The Inconvenient Truths about "Free to Be(lieve) in Gender Pseudoscience"

Today we are going to talk about "Free to Be(lieve) in Gender Pseudoscience," by Christina Buttons. “Christina Buttons” is the pen name of Christina “Tina” Berry, an American writer, illustrator, and anti-transgender activist who wrote articles for anti-trans publication The Daily Wire until 2023. Over the course of this activism, Berry began a relationship with anti-trans activist Colin Wright of the magazine Quillette and Reality’s Last Stand on substack. She now writes for her own substasck, buttonslives, and frequently as a guest writer for Wright’s publications. Remember my bit about indoctrination? Who benefits from the gender critical ideology? The reader, the one who buys the book, gives a paid subscription, or donates to their personal funds or the person who gets paid? 1

Berry takes aim at Dr. Jack Turban's new book, claiming it's chock-full of unsupported claims about gender identity. But is it really? Because this critique is a bumpy ride filled with logical fallacies and gross misrepresentations.

Who is Dr. Jack Turban? He is a well-respected researcher and psychiatrist who has published numerous peer-reviewed articles on gender identity and mental health. His work has been featured in leading medical journals, such as The Lancet, The American Journal of Psychiatry, and JAMA Pediatrics2. Turban's expertise in this field has been recognized by major professional organizations, and his contributions to the understanding of gender identity development and the importance of gender-affirming care are widely acknowledged by his peers.

Berry, an activist author, is writing a critique of a book written by a well-respected doctor and researcher - one that has in-depth domain knowledge both in medicine and research, as well as a specialization in transgender health care.

Now that we know a little more about the people and context of the article, let’s examine what those fallacies are, what the article claims, and what our friends science and facts tell us about what we know.

Appeal to authority:

Argument from the article: "Turban is known for publishing deeply flawed studies on gender-affirming care and for his refusal to engage with critiques of these studies. His influence is notable: he recently appeared on PBS and is responsible for reviewing the American Psychiatric Association's page on gender dysphoria."

While the author attempts to discredit Turban's work and expertise, they do not provide specific evidence or citations to support their claims about his studies being "deeply flawed" or his alleged refusal to engage with critiques. Appearing on PBS and reviewing the APA's page on gender dysphoria do not necessarily make Turban's arguments invalid3. It sure does manage to inject fear that he is lying or disreputable, and cast doubt over his professional and moral turpitude.

Misrepresentation of evidence:

Argument from the article: "The twins study, a 2011 review of older research, revealed only a 40% concordance rate among twins, which is considered low for such studies."

The author misrepresents the significance of the 40% concordance rate in the twin study. While this rate may be lower than some other traits, it still suggests a substantial genetic influence on gender identity. The study's authors conclude that their findings "suggest a role for genetic factors in the development of GID."4 So cherry-picking much?

Inaccurate portrayal of research:

Argument from the article: "The second study Turban cites is a 2019 genome sequencing study. [...] This study's methodology is questionable due to a small sample size and lack of a control group, as well as missing data on sexual orientation."

The author criticizes the genome sequencing study's methodology without providing a detailed explanation of why these factors invalidate the study's findings. Small sample sizes and lack of control groups are common limitations in early-stage research, and do not necessarily negate the results. The study's authors acknowledge these limitations and call for further research5.

False dichotomy:

Argument from the article: "In conclusion, biological factors are associated with being transgender, but being transgender itself is not an inherent condition one is born with."

The author presents a false dichotomy between biological factors being associated with being transgender and being transgender as an inherent condition. The reality is likely more complex, with a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental factors influencing gender identity development.6 We have known this for a while, so to present the argument that “well, it is not DNA alone so it must not be something one is born with” discounts the hormonal influences and other biological processes and factors. Some of which we have reproduced in animal studies going back to 1950’s.

Gender identity development is, as far as we know today, a complex process that involves the interplay of multiple factors, including genetics, hormones, and environment. For example, studies have shown that exposure to certain hormones during critical periods of fetal development can influence brain structure and function in ways that may contribute to gender identity7.Additionally, social and cultural factors, such as family dynamics, peer relationships, and societal norms, can also shape an individual's understanding and expression of their gender identity8.

Misrepresentation of gender identity:

Argument from the article: "The concept of a fixed, innate, and unchanging gender identity is refuted by a substantial body of desistance research in children and a growing population of detransitioners."

The author misrepresents the concept of gender identity as necessarily fixed and unchanging, which is not a claim made by most gender identity researchers or advocates. The existence of desistance and detransition does not negate the validity of transgender identities, but rather highlights the complexity of gender identity development and the importance of individualized care9. Furthermore, we know that of those who detransition, over half of them will transition again later in life, as the primary reason trans people detransition is due to parental influence.

So, what's the takeaway here? Well, this is a prime example of how misinformation and logical fallacies can be used to push an agenda and make a pseudo-scientific argument sound and feel factual and reasonable. It is a form of manipulation and deceit. The author cherry-picks studies, misrepresents their findings, and presents false dichotomies to cast doubt on the validity of transgender identities and the work of researchers like Dr. Turban.

This is why it is really important to learn to think critically when reading articles or listening to talking heads that are all single-issue focused with one agenda. It is important to learn how to identify logical fallacies and see that, with the presence of these bad arguments and unsubstantiated claims, we can then be on the look out to verify the claims and data made. If we do not, then we will fall into the the trap that rejects what we know, that will accept opinions without evidence as fact. I found this handy graphic to make the comparison more clear:

We know that gender identity is a complex and nuanced topic. We must not let pseudoscience and logical fallacies entice us and steer us away from the truth. This is why critical thinking and being willing to read and learn a little bit more is so critical to being not only well informed, but inoculated against articles like Berry’s. It's time to stand up against the spread of misinformation and the very real damage it causes and support the trans community with facts, empathy, and understanding. So what can we do? When we see this in the wild, we should call it out and paint it plainly for all to see. If it is a substack, we should drop a comment for the inaccuracies, fallacies, and misrepresented facts being used to misinform or mislead. We should make sure that readers who come after us will see that this does not stand up to scrutiny.

That is something we can do to help prevent and protect not just the trans folks and the trans community, but all women. That’s right, you may not be aware, as I have learned it recently myself.

Spreading misinformation about transgender identities can have serious consequences for individuals and society as a whole. When articles like Berry's promote bad science / pseudoscience and perpetuate false narratives, they contribute to the stigma, discrimination, and marginalization faced by transgender people. Not only does this lead to increased rates of depression, anxiety, and suicidality among transgender individuals, it also increases the public acceptance and spread of transphobia.

A study by Hughto, Reisner, and Pachankis (2015) found that transgender individuals who experienced stigma and discrimination were more likely to report symptoms of depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) compared to those who did not10. Additionally, misinformation can create barriers to accessing appropriate healthcare and support services, as it may lead to misunderstandings among healthcare providers, policymakers, and the general public about the needs and experiences of transgender individuals. It is one more “fact” or “truth” that can be sold to parents in crisis, to convince them to engage in behaviors and make decisions that harm their own trans kid.

And this hurts more than just trans folks. It also hurts cis women, and of all cis women it hurts, it hurts women of color the most11. That is why it is crucial that we counter this misinformation with accurate, evidence-based information to create a more inclusive and understanding society.

So remember, critical thinking isn't just a skill - it's a necessity in a world filled with misinformation. Keep on guard, and if something seems to be off, read the source(s) yourself. Put them into google, see what comes back. Verify claims made. In short, keep your wits about you, don't believe everything you read, especially when it comes to gender critical ideology and pseudoscience.

If you stuck it through and read all the way to this last line, Great! Now you have a little more information, a little more context, and that will make all the difference. Until next time, take care of yourselves and each other.