Transgender Panic vs. Common Sense

Guest Opinion

By Tom Gutowski | April 19, 2025

In Executive Order 14168, signed on his first day in office, President Trump declared that “It is the policy of the United States to recognize two sexes, male and female,” and that “these sexes are not changeable and are grounded in fundamental and incontrovertible reality.” The deciding factor in determining gender, according to the order, is what type of reproductive cells the individual produces.

While this may seem like common sense, it would be news to the biologists, geneticists, endocrinologists, and others who research human sexuality. There are dozens of genetic and other variations that can render someone “intersex,” i.e., not clearly male or female.

For example, someone with both an X and a Y chromosome and androgen insensitivity is genetically male but may have female genitals. Some people have both ovarian and testicular tissue, and under the order could be both sexes. Someone with two X chromosomes is technically female, but if they have an SRY gene, they may develop as a male. Based on a review in the American Journal of Human Biology of four decades of medical literature, most advocacy groups estimate the number of intersex people in the U.S. (including those with no outward signs) at about 5.6 million.

“Gender dysphoria,” the feeling that one’s gender identity differs from one’s physical sex, isn’t the same thing as being intersex, though they may overlap. While the science is continually evolving, according to many researchers, there is considerable empirical evidence that gender dysphoria has a physiological basis. According to a study done at UCLA, the number of people aged 13 and older in the U.S. who identify as transgender—as belonging to a gender not assigned to them at birth—is 1.6 million.

Though the terminology we use today is relatively new, gender nonconformity itself isn’t. In North America indigenous people recognized five genders, and held those with both male and female characteristics—“two spirit” people—in high regard. And historians have uncovered lots of evidence of gender variance in ancient cultures.

Modern western society is less welcoming. In the U.S., trans people are four times more likely to be the victims of violent crime and much more likely to attempt suicide than are cisgender people (i.e., those who identify with the gender that matches their biological sex). On average, they have lower incomes and shorter life expectancies. According to the ACLU, in 2024 there were over 500 bills targeting trans people introduced in state legislatures. Under a bill filed in Texas this March, simply being trans would constitute the crime of “gender fraud.”

Whence the upsurge in anti-trans attitude? In recent decades, the trans community has become a bit more accepted and legally protected, and thus more visible, and that’s generating a backlash. And that backlash has created an opportunity for political manipulation.

Demagogues typically scapegoat vulnerable populations, then present themselves as would be saviors who’ll protect us from the supposed dangers associated with that population. In this case those “dangers” include drag shows, trans women’s use of women’s restrooms and participation in women’s sports, the incarceration of trans women in women’s prisons, and the old bugaboo, “grooming.”

Many of the concerns raised are just silly. No, public schools aren’t performing sex change operations on students (does this really need to be said?). And little Johnny isn’t going to become gay or trans because he witnessed a drag show, or because he’s aware that a classmate has two dads.

Others, like trans participation in women’s sports, do merit calm, rational analysis. Sometimes perfect solutions, in which everyone’s rights are fully served and protected, aren’t possible, so discussion and compromise become necessary.

Unfortunately, however, as a society we seem unable to talk about these kinds of things without hurling manifestos and insults at each other. Our discussions ought to be based on facts and real world circumstances, and conducted with respect for all of our fellow human beings, whether trans or cisgender, straight or gay, and whether male, female, or intersex.

Those concerned with restrooms should consider the lack of evidence that trans use of women’s restrooms would cause harm to cisgender women, and the humiliation and harassment that trans women could be subjected to if forced to use men’s rooms. Those advocating incarceration of trans women in men’s prisons must address the fact that it puts trans women at serious risk of assault and abuse. Those who champion the cause of trans women athletes must also consider the rights of the cisgender female athletes against whom trans women compete. And those favoring new rules need to explain who they believe ought to have the power to establish them and why, and how they’d be enforced.

In a civilized society, people should be able to disagree without losing sight of each other’s humanity. Nothing good happens when we start seeing each other as merely ideological opponents, as the sources of our fears or the targets of our anger. Hannah Arendt wrote that the death of human empathy is a telling sign that a culture is about to fall into barbarism. We should consider ourselves duly warned.

Tom Gutowski holds a BA in Economics and a PhD in History.