Gay & Gender-Queer

Below are some non-woke, unconstrained thoughts on the evolutionary purpose of homosexuality, followed by some concerns on extremism in gender politics, especially in relation to transgender issues.

Is group parenting the evolutionary purpose of homosexuality?

So, the Australian Same-Sex Marriage (SSM) survey is done and achieved precisely nothing — an appalling process that asked a question that should never have gone to a public vote (allowing the tyranny of the majority to determine the basic rights of minority groups), told us nothing we didn't already know and yet failed to properly address all the issues of detail that parliament still had to debate, like "religious protections" and, related to this, surrogacy for gay couples.

Whilst debate about surrogacy is legitimate, I'm not generally in favour of so-called "religious" arguments (in any sphere) or exemptions from discrimination (e.g. to "justify" sacking or expelling someone for being gay or forcing people to disavow their gay or trans nature), because most religious practices are just a continuation of historic customs that once had a benefit for society but may no longer do so (and some, like the burqa, are oppressive distortions of a religion that if followed properly actually places the onus for modesty on men before women, although it would be better to offer burqa wearers support services rather than ban it in public, which seems likely to only further oppress them behind closed doors).  Too often "religion" just seems to be an excuse for not thinking more deeply and arguing for a position coherently.

But one underlying issue that concerned some people with respect to SSM was what legalising gay marriage might consequently mean for gay parenting, and most importantly, the rights of children and their biological parents (which underpin this opinion opposing surrogacy).  I do think it's important for children to know and grow up with their biological mother & father if at all possible, and I have significant concerns about how society currently fails to support & recognise the value of fathers in kids lives, so this got me thinking about all the issues and then wondering why there are so many gay people in the world, given one would think it's not exactly a trait likely to be evolutionarily advantageous for passing on the associated "gay genes".  The proportion of the population that is gay (or non-heterosexual in some way) is uncertain, but at around 4-10%, depending on where & how it's assessed (or maybe even a bit higher in Australia, where it is apparently rising, or increasingly admitted) it seems too high to be a persistent genetic/evolutionary 'flaw' with no advantages, especially as it also prevails widely in many other species (but note the same argument may not hold for less-common transgenderism, discussed further below).

Not surprisingly, it seems I'm not the first person to be puzzled by this.  One scientist tried to suggest lesbianism evolved because straight men like it — and you can guess what the reaction was!  I generally support people putting forward any ideas even if they are morally contentious, but in this case it doesn't seem very convincing "research", not because it's offensive, porn-inspired rubbish but it shows little understanding of how evolution works (men should only like it if doing so helps the species survive), and anyway the hypothesis only seems relevant to why a lot of women might be bi-sexual (rather than purely lesbian).  My initial thought in reaction was that lesbians have only survived evolution because men rape them, which also explains why big, stupid, insensitive men have survived evolution as well!  But this is still not an actively useful characteristic of being lesbian (which it seems must exist), and also, although it's more common than most people assume, rape of gay men (by women) seems an even less plausible evolutionary theory.

The fact that homosexuality is widespread across the animal kingdom (e.g. up to 10% of male sheep are gay) suggests it has some evolutionary purpose, and given some researchers have suggested that a switchable "gay gene" is a means of controlling animal population levels at sustainable levels, this could become increasingly important for humans as science continually extends life expectancies (but bi-sexuality may be encouraged more than pure homosexuality if increasing respect for gays & lesbians in modern society reduces their coercion into male-female relationships and causes "pure gay genes" to die out).

Although at present there is no clear agreement as to what the evolutionary advantages of human homosexuality are, I think the most likely hypotheses would relate to the benefits of affection and in particular parenting within a group, on which I expand here, leading me to some interesting & perhaps somewhat challenging conclusions:

I assume most if not all of human's evolutionary traits would have developed for their benefits in our early hunter-gatherer days, and in this case I imagine gay men would be helpful for heavy-lifting duties and protection of cave-women from intruders (without being a rape threat themselves) whilst the majority of tribes-men went out hunting for days on end.  They would also be on standby as back-up Dads to replace those killed by hunting, and in the meantime, having a male role-model around the cave for young boys may also be a benefit, whilst some feminine (or stereotypically gay) characteristics, like empathic understanding, could also be helpful, e.g. for minding of babies/kids in the cave — which suggests gay men could now make the best adoptive Dads (& might also explain why a lot of women like hanging out with gay men).  And as a minority amongst the women at home, they may also be at greater risk of rape by sex-starved women whilst the other men were away – enabling their gay genes to survive – although a better explanation than rape or coercion for the continued propagation of gay genes could be that they are recessive in many or most people and only become active when the right combinations mix, perhaps also assisted by the environment & culture.[1]  Also mothers' hormones may cause an increased chance of homosexuality for larger numbers of sons, maybe as a means of moderating unsustainably large populations.  Speculating that this might actually be triggered by age (as a proxy for the number of children birthed), suggests the proportion of gay people may be increasing in modern society, due to women now tending to have children much later in life.

For both men & women, the risk of dying young was high for early humans, so it makes sense to have back-up parents to look after orphaned children, who are not themselves preoccupied with looking after their own children.  Gay people could provide just such a reserve pool of childless back-up parents within a group.  Furthermore, lesbians would also be useful for breast-feeding babies when the natural mothers didn't have enough milk, such as in times of famine, drought, death (e.g. during childbirth), or simply for mothers who commonly had to feed many babies at once (twins, triplets etc. or several closely-spaced births) — especially given the energy required to breast-feed as they did for 5-6 years.  At these times it would be better to have childless women who have an affectionate bond with the mothers and can help ensure a fewer number of babies in the group are fed well, rather than having a larger number of babies all of whom are fed inadequately (and note some women, like "wet nurses", and even some men can lactate without having been pregnant, even after menopause).

With this explanation, it's hardly surprising that humanity had a greater need for and hence higher percentage of bi-sexual (“mostly heterosexual”) women than men (10% vs 4%), and it also explains why most women seem to find breasts and other women generally attractive – even if not in a sexual way – as this would encourage them to care for and support each other with child birth and rearing babies while the men were away hunting.  Of course it would be nice if we cared for each other regardless of looks, but evolution likes to improve the odds, in the same way that it makes us think babies look cute.  Incidentally, the need for wet nurses also seems to explain why permanent breasts are a uniquely human thing and men like big boobs (even when they feel guilty about it) — obviously because it seems to indicate greater baby-feeding capability (although it's not that simple and I suspect it relates to the fat in breasts providing the energy for lots of milk production, especially given the link between the hormones that promote fat deposition in breasts, and fertility & reproductive success) — so there you go Julia Roberts / Anna Scott of Notting Hill !

Similarly, I was wondering why women have longer and thicker hair – typically down to their breasts – and men find this attractive (noting that culture could only explain length, and anyway, culture develops for practical reasons).  Women's longer & thicker hair is due to sex hormones (caused by oestrogen, especially during pregnancy, whilst male sex hormones lead to shorter & thinner hair), but in my ponderings on evolution I hypothesise that the ultimate reason is that it's for babies to cling to (like other animals cling to fur), especially whilst they're feeding &/or Mum is on the move through the trees or out of Africa (which may explain why some women feel pleasure – so I'm told – as well as pain when a baby or their partner pulls their hair).  Hence long hair signals good mothering capabilities to men.  Presumably lesbians and older women tend to have shorter hair because they are subconsciously advertising that they don't want to or can't have babies.  As for the few men who grow their hair long these days, I suspect they do so because they can, because it grows unusually fast & long compared to most other men (especially emotional, arty types, who might have somewhat more feminine DNA & hormones).

In general, men are most attracted to the visual indicators of a good breeder (birthing & feeding features, and symmetrical features, which are an objectively determined measure of "beauty" that indicate a more diverse & healthy genetic base), whereas women tend to give greater emphasis to a man's family-supportive behaviours (his ability to "protect & provide").  However, it's also beneficial for women to find the feminine form attractive (women even prefer female faces more than men do), so they can assess themselves against the competition and/or help their friends look nice to attract a mate — as we see in traditional "girly" activities like doing makeup & clothes shopping together, and now reinforced to the extreme by the intense sharing/competition and "you're so pretty!" commenting on social media (all of which requires an intuitive sense of what's attractive, otherwise it's hard to know what things you can do to make yourself look more attractive, or help your friends to do so).

And so returning to the "offensive porn" theory above, well, it's probably not the primary driver but men's liking of M-F-F threesomes would at least avoid a barrier to these evolutionarily-beneficial baby-feeding practices.  Basically, back-up baby-feeders are attractive!  It might also explain the greater historic tendency of cultures in hot countries (where drought may cause milk to dry up more) to encourage men to have multiple wives (but it's not necessary in these modern times!).

Since those ancient times I suppose social pressure to marry & have kids has kept gay genes alive, but the economic & demographic changes of recent decades may be again increasing the benefits of homosexuality, not least to meet the desperate need for childcare as more women go out to work in the new "knowledge economy" (more so than was economically beneficial in old heavy industry).  In fact it may simply be social acceptance – set by society's needs – that determines the extent to which "gay genes" are activated or acted on (or rather, the extent to which these tendencies are suppressed or not, as it's not as simple as a single 'gay gene' and they may reside in all of us to a greater or lesser extent).  So lately we're becoming more tolerant of gay people because we have a greater need for them (& less need for traditional families having lots of children in order to maintain the human race).

But, as it is desirable for children to grow up with both male and female loving carers & role models, the best form of gay parenting would still be at least partly within a group/collective community, rather than just a two-adult household.

Also, given how many non-ideal male-female heterosexual households there are, sometimes with awful domestic violence consequences, the same could be said of them.

More broadly, let's face it, parenting is bloody hard, even for two parents (let alone single parents), and given grandparents these days seem to be too far away &/or too busy enjoying retirement on world cruises, and the last thing most of us weary parents want to do is mind someone else's kids, who better to give us a break and mind the children than childless gay friends or family?

So, to my surprise, I conclude that from an evolutionary perspective, the purpose of gay people is probably to help with raising children, and still now in modern times we need more ways of encouraging group/collective community parenting, for people of all sexual orientations.

[1] Inspiration from Dan at The Anchor (Bankside), near St Paul's, London, 8 Dec. 2017

Transgender extremism

I began writing this section feeling, I will admit, some derisory irritation with the Left's current obsession with woke sexual/gender politics.  I was particular triggered by the ridiculous, constant lengthening of the LGBTIQ...XYZ label, which led me to question why intersex & transgender people (or “gender incongruent”, that is, having a female brain in a male body or vice-versa) would want to be put in the same category as "gay" people (which could reasonably cover "LGB"), or why gay people would want to be grouped with T&I people, given the latter experience rather different issues of physical or psychological gender identity ("genderqueer") rather than sexual partner preference (although there is an overlap, as it's not clear when an effeminate gay boy attracted to a masculine man becomes a transgender "woman").

The incidence of transgenderism is quite uncertain at about 0.6% +/-0.4% (based on estimates varying from 0.2% to 1% or about 0.5-1%, with self-identified rates of 0.5% of those over 16 in the 2021 UK census and 0.6% in the 2021 US census, but about twice this rate for teenagers), whilst the incidence of intersex people (with mixed/ambiguous genitalia) is even lower at around 0.05%, although of course this still adds up to a significant number of people across a nation.  Unlike my arguments above for gay people, these very small prevalence rates suggest their occurrence could simply be due to natural genetic variations – which are required for evolution to work at all ("variety is the spice of life") – rather than any distinct evolutionary advantage.

Then there's the proliferation of so many other labels (including agender, trans & multigender, with the latter apparently encompassing bi-, tri-, quad, quint- poly- & pan-gender, plus gender-fluid – which varies over time or perhaps suggests a constant state of uncertainty), which seriously confuses what could otherwise be expressed more simply as two genders plus around 1% of the population with some varying degree of trans (indicating having an unusually large number of traits that are more typical of the opposite sex — noting that everyone has a mix of M/F traits to a greater or lesser extent).

Labelling every possible variation and then lumping them all together into an absurdly-long "abbreviation" that's then referred to as supposedly one big "LGBTQIA... community" suggests they're all the same and does nothing to enlighten others about their differences (and invites their derision as “Alphabet people”).  It also implies they're a separate and different community from everyone else, which isn't exactly inclusive.  It seems ironic that they get labelled this way when the whole point should be to acknowledge, accept & even celebrate differences, and it suggests that the label is being used more as a badge of political correctness (PC) than for genuine concern for these people's issues.

On which, concerns are arising in public debate about the unthinking application of PC agendas, such as female-gendered & gay traffic lights, which seems a pointless waste of money (and likewise for pro-vegan lights, although I must confess I think Elvis pedestrian traffic lights look rather cool, which may suggest I'm being prejudiced, but they can only really be justified somewhere linked to him, like Friedberg, Germany, or Memphis, or Parkes Australia).

Also of public concern is the dogmatic promotion of transgenderism, for example this feminist group trying to get people to say "pregnant people" instead of "pregnant women", in the name of transgender sensitivity, “because people of all genders can fall pregnant”.  Then there's a UK hospital telling midwives to say "chestfeeding" instead of "breastfeeding" (also in Victoria), and breastfeeding advocates being dragged through the Australian legal system for opposing chest-feeding of babies by biological men (using drug/hormone-induced ‘milk’ that poses risks to a baby's health).  It seems these practices are pushed by a small number of zealous bullies, as female doctors say, ‘People are just terrified of saying the wrong thing, so they’d rather not say anything.  It’s an area that will result in a lot of hate mail whatever my views, so I won't say anything'.

And then there's the numerous examples of males who say they identify as female being allowed to use shared female showers & changing rooms and unfairly & dangerously compete in female sports such as football (with one team in Sydney fielding as many as 5 males to win a women's football competition and league grand final) and athletics, along with the Olympics (including weightlifting and swimming, where notably, biologically-male transgender “women” only seem to want to compete against women – who they can easily beat – not each other).  In 2019, a transwoman was able to take the world cycling title from women for the second year in a row, and in 2023, ten British women’s rowing masters records were in the hands of male athletes identifying as women.

Given we're all born with characteristics that rule out certain viable careers, I'm not sure why transgender people should have a sacrosanct right to choose the one career that is unfair to others, but it seems that in this modern age of universal entitlements and the pursuit of individual self-fulfilment, where no-one should be offended or disappointed, policy-makers are struggling to set fair rules that will inevitably negatively affect some people, due to pressure for "inclusiveness" to outweigh fair competition based on biological science (with the excessive emphasis on inclusiveness actually opposed by former male Olympic gold medalist and now trans-woman, Caitlyn Jenner).  Then again, one may also wonder what makes any sport "fair", given elite sports are already to some extent like "freak shows", dominated by biological extremes with the luck of genetically-determined performance advantages.

Safety is another matter though, when transwomen (biological males) present a risk to females in judo and even  "female" boxing, with predictably dreadful consequences (refer also to the male, Imane Khelif, allowed to win women's gold in the 2024 Olympics boxing and see this informative article and this on the corresponding furore and the subtle complexities of intersex/"DSD" science & testing).  Thankfully it seems World Rugby are now following the science, which shows women players are exposed to significantly greater risk of injury when tackled by someone who has gone through male puberty, even if that male (or transgender "woman") has taken medication to lower their testosterone (because they still have a significant advantage over biological women).  The average adult man has 41% more non-fat body mass, 50% more muscle mass in his legs, and 75% more in his arms than the average adult woman, but the International Olympic Committee allow biological males with a normal-male amount of testosterone – which is many times the normal level for females – to compete against women, so the mantra of "inclusion" is in practice excluding women from their sports (although the issue is more complicated than just testosterone levels and elite female athletes may have testosterone levels that overlap those of male athletes, indicating they have average testosterone levels above what's typical for their sex).  However, attempts to exclude biological men from women's sport face legal threats (e.g. in "Aussie Rules", where Hannah Mouncey even refused a management request to use a separate changeroom from female teammates), which has prompted proposals for legislation making it easier to exclude transgender athletes from female sport.

Of possibly greater concern, when men claiming to be transgender are allowed into women's prisons, where they could sexually assault real women, I have to concur with Germaine Greer's view that it is nonsensical to allow someone with a male body to claim to be a woman and have all the rights of fully genuine females (or vice versa), such as using female toilets or sharing a girl's dormitory (as mandated by the Obama Administration) or sharing online forums for women (because laws fail to recognise biological sex, at least until an April 2025 UK judgment partially clarified the confusion created by the Gender Recognition Act 2004, which then led to transwomen being banned from women's football).  However that does mean we need some unisex toilets for trans people to use, which would be most economically done by allowing them to use "disabled" toilets, or "universal" toilets as the UK is planning to adopt alongside single-sex toilets (with over 80% public support), but transgender fanatics in Australian local councils decide to make all toilets gender-neutral (despite 75% of women having a strong preference for single-sex toilets).  It's always the over-zealous ones – who just don't know when to stop – that become a good cause's own worst enemy, as those who raise concerns get strongly & unfairly criticised for being "transphobic", which only further increases concerns about the gender-fanatical lobby becoming too strident (e.g. through their influence on woke/PC children's books).  But unrestrained extremism is being enabled by governments such as the states of Western Australia and NSW through "self-ID" laws that allow any man to legally change their "sex" (not even "gender") and identify as a woman and access female-only activities, spaces and services.

The problem is – as some of the more extreme examples of transgender issues seen in the media indicate – this is not a policy area that's very well suited to strict rules or entitlements, as it may be no more appropriate to declare that anyone has the right to be treated like the opposite sex just because they say they feel that way, than it is to force those who are truly transgender to comply with all rules designed for their biological sex.  This is an area that requires sensitivity to the specific circumstances of each case, particularly in schools, where not only are transgender children most vulnerable, but they also may have little choice about the situation and institution that they're placed in.  Even supporting non-medical, "social transition" (e.g. changing pronouns or dress) – which 4 in 10 secondary teachers say they would support regardless of parental consent – may have significant psychological effects (which may lead to subsequent medical transition).  The best, albeit imperfect approach may be a system of localised decision-making based on specified yet flexible principles & guidance, and with the opportunity for disputes to be addressed by escalation to higher levels — ultimately by politically accountable leaders (which is probably how most schools handle such issues currently).

But when we reach the point where trans-women (biological males) are awarded "woman of the year" in the US and Australia (instead of actual biological women) and women are called "birthing persons" whilst girls can't be called "girls" in a girls' school, it's hard to know what is more ridiculous — this state of affairs that leads some women feeling that they need to defend the meaning of the word "woman",[2] or the fact that they actually did advertise the definition, or that this was then declared anti-trans "hate speech" and pulled down.  More seriously, it seems the UK has decided that calling a transgender person by their less preferred pronoun ("misgendering") constitutes a crime of hate speech warranting arrest and detention (& is a priority for limited police resources), whilst Canada is fining people for offending transgender women by referring to them as "biological male", regardless of this being fact.  (Aside from a tiny fraction of deviations, there are only two biological sexes, not a "spectrum", even though strictly – since someone's biological sex isn't even entirely determined by XX vs XY chromosomes – it seems to be impossible to scientifically define what universally determines someone's "sex", given rare examples of a father of four with XY chromosomes who discovered in an operation at age 70 that he also had a uterus & fallopian tubes, and the Spanish hurdler, Martínez-Patiño, who has female genitals but XY chromosomes and internal testes.)

I'm surely not the only person who gets confused as to whether a "transgender woman" is a woman who dresses like &/or thinks they're a man, or vice versa?  (It turns out I'm not the only one who's confused, and it may be intentional.)  And whether it intends to or does cause offence or not, isn't it a legitimate matter for debate whether using the term man/woman should be based on someone's body/genitals (as per long-established tradition) or their state of mind?  I can understand that how someone thinks about their gender is core to their sense of self, but it's not objectively observable and can potentially change without surgery.  And how should transgender people flag to those around them how they want to be seen and addressed?  By how they dress?  So is it more necessary to call someone a woman if they look and dress more like a woman?  It's a strange kind of equality where less than 1% of the population get to decide what the word "woman" means for 50% of it (and that everyone should say "people who menstruate" instead of "women").  We seem to have forgotten why we have "hate speech" laws — which is to protect society from those who would actively encourage hatred & violence towards others in society — and where the balance should sit relative to free speech, which – much as it may be undesirable and contravene polite social customs – must unavoidably allow for people calling each other names and causing offence.  As Richard Dawkins notes, it's impossible to have reasoned debate (which may actually be the intention) when language itself is subjected to Orwellian tyranny by extremists – with the support of powerful social-media platforms and the police (& even secret monitoring & policing by football clubs) – so that the concept of biological "sex" is disallowed and replaced by "assigned gender", with pronouns that have no clear meaning, and disagreement is redefined as "hate" & "violence".

Public unease about intolerant fanaticism in this area (contributing to a clear increase in self-censoring behaviours in recent decades) is further heightened by incidents like this student editor fired for saying women don't have penises, or this UK Doctor losing his job because he refused to accept that gender is a social construct (even though if it was, being transgender would simply be a result of social influence), and similarly a Swedish university investigating a professor for “anti-feminism” and “transphobia” because he correctly said there are “biologically founded” differences between men and women (in body as well as typical psychology & behaviours) and therefore genders cannot be regarded as “social constructs alone”.

Meanwhile, although 99% of the population is clearly male or female, in 2019 Tasmania decided to remove a baby's sex from birth certificates unless parents apply to include it (which many won't bother to do).  It's not clear what the specific implications of this may be, but it's concerning that these and similar changes across government administration — including in the UK NHS as well as Australian health records (e.g. bowel cancer screening forms), which now seek a person's identifying gender, instead of sex — will impair health treatments and the gathering of valuable statistical data for health research (based on biological sex), and are being pushed through without broad community support (which may lead to a future backlash).

Of most concern in the politicisation of gender science is the World Health Organisation (WHO) deciding to reclassify transgenderism under “conditions related to sexual health” instead of “mental, behavioural & neurodevelopmental disorders”, not for scientific-medical reasons, but to "reduce stigma” and even to “increase access to healthcare” by trying to influence insurers' classification of it.  Then people get banned from public venues for saying transgender people suffer from "mental illness", even though society labels other conditions like autism, for example, as a mental "disorder".  The apparent gender-political bias from the WHO was reinforced by its process launched in late December 2023 for developing transgender guidelines (with little opportunity for critical feedback).

However the most serious concerns presented by transgender extremism must surely be the risks to children, and such worries are only exacerbated when political correctness encourages gender theories & practices to be propagated in an unprofessional way to children as young as four in schools & libraries, via unqualified teachers and media organisations like the ABC, or other non-professional psychology sources — for example, using transgender puppet videos and telling 3-5 year-olds that "grown-ups had to guess whether they were a boy or girl at birth" (or worse, enabling the performance of sexualised drag shows for toddlers & babies, featuring nudity and bondage acts, or even the promotion of disturbingly graphic violent & sexual content, including child oral sex and paedophilia – see also here).

Children have immature, highly malleable brains (which don't fully mature until about age 25) and need clear guidance, not confusing messages about their very nature, so increasing their confusion & self-doubt through indoctrination with scientifically-undeveloped gender theories, with little expert oversight, risks encouraging innocent, gender-confused (dysphoric) children down a path that could ultimately lead to premature transgender medication & operations — which are considered to be child abuse by some professionals (with potentially very bad outcomes) and are opposed in all circumstances by some medical experts (see also here) as well as by the famous transgender icon, Carlotta.  Yet shockingly, children in the US as young as 13 have undergone "gender-affirming" surgery such as breast removal, following "social transitioning" from as young as three.

If a child is confused about their gender it can be for a range of reasons and is often only temporary if supported by proper guidance & professional counselling.  The Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine says 61-98% of gender-dysphoric children re-identify with their biological sex during puberty, whilst the socially-conservative advocacy group, The American College of Pediatricians (ACP) — who view transgenderism as a mental disorder and oppose "indoctrinat(ing) all children from preschool forward with the lie that they could be trapped in the wrong body" — claim 98% of gender-confused boys and 88% of gender-confused girls accept their biological sex after puberty without any counselling, and that there's little or no evidence that sex-change/"reassignment" treatments consistently benefit patients.  (NB. As an aside, if you watch the video at the ACP link about vaccines derived from aborted fetuses, I suggest you also read this).

An increasing preponderance of (biological) girls with gender dysphoria have a co-occurrence of autism, which has been described as having an "extreme male brain" (so having autism makes girls feel like they don't fit in with other girls).  Similarly, I speculate that some girls who feel like they don't fit in with others may simply have the rare "INTJ" personality type.  Transgender individuals also have increased prevalence for many other psychiatric diagnoses, with one study finding them 30 times more likely to suffer from Cluster B personality disorders (including borderline) compared with the general population, and another study finding 53% of mothers with gender-dysphoric boys suffered from borderline personality disorder themselves or showed symptoms of depression (implying mentally ill mothers may be adversely influencing their sons).

This context adds weight to the criticisms of the UK's "Tavistock" gender transitioning service for "fast-tracking" children into changing gender (including 382 children aged under 7 and even 70 kids aged 3-4) whilst dismissing robust challenges to diagnoses and therapy risks, due to claimed pressure from zealous transgender activists — which is said to have contributed to a surge in the number of UK children being referred for gender-changing treatment from 100 in 2009 to 2,590 in 2018 and 5,000 in 2020-21 (see Figure 11 on p.84 of the final "Cass report"), which is roughly equal to the number of transgender people one would expect at any given age in the UK if 0.6% of the population are transgender.

Similarly in Australia, referrals to gender dysphoria clinics increased from just two in 2013 to about 100 in 2018 (compared to about 1,700 for 0.6% of the child population at a given age), also with some evidence of bias and unprofessionalism in counselling that fails to challenge rebellious teenage thinking (although note this defence).  Numbers continued to increase rapidly in the following years, with around 800 new referrals in 2021 to just the Royal Children’s Hospital Gender Service in Victoria.  Across Australia, more than 2,000 children were enrolled in public adolescent gender clinics in 2022 (excluding those being treated by GPs or private clinics) — almost 10 times the number in 2014.  The number of children prescribed puberty-blocker treatments for gender dysphoria in 2021 was more than 600, up from only five in 2014, while there was also an eightfold increase in children receiving cross-sex hormone treatments over a similar period.  In September 2023, Channel 7 News "Spotlight" reported that there were over 1,000 adolescents on waiting lists at State-run gender clinics across Australia.

Puberty blockers may lead to changes in mood, energy & weight, along with headaches & other short-term problems, and may also cause various long-term complications including reduced bone density & fertility.  The World Professional Association for Transgender Health notes the paucity of research supporting the long-term effectiveness of medical treatment for adolescents with gender dysphoria, and the Endocrine Society, which represents specialists in hormones, acknowledges the “low” or “very low” certainty of evidence supporting its recommendations in its own guidelines.  The president of the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine, Psychiatrist Roberto D’Angelo, says research on outcomes for young people is extremely limited and “Most rigorous reviews that have been performed conclude that [the research evidence] is very weak and subject to bias, and that its conclusions are uncertain".

Research by UK & European health authorities has also concluded that "the risk-benefit ratio of youth gender transition ranges from unknown to unfavorable", and that studies cited in support of hormonal interventions for adolescents are of “very low” certainty.  Also clinicians in European countries have observed that guidelines specified by the "Dutch Protocol" – which lists criteria for treatment eligibility (including documented early childhood onset of gender dysphoria) – were not being strictly followed, effectively enabling unauthorized treatment of many minors (especially girls).  In the US, clinics are prescribing puberty blockers or hormones to children based on a single 2-hour assessment, instead of the 6 months assessment of the Dutch Protocol (or over 18 months for patients with psychiatric problems).  In August 2021 the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists issued a position statement that highlights the “paucity of quality evidence” on outcomes for people with gender dysphoria and moderated it's previously strong endorsement of a "gender-affirming" approach for young people.

In April 2022, the UK Government ordered an inquiry into gender-dysphoria services, which had been judged "too narrow, overly affirmative and bordering on ideological”, and after having been branded "not fit for purpose" and rated "inadequate" by the country's health watchdog, the Government ordered Tavistock to be closed and replaced with services adopting a very different approach.  Then in 2023 the UK National Health Service adopted an interim policy to only provide puberty-blocking drugs to children in a research setting or for exceptional cases with approval from a national team of medical experts.  This policy was confirmed as final in March 2024 (& made an indefinite ban in December 2024), just before Dr Hilary Cass (former president of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health) released her final report (the world’s largest such review), which advocated a more cautious, holistic approach to care that would follow usual clinical practice of considering other potential mental health issues (avoiding prior Tavistock staff or others with "a tunnel vision on gender"), as it found gender medicine was “built on shaky foundations” (resulting in most clinical guidelines lacking evidence & transparency on how they were produced), with study results “exaggerated or misrepresented by people on all sides of the debate to support their viewpoint” and both improved research & support-service staff recruitment being hampered by toxic, intolerant ideological debate that had produced a culture of fear, discouraging objective researchers from getting or staying involved.  Unbelievably, gender clinics blocked Dr Cass' attempt to address research gaps by looking at the outcomes of 9,000 former Tavistock patients (a problem that the NHS and a future government should address).

Scandinavian countries are also winding back the use of puberty blockers, and gender-affirming services are being reviewed in Australia, where researchers have called for a more holistic approach to include a "trauma-informed model of mental health care", given gender dysphoric children show "high rates of adverse childhood experiences including family conflict, parental mental illness and loss of important figures via separation".

Research suggests "peer contagion" may push some children down a path of "Rapid-Onset Gender Dysphoria", whereupon they experience clinicians who are "only interested in fast-tracking gender-affirmation and transition".  This research was greeted with typical accusations of "transphobia" by activists, leading to the researcher losing her job, but her research seems to be affirmed by parents recounting how they were pressured into accepting their children being transgender, and even by this transgender psychologist, who until recently led the US professional society at the forefront of transgender care, but now thinks "the affirmative approach to gender in youth has gone too far", with the dramatic rise in teens seeking treatment "likely driven by peer pressure (because it’s trendy) as much as wider acceptance of trans issues".   Here's the trans icon Blaire White on the dangerous trend of "TikTok" videos creating a "social contagion" of young people – girls especially – convincing themselves they are transgender and/or have other mental disorders (also here Blaire talks about pronouns and what does & doesn't make someone trans).

Yet in the US & Canada it seems that medical and psychological professionals are now legally bound to accept the expressed wishes of child patients and support them on a path of transition.  That might change as in 2023 the former intake and case manager at the Washington University Transgender Center (a queer, left-wing woman married to a trans-man) blows the whistle on their "morally and medically appalling", overly-affirmative gender-transition practices (see also this interview of her here).  These revelations indicate the overwhelming societal pressure (including social media) on kids and/or parents and even doctors that can make it hard for anyone to firmly resist demands for transition treatment, which perhaps implies that a blanket ban for children may be the only realistic safe regulatory option.

But despite the risks from peer pressure and other mental pressures on adolescent children, along with overly-affirmative transitioning services (such an Orwellian term when it leads to medical & surgical changes to someone, rather than a full affirmation & acceptance of everything they are), it's concerning that the Australian Psychological ­Association say children under 16 should be able to make such life-altering decisions themselves (even though the law says they're not mature enough to make much less dramatic decisions, such as drinking alcohol) — which is a position that was rejected by a UK court in 2020 before that view was overturned in September 2021.  In 2024, UK courts were still approving hormone treatment by private providers for 16-year old trans children (encouraged by other teenagers on social media), even if one parent opposes it.

That 2020/21 UK case could affect Australia, where court approval is currently needed if a parent disputes the child's stated wishes, following a 2020 precedent set in the NSW Family Court that approved oestrogen treatment for a 16-year-old whose father supported this but mother didn't (which clarified that the court would always need to be involved when there was disagreement between the parents or the treating medical team for patients under 18).  However, the ability to resist medical transitioning treatments may be restrained by NSW laws passed in 2024 that ostensibly ban gay conversion practices but – by rejecting an amendment to exclude "gender identity" from the bill – may actually enable this by preventing people from challenging a gay person who's questioning their gender identity rather than accepting that they're just gay.

Most alarmingly, Canadian courts are not only approving hormonal sex-conversion treatment for 14-year old children on the sole basis of the child's own consent (which could be pressured by peers or just one parent – noting there are, unfortunately, a few bad & mad parents in this world), but are also willing to arrest and potentially jail the father for 5 years for trying to discourage his biological daughter from changing gender, or for referring to her as "she".  After indeed being jailed for 6 months for referring to her as his daughter (and threatened with a further 4 months), he was released on successful appeal after 2 months, but his daughter remains lost to him.  In the UK in 2024, despite some softening of its guidance, the Crown Prosecution Service still warns parents they could be taken to court for refusing to use their preferred name or pronoun if it's judged to be done with 'the intention of causing emotional or psychological distress'.

Similarly in the USA, a Californian court has blocked a father from trying to prevent the transition of his 9-year old boy, who has been encouraged to do so by his ex-wife (since he was two!), and secretly by his school.  It seems this "social justice" movement that is supposed to be about tolerance and acceptance has become decidedly authoritarian, and those who peacefully protest about children undergoing hormone treatment and sex-change operations are met with aggressive & violent responses.

But then again there's the enormous benefit to consider for those children who really do seem to be trapped in the wrong body – as you may appreciate from this video – especially given suicide attempt rates range from 19 to 25% among transgender individuals seeking surgical gender reassignment, and over 10% of transgender people attempt suicide in any given year (about 40 times the general population rate), with maybe almost half of all young transgender people attempting suicide and 4 out of 5 engaging in self harm.

However, those who undergo sex-change treatment may still have completed suicide rates 20 times higher than the general public (based on a study of 324 sex-reassigned people in Sweden between 1973 and 2003), with this high mortality not becoming apparent until after 10 years, which can be missed in studies of short duration.  An international study reported in 1998, covering 30 years of follow-up for 2,000 people who had undergone gender reassignment surgery, suggests suicide rates for post-surgery transsexuals could be 70 times that of the general population.  There seems to be a lack of data on actual deaths by suicide for gender dysphoric people who have not had surgery, with which these rates could be compared ("because of researchers' greater access to transsexuals who seek medical treatments such as sex reassignment surgery or hormone therapy, which frankly is a poor excuse).  However, a 2024 US study covering 1,501 adults who'd had gender-affirming surgery found they had attempted suicide rates that were 12 times higher than the general public (at 3.47% vs 0.29%), which is less than the attempt rates of 19-25% referenced above for pre-surgery transgender people.

In contrast, between 2013 and 2017, the suicide death rate in Dutch referred transgender people was said to be only three to four times higher than the general population.  However, two seminal Dutch studies that led to increased “gender-affirming” medical treatment are criticised for being "methodologically flawed" and having "profound limitations".  Moreover, as the number of young patients has increased, so has the level of regret, with the rate of medical detransition reaching 10%-30% just a few years following transition (& likely to rise in future).

Given the research in 2024 is very inconclusive, and the pros & cons of medical intervention obviously highly dependent on each individual case, I realise it is a horribly difficult dilemma for people directly involved.  However, with limited evidence of consistent & persistent benefits from sex-change treatments, I am inclined to say that unless there is an absolutely overwhelming case (backed up by multiple independently-appointed, legally-accredited medical experts and the agreement of both parents), we should just let nature take its course and accept & support people as they are and end up (as intersex advocates are saying).  However I find it difficult to advocate any other particular conclusions about such a person-specific issue, other than to appeal for public policy to be based on science and cautious moderation, and for society to use different labels!  It seems to me that "queer" (whether sexually queer or gender-queer) is still the simplest, all-encompassing term to use.  After all:

"There's nowt so queer as folk, except for thee & me, and even thee's a little queer!"

— an old quote with variation from Yorkshire – a place known for their liberal attitudes! 😉

[2]  For those that seem to have trouble knowing what a "woman" is, I would define one as an adult female human (adult being someone who has gone through puberty), who is distinguished from the male by having a womb in which a baby gestates until being born (womb + man = woman, except not really), a pelvic bone suited to childbirth, and breasts for feeding babies (with mammary glands that make milk – fundamental to being a mammal).