operate a data center, another six to seven jobs are created elsewhere in the economy—meaning that the data centers employing 900 people in Quincy are responsible for five or six thousand additional jobs around the country.

I also didn’t appreciate that “data center” is actually a bit of a misnomer. The term makes them sound like ominous warehouses where evil tech companies store our information so they can spy on and control us. In reality, data centers are part of the physical backbone of the modern economy. The videos you stream, the photos you save in the cloud, the apps on your phone, and the systems that keep hospitals, banks, and small businesses running all depend on them.

Just last week, pharmaceutical company Moderna’s stock price surged after it announced progress on what has been described as a literal “cancer vaccine”—an incredible medical breakthrough made possible in part by AI technology powered by data centers.

At this point, you’re probably thinking this is starting to sound like a propaganda piece for data centers. What about the zoo animals? What about wasting water? What about driving up electricity prices? Fair enough. So let’s talk honestly about the downsides.

First: water. It’s true that many data centers require considerable amounts of water for cooling—roughly 164 billion gallons per year nationwide. That is a lot—until you put it in context. Golf courses use an estimated 500–750 billion gallons annually, residential lawns around 3 trillion gallons—yes, with a “T”—and agriculture roughly 43 trillion gallons. Agriculture accounts for about 90 percent of annual U.S. water consumption. Data centers account for just 0.14 percent.

There’s another important distinction to make. Older data centers are more likely to rely on evaporative cooling, which consumes water without returning it directly to the local water supply. Many newer facilities, including the one proposed near my home in Nashville, instead use closed-loop, recycled-water, or air-cooling systems that can dramatically reduce water consumption.

What about electricity? After all, it’s well established that data centers are power hogs. But so far, researchers have found no statistically significant impact on residential electricity bills when costs are properly allocated. Developers work with local utilities and regulators to determine whether the grid can accommodate the additional demand. Data centers also pay “large-load tariffs” designed to offset the costs they impose on the system. In some cases, their enormous demand can actually spread the grid’s fixed costs across more customers and lower residential electricity bills.

President Trump also recently expanded the voluntary Ratepayer Protection Pledge, under which major technology companies and utilities commit to covering the costs of new power generation and grid infrastructure required by AI data centers rather than passing them on to residential customers. The pledge is voluntary rather than a binding regulation, but participating companies appear to be following it in both spirit and practice.

Then there’s noise. Here in Nashville, one of the biggest concerns is that zoo animals such as clouded leopards, which can be sensitive to mechanical noise, could be disturbed by the persistent hum of data-center cooling equipment. That strikes me as a perfectly reasonable concern.

But here the evidence is lacking on both sides. The zoo has offered no “specific evidence that data centers would pose a unique problem” for its animals. At the same time, the company cannot definitively demonstrate that the animals would not be adversely affected.

For its part, the developer has promised to keep noise levels below the limits required by local zoning codes and to implement additional measures, including acoustic planning and sound walls. It’s also worth noting that, on the decibel scale, “data centers are a bit louder than libraries and a bit quieter than pickleball courts.” The proposed site is also located in an industrial park beside a major railyard and is already home to a smaller data center.

Given these facts, I’ll leave judgment to you—and to the courts now litigating the company’s case against the city of Nashville. But whatever the outcome, the issue is anything but black and white.

Other concerns about data centers include light pollution, their land footprint, and their generally unattractive appearance. But lighting can be reconfigured relatively easily. As for land use, U.S. data centers are projected to occupy a total area roughly the size of Rhode Island by 2030. For comparison, the land currently used to grow corn for ethanol—which may actually be environmentally worse than the gasoline it replaces—already covers an area roughly the size of New York State.

And yes, data centers may not be pretty to look at. But what major infrastructure is? I’m not arguing that one should be built in every suburban enclave. That’s what zoning is for. Local governments can concentrate data centers in industrial areas and impose reasonable requirements on their design, lighting, landscaping, noise, and appearance.

This debate has also emerged at a strange economic moment. People on both sides of the political aisle are decrying an “affordability crisis” in which grocery prices have surged by more than 30 percent since 2019, the home-price-to-income ratio has risen to nearly twice its historical benchmark, and 49 percent of American families lack the resources to cover their essential expenses.

But the affordability crisis is really a symptom of a deeper economic malaise. Cumulative inflation is up 30 percent since 2020. The national debt just crossed $40 trillion—about $116,800 for every person living in the United States. The federal deficit has reached $1.8 trillion this year alone. Social Security and Medicare are projected to face insolvency within the next decade.

So how does America climb out of this economic hole? How do we bring prices down, raise living standards, and make life more affordable again?

I don’t think anyone has the complete answer. But I’m fairly certain we won’t get there by building less infrastructure, enabling less innovation, surrendering technological competitiveness, and generating less economic growth.

The simple reality is that data centers are among the most valuable economic investments a modern city, state, or country can make. Yes, they use a lot of water and electricity. Yes, they can be noisy and unattractive. But most of these problems can be managed through good planning—and what, realistically, is the alternative?

In the early nineteenth century, nobody had ever traveled faster than a galloping horse. Anti-railway “experts” warned that traveling at more than 20 or 30 miles per hour could cause brain damage, paralysis, suffocation, miscarriage, blindness, and even spontaneous psychotic breaks. Railway surveyors faced organized obstruction, sabotage, riots, and physical beatings. Aristocrats funded propaganda campaigns, anti-railway activism, and legal efforts to halt construction.

I can’t help but think of these historical parallels when I see Nashville responding to today’s data-center panic by attempting to retroactively seize the company’s land through eminent domain—even though the company legally purchased the property and received regulatory approval to build. And while the public concern is certainly real, it’s not entirely organic: recent reporting has discovered that China is spending billions on foreign-influence campaigns designed, in part, to stoke American opposition to AI infrastructure.

Now, let me take off my Big Tech shill hat for a moment: I honestly don’t love any of this. I’m not much of a tech nerd. I don’t love the AI revolution, and I have serious concerns about what it could mean for society and for our humanity. I work in the social-media world, so I’m probably more familiar with the downsides than most. There are days when I’d gladly unplug from the algorithms, throw away my smartphone, and go live the way human beings were “meant” to live—whatever that means.

But for better or worse, this is the time in which we live.

One of my favorite escapes from my Internet-saturated brain is reading and rereading J.R.R. Tolkien. In The Fellowship of the Ring, Frodo Baggins, despairing that he has been unwillingly swept up in the affair of the Ring, tells Gandalf: “I wish it need not have happened in my time.”

I often think of Gandalf’s reply: “So do I, and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us.”

At the end of the day, make up your own mind. I’m not some die-hard data-center booster, and I don’t particularly care if we differ in opinion on whether they are a net benefit or not. Nobody is paying me to say any of this. What bothers me is watching misinformation and irrational fear push people toward policies that may ultimately leave them—and everyone else—worse off in the long run.

So yeah, if I have to decide what to do with the “time given me” on this particular issue, I generally come down in favor of building data centers.

Now that you have the facts, you can decide for yourself.

If you enjoyed this free article, please consider upgrading to a paid subscription or making a recurring or one-time donation below to show your support. Reality’s Last Stand is a reader-supported publication, and your help is greatly appreciated.

Subscribe now

Share

If you enjoyed this article, you may also like…

Reality’s Last Stand is a reader-supported publication. Please consider becoming a paying subscriber or making a one-time or recurring donation to show your support.

Subscribe now

About the Author

Frederick Prete teaches neurobiology at Lake Forest College. He received his PhD from the University of Chicago, where he ran a laboratory studying the neurophysiology of praying mantis visual systems, and he has taught in both biology and psychology departments. His work has been published in a variety of academic journals, including Science, the Journal of Experimental Biology, and the Journal of the History of Biology.

He has also written for online publications including Quillette, Minding the Campus, the James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal, and the Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism, often on the history of biology, academia, and education. He has published two edited volumes in neurophysiology and behavior, including The Praying Mantids, published by Johns Hopkins University Press. He is currently Director of the Haptic Research Lab at Lake Forest College, where the lab develops haptic-enhanced mobility aids, including white canes, for people who are blind or low-vision. More information is available at www.hapticinsight.org.

When I ask people what they know about the praying mantis, the most common answer—by far—is that the female eats the male during sex. In an informal survey I conducted at the University of Chicago and at Roosevelt University, 149 psychology students were shown a picture of a mantis and asked to write down one fact they knew about it. Of all the responses, “the female eats her mate” came up far more often than any other. The mantis’s cryptic appearance, its extraordinary hunting behavior, its remarkable visual system—none came close. Clearly, what most people think they know about the praying mantis is that it’s a sexually motivated cannibal.

Despite its erotic allure, however, the widespread belief that sex and cannibalism are linked in the mantis is wrong. To understand why—and why the belief persists—you have to go back a very long way. Not just to the 1886 article in the prestigious journal Science that is usually blamed for starting the modern myth. Much further. Back four thousand years, to ancient Mesopotamia, Egypt, and China, where the stories that shape our beliefs about this fascinating insect first emerged.

A Divine Creature

In the ancient world, the praying mantis was understood primarily through its posture. The insect holds its raptorial forelegs raised in front of its body in a way that, to human eyes, looks unmistakably like an attitude of prayer. Across the Middle East, Africa, and Europe, this posture inspired a persistent set of beliefs about the mantis’s spiritual nature. Ancient Sumerian cuneiform texts from the ninth century B.C. called it the “necromancer” and the “soothsayer of the field.” In Egypt, as early as 1550 B.C., the mantis appeared in The Book of the Dead as a minor deity, the “Bird-fly,” who guided the souls of the dead to the afterlife. The ancient Greeks named the insect mantis—meaning “prophet”—for its supposed ability to point lost travelers toward home, a legend repeated in European natural-history texts well into the seventeenth century.

The cultural contrast with the Far East is striking. In China and Japan, where the mantis had been carefully observed for centuries, the insect was celebrated not for its piety but for its ferocity. Ninth-century Chinese poets used the mantis as a metaphor for boldness; by the tenth century, mantids were being kept for organized fighting contests, a sport popular enough to produce its own monographs and a thriving trade in specialized equipment. While Europeans were writing about the mantis’s helpfulness to lost children, the Chinese were wagering money on how quickly one could dismember its opponent.

A Reputation Reversed

The Western reputation for mantid gentleness began to erode in the mid-eighteenth century. The first blow came from the German painter and naturalist August Johann Rösel von Rosenhof (1705–1795), who placed several mantids together in a glass jar for observation and found, to his astonishment, that they attacked one another with ferocious intensity, the victor invariably devouring the vanquished. More alarming than the fighting itself was Rösel’s finding that the mantids continued to kill and eat one another even when supplied with an abundance of other, perfectly adequate food.

The second blow came from an account involving a Mr. Dorthes, an entomologist traveling in France with the naturalist James Smith, whose observations were recorded in Smith’s 1807 travel narrative. Having placed a male and female mantis together in a bottle, Dorthes watched the pair mate, after which “the larger and stronger [female] . . . devoured the head and upper part of the body of her companion. But the most wonderful circumstance is, that a subsequent union took place; the life and vigor of the male being unimpaired by the loss of his head, as that part is not in insects the seat of the brain: this was no sooner concluded than his insatiable mate ate up the rest of his body!”

These accounts spread rapidly through the popular and scientific literature, displacing the image of the pious mantis and replacing it with something darker. They were repeated by virtually everyone who wrote about mantids, often juxtaposed with the older, kinder characterizations—as if the insect had two sides to its character, one gentle and one savage. George Shaw’s General Zoology of 1806, for instance, recorded both the legend of the mantis guiding lost travelers home and Rösel’s account of mantids fighting like hussars with sabers, cleaving opponents asunder with a single stroke.

The general distaste with which mantid cannibalism was viewed is evident in the widely read and influential Introduction to Entomology, written by the natural theologians William Kirby (1759–1850) and William Spence (1783–1860). Among the indirect benefits derived from insects, Kirby and Spence counted the fact that many species, by feeding on others, help keep insect populations in check. But however beneficial it might be to eat unrelated insects in excess numbers, eating one’s own kind was another matter entirely. “But before I quit this subject,” they wrote, “I may call your attention to what may be denominated Cannibal Insects, since in spite of those disclaimers who would persuade us that man is the only animal that preys upon his own species, a large number of insects are guilty of the same offence.” Prominent among them was the “cowardly and cruel” mantis, which appeared to engage in cannibalism out of sheer wantonness, even “when in no need of other food.”

The famous French naturalist Georges Cuvier (1769–1832), in his Animal Kingdom, reiterated the reports of Rösel and others and added his own assessment. The mantis, Cuvier wrote, was an anomalous insect with a fundamentally malevolent disposition—cowardly in that it would flee from an ant while freely destroying helpless flies. Most importantly, Cuvier restated the central claim that had by then become conventional wisdom: “They are so cruel and carnivorous that (even as hatchlings) they kill and eat one another, without being compelled to do so by hunger.”

The Birth of the Modern Myth

By the early nineteenth century, then, mantid behavior was understood as having two distinct components, corresponding to the two sides of the mantis’s character: it ate small prey for ordinary nutrition, and it ate its own kind out of viciousness. This framework was firmly in place by the time mating-related cannibalism became a subject of serious discussion, and it shaped how those new observations were interpreted.

The story as most people know it today traces back to a 500-word anecdote published in 1886 in the journal Science by the entomologist Leland O. Howard. Howard described witnessing a female mantis bite off a male’s head during mating. The observation was brief and the sample size was one, but the story spread with extraordinary speed and tenacity.

What gave the observation its staying power was not its scientific rigor. It was how neatly it fit into an explanatory framework that had been building for more than a century. The mantis was already understood as an insect of dual character—pious on the outside, murderous within. Mating-related cannibalism was not a puzzling anomaly; it was confirmation. It slotted perfectly into a way of thinking about the insect that stretched back to Rösel’s jar and, before that, to the ancient legend of the mysterious creature that prayed.

The most influential popularizer of this view was the French entomologist Jean Henri Fabre (1823–1915), whose vivid and widely read Souvenirs entomologiques described mantid mating in the most dramatic terms. Fabre observed females consuming males and interpreted what he saw as an expression of some deep, primitive female nature. “Manners were not gentle in those epochs, which were full of lust to destroy in order to produce,” he wrote; “and the Mantis, a feeble memory of those ancient ghosts, might well preserve the customs of an earlier age.” Of the females he observed, he wrote: “I have seen the same Mantis treat seven husbands in this fashion. She admitted all to her embraces, and all paid for the nuptial ecstacy with their lives.” And of the moment of decapitation itself: “I have seen the thing with my own eyes, and I have not yet recovered from my surprise.”

Fabre’s prose was influential enough to set the terms of the debate for decades, despite the fact that his methodology was essentially nonexistent. He described what he saw under highly artificial conditions—captive animals in unfamiliar environments, crowded together and often hungry—and from those observations drew sweeping conclusions about the nature of the species.

The Headless Husband

The Dorthes account, combined with Fabre’s observations, prompted a question that turned out to be scientifically productive, even if it began from a flawed premise: How was it physiologically possible for a decapitated male mantis to continue mating? The neurophysiologist Kenneth Roeder investigated this question in the 1930s and found a real answer. In male mantids, the nerve ganglia that control copulatory movements are located in the abdomen, not the head. Decapitation does, however, remove the brain’s coordinating influence over those ganglia, producing more vigorous and prolonged copulatory movements in a headless male than in an intact one—analogous to the vigorous, undirected running of a freshly decapitated chicken.

This was a genuine finding. The problem was what happened next: it was interpreted not as an interesting neurophysiological fact about the organization of the insect nervous system, but as evidence that decapitation had evolved as a functional component of mantid mating. The female, it was argued, bites off the male’s head specifically to improve the efficiency of copulation—a grim but elegant solution to a reproductive challenge. This explanation was immediately and widely accepted.

What went largely unheeded was Roeder’s explicit argument against this interpretation. He pointed out that mating-related cannibalism occurred in only a minority of cases, and that the conditions under which it was most likely—captivity, crowding, and food deprivation—were artifacts of the laboratory, not features of mantid life in the field. Cannibalism, he argued, was neither a regular nor a necessary part of mating behavior.

But he was ignored.

In truth, mating-associated cannibalism was simply one instance of a broader, more mundane behavior. Mantids of every age and sex eat one another under ordinary predatory circumstances—a fact well documented since Rösel’s jar. What happens between mates is more specific, and stranger, than the myth allows. In some cases, the female simply catches and eats an approaching male before he ever gets the chance to mount her, exactly as she would any other prey. Sometimes, when mounting does occur, she reaches back to remove the perturbance, grabs the male’s head—the only part she can reach—and pulls it forward into her jaws. She continues eating through the head and into the thorax until what remains is too short for her to grip, at which point she lets go. The abdomen and stub of thorax that remain stay mounted on her, still copulating. That image—a headless, half-eaten male continuing to mate—was the genuinely startling observation at the center of the whole controversy.

Roeder’s neurophysiological model carried real institutional weight. He was among the founding figures of American neuroethology, and an explanation bearing his name was not easily set aside. But the decapitation model was not the only part of his legacy that would reinforce the sexual-cannibalism myth. There is a coda to this part of the story that never made it into the published record.

The 1959 paper that became the standard reference on what praying mantids actually recognize as prey—Rilling, Mittelstaedt, and Roeder’s “Prey Recognition in the Praying Mantis”—grew out of an experiment Susan Rilling conducted as a student in Roeder’s lab. She made a series of simple paper lures, all roughly fly-sized, some fitted with artificial wings, and dangled them on strings in front of tethered mantids to see which ones provoked a strike. Every lure she built was fly-like. She never tested anything shaped like a mantid, another insect, or anything larger. Unsurprisingly, the mantids readily struck at the fly-sized lures, and Rilling concluded that fly-sized objects are what trigger a mantis’s prey-catching response.

By Mittelstaedt’s own account, he and Roeder did not think the experiment was worth publishing: its design was too narrow to support the conclusion Rilling wanted to draw from it. In a letter to my research assistant years later, Mittelstaedt recalled that Rilling nagged the two of them until they finally agreed to publish it—that she clamored for entrance into immortality, as she viewed it. The paper was published in 1959, and because its senior coauthors were already leading figures in neuroethology, it carried an authority the experiment itself did not deserve. Nonetheless, for the next three decades—until my own research at the University of Chicago—Rilling’s paper stood as the only systematic word on what praying mantids identify as prey.

Taken together, Roeder’s neurophysiological model and his student’s behavioral study gave the two prevailing theories everything they needed to lock together into a single, self-consistent account: ordinary predatory behavior is triggered by fly-sized objects, while cannibalism is a separate, nonpredatory sexual behavior that exists to elicit vigorous copulatory behavior from the male. Roeder himself had intended neither finding to support that interpretation. His model of decapitation was meant as a narrow, mechanistic account of ganglion function, not a theory of sexual selection, and he had explicitly argued against treating mating-related cannibalism as regular or necessary. But once his authority and his student’s experiment were read together, the combination took on a teleological cast that neither result, on its own, was meant to support.

Once that interpretation took hold, everything that failed to fit it dropped out of the literature. Reports of male-on-male cannibalism, female-on-female cannibalism, cannibalism among sexually immature mantids, and even the ordinary predatory case of a female eating a male outside a sexual encounter—all common enough in the eighteenth- and nineteenth-century literature—quietly disappeared from later accounts. What remained was a two-part story: predatory attacks on fly-sized prey, and sexual cannibalism by adult females. Everything else became functionally invisible.

What the Evidence Actually Showed

By the mid-twentieth century, evidence against the prevailing theory had quietly accumulated. Field observers found mating-related cannibalism far harder to document in the wild than laboratory studies suggested, while researchers who varied captive conditions found that well-fed, uncrowded females rarely cannibalized their mates at all—a relationship between hunger, stress, and cannibalism that the ruling theory had little reason to examine. Just as neglected was the sheer breadth of the mantid diet: frogs, lizards, small birds, mice, snakes, turtles, and insects of every kind. That range sat uneasily with the idea that mantids had evolved specifically to catch flies—an idea that owed less to any study of wild predation than to the historical convenience of feeding captive mantids flies.

None of this was, strictly speaking, new information. Reports of mantids taking prey far larger than flies had appeared periodically since the mid-eighteenth century and continued throughout the twentieth. But they appeared mostly in the ecological literature, where field researchers documented mantids as opportunistic predators of whatever prey happened to be available, rather than in the neurophysiology and behavior literature that had absorbed Roeder’s and Rilling’s work.

For decades, the two bodies of research ran on separate tracks, each largely unread by the other. Ecologists cataloguing mantids eating birds, mice, and lizards were not in conversation with laboratory researchers building experimental paradigms around fly-sized lures and decapitated ganglia, and the divide was never bridged. Meanwhile, it was the sexual-cannibalism story—vivid, faintly lurid, and endlessly retellable—that captured the field’s imagination, not the more mundane finding that mantids are generalist predators that eat whatever they can catch.

The dichotomy between normal fly-catching and abnormal, sexualized cannibalism survived as long as it did partly because the evidence that would have dissolved it was being published in a different literature, for a different audience, and was never brought into the same conversation as the story everyone already wanted to tell.

A Ruling Theory

The concept of the “ruling theory”—drawn from the geologist T. C. Chamberlin—describes what happens when a hypothesis becomes so deeply embedded in a field’s assumptions that contradictory evidence can no longer dislodge it: confirming observations are taken as confirmation, while disconfirming ones are dismissed as anomalies. Mantid research became a case study in exactly this. Two mutually reinforcing theories—that the mantis has a normal, fly-catching side and an abnormal, cannibalistic side, and that cannibalism of mates is a specialized reproductive strategy rather than ordinary predation—created a framework so internally coherent that, in practice, it became impossible to disconfirm.

If a mantis ate a fly, that was normal. If it ate a mate, that was special. No observation could challenge the distinction, because the distinction itself explained everything.

What the Mantis Actually Is

The most defensible interpretation of the evidence is also the least dramatic: the praying mantis is a generalized, opportunistic predator. It eats what it can catch and subdue—neither a specialized fly-catching machine nor an insect with a mysterious cannibalistic dark side, but an animal pursuing available prey with the tools it has across an unusually wide range of prey types and sizes.

Cannibalism occurs in mantids, as it does in many predatory species, when conspecifics are available, predators are hungry, and alternative prey is scarce. It is not a behavioral specialty, not an intrinsic feature of mating, and not an expression of some ancient, primitive female nature. It is opportunistic predation, no more and no less—and the fact that we have spent centuries interpreting it otherwise says more about our own storytelling than about the insect.

The myth of the sexually cannibalistic mantis is a remarkable case study in how science can go wrong. It begins with genuine observations that were genuinely surprising. It passes through generations of storytellers—priests, poets, naturalists, neurophysiologists—each of whom found in the insect a reflection of something they already believed. It survives not because the evidence supports it, but because the framework surrounding it renders disconfirming evidence invisible. And it persists today, in every classroom where a student is told that the female praying mantis eats her mate, as if that were a simple fact about the natural world rather than a story we have been telling ourselves for four thousand years.

This essay is adapted from: Prete, F. R. & Wolfe, M. M. (1992). “Religious supplicant, seductive cannibal, or reflex machine? In search of the praying mantis.” Journal of the History of Biology, 25(1), 91–136.

See Steven Pinker Live This September

Join Steven Pinker for an evening of wide-ranging conversation about language, human nature, rationality, and progress, followed by questions from the audience. Whether you are a longtime reader or simply curious about his work, this North American tour offers a rare chance to hear one of today’s leading public intellectuals discuss and develop his ideas at length.

Tickets available here, or click the banner below.

If you enjoyed this free article, please consider upgrading to a paid subscription or making a recurring or one-time donation below to show your support. Reality’s Last Stand is a reader-supported publication, and your help is greatly appreciated.

Subscribe now

Share

If you enjoyed this article, you may also like…

Reality’s Last Stand is a reader-supported publication. Please consider becoming a paying subscriber or making a one-time or recurring donation to show your support.

Subscribe now

About the Author

Joe Figliolia is a policy analyst at the Manhattan Institute where he writes about ethics, society and culture with a particular focus on pediatric gender medicine. His writing has appeared in City Journal, The Dispatch, and the New York Post, among others. Figliolia earned an MA from NYU’s Center for Experimental Humanities.

The conceptual foundations of youth gender medicine embrace several contentious assumptions about the nature of gender dysphoria and cross-sex identification. A recent paper in the Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, however, provides an important clinical corrective to some of the dominant cultural narratives surrounding “gender diversity.”

As the authors point out, clinical practice for trans-identified youth is often shaped by activist-driven assumptions that can overshadow—and flatten—the clinical complexity of individual patients. As recent malpractice suits lay bare, these ideological tenets can override nuance and stated guardrails, with potentially lifelong consequences for patients.

In Exploring the Psychological Mechanism of Transition and Detransition, researchers Lal and Levine draw on thirty-seven retrospective autobiographical accounts from detransitioners to propose several overlapping developmental and psychological pathways that may contribute to trans-identification. The proposed mechanisms include social contagion, neurodevelopmental disorders, dissociative responses to sexual abuse, distress over same-sex attraction, and fears surrounding adult sexuality and sex stereotypes.

This developmentally nuanced and psychologically rich approach to case formulation stands in marked contrast to that of many “affirming” clinicians, who often take self-declared identities at face value, treating them as innate and immutable. Lal and Levine, by contrast, argue that trans-identification may function more as an idiom of distress—a culturally available framework through which diffuse psychological distress is interpreted and expressed. In this way, the study challenges central tenets of the gender-affirmative model, deepens our understanding of the clinical needs of trans-identified patients and detransitioners, and makes the case for new clinical models that can better conceptualize and address the factors contributing to trans-identification.

Crucially, nearly all study participants reported that social and institutional forces played a role in their initial transitions, lending support to concerns about social contagion in the rapid rise of transgender identities in recent years, particularly among young people.

Notably, some participants compared gender ideology to a “mimetic virus.” They described learning about transition through online forums and being socialized into the tenets of “gender ideology” through interactions with both peers and adults.

Participants also reported that their exposure to gender ideology was not confined to the digital world but extended into schools, where it was sometimes actively reinforced by staff. “Several participants described school environments where social transition was actively encouraged by staff, sometimes overriding parental hesitation,” the researchers noted. In this account, schools can function as another stop on what critics have called “the transgender conveyor belt”—a network of institutional practices, professional guidance, and laws that tip the scales toward “affirmation.”

Another transition pathway emerging from the interview data involves the relationship between neurodevelopmental disorders such as autism and ADHD and self-appraisals related to one’s “gender.” Notably, one-third of the sample reported a neurodevelopmental diagnosis.

In retrospect, participants with autism diagnoses believed that their traits such as black-and-white thinking, sensory sensitivities, and social difficulties were sometimes misattributed to gender dysphoria. Some also suggested that adopting a transgender identity and entering a rule-based community with relatively clear social expectations helped mitigate social challenges associated with autism. Similarly, some participants with ADHD reported that gender transition itself became a “hyperfixation” that provided mental stimulation and a concrete goal to work towards.

A second, overlapping pathway emerging from the autobiographical accounts involved transgender identification as a dissociative response to sexual abuse or trauma. Nearly half the sample (N = 17) suggested that this played a role in their transition. Participants often reported that transitioning was motivated less by a strong desire to be perceived as the opposite sex than by a desire to escape their own sex. One female participant, for example, described how her transition was catalyzed by profound discomfort with the sense that her body was “on display” for boys and men.

These themes dovetail with another pathway identified by the researchers which involves a fear of adult sexuality and gendered expectations (N = 12). Among boys in this subgroup, most described their transition as a “flight from manhood” and, in some cases, as a way to suppress a sexuality they regarded as “inherently evil” because of pervasive negative stereotypes about masculinity. Other boys and men felt unable to live up to masculine ideals and therefore concluded that they could not succeed as men by the stereotypical and regressive logic of “gender identity” theory.

Interestingly, another transition theme to emerge was that, for some young people, identifying as and transitioning to the opposite sex was perceived as less stigmatizing than openly acknowledging their same-sex attraction.

Eleven detransitioners identified with this theme, with one male participant remarking that he “100%” transitioned to avoid the shame he associated with homosexuality. A female participant similarly reported that being a “trans man” created less social friction than living as a masculine lesbian. These accounts echo critics such as Andrew Sullivan, who have long argued that the rise in trans identification is partly driven by the “conversion” of same-sex-attracted youth who have not yet matured into their adult sexuality.

The study also provides insight into potential mechanisms that may help maintain trans-identification, including “validation euphoria” and the sunk-cost fallacy. These mechanisms could help explain why reports of patient regret are often delayed for years. And while detransition is often assumed to be rare, the true rate among today’s cohort of trans-identified youth remains virtually unknown.

Lal and Levine’s interviews with detransitioners also help identify potential catalysts for identity change. Interestingly, each involved an event or consequence that disrupted participants’ earlier self-conceptions. This finding is consistent with observations from gender-critical clinicians, who note that patients often fare better when their attention shifts outward, away from an intense internal fixation with being perceived as the opposite sex. Reported catalysts included unexpected life events, losing “affirming” friends or communities—which exposed individuals to perspectives outside their previous social circles—and medical complications from transitioning.

Unfortunately, because because the accounts of detransitioners challenge the orthodoxy of the affirmative-care model, their considerable needs are often overlooked by the same institutions and communities that championed their initial transitions. In the interviews, participants described feeling abandoned by the medical establishment and ostracized by former trans peers, suffering psychological distress related to medicalization, and experiencing embarrassment and shame as they returned to living as their sex.

As part of recent settlement agreements with the Department of Justice, Texas Children’s Hospital, the Cleveland Clinic Foundation, and Connecticut Children’s have agreed to establish first-of-their-kind clinics dedicated to detransition care. While this is a step in the right direction, detransitioners’ needs will likely extend well beyond procedural reversals to include psychological, social, and community support.

Lal and Levine’s study has limitations, but it nonetheless provides valuable insight into what one cohort of detransitioners believes motivated their transitions, sustained their identities, and ultimately led them to reject the medical-transition pathway. As the authors note, qualitative research can also generate hypotheses for future quantitative studies. Taken together, the findings provide further support for critics who argue that the “affirmative” model is incompatible with clinical best practices and lacks the psychological and developmental nuance that should be fundamental to sound clinical care.

Of course, such reforms are easier said than done. The American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, and the National Association of Social Workers have largely embraced the activist premises underlying youth gender medicine. Those commitments are reflected in their practice guidelines, professional education and training standards, and, in some cases, continuing-education requirements.

Concerned practitioners and researchers should summon the courage to press for systematic reviews requirements in support of policy statements, ideologically balanced panels when such policies are developed, and full transparency regarding conflicts of interest among committee and panel members. More fundamentally, these disciplines must move away from justifying experimental interventions on the basis of identity claims or civil-rights imperatives and recognize that distress, not identity, is the proper object of treatment.

See Steven Pinker Live This September

Join Steven Pinker for an evening of wide-ranging conversation about language, human nature, rationality, and progress, followed by questions from the audience. Whether you are a longtime reader or simply curious about his work, this North American tour offers a rare chance to hear one of today’s leading public intellectuals discuss and develop his ideas at length.

Tickets available here, or click the banner below.

If you enjoyed this free article, please consider upgrading to a paid subscription or making a recurring or one-time donation below to show your support. Reality’s Last Stand is a reader-supported publication, and your help is greatly appreciated.

Subscribe now

Share

If you enjoyed this article, you may also like…

Reality’s Last Stand is a reader-supported publication. Please consider becoming a paying subscriber or making a one-time or recurring donation to show your support.

Subscribe now

About the Author

Dr. Colin Wright is an evolutionary biologist, a Manhattan Institute fellow, and the CEO and editor-in-chief of Reality’s Last Stand. His work focuses on the science and public policy of sex and gender. His writing has appeared in The Wall Street Journal, the New York Post, Newsweek, City Journal, The Washington Examiner, and other leading news outlets and scientific journals.

What’s going on with women’s basketball?

Within the span of about a day, two former NBA players announced that they intend to enter the 2027 WNBA draft. Yes, the “W” NBA, where the W stands for “Women’s.” The first to announce his intentions was Enes Kanter Freedom, a 6-foot-10, 250-pound center who played in the NBA for 11 seasons and averaged 11.2 points and 7.8 rebounds per game. Then, on the heels of Freedom’s announcement, Royce White, a 6-foot-8, 270-pound former Houston Rockets first-round pick, announced similar plans.

Were these men struggling internally for years before feeling safe enough to announce their true female identities? Pride Month in June would have been an optimal time to do that. No, these men are instead making a timely political point. Freedom, in a video posted on X, said that after reviewing the eligibility guidelines, he was declaring himself a WNBA draft prospect. White was even more explicit, telling Fox News, “I’m just having a blast in my feminine era.”

How we got here requires some explanation. Oddly enough, the path runs through Sophie Cunningham’s index finger.

During a June 22 game between Cunningham’s Indiana Fever and her former team, the Phoenix Mercury, WNBA star Caitlin Clark received a technical foul following an altercation with DeWanna Bonner. Cunningham responded by pointing insistently at Bonner, coupled with a skeptical and accusatory stare, seemingly demanding to know why Bonner had not also been assessed a technical. She kept pointing. And pointing. For about 22 seconds. The video got clipped and went viral on social media, where it escaped its original context and took on a meme life of its own.

By then, ESPN had already interviewed Cunningham for a lengthy feature. The viral finger-pointing episode had elevated her profile and turned her into one of the WNBA’s most recognizable personalities. The interview was released on July 21 and included Cunningham’s never-before-known views on males who identify as women competing in women’s sports. Cunningham wanted to “protect young girls” who should not be forced to compete against “biological men.” She harbored no hatred of transgender people, she said, but believed we can treat people with kindness while still being honest about sex differences. The following day, after her response had been officially drafted into the culture war, reporters gave her an opportunity to walk back or soften her remarks. “I said what I said,” she told them, while adding that her position was “common sense.”

Cunningham immediately transformed into one of the most prominent athletes calling to protect women’s sports. Her remarks set off a fight that the WNBA had mostly managed to avoid.

Minnesota Lynx coach Cheryl Reeve then shared her views. “I come from a space of inclusion,” she said, arguing that the transgender-athlete issue was being blown out of proportion. “We need to protect trans kids,” Reeve added. “To me, it’s a human rights issue.” She later wore a shirt reading “Trans Kids Belong” during Minnesota’s game against Indiana. Golden State Valkyries forward Gabby Williams went even further: “I would welcome a trans athlete on my team or against my team, anytime.” She characterized objections as “another way to kind of attack trans people” and described transgender rights as “the next battle we have to fight as athletes.”

The debate then entered the stands. When two 16-year-old girls attending a Seattle Storm game displayed signs thanking Cunningham for speaking up for girls, Storm minority owner Celeste Keaton confronted the teenagers and used profanity toward them. The Storm apologized, and the WNBA later fined Keaton and suspended her for five home games. Some Storm players also reportedly directed thumbs-down gestures at the girls.

All of this led to enhanced scrutiny over the WNBA’s eligibility criteria. Many sports organizations such as the International Olympic Committee, World Athletics, and World Rugby have tightened up their rules with explicit language after experiencing significant controversy with male athletes vying for inclusion. The WNBA is, obviously, supposed to be a women’s league. Its collective-bargaining agreement says that “players who are women” are eligible, though it contains no additional language about whether “women” refers to sex, gender identity, or a natural or medicalized physiological state. This is likely because the WNBA has yet to face a serious test case—until now.

On declaring himself eligible for the 2027 WNBA draft, Enes Kanter Freedom said, “If simply declaring who you are is all that’s required, then I meet every single requirement necessary to compete in the WNBA.” Royce White, since his announcement, has been describing himself as a “sometimes identifying transgender woman” and even a “Black trans lesbian with a penile aesthetic.”

It’s easy to call for inclusion, or feign ignorance about what a woman is, or claim not to know the purpose of women’s sports when presented with abstract hypotheticals. But the WNBA has just been presented with two very real, very large, and very male test cases.

Their declarations have been dismissed by many as “stunts.” And in one sense, of course, they are stunts. Neither Freedom nor White genuinely believes he is a woman with sudden desires to come out of retirement and play professional women’s basketball. They are deliberately creating a spectacle.

But stunts can be effective in highlighting absurdity and forcing clarity—in this case, about where the WNBA truly stands on transgender inclusion. Either the league blocks these men from playing, revealing that it understands what a woman is and why excluding males is necessary, or it lets them in, likely prompting a backlash so extreme that indifference on the “What is a woman?” question won’t be sustainable.

One common way to dismiss concerns about male athletes who identify as women participating in female sports has been numerical: no males currently play in the WNBA, so why obsess over a theoretical problem? This response takes no stand on the merits about whether male inclusion is fair; it only observes that it’s rare. That’s a strange premise on which to design the rules of a sport.

If, for example, a sport’s rules contained vague language about whether performance-enhancing drugs were permitted, and objections were made calling for clearer wording, those criticisms would not be answered by stating that only three athletes are taking those drugs. And, technically speaking, those athletes wouldn’t be cheating because they would be competing under the rules as written. That’s why good rules are written in advance to close obvious, exploitable loopholes before they become major problems or sources of embarrassment.

Freedom and White have opted for an accelerationist approach. Why tolerate badly articulated rules and wait for them to be exploited in the future when they can be easily fixed right now?

If Freedom and White are ineligible, the WNBA will have to explain why. If it’s because they are biologically male, the league will need to clarify this in the rules language. If, conversely, Freedom and White can play with the women, and all that matters is a person’s “gender identity,” then the league will need to make that explicit. If eligibility is more complicated, and depends on hormones, puberty, medical transition, or some other standard, that, too, will need to be stated clearly and justified.

In response to the announcements by Freedom and White, WNBA Commissioner Cathy Engelbert convened a task force of team presidents and general managers to discuss eligibility rules on August 12. The meeting apparently did not produce any clarification; discussions will continue over the “coming weeks and months,” the league says. However long that may take, the WNBA can no longer respond to concerns by asserting that only women are allowed to play in the women’s league. Everyone knows what the W stands for. The question—for some people, anyway—is how to define “woman.”

Most of us already know the answer. We’ll wait to see if the WNBA does.

This essay was originally published in City Journal on August 14, 2026.

See Steven Pinker Live This September

Join Steven Pinker for an evening of wide-ranging conversation about language, human nature, rationality, and progress, followed by questions from the audience. Whether you are a longtime reader or simply curious about his work, this North American tour offers a rare chance to hear one of today’s leading public intellectuals discuss and develop his ideas at length.

Tickets available here, or click the banner below.

If you enjoyed this free article, please consider upgrading to a paid subscription or making a recurring or one-time donation below to show your support. Reality’s Last Stand is a reader-supported publication, and your help is greatly appreciated.

Share

If you enjoyed this article, you may also like…

Reality’s Last Stand is a reader-supported publication. Please consider becoming a paying subscriber or making a one-time or recurring donation to show your support.

Subscribe now

About the Authors

Robert Deaner, PhD, is a Professor in the Department of Psychology at Grand Valley State University. His research uses an evolutionary perspective to illuminate sex differences and their portrayal.

Mike Lombardo, PhD, is a Professor Emeritus of Biology at Grand Valley State University. His research interests include the evolution of sports and throwing in humans and cooperation and behavioral ecology in birds.

The phrase “throw like a girl” is a crude stereotype, but, like many stereotypes, it contains more than a grain of truth. In fact, the sex difference in overhand throwing is one of the largest behavioral sex differences ever measured.

Psychologists typically express group differences in standard deviations. Among young children, boys outperform girls in throwing distance and velocity by about 1.5 standard deviations. The gap widens across childhood and adolescence. By late adolescence and adulthood, estimates are generally around two standard deviations or greater. Thomas and French’s classic meta-analysis remains a useful starting point for examining this sex difference.

A difference of two standard deviations is roughly the same magnitude as the familiar adult sex difference in height. It means that the average man throws as well as or better than about 98 percent of women.

The raw numbers make the point just as clearly. In one study of young adults, men threw a tennis ball at an average velocity of 29.4 meters per second, compared with 18.6 meters per second for women. In other words, the women averaged about 63 percent of the men’s throwing velocity. At elite levels, the sex difference remains large. In modern track and field competition, men throw the javelin about 30 percent farther than women despite using a heavier javelin. The sex difference in javelin performance is therefore substantially larger than the familiar male advantages in running and jumping events.

These are group averages, not rules about individuals. The distributions overlap, some girls and women throw extremely well, and training matters. Nonetheless, the sex difference is large, appears well before puberty, and generally increases with age.

* * *

In 2018, we published two review articles in The Quarterly Review of Biology. The first, Born to Throw, examined the ecological circumstances that may have favored the evolution of powerful human throwing. The second, On the Evolution of Sex Differences in Throwing, explored why throwing ability is so strongly sexually differentiated.

We argued that throwing probably first became important in threat displays and physical conflict and was later incorporated into hunting and power scavenging—that is, driving predators and other scavengers away from kills. Because males participated far more often in dangerous physical combat and more often in hunting, we proposed that selection for throwing-related traits was stronger in males.

Our claim was never that training and culture do not matter, that every boy throws better than every girl, or that girls and women should be discouraged from throwing activities. We argued only that the large average sex difference in throwing is partly innate.

Readers interested in a shorter account of the underlying research can read our article How Humans Became the Best Throwers on the Planet in The Conversation.

More recently, developmental biologist Anne Fausto-Sterling published Throwing Like a Girl: A Critique of Past Approaches and an Illustrated Proposal for a Path Forward in Biology of Sex Differences. Much of her article challenges our evolutionary account. We responded in a commentary published in Evolutionary Psychological Science. Free versions are available through Springer SharedIt and PsyArXiv.

Our disagreement is about throwing, but we think it illustrates something much larger: how Blank Slate thinking can persist even among researchers who readily acknowledge that nature and nurture interact.

Steven Pinker popularized the Blank Slate metaphor in his 2002 book The Blank Slate. In its most extreme form, the Blank Slate view holds that humans possess little meaningful evolved psychological structure and that culture and socialization therefore do nearly all the work in producing behavioral differences, including differences between girls and boys and between women and men.

Few serious scholars explicitly defend that position today. Instead, they say that nature and nurture interact.

Good. They do.

The problem begins when we ask what biology is actually allowed to explain.

See Steven Pinker Live This September!

Interested in learning more about The Blank Slate? This September, you can ask Steven Pinker about it yourself.

More than two decades after its publication, Pinker’s The Blank Slate remains one of the most important books ever written. Its central argument was simple: human beings are not infinitely malleable products of culture. We have a nature, shaped in part by evolution, and any serious attempt to understand society must begin by confronting the facts of human psychology rather than wishing them away.

That commitment to following evidence wherever it leads has defined Pinker’s career. This September, the Harvard psychologist and bestselling author will bring that approach to the stage for a series of live events across the United States and Canada.

Pinker will explore the ideas that have animated decades of his work—from human nature, language, and rationality to violence, progress, and the forces that shape modern society. He’ll also discuss themes from his latest book, When Everyone Knows That Everyone Knows.

These events offer something interviews and short lectures rarely can: the chance to hear Pinker develop his arguments at conversational length and then put your own questions to him during the audience Q&A. If The Blank Slate left you with questions—or convinced you that its warnings are even more relevant today—this is your opportunity to continue the conversation in person.

TOUR DATES: New York (Sept. 1), Boston area (Sept. 10), Chicago (Sept. 11), San Francisco (Sept. 12), Montreal (Sept. 13), and Toronto (Sept. 15).

Tickets and event details are available through Steven Pinker’s official tour website.

BUY TICKETS

Why Fausto-Sterling Matters

Fausto-Sterling is not an incidental figure in modern debates about sex. Her famous 1993 essay The Five Sexes helped popularize the idea that the familiar male-female binary is biologically inadequate. She proposed additional “sexes” based on intersex conditions and argued more broadly that sex should be understood as a continuum.

Those arguments became enormously influential. In our view, they also created lasting confusion by encouraging people to mistake variation in sexual development for evidence that biological sex itself is not binary. But when it comes to sexual reproduction, the distinction is straightforward: females are organized around producing ova and males around producing sperm. There is no third gamete type or reproductive role, and intersex conditions do not create one.

One of us has examined these arguments in an essay for Skeptic. Other evolutionary biologists, including Colin Wright, have also offered detailed treatments of the issue.

We will leave that debate there. In this essay, our dispute with Fausto-Sterling concerns a different question: Can an important behavioral difference between males and females be partly biological?

Fausto-Sterling emphasizes that nature and nurture are “entangled.” Fine. We agree. The problem is that after making this concession, she allows biology to explain essentially nothing.

Misrepresenting Our Evolutionary Argument

Fausto-Sterling portrays recent challenges to “Man the Hunter” as a serious problem for our hypothesis. Women, she argues, hunted more than traditional accounts acknowledged. She therefore concludes that the idea that women experienced less selection for throwing prowess needs to go “back to the drawing board.”

There is an immediate problem with this critique: hunting was not our primary evolutionary scenario. Combat was.

We said this explicitly. Both of our 2018 papers proposed that throwing first arose in threat displays and fighting and was later incorporated into hunting. Indeed, the abstract of Born to Throw states that “throwing first arose during agonistic interactions and was later incorporated into hunting by human ancestors.” This was not a stray speculation buried in a footnote. It was the central evolutionary scenario we proposed.

The evidence overwhelmingly indicates that physical aggression, lethal combat, and warfare are heavily male-biased behaviors. That part of our hypothesis therefore matters greatly.

Fausto-Sterling does not merely give combat too little attention. She effectively recasts our hypothesis as one centered on hunting and then attacks that version instead.

We cannot know whether this reflects careless reading or something less innocent. What we can say is that her readers are not given an accurate account of the hypothesis she claims to be criticizing. That is poor scholarship.

That said, hunting was an important secondary component of our hypothesis, so her treatment of that evidence deserves attention as well.

Woman the Hunter

A 2023 paper by Anderson and colleagues, The Myth of Man the Hunter: Women’s Contribution to the Hunt Across Ethnographic Contexts, received enormous publicity. After reviewing ethnographic descriptions of 63 foraging societies, the authors reported evidence of women hunting in 79 percent of them.

The finding quickly spread as evidence that “Man the Hunter” was a sexist myth, and Fausto-Sterling embraced it as a challenge to our evolutionary scenario.

There was, however, a serious problem. Roughly a year before Fausto-Sterling submitted her paper in 2025, a 15-author team—including numerous researchers with extensive experience studying hunter-gatherers—published Female Foragers Sometimes Hunt, Yet Gendered Divisions of Labor Are Real. The authors identified problems with sample selection and coding, as well as a more fundamental problem with what the 79-percent statistic actually measures.

The basic issue is easy to understand: asking whether women ever hunt is not the same as measuring how sexually differentiated hunting is.

Imagine a society in which 100 men hunt regularly and one woman hunts occasionally. If an ethnographer mentions her, that society can be coded as “women hunt.”

Technically true, but nearly useless for estimating the magnitude of the sex difference.

Hagen, one of the critique’s authors, illustrated the problem using individual-level records from a large cross-cultural dataset on foraging. Males accounted for the overwhelming majority of hunting records and about 99.7 percent of the recorded hunted meat.

The dataset was not designed to provide an unbiased global estimate, and Hagen emphasized several reasons for caution. Nevertheless, it vividly illustrates how little the binary variable “women hunt: yes or no?” tells us about the magnitude of the sexual division of labor.

Women sometimes hunt. Of course they do. But that does not mean hunting is not strongly sexually differentiated.

In sum, both components of our evolutionary scenario—male-male combat and hunting—remain highly plausible and are supported by substantial evidence.

What Happened to the Rest of the Evidence?

Fausto-Sterling’s treatment of the evolutionary evidence is only part of the problem.

Our 2018 argument did not rest on a handful of studies showing that boys throw farther and faster than girls. We reviewed evidence on throwing velocity and distance, accuracy and targeting, elite performance, training and sports experience, cross-cultural behavior, prenatal androgen exposure, shoulder and arm anatomy, and injury patterns.

Fausto-Sterling engages with only one part of that evidence: sex differences in children’s throwing.

Consider experience. Girls improve when they practice throwing. Of course they do. The important question is whether differences in experience explain most or all of the sex difference.

The evidence suggests they do not. In Does the Throwing “Gender Gap” Occur in Germany?, Ehl, Roberton, and Langendorfer studied German children partly because throwing sports were less culturally prominent there. Boys nevertheless displayed more advanced throwing patterns than girls. More strikingly, there was almost no overlap in throwing velocity, with a sex difference of roughly five standard deviations.

An especially informative study examined Aboriginal Australian children. Historical accounts suggested that Aboriginal girls and women had substantially more throwing-related experience than is typical in Western societies. The Aboriginal girls threw better than girls in several comparison samples. In other words, experience mattered. Yet Aboriginal boys still threw faster than Aboriginal girls. The sex difference was smaller than in U.S. samples but remained large, at about 1.4 standard deviations. Thomas and colleagues’ study of Aboriginal Australian children illustrates what a genuine interactionist account would predict: environmental experience can alter performance without erasing an underlying sex difference.

Then there is anatomy. Our review identified numerous sexually differentiated features of the shoulder and upper body that contribute, or plausibly contribute, to throwing performance. Consider just one: the glenoid fossa, the socket of the scapula where the upper arm articulates with the shoulder.

Across the eight adult samples we reviewed that measured glenoid height or breadth, males had larger dimensions in every case. The median sex difference was about 2.3 standard deviations—a very large difference, despite some overlap between the male and female distributions. Sex differences in glenoid dimensions can even be detected in young children.

No single finding proves our evolutionary hypothesis. What matters is the convergence of developmental, cross-cultural, performance, and anatomical evidence. Fausto-Sterling does not seriously grapple with that convergence.

Apparently It Can’t Be Innate If It’s Not Present at Birth

Fausto-Sterling makes an especially puzzling developmental argument when discussing the early emergence of the sex difference. She notes that throwing differences are “not there at birth, when infants cannot even lift their head.”

Well, yes.

Many evolved traits and capacities—such as walking and talking—are absent at birth and emerge only through development. An innate predisposition does not need to appear fully formed in a newborn. Genes regulate developmental pathways. Hormones act at particular stages. Bones and muscles grow. Nervous systems mature and respond to experience.

A newborn’s inability to throw therefore tells us essentially nothing about whether later sex differences in throwing are partly innate. Treating “not present at birth” as evidence against an evolved contribution confuses innateness with neonatal expression.

For a developmental biologist, that is a remarkable mistake.

Statistically Controlling Away What Needs to Be Explained

Fausto-Sterling makes another blunder in her use of statistical control.

She discusses Roberton and Konczak’s study of children’s overarm throwing, which measured developmental components such as humeral motion, trunk and forearm action, stepping, and stride. Once those components were entered into a regression model, sex explained little additional variation in throwing velocity. Fausto-Sterling highlights the authors’ description of sex as “redundant with developmental level.”

But this analysis describes the difference; it does not explain its cause.

Suppose we tried to explain the male-female difference in height by entering femur length, tibia length, and torso length into a regression. Once those components were included, sex would add little additional predictive power for total height. That obviously would not show that the height difference is nonbiological. It would merely identify the physical components through which the sex difference is expressed.

Ten Babies Cannot Settle the Question

Fausto-Sterling’s article also includes an empirical component: an exploratory analysis of ten infants—five boys and five girls—with especially detailed discussion of one boy and one girl. The five boys began active ball play at an average age of 9.7 months, compared with 12.1 months for the girls. Fausto-Sterling also observed more ball-related interaction in some mother-son dyads and uses these observations to illustrate how different experiences might send boys and girls down different developmental pathways.

The observations are interesting and may point to real environmental contributions. They cannot, however, answer the most important causal questions. Did mothers create the difference by treating sons and daughters differently? Did the infants differ in their attraction to balls and thereby elicit different responses from their mothers? Did both processes contribute?

Observations of ten infants cannot tell us.

More fundamentally, Fausto-Sterling treats developmental and evolutionary explanations as though they compete, when they should complement one another. A complete account must address both how a sex difference develops and why natural selection may have favored the underlying predispositions.

Children are not passive recipients of socialization. They seek out some experiences and avoid others, differ in what captures their attention, and may elicit different responses from parents. Parents, in turn, influence their children. Ridley captured this dynamic in the title of his 2003 book, Nature Via Nurture: biological predispositions often develop through experience rather than instead of it.

There is also a striking asymmetry in Fausto-Sterling’s standards of evidence. She questions whether studies of sex differences in children’s throwing across eight countries can support broad conclusions, partly because some samples were modest. By our calculation from the studies listed in her own Table 1, the median sample size was 160. Yet she is willing to draw theoretical lessons from a study of just ten infants, with much of the detailed narrative resting on only two of them.

Small samples, apparently, become more illuminating when they point in the preferred direction.

The Modern Blank Slate

This is where the throwing dispute becomes more interesting than throwing itself. Few scholars today explicitly embrace the strong Blank Slate. The standard language—including Fausto-Sterling’s—is interactionist: nature and nurture interact; genes and environments interact; biology and culture interact.

For many sex-and-gender scholars, however, this interactionist language amounts to little more than lip service. Again and again, reasonable observations about development or social influence are used to prevent biology from explaining much of anything.

A trait is plastic, so biology is discounted. Parents treat boys and girls differently, so parental behavior is presumed to have created the difference. Practice changes performance, so the original difference is treated as socially produced. Development mediates a difference, so developmental processes are treated as alternatives to evolutionary ones.

The premises may be true. In each case, however, the conclusion does not follow.

Consider nutrition. It strongly affects height, but no serious person concludes that the average sex difference in height is therefore socially created. Or consider walking. Experience helps children learn to walk, but habitual, efficient bipedal locomotion depends on evolved anatomy and developmental machinery.

Saying that nature and nurture are “entangled” is therefore correct, but it does not answer the question of what each contributes. Throwing provides one unusually clear example. Occupational interests provide another—and one that matters far more in ordinary modern life.

From Throwing to Occupational Interests

Throwing probably mattered greatly throughout much of human evolutionary history but matters relatively little for most people today. Occupational interests are almost the reverse. Our hunter-gatherer ancestors never had to decide whether to become computer programmers, carpenters, graphic designers, nurses, or elementary-school teachers. Yet the interests that shape such choices now have major practical consequences.

One of the largest and best-replicated psychological sex differences involves the people-things dimension. In their 2009 meta-analysis, Men and Things, Women and People, Su, Rounds, and Armstrong analyzed data from 503,188 people. Men showed greater interest in working with things, while women showed greater interest in working with people. The difference was nearly one standard deviation, and the sex difference in engineering interests was even larger.

More recently, Stoet and Geary analyzed the occupational aspirations of 473,260 adolescents across 80 countries and economic regions. In every country, more boys aspired to things-oriented and STEM careers, while more girls aspired to people-oriented careers. These differences also tended to be larger in countries with greater female empowerment.

Cross-national comparisons cannot settle questions of causation, but the recurrence of these differences across societies is difficult to reconcile with a socialization-only account.

Relevant differences also appear long before young people begin choosing careers. A meta-analysis of 75 studies found robust sex-typed toy preferences, while a longitudinal study by Kung found that gender-typed play at age three and a half predicted gender-typed occupational interests at age 13.

None of this proves that occupational interests are innate. Socialization begins early too.

Evidence consistent with a hormonal contribution comes from congenital adrenal hyperplasia, or CAH. Females with classic CAH experience unusually high prenatal androgen exposure. Beltz, Swanson, and Berenbaum found that females with CAH showed greater things-oriented interests than unaffected females, while Frisén and colleagues found that women with CAH were more likely than controls to work in male-dominated occupations, especially among those with the form associated with the greatest prenatal androgen exposure.

CAH cannot by itself establish the effects of prenatal androgens because the condition has consequences beyond hormone exposure, and sample sizes are necessarily modest. But when considered alongside the large population-level sex difference, its early developmental precursors, and its recurrence across cultures, the CAH evidence makes a purely socialization-based account increasingly difficult to sustain.

Biology Gets a Courtesy Mention

So how do scholars who describe themselves as interactionists, yet remain deeply skeptical of evolutionary explanations, respond to this evidence?

A 2021 exchange about sex differences in STEM provides a striking example.

STEM interests are not identical to the broader people-things dimension, but the connection is direct. Engineering, physics, and computer science are among the most things-oriented fields, and broad differences in occupational interests help shape who enters them.

In Men, Women and STEM: Why the Differences and What Should Be Done?, Stewart-Williams and Halsey argued that sex differences in career-related preferences—including people-things interests—reflect both biological and cultural influences and contribute to unequal participation in STEM.

El-Hout, Garr-Schultz, and Cheryan responded in Beyond Biology: The Importance of Cultural Factors in Explaining Gender Disparities in STEM Preferences. They accurately acknowledge that Stewart-Williams and Halsey’s position is interactionist: both social and biological factors contribute. They then write, “There are three reasons why we find the biological explanation troubling.”

From there, nearly all of their explanatory attention turns to culture: stereotypes, “masculine defaults,” belonging, classroom environments, self-promotion, and interventions intended to make STEM settings more attractive to women.

Much of this evidence is useful, even compelling. For example, high-school girls reported greater immediate interest in taking a computer-science course after encountering a classroom without stereotypically “geeky” cues. That shows that environmental cues can shift expressed interest. It does not show, however, that the effect persists, alters career choices, or explains the broader sex difference in occupational interests.

More importantly, evidence that environments can influence interests tells us nothing about whether innate predispositions also contribute. Yet this is the rhetorical implication of El-Hout and colleagues’ argument: evidence for social influence is treated as though it weakens the case for biological influence. The inference does not follow.

El-Hout and colleagues then make a different kind of argument: biological explanations may have undesirable social consequences. They warn that such explanations can reinforce stereotypes and describe them as “treading on dangerous ground.”

Some biological claims may indeed have undesirable social consequences, and that matters when scientists consider how to communicate their findings. But it tells us nothing about whether those claims are true.

Fine, Joel, and Rippon employ a similar strategy in their widely circulated essay Eight Things You Need to Know About Sex, Gender, Brains, and Behavior. Most of their cautions are valid: distributions overlap, brains are plastic, development is complicated, and environmental effects occur. But none of those observations shows that psychological sex differences are not substantially influenced by biology.

This is the recurring move. Begin with a sound observation about overlap, plasticity, development, or social influence. Then treat it as though it undermines the possibility of an innate biological contribution.

The premise is true. The implied conclusion does not follow.

Back to Throwing: What Evidence Would Count?

So let’s return to throwing and ask a more precise question: What evidence would refute—or at least substantially weaken—the hypothesis that the male throwing advantage partly reflects innate factors?

Suppose carefully controlled studies found that the sex difference disappeared once boys and girls received equivalent training and experience. Suppose the difference did not consistently appear across cultures. Suppose prenatal androgen exposure was unrelated to throwing-relevant behavior. Suppose males and females showed no systematic differences in anatomy relevant to throwing.

Would those findings weaken our hypothesis? Absolutely.

But much of the evidence points in the opposite direction. The male advantage appears across cultures, emerges early, persists even when training and experience are taken into account, and is accompanied by relevant anatomical and hormonal evidence. No single finding proves our hypothesis. Taken together, however, the evidence makes a socialization-only explanation difficult to sustain.

The researchers who produced this evidence deserve more than silence. Many spent years designing demanding developmental, cross-cultural, anatomical, hormonal, and training-controlled studies precisely to test whether socialization alone could explain the difference. Imagine doing that work, only to see Fausto-Sterling write about the same question as though the research does not exist whenever its findings are inconvenient for her argument. That is more than selective citation. It is a shabby and deeply disrespectful way to treat both the researchers and the evidence.

The Blank Slate Zombie

The strong Blank Slate—the idea that human psychology is largely written by culture—has been declared dead many times. Yet it refuses to stay dead. That is why we think of it as a zombie.

Today, biology is usually acknowledged. Nature and nurture interact. Fine. But the Blank Slate survives through two recurring moves. First, reasonable observations—that traits are plastic, parents influence children, experience matters, and development mediates behavior—are treated as though they rule out an innate contribution. They do not. Second, evidence that could challenge a socialization-only explanation is ignored, minimized, or sidestepped.

Fausto-Sterling uses both moves. Together, they make the Blank Slate effectively unfalsifiable—and therefore impossible to kill. That may be rhetorically effective, but it is not science. Science requires allowing evidence to overturn the story you would prefer to believe.

See Steven Pinker Live This September

Join Steven Pinker for an evening of wide-ranging conversation about language, human nature, rationality, and progress, followed by questions from the audience. Whether you are a longtime reader or simply curious about his work, this North American tour offers a rare chance to hear one of today’s leading public intellectuals discuss and develop his ideas at length.

Tickets available here, or click the banner below.

If you enjoyed this free article, please consider upgrading to a paid subscription or making a recurring or one-time donation below to show your support. Reality’s Last Stand is a reader-supported publication, and your help is greatly appreciated.

Subscribe now

Share

If you enjoyed this article, you may also like…

Reality’s Last Stand is a reader-supported publication. Please consider becoming a paying subscriber or making a one-time or recurring donation to show your support.

Subscribe now

About the Author

Dr. Colin Wright is an evolutionary biologist, a Manhattan Institute fellow, and the CEO and editor-in-chief of Reality’s Last Stand. His work focuses on the science and public policy of sex and gender. His writing has appeared in The Wall Street Journal, the New York Post, Newsweek, City Journal, The Washington Examiner, and other leading news outlets and scientific journals.

Steven Pinker’s The Blank Slate seems to have aged in reverse. It was published in 2002, though I read it in 2006 when I started developing an obsession with evolutionary psychology. At the time, I viewed it as the killing blow to blank slate psychology—the notion that human nature is purely a product of social construction. The book sat on my shelf all these years as a representation of an argument that had been definitively won. But after personally battling gender ideology and sex pseudoscience for almost a decade, it now represents a warning to society that went shamefully ignored.

The intellectual habits and belief systems Pinker criticized did not disappear. Instead, they infected neighboring fields, became infused with moral dogma, and then expanded from making claims about the mind to making claims about the body itself.

Blank slate psychology has a long history. John Locke once described the human mind as “white paper” drawn on by life experience. Twentieth century behaviorists were even more extreme. John B. Watson famously claimed that, given a dozen infants and full control over their environment, he could train any one of them to become a doctor, lawyer, artist, or thief, regardless of inherited traits. This confidence in the power of conditioning spread into psychology, education, and popular culture.

Pinker’s great achievement in The Blank Slate was not simply showing that genes matter, as many competent scientists have demonstrated before. Rather, it was exposing the way that fear of human nature had distorted entire fields of study. Many intellectuals seemed to believe that simply recognizing innate differences would somehow justify unequal treatment before the law or weaken the case for social reform. Pinker argued that scientific facts must be separated from moral judgments, because if you believe that equality under the law requires everyone to be biologically interchangeable, you’re hitching your moral commitments to empirical claims that are always only one experiment away from being proven false.

See Steven Pinker Live This September

Join Steven Pinker for an evening of wide-ranging conversation about language, human nature, rationality, and progress, followed by questions from the audience. Whether you are a longtime reader or simply curious about his work, this North American tour offers a rare chance to hear one of today’s leading public intellectuals discuss and develop his ideas at length.

Tickets available here, or click the banner below.

As an evolutionary biologist, I have always found the strongest version of blank slate psychology almost impossible to take seriously, because even the most cursory glance at nature shows it to be false. Put down the Women’s Studies journal article and look at data from our closest animal relatives. Simply knowing average body size differences between the males and females of a species can tell us a great deal about their likely current behavior as well as the evolutionary forces in the past that produced them. For instance, when males are a lot larger than females, as in gorillas, we generally expect intense competition among males for access to harems of females, and large differences in reproductive success as a result. When size differences are small or nonexistent, as in gibbons, we more often see males and females pairing up and less extreme competition among males. While this rule doesn’t hold in every case, it is a firmly established pattern with a sound evolutionary reasoning.

Humans did not emerge from outside nature. To believe that humans have somehow shed all our inherited tendencies requires one to hold that while every other animal has behavioral traits shaped by evolution, humans somehow lost them, only for our societies to recreate the same sex-related patterns through socialization. Why would evolution erase these tendencies only for culture to independently produce them in the same form? Why not just keep the evolved tendencies? I have yet to hear coherent answers to these questions.

Political pushback to this basic evolutionary reasoning is not new. When E. O. Wilson published Sociobiology: The New Synthesis in 1975, the vast majority of the book focused on nonhuman animals, where readers were presumably all nodding along to his sound and compelling arguments. But in the final chapter, he crossed what he later called the “guarded boundary” between the natural sciences and the humanities. The social justice activists of the era accused sociobiology of promoting racism, sexism, eugenics, and even genocide. At a 1978 meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, protesters poured a pitcher of water over Wilson’s head while chanting that he was “all wet.”

Shockingly little has changed since then. Human evolutionary psychology—especially when applied to sex differences—is still met with strong resistance. I hesitate to call human evolutionary psychology “controversial” because the notion of evolved psychological differences between the sexes is almost universally accepted as true among evolutionary biologists. The evidence is overwhelming. We’ve since moved on to asking and answering the relevant questions downstream of that fact, like which traits differ, how large those differences are, and how biology and culture might interact.

Socialization matters, of course. I don’t know any biologists who’ve ever claimed it doesn’t. But many feminist scholars and social scientists frequently portray culture alone as a complete explanation, but strangely only for the biological differences it finds ideologically inconvenient. Colette Dowling’s The Frailty Myth, for example, argued that the athletic advantage that boys enjoy over girls are mostly produced by culture and tried to argue that strength differences mostly disappear when men and women are matched for size and training. But this simply isn’t true. Controlling for body size, males have considerably more lean mass and much greater upper-body strength. That doesn’t mean training doesn’t matter, but it does not erase sexual dimorphism.

Given that we have more than enough data to debunk blank slate psychology many times over, why didn’t Pinker’s book and the quarter-century of data generated after its publication settle the debate once and for all? Unfortunately, academia is unusually good at shielding bad ideas from outside criticism. Most scientists are busy with their own research and assume that weak arguments will remain on the fringes. This was my mindset for years. I viewed sex pseudoscience as akin to belief in a flat Earth. I only spoke up once I realized how quickly it was gaining political influence and institutional protection. This was made possible by treating disagreement as a form of harm, which isn’t really a debate tactic available to flat-Earthers.

That was my experience after I published “The New Evolution Deniers” in 2018 and began challenging the widespread denial of biological sex differences beyond the brain. Blank-slate psychology had somehow mutated into blank-slate morphology. The older and more familiar claim was that male and female minds were basically identical until society imposed gender roles on them. The new claim was that the sexes themselves were infinitely malleable social constructs that can be altered through identity, language, hormones, or surgery.

Once a field becomes protected from criticism on moral grounds, it completely loses its “self-correcting” empirical anchor and begins to drift further from reality.

Pinker has taken a different path from mine. He has remained in academia and used the enormous credibility he has built over his career to defend reason, scientific truth, and open debate on volatile topics. He is Harvard’s Johnstone Family Professor of Psychology and a co-leader of the university’s Council on Academic Freedom. His work on psychology, language, human nature, and rational thinking makes him unusually difficult to dismiss as a crank.

Prominent dissenters make it easier for others to speak openly. An adjunct professor can often be quietly cancelled; Steven Pinker is much harder to silence. His calm demeanor and precise style also helps. I have tried to follow the same approach of prioritizing facts over rhetoric.

Some people on the right dislike Pinker because of his strong opposition to Donald Trump. But political tribe is the wrong place to draw the line. The more important divide is between people who try to discover what is true and people who attempt to bend the facts to conform to their ideological commitments. On that question, Pinker has been one of the most ardent and consistent defenders of truth out there, and he has done so from within institutions that desperately need internal resistance.

The Blank Slate remains essential reading because the impulse it challenged never disappeared. It may never disappear. Pinker understood early that denying human nature does not make society more moral or humane, because you cannot build a better society on a false theory of humanity.

See Steven Pinker Live This September

This September, Steven Pinker brings his ideas to the stage for a series of live events across North America. Drawing on decades of work in psychology, language, human nature, rationality, and human progress, Pinker will explore the major questions that have shaped his bestselling books and distinguished academic career.

These events offer something that interviews and short lectures rarely allow: the chance to hear Pinker develop his ideas at conversational length—and to put your own questions to him during the audience Q&A.

Whether you have followed Pinker’s work for years or are simply curious about one of today’s most influential public intellectuals, this is a rare opportunity to see his clear, evidence-driven style of thinking in action.

Tour dates:

September 1 — New York (TICKET LINK)
September 10 — Boston area (TICKET LINK)
September 11 — Chicago (TICKET LINK)
September 12 — San Francisco (TICKET LINK)
September 13 — Montreal (TICKET LINK)
September 15 — Toronto (TICKET LINK)

Tickets and event details are available through Steven Pinker’s official website.

If you enjoyed this free article, please consider upgrading to a paid subscription or making a recurring or one-time donation below to show your support. Reality’s Last Stand is a reader-supported publication, and your help is greatly appreciated.

Subscribe now

Share

If you enjoyed this article, you may also like…

Reality’s Last Stand is a reader-supported publication. Please consider becoming a paying subscriber or making a one-time or recurring donation to show your support.

Subscribe now

About the Author

Dr. Colin Wright is an evolutionary biology PhD, Manhattan Institute Fellow, and CEO/Editor-in-Chief of Reality’s Last Stand. His writing has appeared in The Wall Street Journal, The Times, the New York Post, Newsweek, City Journal, Quillette, The Washington Examiner, and other major news outlets and scientific journals.

Ashley Webb, a man who identifies as a woman and is running for the United States Senate in Maine in the wake of Graham Platner’s sudden withdrawal, went viral recently for promising that he would never lie to or deceive the public. The remark struck many viewers as ironic, given that Webb made it while wearing a dress, presenting himself as a woman, and expecting voters to address him as one.

But I think the more important question is not whether Webb is consciously deceiving anyone. While honesty and transparency are important, being sincere in one’s beliefs is not the same as possessing a sound and reasonable mind. A person can hold genuine beliefs that are wildly detached from reality.

Webb’s online public record reveals that his tether to reality is, at best, alarmingly tenuous, and I believe having a firm grasp of reality should not be viewed as optional for someone seeking one of the most powerful offices in the country.

Webb identifies not only as transgender but also as intersex. Earlier this month, he announced his run for the Democratic nomination in a post titled “Running Openly as Trans Intersex candidate for Senate in Maine.”

The account’s comment history contains some truly extraordinary claims.

Webb claims to ovulate. Webb also claims to experience a monthly period that began when he was 25. However, because Webb was born with “external male parts” rather than “the proper hole,” the supposed menstrual blood cannot leave through a vagina. Instead, Webb believes that a hidden female reproductive tract formed an “exit connection” with his colon, causing monthly rectal bleeding.

“When you don’t have the proper hole, it finds one of two exits,” Webb wrote. “My exit connection was made with my colon. Cause when I get this monthly pain, that is where the blood comes out of.”

Webb has not given any anatomical evidence for this claim. According to his other posts, colonoscopies have not found any such connection, while repeated CT scans have failed to reveal a uterus or ovaries.

Read more

Reality’s Last Stand is a reader-supported publication. Please consider becoming a paying subscriber or making a one-time or recurring donation to show your support.

Subscribe now

About the Author

James L. Nuzzo, PhD, is an exercise scientist and men’s health researcher. Dr. Nuzzo has published over 80 research articles in peer-reviewed journals. He writes regularly about exercise, men’s health, and academia at The Nuzzo Letter on Substack. Dr. Nuzzo is also active on X @JamesLNuzzo.

Diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) is not merely a set of workplace trainings or campus slogans. DEI is a political movement rooted in critical theory, intersectionality, and “social justice”—ideas that often begin from premises at odds with reality. The result is a worldview that does not merely fail to promote human flourishing, but actively obstructs it.

That obstruction comes at a cost.

A framework for understanding those costs can help explain the damage DEI has done, expedite its removal from institutions, and warn future generations against repeating the mistake. DEI imposes three broad kinds of costs: the cost of commission, the cost of omission,[1] and the cost of correction.

The Cost of Commission

The cost of commission is probably what most people think of first when they think about the price of DEI. It is the cost of doing DEI.

Some of that cost is financial. Between 2016 and 2024, the University of Michigan spent $250 million on DEI staffing and programs, with many DEI staffers earning between $152,000 and $416,000 per year. Federal agencies have spent billions more on DEI-related projects, including the Departments of Education, Defense, and Health and Human Services. And because DEI causes bureaucracy to bloat, it reduces institutional efficiency that creates indirect costs that are harder to measure but no less real.

DEI also creates unnecessary noise in systems. In academia, this has been achieved by lowering the bar for what counts as rigorous scholarship. Thousands of DEI-based papers are submitted to journals each year, further clogging an already overburdened and flawed peer-review system. Professors’ inboxes fill with requests to review weak papers dressed up in fashionable jargon. When those papers are eventually published, they pollute databases with junk research that other scholars must waste time navigating around.

But the costs of commission do not end there.

DEI policies and practices also harm human health and well-being. They include the physical and psychological harms caused by “gender-affirming care.” They include the injuries, lost medals, and lost opportunities suffered by women and girls forced to compete against male athletes. They include the damage done by public health authorities telling people that their health is almost entirely determined by “structural” forces, and feminist psychiatry telling boys and men that their struggles are the product of privilege and toxic masculinity.

DEI judicial activism is another costly act of commission. When judges influenced by critical legal theory treat criminals less harshly because those criminals occupy favored identity categories, the public becomes less safe. Take, for example, the case of a New York City woman who, after being assaulted by a black man, refused to cooperate with prosecutors because she did not want to see another black man go to jail. Weeks later, that same man killed an elderly man in the subway.

Human life, quite literally, can be one of the costs of DEI.

The Cost of Omission

The costs of commission are bad enough. But for every act of commission, there is usually an omission.

Omission means leaving something out, or failing to do something that should have been done. In the case of DEI, the cost of omission is the cost of all the things institutions did not do because they were busy doing DEI instead. It represents the counterfactual: the research not conducted, the students not taught, the time not spent on the actual mission of the institution.

Counterfactuals are hard to quantify because they concern things that never happened. Nevertheless, we can still speculate rationally about the kinds of losses DEI has imposed.

In academic research, the cost of omission includes the knowledge that was never produced because a government agency funded a DEI project instead of a more academically serious one. It includes the papers that were never published—or were delayed in publication—because their conclusions offended the ideological commitments of journal editors. And, in the most extreme cases, it includes the entire careers and research programs derailed because scholars were punished or cancelled for challenging DEI orthodoxy.

In teaching, the cost of omission is the insightful lecture students never heard because a professor was hired for ideological or demographic reasons rather than academic merit. It is the serious course material that was minimized, distorted, or crowded out to make room for DEI programming. It is the hours students spent completing ideological coursework instead of studying history, biology, economics, literature, mathematics, or any number of subjects that might have actually expanded their minds. One analysis estimated that undergraduates in the United States spend a combined 40 million hours fulfilling DEI course requirements.

Finally, there is the time lost by faculty and staff. In 2024, more than 4.1 million people worked as faculty or staff at American colleges and universities. If each spent just 30 minutes a year on DEI-related requirements, that would amount to more than 2 million hours annually diverted from other work. Even if the burden were only 10 minutes per person per year, the total would still be roughly 685,000 hours.

Those hours could have been spent grading papers, answering student emails, improving lectures, reading scholarship, writing papers, collecting data, analyzing results, or simply giving one’s mind a needed rest. Instead, they were fed into the DEI machine.

The Cost of Correction

The cost of correction is the time, money, and labor required to fix the problems DEI creates.

Correction is costly because it pulls people away from their usual productive work. The hours spent cleaning up DEI’s messes are hours not spent building, teaching, researching, writing, discovering, or creating something new. Correctors become institutional janitors, forced to spend their time cleaning up the ideological trash left behind by others.

Examples are everywhere. Individuals and organizations now devote enormous resources to correcting DEI-driven policies, such as Olympic rules allowing male athletes to compete in women’s sports. Others spend years challenging DEI’s legal overreach, including lawsuits over discriminatory hiring practices and the destruction of sex-based protections for women and girls.

Then there are the institutions created as alternatives to DEI-captured ones. Peterson Academy, the University of Austin, and the growing network of classical liberal schools all exist, at least in part, because so many existing educational institutions have been corrupted by DEI. The same is true of organizations founded to oppose DEI’s excesses, including Reality’s Last Stand, Do No Harm, The College Fix, and Critical Therapy Antidote.

Researchers pay this cost, too. They spend hours, days, and sometimes years correcting crazy DEI research that should never have passed peer review in the first place. Each week, Colin Wright and I devote many hours to this corrective work. But we are not alone.

Consider David Geary, a professor of psychology at the University of Missouri. In 2021, and again in 2025, Geary took time away from his usual research and teaching in evolution and cognitive development to write essays in Quillette exposing the blatant sex discrimination embedded in the World Economic Forum’s Global Gender Gap Index.

When serious scholars like Geary must spend their days on DEI clean-up duty, something valuable is lost. The public gains a necessary correction. But science loses the work those scholars might otherwise have done.

Residual Costs and the Clean-up Mission

DEI has imposed enormous costs through commission, omission, and correction. Some of the direct financial costs can be quantified. But many of the deeper costs are harder to measure: the wasted time, the institutional decay, the research never conducted, the careers derailed, the standards lowered, and the years now required to repair the damage.

And the costs are not confined to today and the past. They will persist for years.

In a recent analysis, I found that some aspects of DEI in academic articles appear to have peaked a year or two ago. But others have not. Even where the trend has started to decline, the prevalence of DEI language remains far higher than it was before 2019.

That means the institutional clean-up mission is far from over. Universities are now staffed by DEI-era hires who carry these assumptions into their teaching, research, mentoring, peer review, and administrative work. Even if formal DEI offices are dismantled, the ideology will live on inside departments, journals, classrooms, grant committees, and professional associations.

DEI has been a societal nuisance. It has wasted time and money, increased political polarization, lowered standards of performance and civility, and lied to people about the causes of their own circumstances.

None of this matches the image DEI activists like to project: empathy, kindness, inclusion, moral superiority. There is nothing especially empathetic, kind, or moral about uprooting the foundations of human freedom and flourishing and replacing them with lies, discrimination, and a return to tribal warfare.

Those engaged in DEI clean-up duty should not lose sight of the importance of the mission.

Thank you for supporting Reality’s Last Stand! If you enjoyed this article and know someone else you think might enjoy it, please consider gifting a paid subscription below.

Give a gift subscription

Share

If you enjoyed this article, you may also like…

Notes

[1] Credit to Victor Davis Hanson, who has referred to costs of commission and omission on his podcast: Victor Davis Hanson: In His Own Words. The cost of correction is my contribution to this framework for conceptualizing the broad costs of DEI.

Reality’s Last Stand is a reader-supported publication. Please consider becoming a paying subscriber or making a one-time or recurring donation to show your support.

Subscribe now

About the Author

Dr. Greg Brown is a professor of Exercise Science at the University of Nebraska at Kearney. His research focuses on the effects of nutritional supplements, physiological responses to exercise, and sex differences in sports performance. He has over 60 peer-reviewed publications and is an active member of several professional organizations, including the American College of Sports Medicine and the National Strength and Conditioning Association. He enjoys running, hunting, fishing, and spending time with his family. He and his wife, Amber, have two sons, one daughter in law, and a grandson.

The International Olympic Committee’s 2026 policy on protecting the female category acknowledges a basic fact: males retain substantial performance advantages across sports. But the IOC’s accompanying FAQ suggests that some precision sports, including shooting and archery, may be less affected by these differences.

At first glance, that seems plausible. Shooting and archery appear to reward skill, focus, and technique more than raw strength or speed. There is no sprinting, no jumping, no tackling, no collision. Just focus, control, and precision. So it is easy to assume that because these sports depend so heavily on skill, biological differences between males and females should matter little, if at all (Hamilton et al., 2021).

But that assumption does not match my experience.

I have been involved in shooting and archery since I was five years old. Across five decades, I have used air rifles, handguns, rimfire and centerfire rifles, shotguns, recurve bows, and compound bows in both recreational and hunting contexts. I have also taught archery, firearm safety, and shooting skills to youth and college students.

My academic and professional background is in human performance. I hold a bachelor’s degree in Physical Education, a master’s degree in Exercise Science, and a Ph.D. in Health and Human Performance. I also spent more than two decades as a professor of exercise science. Across all those settings—on the range, in the field, and in the classroom—I have observed the same pattern: even in sports that emphasize precision and technique, physical differences between males and females can meaningfully affect performance.

At first, those differences are not always obvious. Beginners in archery and shooting usually start in roughly the same place. Everyone has to learn stance, grip, aim, breathing, and follow-through. But with practice, certain patterns begin to emerge.

Some shooters can hold a bow at full draw or a pistol at arm’s length for longer periods without shaking, even after repeated shots. Others fatigue more quickly. And when fatigue sets in, accuracy declines.

These differences are often described as differences in “skill.” But they are not only skill. They are also rooted in anatomy and physiology.

Consider archery. Drawing a bow requires upper-body and shoulder strength. The archer must pull the bowstring backward against the resistance created by the bow’s limbs until reaching the anchor point. Then the archer must hold the string steady while aiming before releasing the arrow.

With a recurve or straight bow, resistance increases throughout the draw because the limbs bend farther as the string is pulled back. A compound bow works differently. Its system of pulleys and cables creates a “let-off” effect, reducing the amount of force required to hold the string at full draw.

But the let-off does not eliminate the strength requirement. A compound bow with a 70-pound draw weight may require only about 35 pounds of holding force while aiming. Yet the archer must still smoothly generate the full 70 pounds of force at some point during the draw.

Holding a bow at full draw is not passive. It is an isometric strength task. The muscles of the upper back, shoulders, and arms must remain contracted while the archer aims (Spancken et al., 2021; Zemkova & Zapletalova, 2022). Similarly, holding a pistol at arm’s length requires continuous stabilization from the shoulder to the hand while minimizing tremor (Mon-Lopez et al., 2020).

In both cases, the athlete is resisting movement rather than creating it. And that resistance depends directly on muscular strength and endurance.

On average, males have substantially greater upper-body strength than females, even before puberty, and that gap widens significantly afterward (Hunter et al., 2023; Joyner et al., 2025; Nuzzo, 2025; Nuzzo & Pinto, 2025). This matters because the same physical task imposes a different relative burden depending on the athlete’s maximum capacity.

A bow that requires 30 pounds of force to draw represents a much higher percentage of maximal strength for a weaker archer than for a stronger one. The same is true of holding a pistol steady over time. So while the equipment may be identical. The physical demand represents a greater challenge to females than males.

That difference in relative effort has a predictable consequence over repeated shots: fatigue.

Fatigue is the enemy of precision. As muscles tire, small oscillations increase, stability declines, and shot-to-shot consistency suffers. In archery, fatigue can appear as a loss of smoothness while drawing the bow, increased movement at full draw, or shaking arms that cause the arrow to rattle on the rest. Accuracy deteriorates accordingly.

In firearm shooting, fatigue may show up as a loss of smoothness when raising the weapon to shooting position, tremor in the sight picture, noticeable movement of the muzzle, or jerking of the trigger. Each can reduce accuracy. Even slight instability can produce measurable differences in performance, especially over repeated attempts (Lakie, 2010).

The same principle applies in sports like skeet and trap, where the shooter must shoulder a shotgun again and again. Tired muscles do not bring the gun into firing position as quickly or effectively. The result is that the shooter engages targets a fraction later, when they are slightly farther away and more likely to slip through gaps in the shot pattern.

Because males, on average, operate at a lower percentage of their maximum strength when shouldering a rifle or shotgun, holding a pistol at arm’s length, or lifting and drawing a bow, they are generally less susceptible to fatigue and better able to maintain consistency over time.

This is not a matter of effort or determination. It is a matter of physiology.

Equipment can amplify these differences.

In archery, greater strength allows an athlete to use a bow with a higher draw weight. Higher draw weights produce faster arrow speeds, flatter trajectories, and less sensitivity to small errors in distance estimation or environmental conditions such as wind. In practical terms, stronger archers can use equipment that is more forgiving. In Olympic archery, men typically use bows with draw weights of about 45 to 55 pounds, while women typically use bows in the 35- to 45-pound range.

But lowering the draw weight for female archers does not necessarily eliminate the physical difference between the athletes.

Suppose a male archer has roughly 40 percent greater upper-body strength. A 46- to 51-pound bow may still represent a lower relative demand for him than a 33- to 40-pound bow represents for a female archer. Using midpoint values, the male archer’s 48.5-pound draw weight is equivalent to about 34.6 pounds after adjusting for his strength advantage. The female archer’s 36.5-pound draw weight, by contrast, remains a direct demand on her available strength.

So even when equipment is scaled downward, the female archer may still face greater relative strain. That matters most over repeated shots, when fatigue, postural stability, and the ability to hold steady at full draw become increasingly important.

Body size also matters. Males are, on average, taller, heavier, longer-limbed, and have more lean body mass than females (Hunter et al., 2023; Joyner et al., 2025; Tucker et al., 2024). In archery, a longer draw length allows more energy to be transferred to the arrow, increasing arrow velocity. In shooting sports, greater body mass can improve inertial stability, making the athlete less affected by small perturbations and better able to tolerate recoil. A larger body also means that the same draw weight represents a smaller challenge relative to body mass, which should make repeated draws less fatiguing.

Recoil is another factor that is easy to overlook.

In firearm shooting, especially in disciplines involving repeated or rapid fire with shotguns or centerfire rifles, the ability to absorb recoil and return the firearm efficiently to the target is critical. This is not merely theoretical. Anyone who has finished four or five rounds on a trap range, taking 25 shots per round, knows that even light shotshell loads and a relatively soft-recoiling shotgun produce a substantial cumulative impact on the shoulder.

For larger athletes with greater muscle mass and strength, it is simply easier to tolerate and stabilize against that repeated force, resulting in more consistent performance over time.

The shotgun and load may generate the same free recoil energy for both shooters, but recoil is not experienced equally by all shooters.

Over a 125-shot trap session, cumulative exposure can reach roughly 2,250 to 2,500 foot-pounds of recoil energy. For a 5-foot-10, 200-pound male shooter, that may remain manageable across the session. For a 5-foot-5, 170-pound female shooter, the same recoil impulse may feel sharper and become more fatiguing as the shots accumulate.

So even when the equipment is identical, and even when the recoil is objectively “moderate,” the physical demand is not identical. Body size, strength, shoulder anatomy, and fatigue can make the same shooting event meaningfully more demanding for one shooter than another.

None of this suggests skill does not matter. Of course it does. Precision sports require fine motor control, concentration, repetition, and discipline. There is also substantial overlap between individuals, meaning many females outperform many males.

But overlap does not negate average differences. Nor does it erase the effects those differences can have on performance.

Participation patterns in these sports reflect some of these realities. Archery and shooting sports remain predominantly male, both recreationally and competitively. That is evident in industry demographics, media coverage, and the makeup of most shooting ranges and archery clubs. Many factors likely contribute to this imbalance. But the physical demands associated with strength, stability, and fatigue resistance may help shape both initial participation and long-term retention.

Efforts to increase female participation are worthwhile. But available evidence suggests that many girls and women value female-only sporting opportunities. Eliminating female-only categories in shooting sports is therefore unlikely to increase female participation. In some cases, it may discourage it.

These patterns are not incidental. They reflect the same underlying physiological differences that shape performance in these activities.

The better conclusion is this: sports like archery and shooting are not strength-dominated, but they are strength-influenced.

Stability, fatigue resistance, and equipment handling all contribute to accuracy. And all are shaped, at least in part, by physical capacity. Those capacities differ, on average, between males and females.

It is true that in some archery and shooting competitions, male and female scores may appear similar. At first glance, that might suggest sex does not meaningfully influence performance in these sports. But similar outcomes do not necessarily mean identical underlying demands.

Given well-established differences in muscle mass, strength, and body size, female athletes likely need to operate closer to their physiological limits to achieve the same steadiness and control. They may require greater technical adaptation, more refined motor control, or more deliberate strategies for managing fatigue and equipment constraints, including lower draw weights or recoil compensation.

In that sense, similar scores may reflect different physiological costs rather than identical performance conditions.

This fits with a broader body of research showing that males outperform females across a wide range of physical performance measures, including strength, power, and endurance (Brown et al., 2025, 2026a, 2026b; Hilton & Lundberg, 2021; Hunter et al., 2023; Joyner et al., 2025; Lundberg & Menickelli, 2025; Tucker et al., 2024). These differences are not confined to obvious power sports. They matter in any activity where physical capacity influences performance, even indirectly.

After years behind bows, rifles, and shotguns, one lesson stands out: what looks like pure skill is often skill expressed through the body.

And the body matters.

The target does not respond to intentions or beliefs. It reflects the interaction between technique and physical capacity. Precision is not the absence of strength. In many cases, it depends on it.

If you enjoyed this free article, please consider upgrading to a paid subscription or making a recurring or one-time donation below to show your support. Reality’s Last Stand is a reader-supported publication, and your help is greatly appreciated.

Subscribe now

Share

If you enjoyed this article, you may also like…

References

Brown, G. A., Shaw, B. S., & Shaw, I. (2025). Sex-based differences in shot put, javelin throw, and long jump in 8-and-under and 9-10-year-old athletes. Eur J Sport Sci, 25(1), e12241. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsc.12241

Brown, G. A., Shaw, B. S., & Shaw, I. (2026a). Sex-Based Performance Differences in Shot Put, Javelin, and Long Jump Among U.S. Youth Athletes Aged 10 Years and Under. J Strength Cond Res, 40(4), 451-459. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000005335

Brown, G. A., Shaw, B. S., & Shaw, I. (2026b). Sex Differences in Running Performance Among 8-and-Under and 9-10-Year-Old Children in US Regional Track Championships. Scand J Med Sci Sports, 36(3), e70251. https://doi.org/10.1111/sms.70251

Hamilton, B. R., Guppy, F. M., Barrett, J., Seal, L., & Pitsiladis, Y. (2021). Integrating transwomen athletes into elite competition: the case of elite archery and shooting. Eur J Sport Sci, 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1080/17461391.2021.1938692

Hilton, E. N., & Lundberg, T. R. (2021). Transgender Women in the Female Category of Sport: Perspectives on Testosterone Suppression and Performance Advantage. Sports Med, 51(2), 199-214. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-020-01389-3

Hunter, S. K., S, S. A., Bhargava, A., Harper, J., Hirschberg, A. L., B, D. L., K, L. M., N, J. N., Stachenfeld, N. S., & Bermon, S. (2023). The Biological Basis of Sex Differences in Athletic Performance: Consensus Statement for the American College of Sports Medicine. Med Sci Sports Exerc, 55(12), 2328-2360. https://doi.org/10.1249/MSS.0000000000003300

Joyner, M. J., Hunter, S. K., & Senefeld, J. W. (2025). Evidence on sex differences in sports performance. J Appl Physiol (1985), 138(1), 274-281. https://doi.org/10.1152/japplphysiol.00615.2024

Lakie, M. (2010). The influence of muscle tremor on shooting performance. Exp Physiol, 95(3), 441-450. https://doi.org/10.1113/expphysiol.2009.047555

Lundberg, T. R., & Menickelli, J. (2025). Sex Differences in Disc Golf Performance: Implications for Eligibility Criteria for Women’s Competitions. Eur J Sport Sci, 25(8), e70008. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsc.70008

Mon-Lopez, D., Tejero-Gonzalez, C. M., de la Rubia Riaza, A., & Calvo, J. L. (2020). Pistol and Rifle Performance: Gender and Relative Age Effect Analysis. Int J Environ Res Public Health, 17(4). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17041365

Nuzzo, J. L. (2025). Sex Differences in Grip Strength From Birth to Age 16: A Meta-Analysis. Eur J Sport Sci, 25(3), e12268. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsc.12268

Nuzzo, J. L., & Pinto, M. D. (2025). Sex Differences in Upper- and Lower-Limb Muscle Strength in Children and Adolescents: A Meta-Analysis. Eur J Sport Sci, 25(5), e12282. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsc.12282

Spancken, S., Steingrebe, H., & Stein, T. (2021). Factors that influence performance in Olympic air-rifle and small-bore shooting: A systematic review. PLoS One, 16(3), e0247353. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0247353

Tucker, R., Hilton, E. N., McGawley, K., Pollock, N., Millet, G. P., Sandbakk, O., Howatson, G., Brown, G. A., Carlson, L. A., Chen, M. A., Heron, N., Kirk, C., Murphy, M. H., Pringle, J., Richardson, A., Santos-Concejero, J., Christiansen, A. V., Jones, C., Alonso, J. M.,…Lundberg, T. R. (2024). Fair and Safe Eligibility Criteria for Women’s Sport. Scand J Med Sci Sports, 34(8), e14715. https://doi.org/10.1111/sms.14715

Zemkova, E., & Zapletalova, L. (2022). The Role of Neuromuscular Control of Postural and Core Stability in Functional Movement and Athlete Performance. Front Physiol, 13, 796097. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2022.796097

Reality’s Last Stand is a reader-supported publication. Please consider becoming a paying subscriber or making a one-time or recurring donation to show your support.

Subscribe now

About the Author

Dr. Colin Wright is an evolutionary biology PhD, Manhattan Institute Fellow, and CEO/Editor-in-Chief of Reality’s Last Stand. His writing has appeared in The Wall Street Journal, The Times, the New York Post, Newsweek, City Journal, Quillette, The Washington Examiner, and other major news outlets and scientific journals.

Within minutes of the Supreme Court’s decision allowing states to protect girls’ and women’s sports, the headlines arrived in formation.

“Supreme Court Allows States to Bar Transgender Athletes From Girls’ Sports,” said the New York Times. According to NPR, the Court had upheld “bans on transgender athletes participating in women and girls’ sports.” Reuters claimed the Court had cleared the way for “transgender sports bans.” The BBC, NBC, ABC, ESPN, USA Today and others all settled on some version of the same phrase: transgender athletes banned from sports.

They know they’re lying. We know they’re lying. And they know that we know they’re lying.

Let’s be clear: the Supreme Court did not “ban transgender athletes from sports” this week. It didn’t even ban transgender athletes from women’s sports. The Court simply allowed states to pass laws that restrict girls’ and women’s sports to female athletes, which is the entire point of having a female category in the first place. The decision has nothing to do with identity or pronouns. The disputed trait is sex.

You can test this easily.

Read more

Reality’s Last Stand is a reader-supported publication. Please consider becoming a paying subscriber or making a one-time or recurring donation to show your support.

Subscribe now

About the Author

Dr. Colin Wright is an evolutionary biology PhD, Manhattan Institute Fellow, and CEO/Editor-in-Chief of Reality’s Last Stand. His writing has appeared in The Wall Street Journal, The Times, the New York Post, Newsweek, City Journal, Quillette, The Washington Examiner, and other major news outlets and scientific journals.

For years, we were told not to worry about pediatric gender medicine because it was vanishingly rare. Puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones, we were assured, were reserved for a tiny number of carefully assessed children with severe and persistent distress.

But when new data show that these treatments aren’t so rare, the same defenders suddenly change their tune: the numbers are no longer reassuring because they are small; now they are reassuring because they are large. More children receiving medical transition means that a previously hidden population finally feels safe enough to pursue the care it has always needed. Higher cross-sex identity persistence after social transition or administering puberty blockers means the interventions were obviously appropriate.

Any outcome, it seems, can be interpreted as proof that “gender-affirming care” is successful. But this is not how evidence-based medicine is supposed to work. This is how an ideology protects itself from falsification.

The latest example comes from Oregon. As Benjamin Ryan first reported, a new study in Research Connections analyzed insurance claims for 868,740 insured Oregon adolescents ages 8 to 17 from 2016 to 2023. The data cover roughly 80 percent of insured Oregonians. The figures were shocking.

By age 17, roughly one in 240 insured Oregon girls was taking testosterone, and about one in 630 boys was taking estrogen. Across all ages in the study, about 1 percent of insured Oregon youth had a gender-related diagnosis. For girls, the figure was 1.5 percent.

These aren’t nationwide numbers. Oregon is an unusually progressive state with an unusually supportive legal and insurance environment for pediatric gender medicine. But they give us a glimpse of what happens when supporters of child transition receive little to no pushback.

The study’s authors don’t view the numbers as alarming. They still describe medical transition as “rare” and emphasize that access remains “limited” even in Oregon. They suggest that the state’s supportive policy environment likely contributed to greater access, while “structural and systemic barriers” may still be holding treatment rates down.

Whatever the data, they support the affirmative model. If the rates are low, that proves the panic is overblown. If the rates are high, that’s evidence that access is improving. If the rates rise, that means stigma is declining. If they don’t rise enough, that means barriers remain. Heads they win, tails you’re a bigot.

This pattern shows up again and again. Years ago, when critics warned that puberty blockers appeared to function less as a “pause button” and more as the first step on a nearly automatic pathway to cross-sex hormones, defenders insisted that persistence meant the children had been properly selected. But if administering puberty blockers changes the likelihood that a child will persist in rejecting their sex from about 15–20 percent to more than 97 percent, then persistence isn’t proof that the child’s transgender identity was fixed all along—it’s evidence that the intervention made permanent what would have been ephemeral.

Kenneth Zucker, one of the world’s leading experts on childhood gender dysphoria, has warned that even social transition is not a neutral act. Changing a child’s name, pronouns, clothing, and social identity is a psychosocial intervention. It may reduce distress in the short term, but it also seems to increase the likelihood that a child’s cross-sex identity persists into adolescence, when puberty blockers and hormones are put on the table.

That possibility should haunt the field. Instead, it is dismissed.

Consider a new Canadian study, published in the Journal of Adolescent Health and shared by pediatric psychiatrist and gender medicine proponent Jack Turban on social media. Researchers examined 445 adolescents referred to gender clinics. After a median follow-up of 2.4 years, 97.1 percent still identified as transgender or nonbinary, and only 1.1 percent of those who started cross-sex hormones stopped taking them. The study presents this as reassuring evidence that adolescent transgender identity is extremely stable, and that concerns about regret and potential detransition are overblown.

The same logic appeared in response to the Oregon data. Trans activist Ari Drennen said on X that it “should not be shocking” that 0.4 percent of 17-year-old girls in Oregon are chemically transitioning. But it is shocking. If one in 240 girls aged 17 in a state were receiving any other powerful intervention for a new psychiatric diagnosis that permanently deepened their voice, caused them to grow beards, altered their sexual function, and affected their fertility, no serious person would shrug and say, “Sounds about right.”

At some point, defenders of pediatric gender medicine must answer several simple questions: What result would make you reconsider? Would it be one in 100 girls on testosterone? What about one in 50? What rate of regret or detransition is too high? Would you accept that as evidence that suicidality and mental health don’t improve after treatment? How many systematic evidence reviews must conclude that the evidence of benefit is extremely weak while the risk of serious harm is significant?

We should have insisted on answers long ago, before we ever started performing this medical experiment on children—not after the results come in, when activists have had ample time to devise post hoc explanations about why the latest horrific finding is actually wonderful news.

Falsifiability is a basic principle of science. No claim that can be supported by every possible outcome has any business being called scientific or “evidence-based.”

This essay was originally published in City Journal.

If you enjoyed this free article, please consider upgrading to a paid subscription or making a recurring or one-time donation below to show your support. Reality’s Last Stand is a reader-supported publication, and your help is greatly appreciated.

Subscribe now

Share

If you enjoyed this article, you may also like…

Reality’s Last Stand is a reader-supported publication. Please consider becoming a paying subscriber or making a one-time or recurring donation to show your support.

Subscribe now

About the Author

Benjamin Ryan is an independent journalist, specializing in science and health care coverage. He is a contributor for The New York Times, The Guardian, NBC News, The Free Press, and The New York Sun. He has also written for the Washington Post, The Atlantic and The Nation, among many others. Follow him on X: @benryanwriter. Visit his website: benryan.net

This article was originally published on the author’s Substack: Hazard Ratio.

King’s College London on Friday announced that, after a period of reflection and regrouping amid outcry from all sides, the leaders of the much-debated, much-ballyhooed National Health Service clinical trial of puberty blockers for gender-distressed youths would continue largely as planned.

The study’s design has received just a few tweaks, most notably the addition of new minimum ages for participants: 11 years old for natal girls and age 12 for natal boys.

Otherwise, it’s full steam ahead for the £10 million, or $14 million, study.

But anyone who understands even the basic parameters of how pediatric gender medicine works—and what the central purpose of this medical field is—can see that this clinical trial, which if designed properly might have afforded the world some desperately needed insights into these controversial medical practices, is headed straight into the scientific abyss.

Multiple observational studies, including one conducted by the NHS itself and published in 2021 and another, long-delayed study out of the United States that finally emerged in preprint last year, have already found that minors who take puberty blockers to treat gender dysphoria or gender incongruence see essentially no change in major mental health metrics. Such disappointing conclusions stood in contrast to the more glowing findings of the foundational cohort study out of the Netherlands that was published in 2011 and helped spark global excitement and launch the pediatric gender medicine field worldwide.

The authors of the U.S. puberty-blocker study, led by Dr. Johanna Olson-Kennedy, formerly of Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, rationalized the lack of apparent benefit from taking puberty blockers by suggesting that the mental health of youths on these drugs would have worsened absent the medication.

That may very well be true, and such a premise points to the fact that these medications have only ever been meant to tee up treatment with cross-sex hormones. A coterie of pediatric gender medicine advocates, in fact, wrote an amicus brief for last year’s U.S. Supreme Court case over Tennessee’s ban of gender-transition treatments for minors in which they criticized Britain’s Cass Review for conceiving of blockers and hormones as anything but part and parcel of one another.

The fact is that almost all youth who take blockers for gender dysphoria go on to take hormones, according to multiple studies, including at the NHS. As British journalist Hannah Barnes wrote in her seminal investigation of the NHS’s doomed pediatric gender clinic, Time to Think, it is essentially unheard of in psychology to have any sort of test that has a close-to-perfect accuracy rate. In other words, gender-clinic providers haven’t simply succeeded brilliantly at selecting all the right kids to put on this treatment pathway, especially given how cursory, rushed or non-existent the assessment process can be at these clinics.

Considering all this, it is abundantly evident that gender-dysphoric adolescents have never conceived of the period they must spend on blockers as a “time to think” about their gender, as leaders in pediatric gender medicine long misled the public to believe (that is, before at least some of them conducted an about-face and started insisting, accurately, that blockers and hormones are simply part of a continuum). These youths quite clearly view the blockers as a waystation, a temporary burden they must satisfy on behalf of adult authority figures before they get what they actually want: hormones.

Given the planned NHS study, called PATHWAYS, has a randomized element—youths will be randomly assigned to go on blockers immediately or following a one-year delay—there was at least some hope that the study could have produced higher quality evidence than the critically flawed collection of studies that have been produced to date.

None of the past or ongoing studies of gender-transition treatment for youths have been randomized controlled trials. Instead, they are largely a messy and compromised collection of prospective cohort studies that for the most part have no comparison groups and typically have short follow-up times of 12 to 24 months. Or, in the case of Kristina Olson’s study out of Princeton, there is an ever-lengthening follow-up time, but the cohort is not at all representative of the typical youths presenting at a gender clinic these days, given the participants typically socially transitioned very young, by age six or seven.

So the whole world has turned its eyes Britain in hopes that, being an island nation that in 2024 passed a strict legislative ban of puberty blockers for minors outside of a clinical trial, the NHS might manage to recruit and retain a sizeable population of youths seeking gender-transition drugs. Denied other (legal) means of obtaining these drugs (hormones are blocked for those under 16 and are increasingly hard to get even for older minors in the UK), British youths might stay in the study even if they aren’t randomized to receive blockers immediately.

But if youths in PATHWAYS aren’t provided hormones after starting blockers, it is highly likely that all we will learn from this lengthy and expensive clinical trial—youths are set to receive blockers for up to two years and the study is slated to run for five-and-a-half years overall—is more of what we already know: that not much happens psychologically when these kids take blockers.

Furthermore, there isn’t much puberty actually to arrest among the youths who present at gender clinics these days. Recent research out of the United States, including one analysis of national insurance data and a comparable analysis focusing on Oregon, have suggested that only a fraction of the minors who receive gender-transition interventions actually take puberty blockers. And an even smaller minority start such treatment when they are young enough to be in puberty’s early stages.

The typical youth who presents at a gender clinic in the Western world these days, including in England, is a 14- to 16- year-old biological girl who only began exhibiting gender-related distress after puberty’s onset. PATHWAYS will only accept youths who are under age 16 when entering the study. So, given the age and sex breakdowns of youths upon their referrals to Britain’s since-shuttered gender clinic (see the chart below, from the 2024 Cass Review), that means that the bulk of the youths eligible for this new study will likely be 14- and 15-year-old natal girls.

Such youths are likely either in the final phase of puberty or are entirely finished with the developmental process. PATHWAYS, per its inclusion criteria, welcomes youths who are in any of the so-called Tanner stages of puberty, from Tanner 2 (the earliest phase) to Tanner 5 (meaning puberty is finished). So by the study authors’ own admission, they are perfectly willing to give puberty blockers to minors with no puberty to block.

Given that natal females have no physiological need to take blockers in advance of starting testosterone (for natal males, blockers can help suppress their natural testosterone production and thus supplement estrogen treatment), for these youths, starting blockers amounts to all risks with no clinical purpose.

Representatives for King’s College London, which is leading the trial on behalf of the NHS, did not respond to my brutally frank request for comment. Otherwise, in their press release announcing the slight revisions to the trial, they stated: “We will always welcome scrutiny of research involving children and young people because their health and safety is paramount. Our priority remains to safely, and robustly, investigate the benefits and risks of puberty suppression for young people with gender incongruence to improve the evidence base and inform NHS healthcare.”

The PATHWAYS study does have an important element in which some of the youths will receive a series of brain scans. This is perhaps the only part of the overall research endeavor that could yield vital results that could help inform worldwide care of gender-dysphoric youths. According to a 2024 review paper, scientific knowledge of the impacts of puberty blockers on the brain remains woefully thin. And there are concerns that the powerful drugs might have deleterious impacts on neurocognition.

Blockers are supposed to be the warm-up act to the main event, in which, at least in theory, people who identify as transgender spend a lifetime on cross-sex hormones—or, in the case of natal females in particular, they stay on testosterone long enough to permanently deepen the voice and prompt the permanent growth of facial and body hair.

Considering all this, why in heaven’s name isn’t the NHS planning to study cross-sex hormones in youths?

Is this study simply an expensive charade to kick the political can down the road?

This article was originally published on the author’s Substack: Hazard Ratio.

If you enjoyed this free article, please consider upgrading to a paid subscription or making a recurring or one-time donation below to show your support. Reality’s Last Stand is a reader-supported publication, and your help is greatly appreciated.

Subscribe now

Share

If you enjoyed this article, you may also like…