Of Weasel Words and Picking Cherries

A Comprehensive Debunking of Daniel Howard James's Article for Genspect

Folks, grab a cup of coffee and settle in. We need to have a serious conversation about misleading rhetoric disguised as academic analysis. Daniel Howard James’ recent article “Why Do Transgender People Hate Their Bodies?” published on Genspect’s “Inspecting Gender” Substack isn’t just flawed – it’s a masterclass in how to manipulate language, cherry-pick evidence, and construct false narratives while maintaining the veneer of reasonable inquiry. [1]

Two Unsubstantiated Claims Right from the Start

Before we even get to the first paragraph, both the title and subtitle make extraordinary claims without providing evidence:

1. “Why Do Transgender People Hate Their Bodies?” - A loaded question fallacy that embeds the unproven assumption that transgender people universally “hate” their bodies rather than experiencing incongruence between gender identity and assigned sex [2]
2. “Gender dysphoria is a symptom masquerading as a diagnosis” - A bold medical claim made without a shred of supporting evidence anywhere in the article [3]

Despite these sweeping proclamations, James never actually answers the question in the title or provides evidence for the claim in the subtitle. It’s like a book titled “Why the Sky Is Green” that never bothers to explain why the sky is supposedly green.

The One-Case Wonder: Building an Argument on Quicksand

James builds his entire argument on a single case study by Erich Kasten about a patient diagnosed with both body integrity dysphoria (wanting to amputate limbs) and gender dysphoria. [4] What makes this particularly troubling is his upfront admission:

“The anonymous patient’s story in this case study could be true. It could be a hoax intended to expose the deficiencies and credulity of academia on gender extremism. It could also be masochistic fan fiction.” [5]

Let that sink in. James openly acknowledges the case study might be fictional, yet proceeds to use it as the foundation for sweeping claims about transgender healthcare and identity.

This violates the most basic principle of scientific inquiry: reliable evidence. Using a single case study – especially one whose authenticity you question – to make generalizations about an entire population is the textbook definition of hasty generalization.

When researchers study medical conditions, they don’t rely on single cases. They examine patterns across large populations, control for variables, and subject their findings to peer review. James does none of this, instead cherry-picking the most extreme example he could find.

The Selective Skepticism Strategy: Having Your Cake and Eating It Too

James employs a fascinating rhetorical technique I call “selective skepticism.” He writes:

“I wish it were true that academic journals were reliable sources which carried out due diligence on the case studies they publish. Since wishful thinking is not sufficient, I will have to prefix this article with the admission that the case study related by Kasten (2024) has not been independently verified by me.” [6]

This creates a no-lose situation for his argument:

• If the case study is true, it supports his narrative
• If the case study is false, it supports his claim that academic publishing on transgender issues is unreliable

But notice the inconsistency: James questions the reliability of academic publishing on transgender topics while uncritically accepting:

1. DSM-5-TR and ICD-11 classifications (when they serve his purpose)
2. The Cass Review’s findings [7]
3. His own interpretation of how psychiatric conditions should be classified

This selective skepticism allows James to pick and choose which scientific information to believe while appearing intellectually rigorous. It’s a rhetorical sleight of hand that undermines evidence-based discourse.

The False Equivalence Factory: Different Conditions Are Different (Shocking!)

The central thrust of James’ article is questioning why the DSM-5-TR and ICD-11 distinguish between:

• Body Dysmorphic Disorder (BDD): Preoccupation with perceived flaws in appearance
• Body Integrity Dysphoria (BID): Desire to amputate healthy limbs
• Gender Dysphoria: Incongruence between gender identity and assigned sex

He writes: “the DSM-5-TR does not explain why the presence of gender dysphoria means that the patient cannot be diagnosed with BDD. It is almost as if a caveat was inserted to provide authority to the claim that people with gender dysphoria are not delusional…” [8]

This statement reveals a fundamental misunderstanding (or deliberate misrepresentation) of how medical classifications work. These conditions are classified separately because extensive research has shown they have:

• Different phenomenological presentations
• Different underlying mechanisms
• Different effective treatments
• Different outcomes with various interventions

Research consistently demonstrates that transgender body image concerns differ significantly from both BDD and BID in critical ways [9]:

1. In BDD, individuals perceive flaws that others don’t see or greatly exaggerate minor flaws
2. In BID, individuals desire to remove healthy limbs that function normally
3. In gender dysphoria, individuals accurately perceive their physical characteristics but experience incongruence with their gender identity [10]

These aren’t arbitrary distinctions created for political reasons but reflect decades of clinical observation and research.

The Etymology Manipulation: When Greek Roots Become “Evidence”

James writes: “Dysphoria just means ‘not coping,’ from the Greek words for ‘bearing badly.’ Physically removing the body part that we are not coping with removes the problem, in the same way that a guillotine is a proven effective remedy for headache.” [11]

This is a textbook example of the etymological fallacy – assuming a word’s current meaning must match its historical roots. By this logic, “television” should only refer to seeing things from a distance because of its Greek and Latin roots.

The guillotine analogy is particularly misleading. Gender-affirming care isn’t about random amputation; it’s a carefully regulated process involving:

• Extensive psychological evaluation
• Non-surgical interventions first
• Consideration of multiple treatment options
• Informed consent processes
• Ongoing support

This framing deliberately presents evidence-based medical care as crude and barbaric, playing to emotional reactions rather than scientific understanding.

The Weasel Words Collection: “It Seems” Therefore It Must Be

Throughout the article, James employs hedging language to make damning claims without evidence:

“It seems the gender industry supports the right to spiral into total madness under the all-powerful principle of bodily autonomy.” [12]

“It is almost as if a caveat was inserted to provide authority to the claim that people with gender dysphoria are not delusional…” [13]

“The contemporary gender Weltanschauung is such that any seriously deluded act seems plausible.” [14]

These phrases perform heavy rhetorical work while appearing innocent. “It seems” lets James plant serious accusations without providing evidence. He can later claim he only said it “seemed” that way if challenged.

This rhetoric allows inflammatory claims to masquerade as reasonable observations. It’s intellectual dishonesty dressed up as cautious analysis.

The Narrative Construction Project: Creating a False Progression

James constructs a narrative progression from:

1. Childhood interest in Transformers toys
2. Cross-dressing
3. “Criminalised online content”
4. Self-mutilation [15]

This narrative construction implies a causal relationship without establishing evidence. It suggests that gender transition is the first step on a slippery slope to extreme behaviors.

But this is not how scientific causation works. The fact that one person experienced these elements doesn’t establish a pattern or progression. It’s like saying “I know someone who played violent video games and later committed a crime, therefore video games cause criminal behavior.”

This false progression creates unwarranted fear around transgender identity and healthcare by implying inevitable escalation toward extreme behaviors.

The Critical Evidence Vacuum: What’s Suspiciously Missing

What’s perhaps most damning about James’ article is the complete absence of:

1. ANY supporting evidence for his sweeping claims Despite making bold declarations about the nature of gender dysphoria, James provides literally zero scientific citations, research studies, or expert opinions to support his position. [16]
2. The substantial body of research that directly contradicts his narrative James conveniently ignores numerous peer-reviewed studies on transgender body image [17], the effectiveness of gender-affirming care, and the distinctions between gender dysphoria and other conditions. This research exists in abundance and is readily accessible.
3. Research showing the distinct neurological patterns in transgender individuals compared to those with BID
4. Clinical outcome studies demonstrating different responses to various treatments for these conditions
5. Expert perspectives from specialists who work with both conditions explaining why the classifications are different
6. The voices of actual transgender people explaining their experiences of gender dysphoria, which would directly contradict James’ characterization
7. The fact that the vast majority of transgender individuals never engage in self-harm behaviors like those described in the extreme case study [19]

This isn’t just oversight – it’s a deliberate omission strategy. James’ article isn’t evidence-based because there IS no evidence for his claims, and he carefully avoids mentioning the mountain of evidence that contradicts them. [20]

The Fear Factory: Creating Doubt Through Historical Tactics

This article isn’t an isolated case of poor scholarship. It’s part of a recognizable pattern of rhetoric that has been used against marginalized groups throughout history:

1. Find the most extreme outlier case possible (or invent one)
2. Present it as typical or representative of the entire group
3. Use emotionally charged language to create fear (“spiral into total madness”) [21]
4. Suggest that rights or healthcare for the entire group should be restricted based on this extreme example

We’ve seen this playbook before – against racial minorities, immigrants, the LGBTQ+ community, and other marginalized groups. The tactic is designed to create moral panic through fear rather than encourage evidence-based understanding.

James is writing for Genspect, an organization that has been classified as an anti-LGBTQ hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center as of June 2024. [31] This designation came following the SPLC’s CAPTAIN report, which tracked the network of organizations spreading pseudoscientific claims about transgender people. [32] Genspect’s activities include ranking colleges based on “their level of engagement with transgender activism” [23] and promoting “watch and wait” approaches over affirming care that has been supported by major medical organizations. [24]

In Summary…

TL:DR; This article is intellectually dishonest garbage masquerading as academic analysis.

James has constructed what amounts to anti-transgender propaganda using every bad-faith rhetorical trick in the book. The entire premise - building sweeping claims about transgender healthcare on a single case study that he casts doubt onto its legitimacy is academically indefensible. It's like writing a medical textbook based on a character from "Grey's Anatomy."

The false equivalences between distinct medical conditions, the loaded question title, the complete absence of supporting evidence, and the inflammatory language about "spiraling into madness" all point to the same conclusion: this isn't scholarship, it's fear-mongering. It is to draw the most superficial parallels and then stand on that as solid evidence.

What's particularly disturbing is how it's packaged to appear thoughtful and reasonable while making outrageous claims. The selective skepticism about academic publishing (except when it serves his purpose) and the strategic use of weasel words like "it seems" are deliberate tactics to avoid accountability while planting harmful ideas.

The fact that Genspect is designated an anti-LGBTQ hate group by the SPLC simply confirms what the article's rhetoric already revealed: this content isn't motivated by genuine concern for scientific accuracy or patient wellbeing, but by an ideological agenda against transgender healthcare.

In short, it's a textbook example of pseudoscience weaponized against a marginalized community, and it deserves to be called out as such.

Folks, if you have to resort to a single unverified case study, false equivalences, weasel words, and selective skepticism to make your point, maybe - just maybe - your point isn’t supported by actual evidence.

When someone has to work this hard to make their case seem plausible, perhaps it is not the case that is sensible, but rather that they’re just making stuff up.

References

[1] “Why Do Transgender People Hate Their Bodies?” - Genspect (Published February 3, 2025) https://genspect.substack.com/p/why-do-transgender-people-hate-their

[2-3] See 1 above

[4] Kasten, E. (2024). Case study about a patient suffering from body integrity dysphoria and gender dysphoria. Academia Mental Health and Well-Being, 1(3). https://doi.org/10.20935/MHealthWellB7376

[5-8] See 1 above

[9] Meneguzzo, P., Zuccaretti, D., Tenconi, E., & Favaro, A. (2024). Transgender body image: Weight dissatisfaction, objectification & identity - Complex interplay explored via matched group. International journal of clinical and health psychology : IJCHP, 24(1), 100441. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijchp.2024.100441

[10] White Hughto, J. M., Reisner, S. L., & Pachankis, J. E. (2015). Transgender stigma and health: A critical review of stigma determinants, mechanisms, and interventions. Social science & medicine (1982), 147, 222–231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2015.11.010

[11-14] See 1 above

[15] See 4 above

[16] See 1 above

[17] See 9 above

[19] Tabaac, A., Perrin, P. B., & Benotsch, E. G. (2018). Discrimination, mental health, and body image among transgender and gender-non-binary individuals: Constructing a multiple mediational path model. Journal of gay & lesbian social services, 30(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/10538720.2017.1408514

[20] King, W. M., Hughto, J. M. W., & Operario, D. (2020). Transgender stigma: A critical scoping review of definitions, domains, and measures used in empirical research. Social science & medicine (1982), 250, 112867. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.112867

[21] See 1 above

[22] Genspect’s website: “Our international organisation includes professionals, trans people, detransitioners, and parent groups who work together to advocate for a non-medicalised approach to gender-related distress.” https://genspect.org/

[23] “Introducing: Genspect American College Survey” - “The Genspect American College Survey evaluates colleges in all 50 U.S. states based on their level of engagement with transgender activism.” https://genspect.substack.com/p/introducing-genspect-american-college

[24] “Why We Watch and Wait” - Genspect article advocating against “affirm-first” approaches https://genspect.org/why-we-watch-and-wait/

[25] Daniel Howard James’s Substack: “For the benefit of recent subscribers (thanks!), here’s an evolving list of the essays I’ve written on gender, mostly for Genspect. I really appreciate your comments on, shares of and restacks of my articles, because as an independent researcher without a social media presence it seems very difficult to reach new readers…” https://danielhowardjames.substack.com/p/some-articles-on-gender-and-gender

[26] See 4 above

[27] See 15 above

[28] See 19 above

[29] See 10 above

[30] See 1 above

[31] “Anti-trans organizations Genspect & SEGM are now listed as hate groups by the SPLC” - LGBTQ Nation (June 1, 2024) https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2024/06/anti-trans-organizations-genspect-segm-are-now-listed-as-hate-groups-by-the-splc/

[32] “SPLC Report Exposes Network Behind Junk Science and Disinformation Campaign Against Transgender People” - Southern Poverty Law Center (December 12, 2023) https://www.splcenter.org/presscenter/splc-report-exposes-network-behind-junk-science-and-disinformation-campaign-against/