By John Q. Hosedrinker 
A United Nations draft report alleges a global effort to redefine “women” and erode their legal standing, with the aim of excluding them as a distinct category, based on biological sex. The report, compiled by the OHCHR’s special rapporteur, Reem Alsalem, also claims gender dysphoria is “socially contagious” and calls for restrictions on transitioning for minors. Furthermore, it commends the UK Supreme Court’s ruling on the definition of “woman” and advocates for female-only spaces, despite a lack of evidence supporting the idea that trans women are a threat to cisgender women. The report’s conclusions rely on disputed theories and research, which have been criticized for promoting anti-trans sentiment.
Read the original article here
UN draft report claims gender dysphoria is ‘socially contagious’ – let’s unpack this. The core of the conversation here centers around the idea of gender dysphoria being “socially contagious,” spurred by a report from a UN Special Rapporteur, Reem Alsalem. It’s important to immediately clarify that while this is a report by a UN-affiliated individual, it’s not an official UN document or a report from the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR). The Special Rapporteur, as an independent expert, offers recommendations that may or may not be considered by UN bodies.
What’s interesting here is the anecdotal evidence that seems to fuel some of the discussion, specifically the experience of a teacher witnessing a group of young girls expressing gender dysphoria, with the initial expression coming from the quietest member of the group. There’s a clear observation that while some of the girls later reverted to identifying with their birth gender, one remained dysphoric. This mirrors the common developmental process of young people experimenting with different identities during childhood and adolescence.
The conversation also touches on the issue of the report’s focus. There’s a noticeable critique regarding the frequent emphasis on trans women, while trans men are often overlooked in these discussions. This apparent imbalance raises questions about the underlying motivations and biases within these kinds of analyses. Acknowledging the differences between trans women and biological women is not inherently problematic, nor does it diminish the human rights of trans individuals. It is important to differentiate between trans rights and women’s rights, as both are distinct issues needing dedicated consideration, without suggesting any difference in importance.
There’s a historical analogy drawn to left-handedness, which was once suppressed, only for a larger population to identify as left-handed once such repression eased. The suggestion is that in societies where being transgender is accepted, more people will express themselves as such, whereas in less accepting environments, they may remain hidden. This highlights a key point: social acceptance can significantly impact the visibility and expression of any identity.
The report itself has drawn considerable criticism for its reliance on opinions rather than solid scientific studies. This concern emphasizes the importance of evidence-based analysis when addressing complex social and psychological topics. The use of such a controversial concept – that gender dysphoria is contagious – without a strong scientific foundation, raises serious questions about its validity and the potential harm it could cause. There’s a strong undercurrent of suspicion that such claims may be rooted in anti-trans sentiment.
Many voices here challenge the very premise of “social contagion” when it comes to gender dysphoria. They argue that this is not a “trend” but rather a matter of increased awareness and the ability of individuals to feel safe and comfortable exploring their identities. The notion of the “left-handedness epidemic” helps to exemplify this, in that an identity that was once repressed and forced to be hidden, is now readily available.
The discussion also delves into the broader social implications of these debates. The role of social media and echo chambers is flagged, particularly in creating polarized environments. The idea is that online platforms sometimes reinforce existing beliefs, making nuanced discussions difficult and, at times, leading to aggressive exchanges.
In response to the topic, there is discussion about the rights and experiences of trans individuals. The argument that trans women do not pose a threat to biological women is raised, with strong support for the rights and safety of trans people. Furthermore, there is an acknowledgement that everyone deserves support and affirmation in their journey and experiences.
Some commenters also suggest that framing gender dysphoria as a “mental condition” could, paradoxically, lead to greater societal acceptance, even though it might pathologize trans individuals. But what should be kept in mind, and often overlooked, is that a person’s identity and expressions should not be a cause of concern to other people. As long as a trans person is not doing anything to harm or otherwise impact others, they should be afforded the respect and comfort to live as they wish.
Ultimately, this ongoing discussion centers on whether the increased visibility of transgender identities is due to social contagion or simply increased awareness and acceptance. Some see this shift as a positive development, while others express concerns about the impact on existing social structures and the rights of cisgender women. In any case, all the various aspects of the conversation point to the need for thoughtful, evidence-based dialogue and a commitment to understanding and respecting the diversity of human experiences.