Countering Cotter: A Blow-by-Blow Debunking of the Inconvenient Truth About His Flawed Case Against Transgender Identities

Cotter's blog series is a masterclass in fallacious reasoning, blatant misrepresentations, and harmful rhetoric.

Thomas Cotter's blog series "What is Gender?" purports to be a logical dissection of the incoherence of “transgender ideology”, but a close examination reveals it to be a masterclass in fallacious reasoning, uncharitable argumentation, and rhetorical sleight-of-hand. Throughout the series, he relies on a predictable set of logical fallacies and bad-faith tactics to attack strawman versions of arguments he opposes, while never substantively engaging with the actual evidence or lived experiences of transgender people.

For a more thorough summary and introduction, please consider reading yesterdays’ executive summary post on this topic here.

As transgender actress and activist Laverne Cox powerfully stated in a 2019 interview with Vogue:

"I think the most important thing is that we have to love ourselves and accept ourselves, and that is a revolutionary act when you've been told that who you are is not acceptable or possible" - Laverne Cox, 2019

This critique aims to uphold this principle by challenging the harmful rhetoric of Thomas Cotter's blog series and uplifting the voices and experiences of transgender individuals themselves.

Make yourself a cup of tea, coffee, or your favorite drink and strap yourselves in as this is a long ride merrily on our way through Cotter’s meandering rehetoric.

The Art of Bad Faith: Cotter's Rhetorical Deceptions

One of the most glaring tactics employed is the false dichotomy, where complex issues are presented as a binary choice between two extreme options. In the first post, readers are told that either gender can be defined in simplistic terms or the entire concept is invalid. Cotter writes, "Failure to [offer a coherent definition of gender] will undermine every claim [the gender-cultist] has built upon the term 'gender'."

But this is a textbook false dichotomy. It ignores the reality that gender is a complex, multifaceted concept involving a mix of biological, psychological, and social factors that cannot be reduced to a simple soundbite. The evolving nature of language around gender is not proof of incoherence, but a reflection of our developing understanding of a complicated phenomenon. The demand for a simplistic definition is not a genuine inquiry but a rhetorical trap. In fact, when engaged in such a discussion, Cotter will "graciously" allow for any definition, only to then use false equivalences and belittling tactics to whittle it down to a straw man he can easily attack.

Another go-to move is the straw man fallacy, where the arguments being critiqued are misrepresented to make them easier to attack. The second post in the series claims that viewing gender as a social construct means reducing it to nothing more than sexist stereotypes. Cotter sarcastically refers to "identify[ing] yourself by stereotypes" and claims this view entrenches regressive gender roles.

But this completely mischaracterizes what it means for gender to be socially constructed. The argument is not that gender itself is nothing more than stereotypes, but that societal expectations and assumptions influence how gender is expressed and perceived. There's a clear distinction between gender identity (one's internal sense of self) and gender roles (external societal expectations) that Cotter completely ignores. This straw man allows him to score rhetorical points against a caricatured version of the argument while never engaging with the real thing.

The series is also rife with mockery and ridicule in place of substantive refutation. Those who disagree are painted as irrational zealots of a "gender-cult," while the idea of innate gender identity is dismissed as "regressive" and "nonsense" without seriously grappling with the scientific evidence or personal experiences of trans people that support it. This rhetoric attempts to delegitimize transgender identities by rendering them ridiculous by association, but ridicule is not an argument, and the sarcasm adds no substance.

Throughout the series, goalposts are shifted, motivations are attacked, and the mere fact of disagreement over definitions is asserted as proof that the concept is flawed. These logical sleights-of-hand allow Cotter to avoid any true engagement with the strongest versions of the arguments he opposes. Flimsy straw men are constructed to be knocked down with sarcastic barbs, but never once does he contend with the steel of the actual medical, scientific, and philosophical arguments in support of transgender identities.

In the end, Cotter's series reveals far more about the bankruptcy of his own reasoning and the dubious nature of his motivations than any incoherence in transgender ideology. This is not good-faith argumentation or a genuine attempt to seek truth – it's a shell game designed to confuse and delegitimize while creating the illusion of scoring decisive blows. But once the fallacies are named and the rhetorical tricks revealed, it becomes clear there is no substance behind the posturing, just a series of logically and ethically suspect attacks on some of our society's most vulnerable members.

In the next section, we'll dive into the wealth of scientific evidence and expert consensus around gender identity that is completely ignored in these screeds. By shining a light on the facts Cotter refuses to engage with, we'll see how quickly his house of cards comes tumbling down.

The Science of Gender Identity: What Cotter Ignores

Throughout his blog series, Thomas Cotter makes numerous claims about gender identity that are not only unsupported by scientific evidence but actively contradicted by decades of research in biology, psychology, and neuroscience. In this section, we will examine some of the key findings that Cotter ignores or dismisses, and show how they utterly refute his central thesis that gender identity is a mere "delusion" or "mental illness."

Cotter's dismissal of transgender identities as mere "delusions" or "mental illness" is not only scientifically baseless but also deeply dehumanizing. As transgender writer and activist Jennifer Finney Boylan eloquently wrote in a 2019 op-ed for The New York Times,:

"As a transgender woman, I've come to understand that my life's struggles aren't about being 'born in the wrong body.' Rather, they're about having the courage to be seen for who I am, and to live with authenticity and dignity in a world that often refuses to recognize our humanity" - Boylan, 2019

The Biological Basis of Gender Identity

Contrary to Cotter's assertion that gender is solely determined by one's chromosomes or genitalia at birth, a growing body of research suggests that gender identity has deep biological roots. Numerous studies have found significant differences in brain structure and function between transgender individuals and cisgender controls, even before any hormonal treatments.12 These findings suggest a neurological basis for experienced gender, and challenge the notion that it is simply a choice or a feeling.

Furthermore, research has identified a range of genetic and epigenetic factors that may contribute to the development of gender identity.3 While the exact mechanisms are still being studied, the evidence points to a complex interplay of biological, psychological, and social influences, rather than a simple binary determined by sex chromosomes.

The Medical Consensus on Gender Affirming Care

Cotter's characterization of transgender identities as a "mental illness" or a "delusion" is not only inflammatory but also directly contradicted by the consensus of medical and mental health professionals. Major medical organizations, including the American Medical Association,4 the American Psychological Association,5 and the World Professional Association for Transgender Health,6 recognize gender affirming care as a legitimate and necessary treatment for many, but not all, transgender individuals.

These organizations' guidelines are based on decades of research showing that affirming transgender identities and providing access to gender-affirming care significantly improves mental health outcomes and reduces suicide risk for many transgender people.78 This consensus is further supported by the findings of the "What We Know" project, a comprehensive review of the scientific literature on gender transition and transgender well-being conducted by researchers at Cornell University. The project found that 93% of the studies reviewed showed that gender transition improves the overall well-being of transgender people, while none showed that it causes overall harm.9

Contrary to Cotter's claims, the evidence is clear that denying or pathologizing transgender identities is what causes harm, not affirming them.

The Lived Experiences of Transgender Individuals

Perhaps the most glaring omission in Cotter's analysis is any engagement with the actual lived experiences of transgender individuals. By focusing solely on abstract philosophical arguments and cherry-picked anecdotes, he completely ignores the voices and stories of the people he is claiming to analyze.

Numerous qualitative studies and personal accounts from transgender individuals consistently describe a deep, innate sense of gender identity that often manifests from a very young age.1011 These experiences cannot be dismissed as mere "delusions" or "feelings," but reflect a fundamental aspect of many people's sense of self.

Moreover, the experiences of gender dysphoria - the distress caused by a mismatch between one's gender identity and assigned sex - are well-documented and recognized by medical professionals.12 To dismiss these experiences as "mental illness," as Cotter does, is not only ignorant but actively harmful.

So What Do We Learn From This?

The scientific evidence is clear: gender identity is a complex, multifaceted phenomenon with biological, psychological, and social roots. It cannot be reduced to a simple binary or dismissed as a mere "delusion." By ignoring this evidence and the lived experiences of transgender individuals, Cotter's arguments crumble under the weight of empirical data.

What emerges from the research is not a picture of "gender ideology" or "indoctrination," as Cotter claims, but a nuanced understanding of the diversity of human gender experiences. Affirming and respecting these experiences is not a matter of political correctness or "feelings," but of basic human dignity and scientific accuracy.

However, Cotter's failure to engage with the science of gender identity is not his only flaw. As we will see in the next section, his arguments also rely heavily on misrepresenting the positions of his opponents and dismissing the real-life experiences and perspectives of transgender individuals. By setting up straw man arguments and refusing to engage charitably with those he disagrees with, Cotter further undermines his own credibility and reveals the fundamental weakness of his position.

Misrepresentation and Uncharitable Engagement: Cotter's Flawed Argumentation

Throughout his blog series, Thomas Cotter not only ignores the scientific evidence on gender identity but also consistently misrepresents the arguments of those he disagrees with and engages with their positions in an uncharitable manner. By setting up straw man versions of opposing views and refusing to engage seriously with the lived experiences of transgender individuals, Cotter undermines his own credibility and reveals the fundamental weakness of his position.

Misrepresenting Gender Identity Arguments

One of the clearest examples of Cotter's misrepresentation of opposing arguments is his use of "word math" to argue that the term "gender identity" is incoherent. In his fourth blog post, Cotter asserts that because "gender" and "identity" have distinct definitions, "gender identity" cannot logically mean anything other than the sum of those two definitions.13

However, this argument completely ignores the way language actually works. Compound terms often take on meanings that are distinct from the sum of their parts - consider, for example, how "butterfly" refers to a specific insect, not just any flying creature with butter-like qualities. By reducing the concept of gender identity to a simplistic equation, Cotter creates a straw man version of the argument that is easy for him to knock down, rather than engaging with the actual meaning of the term as used by experts and transgender individuals themselves.

Similarly, in his second blog post, Cotter argues that viewing gender as a social construct means reducing it to nothing more than stereotypes.14 But as discussed in the previous section, this is a fundamental misrepresentation of what social constructionism actually entails. Cotter ignores the crucial distinction between gender identity (one's internal sense of self) and gender roles (external societal expectations), instead conflating the two in order to make the concept of socially constructed gender seem absurd.

The Definist Fallacy and Cotter's Rhetorical Traps

Another problematic aspect of Cotter's argumentation is his reliance on the definist fallacy - the idea that a concept must be flawed or invalid if it cannot be defined in simplistic, universally agreed-upon terms. Throughout his blog series, Cotter demands clear, concise definitions of terms like "woman" and "gender," and when his interlocutors struggle to provide them, he takes this as evidence that the concepts themselves are incoherent.15

However, this demand for simplistic definitions ignores the reality that many complex concepts resist easy definition. Consider, for example, the concept of "art" - while we all have a general sense of what art is, providing a precise, universally applicable definition is notoriously difficult. The fact that experts and laypeople alike might struggle to define art in a way that satisfies everyone does not mean that the concept itself is invalid or meaningless.

By insisting on simplistic definitions and refusing to engage with the nuances and complexities of gender identity, Cotter sets up a rhetorical trap for his opponents. He demands a level of clarity and precision that is often impossible to provide, then uses the inevitable failure to meet his arbitrary standards as evidence that the entire concept is flawed.

This tactic is not only intellectually dishonest but also deeply uncharitable. It assumes that the only valid concepts are those that can be easily defined and universally agreed upon, dismissing the possibility of nuance, ambiguity, or good-faith disagreement. It also places an unreasonable burden of proof on those who hold views different from Cotter's own, demanding that they provide perfect definitions or else concede defeat.

By relying on the definist fallacy and setting rhetorical traps for his opponents, Cotter once again reveals his lack of interest in genuine dialogue or understanding. Rather than engaging substantively with the arguments of those he disagrees with, he seeks to score cheap points by holding them to an impossible standard of clarity and precision.

This tactic may be effective at making Cotter's opponents look foolish or tongue-tied, but it does nothing to advance our collective understanding of gender identity or to address the real-world experiences of transgender individuals. It is a rhetorical trick designed to shut down conversation, not to encourage meaningful dialogue or discovery.

Dismissing Lived Experiences

Another major flaw in Cotter's approach is his complete dismissal of the lived experiences and perspectives of transgender individuals. Throughout his blog series, Cotter refers to transgender identities as "delusions," "mental illness," and "nonsense," without ever seriously engaging with the accounts of actual transgender people.16

This dismissive attitude is not only uncharitable but also deeply harmful. By refusing to acknowledge the reality of transgender experiences, Cotter contributes to the stigmatization and marginalization of an already vulnerable population. He shows no empathy for the challenges and discrimination faced by transgender individuals, instead reducing their identities to mere "feelings" or "beliefs."17

Moreover, by ignoring the voices of transgender people themselves, Cotter misses out on a crucial source of insight and understanding. The lived experiences of transgender individuals provide valuable first-hand knowledge about the nature of gender identity and the impact of gender dysphoria that cannot be gained through abstract theorizing alone.

The Consequences of Uncharitable Engagement

Cotter's reliance on misrepresentation and lack of charitable engagement has serious consequences for the quality of his arguments and the overall tone of his blog series. By consistently setting up straw man versions of opposing views and dismissing the perspectives of those he disagrees with, Cotter creates an echo chamber where only his own beliefs are taken seriously.

This approach not only undermines Cotter's credibility as a thinker and writer but also contributes to a polarized and toxic discourse around transgender issues. By refusing to engage in good faith with those he disagrees with, Cotter models a form of argumentation that is more about scoring points and "owning" opponents than about seeking truth or understanding.

Ultimately, Cotter's uncharitable approach reveals the fundamental weakness of his position. If his arguments were truly strong, he would not need to rely on misrepresentation and dismissal of opposing views. Instead, he could engage directly with the best versions of the arguments he opposes, using evidence and reason to make his case.

The fact that Cotter consistently avoids such substantive engagement suggests that, on some level, he recognizes the flaws in his own reasoning. By resorting to straw man tactics and uncharitable rhetoric, he reveals his own lack of confidence in his ability to win the argument on its merits.

In the end, Cotter's blog series serves as a case study in how not to engage in productive dialogue around complex and sensitive issues like gender identity. By prioritizing cheap shots and rhetorical point-scoring over substantive engagement and empathy, Cotter contributes to a discourse that generates more heat than light, and does little to advance our collective understanding of the topic at hand.

Cotter's Selective Use of Evidence

Throughout his blog series, Cotter not only misrepresents opposing arguments and dismisses lived experiences but also engages in a pattern of selective evidence use that undermines his credibility and the strength of his conclusions. He consistently cherry-picks examples and anecdotes that support his preexisting views while ignoring or dismissing evidence that contradicts his position.

One clear example of this selective approach is Cotter's heavy reliance on the controversial book "Irreversible Damage" by Abigail Shrier.18 Cotter cites Shrier's work as if it were a definitive, unbiased source on the topic of transgender youth, without acknowledging the significant criticisms and limitations of her research.1920

Shrier's book has been widely criticized by medical experts and LGBTQ+ advocates for its flawed methodology, cherry-picked evidence, and alarmist tone.21 Many have argued that Shrier's work relies heavily on anecdotal evidence and selective case studies while disregarding the broader body of scientific research on gender identity and transgender health.22

By uncritically promoting Shrier's work as a key source, Cotter reveals his own bias and lack of rigorous engagement with the full range of available evidence. He presents a one-sided, distorted view of the research on transgender issues, ignoring the numerous studies and expert opinions that contradict his preferred narrative.

This pattern of selective evidence use is not limited to Cotter's reliance on Shrier's work. Throughout his blog series, he consistently gravitates towards examples and anecdotes that confirm his preexisting beliefs while dismissing or downplaying evidence that challenges them.

For instance, in his discussion of gender-affirming care for transgender youth, Cotter focuses heavily on a small number of detransition stories and anecdotes of alleged harm, while ignoring the overwhelming evidence that such care is safe, effective, and lifesaving for the vast majority of transgender individuals.23 24

Similarly, in his critique of the concept of non-binary gender identities, Cotter selectively cites examples of individuals who express confusion or uncertainty about their gender, while disregarding the numerous personal accounts and studies that affirm the reality and stability of non-binary identities for many people.2526

This cherry-picking of evidence is a clear violation of the principles of honest, rigorous inquiry. By selectively presenting only the evidence that supports his views and ignoring or dismissing evidence that contradicts them, Cotter creates a distorted, misleading picture of the research on gender identity and transgender issues.

Moreover, this selective approach to evidence undermines Cotter's credibility as a commentator and thinker. It suggests that he is more interested in confirming his own biases and preconceptions than in genuinely engaging with the full range of available evidence and arguments.

Cotter's selective use of evidence is particularly egregious given his self-presentation as a rational, objective analyst cutting through the fog of "gender ideology." By cherry-picking evidence and ignoring inconvenient facts, Cotter reveals himself to be just as ideologically driven and biased as those he criticizes.

In the end, Cotter's selective approach to evidence is yet another manifestation of his broader pattern of uncharitable, bad-faith argumentation. By presenting a one-sided, distorted view of the research on gender identity, he does a disservice to his readers and to the larger public discourse on these complex and sensitive issues.

Cotter's Contradictions and Inconsistencies

In addition to his selective use of evidence and his disregard for scientific consensus, Cotter's blog series is also marked by numerous inconsistencies and contradictions that further undermine his credibility and the coherence of his arguments.

One glaring example of this is Cotter's inconsistent application of his own standards for clear, rigorous definitions. Throughout his series, Cotter repeatedly criticizes transgender advocates and allies for their alleged failure to provide precise, universally agreed-upon definitions of terms like "woman" and "gender identity."27

However, when it comes to his own arguments, Cotter frequently relies on vague, poorly defined, or inconsistently applied concepts. For instance, in his critique of the idea that gender is a social construct, Cotter asserts that gender is "firmly rooted in biology" without ever clearly defining what he means by "gender" in this context.28

Similarly, in his discussion of transgender children and youth, Cotter makes sweeping claims about the alleged harms of gender-affirming care without ever clearly defining his criteria for what constitutes "harm" or engaging with the evidence that challenges his assertions.29

This inconsistency in Cotter's standards for definition and precision suggests that his demand for clear definitions from others is more of a rhetorical tactic than a genuine commitment to conceptual rigor. He is quick to criticize others for their supposed lack of clarity while giving himself a pass on the same standards.

Another area where Cotter's arguments are rife with inconsistencies and contradictions is in his treatment of personal identity and subjective experience. On the one hand, Cotter dismisses the self-reported gender identities of transgender individuals as mere "delusions" or "feelings" that have no bearing on objective reality.30

Yet, at the same time, Cotter frequently appeals to his own subjective perceptions and experiences as if they were unassailable truths. For example, he asserts that the existence of transgender individuals is a "war on gender" and a threat to the very fabric of society, based largely on his own intuitions and fears rather than any concrete evidence.31

This contradiction reveals a fundamental inconsistency in Cotter's approach to subjective experience. He dismisses the deeply felt, consistently reported experiences of transgender individuals as meaningless while elevating his own subjective impressions and opinions to the status of objective fact.

This inconsistency is not only logically incoherent but also deeply hypocritical. It suggests that Cotter is unwilling to extend the same respect and consideration to others' subjective experiences that he demands for his own.

Throughout his blog series, Cotter repeatedly ties himself in knots trying to dismiss or downplay evidence and arguments that challenge his preconceived notions while also trying to maintain an air of objective, rational analysis. The result is a series of arguments that are riddled with inconsistencies, contradictions, and double standards.

These inconsistencies and contradictions are not mere surface-level flaws or oversights. Rather, they reflect the fundamental incoherence of Cotter's position and the bad-faith nature of his argumentation.

By applying his standards selectively, dismissing others' experiences while elevating his own, and contradicting himself at key points, Cotter reveals the underlying weakness and unsustainability of his views on gender identity.

In the end, Cotter's inconsistencies and contradictions serve as yet another reminder of the importance of approaching complex issues like gender identity with intellectual humility, good faith, and a commitment to following the evidence wherever it leads. Cotter's blog series, sadly, exemplifies the opposite of these virtues.

The Dangers of Cotter's Rhetoric

Cotter's blog series on gender identity is not merely an intellectual exercise or a harmless expression of personal opinion. Rather, the kind of rhetoric and argumentation he employs has real-world consequences that contribute to the stigmatization, marginalization, and harm of transgender individuals.

One of the most dangerous aspects of Cotter's rhetoric is the way it dehumanizes and dismisses the experiences of transgender people. By consistently referring to transgender identities as "delusions," "mental illness," and "nonsense," Cotter strips away the dignity and humanity of transgender individuals and reduces their deeply felt experiences to mere pathology or confusion.32

This kind of language has a long and ugly history of being used to justify discrimination, violence, and oppression against marginalized groups. By framing transgender identities as a form of mental illness or delusion, Cotter contributes to a climate of hostility and prejudice that makes it easier for others to discriminate against and mistreat transgender individuals.

Moreover, Cotter's dismissive and mocking tone throughout his blog series sends a clear message to transgender readers that their experiences and identities are not valid or worthy of respect. This can have a devastating impact on the mental health and well-being of transgender individuals, particularly youth who are already at a higher risk for depression, anxiety, and suicide due to societal stigma and discrimination.33

Another insidious danger of Cotter's rhetoric is the way it can mislead and misinform parents of transgender children who may be seeking guidance and understanding. For parents who are unfamiliar with the complexities of gender identity and the current scientific consensus, coming across Cotter's blog series without proper context or background knowledge can be deeply confusing and potentially harmful.

Cotter presents his views on transgender issues with an air of authority and certainty, despite the fact that many of his claims are contradicted by scientific evidence and expert consensus. For parents who are not well-versed in the research on gender identity, it can be difficult to distinguish Cotter's baseless assertions from genuine facts and insights.

This can lead parents to make decisions or take actions that are not in the best interests of their transgender children. If a parent were to uncritically accept Cotter's framing of transgender identities as "delusions" or "mental illness," for example, they might be less likely to support their child's gender identity or to seek out gender-affirming care that has been shown to be lifesaving for many transgender youth.34

Moreover, exposure to Cotter's dismissive and dehumanizing rhetoric about transgender individuals could make parents less likely to approach their child's gender identity with empathy, understanding, and respect. This can strain family relationships and leave transgender children feeling isolated, misunderstood, and unsupported at a time when they most need love and acceptance.

The potential for Cotter's blog series to mislead and misinform parents is particularly concerning given the high stakes involved in supporting transgender youth. Research has consistently shown that transgender children who are supported in their identities by their families have better mental health outcomes and lower rates of suicide and self-harm compared to those who lack family support.35

As such, it is crucial that parents of transgender children have access to accurate, evidence-based information about gender identity and best practices for supporting their children. Cotter's blog series, with its numerous inaccuracies, misrepresentations, and biased arguments, represents a clear threat to parents' ability to make informed, compassionate decisions in the best interests of their transgender children.

Another dangerous aspect of Cotter's rhetoric is the way it fuels polarization and hinders productive dialogue around gender identity issues. By consistently engaging in bad-faith argumentation, misrepresenting opposing views, and dismissing the lived experiences of transgender individuals, Cotter contributes to a climate of mistrust and hostility that makes it difficult for people with different perspectives to find common ground or engage in good-faith dialogue.

This polarization has real-world consequences, as it makes it harder for society to have nuanced, evidence-based discussions about how best to support and include transgender individuals in various spheres of life. When the conversation is dominated by the kind of uncharitable, all-or-nothing rhetoric exemplified by Cotter's blog series, it becomes much more difficult to find pragmatic solutions or make progress on complex issues.

Furthermore, Cotter's rhetoric contributes to a larger climate of misinformation and pseudoscience surrounding transgender issues. By selectively citing discredited or fringe sources, ignoring scientific consensus, and presenting his own speculative theories as fact, Cotter muddies the waters and makes it harder for the general public to access accurate, reliable information about gender identity.

This spread of misinformation can have serious consequences, as it can lead people to make ill-informed decisions about their own health care or the care of their loved ones. It can also contribute to the perpetuation of harmful myths and stereotypes about transgender individuals that further fuel discrimination and prejudice.

Transgender author and activist Juno Dawson succinctly captured this dynamic in a 2018 article for The Guardian::

"The reason trans people's mental health is so poor is because we live in a society that is constantly telling us we don't exist, that we're faking it, that we're delusional. It's not because we're trans; it's because other people have an issue with us being trans" - Dawson, 2018

By perpetuating stigma and misinformation, Cotter's blog series directly contributes to this hostile climate and its devastating impact on transgender individuals.

Ultimately, the dangers of Cotter's rhetoric lie in its capacity to inflict real-world harm on some of society's most vulnerable members. By dehumanizing transgender individuals, fueling polarization and mistrust, and spreading misinformation and pseudoscience, Cotter's blog series contributes to a hostile, dangerous climate for transgender people.

As such, it is crucial that Cotter's rhetoric be called out and challenged, not just for the sake of intellectual honesty and rigor, but for the protection and well-being of transgender individuals themselves. By pushing back against this kind of harmful, bad-faith argumentation, we can help to create a more informed, empathetic, and inclusive public discourse around gender identity issues.

Alternative Approaches to Discussing Gender Identity

Throughout this critique, we have seen how Thomas Cotter's blog series on gender identity is riddled with logical fallacies, misrepresentations, uncharitable argumentation, and rhetoric that contributes to the stigmatization and harm of transgender individuals. However, it is not enough to simply point out the flaws in Cotter's approach; we must also consider what a more productive, respectful, and evidence-based discussion of gender identity might look like.

One key principle of a more constructive approach to this topic is a commitment to engaging with the lived experiences of transgender individuals themselves. Rather than dismissing or pathologizing these experiences, as Cotter does, we should strive to listen to and learn from the firsthand accounts of transgender people.

Central to this approach is a commitment to listening to and uplifting the voices of transgender individuals and their families. As Debi Jackson, the mother of a transgender child, powerfully expressed in a 2015 interview with ABC News:

"I would rather have a living daughter than a dead son. And that's what it comes down to. I have a child who is happy, healthy, confident, and an amazing person. Why would I not support her in being who she is?" - Jackson, 2015

By grounding our discussions in these lived experiences and prioritizing the well-being of transgender individuals, we can foster a more constructive and compassionate dialogue.

This means seeking out and amplifying the voices of transgender individuals in our discussions of gender identity, and treating their self-reported experiences and identities with respect and credibility. It also means being open to the diversity and complexity of transgender experiences, rather than trying to reduce them to a single, simplistic narrative.

Another crucial aspect of a more productive discussion of gender identity is a willingness to engage with the full range of scientific evidence and expert consensus on the topic. As we have seen, there is a wealth of research from fields like biology, neuroscience, and psychology that supports the reality and validity of transgender identities.36

A responsible, evidence-based approach to this topic requires grappling with this research in good faith, even when it challenges our preconceptions or intuitions. It means being willing to update our beliefs in light of new evidence, and to defer to the expertise of qualified researchers and medical professionals who have dedicated their careers to studying gender identity.

In addition to engaging with lived experiences and scientific evidence, a more constructive approach to discussing gender identity also requires a fundamental commitment to empathy, respect, and intellectual humility.

This means striving to understand and appreciate the challenges and complexities faced by transgender individuals, even if we cannot fully relate to their experiences. It means approaching the topic with an open mind and a willingness to learn, rather than assuming we already have all the answers.

It also means being willing to acknowledge the limits of our own knowledge and expertise, and to engage in good-faith dialogue with those who may have different perspectives or experiences from our own. This requires resisting the temptation to engage in strawman arguments, ad hominem attacks, or other forms of uncharitable rhetoric that shut down productive conversation.

Ultimately, the goal of a more constructive approach to discussing gender identity is not to win debates or score rhetorical points, but to deepen our collective understanding and to create a more inclusive, supportive society for people of all gender identities.

This means focusing on practical solutions and policies that can improve the lives of transgender individuals, such as increasing access to gender-affirming healthcare, protecting against discrimination in housing and employment, and creating safe and welcoming educational environments for transgender students.

It also means working to break down the stigma, misinformation, and polarization surrounding transgender issues, and to foster a culture of empathy, respect, and open-mindedness in our public discourse.

By committing to these principles - engaging with lived experiences, following the scientific evidence, leading with empathy and respect, and focusing on practical solutions - we can move beyond the kind of harmful, counterproductive rhetoric exemplified by Cotter's blog series and towards a more informed, compassionate, and effective approach to understanding and supporting gender diversity in all its forms.