Sexy Science
“Each step forward to become the person we are makes it harder to go backwards, to
return to the shadowy, private world of closed doors and shuttered windows. The
experience, the awakening of one’s true self, after being so long suppressed, can never be
adequately explained with language.” —Lili Elbe.
On December 15, 1950, the US Senate’s Hoey committee (named after its chairman,
Senator Clyde Hoey) published its report: Employment of Homosexuals and Other Sex
Perverts in Government, the product of a six-month-long investigation. “It is the opinion
of this subcommittee that those who engage in acts of homosexuality and other perverted
sex activities are unsuitable for employment in the Federal Government,” the report
concluded.
The
subcommittee
found
that
in
the
past
many
Government
officials
failed
to
take
a
realistic
view
of
the
problem
of
sex
perversion
in
Government
with
the
result
that
a
number
of
sex
perverts
were
not
discovered
or
removed
from
Government
jobs,
and
in
still
other
instances
they
were
quietly
eased
out
of
one
department
and
promptly
found
employment
in
another
agency.
This
situation
undoubtedly
stemmed
from
the
fact
that
there
was
a
general
disinclination
on
the
part
of
many
Government
officials
to
face
squarely
the
problem
of
sex
perversion
among
Federal
employees
and
as
a
result
they
did
not
take
the
proper
steps
to
solve
the
problem.
The
rules
of
the
Civil
Service
Commission
and
the
regulations
of
the
agencies
themselves
prohibit
the
employment
of
sex
perverts
and
these
rules
have
been
in
effect
for
many
years.
Had
the
existing
rules
and
regulations
been
enforced
many
of
the
perverts
who
were
forced
out
of
government
in
recent
months
would have been long since removed from the Federal service.
The Hoey committee was part of a larger crackdown on gay people in the federal
government, which in turn was part of the anti-communist Red Scare. The prevailing
thought among US officials at the time was that gay people were uniquely susceptible to
communist influence because of their “peculiar mental twists,” as Sen. Joseph McCarthy
put it. His colleague, Sen. Kenneth Wherry, warned that “Only the most naïve could
believe that the Communists’ fifth column in the United States would neglect to propagate
and use homosexuals to gain their treacherous ends.”
There was some push-back; psychiatrist George Raines warned the Hoey committee that
further isolating gay people from society could backfire and make them “ripe for
revolution.” Besides that, everyone agreed on the underlying premise: Homosexuality was
a perverted mental illness, and a societal malady that needed to be eradicated.
While initially focused on the federal government, the persecution of gay people soon
extended to all professions. Investigations were conducted into the private lives of citizens,
looking for “perverted” activity.
Ironically enough, many of the witch hunters were themselves rumored to be closeted
witches. From FBI director J. Edgar Hoover, to Donald Trump’s future mentor, Roy Cohn,
whom Politico once described as “a Jewish anti-Semite and a homosexual homophobe.”
Even McCarthy was likely gay. In 1952, The Las Vegas Sun noted the senator’s lack of
female companionship and reported on the “common talk among homosexuals in
Milwaukee who rendezvous at the White House Inn that Senator Joe McCarthy often
engages in homosexual activities.”
Nevertheless, the relentless persecution of gay people during this time resulted in a
particularly grim chapter of LGBTQ history. Many people, once outed, committed suicide.
Besides the institutional witch hunt, the more insidious effects were cultural. Homophobia
became much more overt throughout society as folks began seeing gay people as
dangerous and diseased. The US government even produced Public Service
Announcements warning citizens to protect their children from gay men. You can still find
some of them online; grainy, black and white PSAs from the 1950s in which gay men lurk
around schools looking to groom children. Gay men in particular were deliberately
equated with pedophiles to really drive home the point that they’re dangerous, predatory,
and perverted.
This anti-gay crusade became such an important chapter in history, distinct from the Red
Scare, that it is now known as the “Lavender Scare.”
In case you haven’t noticed, today, we seem to be living in a Lavender Scare renaissance.
Although this time the target has shifted to transgender people.
Most of the attacks haven’t changed—the notion that trans people are “grooming” children
into questioning their gender, for example, is a carbon copy of the calumnies once directed
at gay people.
A lot of leftists (myself included) generally view such a culture war as a distraction. To put
it somewhat reductively: the United States has two capitalist parties dedicated to
maintaining the unequal status quo. One of them is pro-gay, while the other is
homophobic. As long as the battle lines are drawn on this cultural basis, the managers of
both parties will be quite happy.
Of course that is not to say the transphobia exhibited by these politicians is inauthentic,
but rather that this is a convenient fight to have. As long as people are debating trans
rights, they won’t be debating universal healthcare. Therefore politicians stand to gain
from indulging in their real prejudices.
However, distraction or not, the harm caused by this anti-trans campaign is real. And in
the middle of a Lavender Scare renaissance, we have a responsibility to defend trans
rights.
In that spirit, let me explain what I hope to accomplish with this article, and to whom it’s
primarily addressed.
If you are the type of person ranking anywhere from skeptical or confused, to
uncomfortable or apprehensive—perhaps even a stronger epithet—you are the person I
most want to reach. Naturally, everyone is welcome to read this—those who are simply
curious, looking to gain a fuller perspective, or looking for good arguments—but if you are
in any way a skeptic, I implore you to read this fully.
We’ll treat this issue like an onion, starting at the outside and working towards the core.
We’ll peel it one layer at a time.
Here’s how this is going to go:
Before all else, to stay on the same page, we’ll cover some basic nomenclature.
Then, the first layer: Who is behind the Lavender Scare renaissance?
The second layer: Bathroom bans and public safety.
The third: Sports and Athletics.
Four: A history lesson.
Five: Gender-affirming care.
And then finally, the central conservative question: “What is a woman?” Are transgender
identities scientifically valid? Aren’t they flouting biology?
Hopefully, by carefully peeling these layers, you can gain a clear and generous perspective.
Unfortunately, many of the “controversies” we’ll be taking a look at will be about trans
women. The existence of trans men is often largely ignored or forgotten—not just in
controversies, but in general. It’s not my intention to ignore them—and I won’t—but the
bulk (though not all) of anti-trans hysteria is aimed at trans women, so they will
inadvertently take center stage. Apologies, gentlemen.
One last thing before we get started: I must note my cynicism of those who propagate these
anti-trans arguments. I will go over these concerns carefully, and treat them as if they are
raised in good faith, despite the fact that most of these canards (e.g. trans people are a
danger to children) are malicious smears from sadistic people for whom no counter-
argument nor mountain of evidence could ever suffice.
The French philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre actually articulated this dynamic very eloquently
concerning anti-Semitism:
Never
believe
that
anti-Semites
are
completely
unaware
of
the
absurdity
of
their
replies.
They
know
that
their
remarks
are
frivolous,
open
to
challenge.
But
they
are
amusing
themselves,
for
it
is
their
adversary
who
is
obliged
to
use
words
responsibly,
since
he
believes
in
words.
The
anti-Semites
have
the
right
to
play.
They
even
like
to
play
with
discourse
for,
by
giving
ridiculous
reasons,
they
discredit
the
seriousness
of
their
interlocutors.
They
delight
in
acting
in
bad
faith,
since
they
seek
not
to
persuade
by
sound
argument
but
to
intimidate
and
disconcert.
If
you
press
them
too
closely,
they
will
abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.
A lot of the smarmy transphobia polluting our media, promulgated by well-financed
conservative think tanks and people like J.K. Rowling, is not meant to be answered. I am
responding to these arguments for anyone who earnestly adopted their concerns. But let
me be clear, I make no argument for people who cannot ever be convinced.
They get to play. I am obliged to use words responsibly, since I believe in words.
“I know words, I have the best words.”
Alright, some notes on terminology for the uninitiated. The word trans comes from a Latin
prefix meaning “to cross” or “to change.” Think of words such as transatlantic or
transliterate (changing a text from one alphabet to another).
The antonym of “trans” is the word cis, originally a Latin adjective meaning “on this side.”
It’s usually found in more esoteric words such as cislunar (situated between the Earth and
the Moon), or in the field of chemistry to describe certain arrangements of atoms within
molecules.
Therefore, the antonym of “transgender” is “cisgender.” This has caused some confusion in
the past. The Internet is awash with people taking offense to being called “cis.” Some
mistake it for pronouns, while others think they’re being called gay.
Some are slightly more self-aware. They argue that “cis woman” should just be “woman.”
Sometimes they’ll use insulting terms like “biological women” or even “real women.” But it
is our contention—my contention—that trans women are real women (which we’ll talk
about later). Therefore, the adjectives used to differentiate between trans and cis people
are trans and cis.
The “original gender,” is described as the Assigned Gender At Birth (AGAB). That is either
Assigned Female At Birth (AFAB) or Assigned Male At Birth (AMAB).
Everyone has an AGAB, including non-binary people, but cisgender people identify with
their AGAB, whilst trans people don’t.
Non-binary is an umbrella term for those who don’t fit into the categories of men or
women.
Two more terms before we proceed: TERF and transphobe.
TERF stands for “Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist.” It refers to people who claim that
trans rights threaten or undermine cis women’s rights, and thus oppose the existence of, or
legal protections for, trans people.
And I shouldn’t have to explain this but the word transphobia, despite its etymology, has
nothing to do with fear, as is sometimes disingenuously claimed. Bill Maher once defended
Dave Chappelle (the comedian who professed, “I’m team TERF!”) by saying Chappelle
didn’t fear trans people like an arachnophobe fears spiders. Transphobia is similarly
defined as homophobia, Islamophobia, and xenophobia. It means “having antipathy
towards.”
In short, transphobia is defined as anti-trans prejudice.
Okay, staring at the outer layer of our onion, what is currently happening?
Well, in the United States, the Republican Party is criminalizing various aspects of gender
affirming care. Mostly in schools, ostensibly to protect children.
In 2024, Florida Republicans outlawed teachers from using anything other than a
student’s legal name without parental permission. The law even requires parents to sign a
permission paper for a teacher to use a nickname. Books with LGBTQ themes have been
banned, and trans students are not allowed to use the correct bathroom. On the national
level, Republicans have banned the military’s health insurance program, TRICARE, from
treating gender dysphoria in children. Something House Speaker Mike Johnson said was
necessary to “end the radical woke ideology.” And during this year’s State of the Union,
Trump boasted about signing “an executive order banning public schools from
indoctrinating our children with transgender ideology.”
Republicans are cooperating with well-funded conservative groups, such as Moms for
Liberty, which are dedicated to removing, in their words, “Gender Ideology Extremism”
from schools.
When Trump signed an executive order banning trans girls from playing high school
sports, he was surrounded by young girls. Republicans exulted in their feminist gallantry
by banning five student-athletes from competing nationwide. That’s right: five. Not five
hundred, not five percent, but five total trans girl high school student-athletes in the
country were banned from playing sports with their friends.
So far in 2025, 1,377 anti-trans bills are scheduled on the legislative agenda.
Before we go any further and address the merit (or lack thereof) of these attacks, let’s
address the elephant in the room.