This was interesting to read but didn't pass the sniff test for me. I strongly believe there are secular trends in sexual and gender identity, and it's worth noting that the trends they discuss — real or spurious — predated the current US administration. At the same time I'm not sure I trusted this data and it seems to be misinterpreted a bit.
First, the surveys in the article are kind of odd and idiosyncratic in terms of samples, and not exactly top of the line in terms of methodology either.
Second, relatedly, the rates of non-cis-hetero endorsement are super high in some of those figures, way higher than makes any sense. The absolute rates themselves are enough to call into question anything that is said about them.
Sure enough, the article mentions that when you apply weighting, the trends disappear:
All in all it suggests there's something about these surveys and their participants that is affecting things.
To their credit, the authors of the article mention a lot of their problems. They address the fact that not endorsing gender isn't the same thing as endorsing being trans, and they also cite the weighting issue. But they have this kindy of hand-wavy response to it that isn't really a response. The idea that weights aren't necessary or can be misleading is a ridiculous response in this kind of situation. And who cares if nonbinary-type response rates correlate 0.7 with trans identification? Maybe that rest of the variance is what accounts for changes at any given period.
I'd be more convinced by a series of rigorous surveys with rigorous methodology. Admittedly it's kind of hard to measure this sort of thing, but clearly something isn't working with this.
Also in the end, even if you take these data at face value, what should you conclude other than that secular trends are influencing the way people respond to, and maybe think about, questions about their sexual or gender identity? That's interesting but let's say the trend lines go back to what they were pre-2010 or so. Ok, the rest of the endorsers are still there, it's not 0% endorsement, and even if it were that would be a bit suspicious. And how do we interpret survey responses among the rest? That they're being open-minded about their sexual or gender identity a bit? How much? Did the respondents themselves change? What does this matter in terms of policy? That sexual and gender identification is more fluid than people might think, or that it implies something about freedom of speech?
Something I think is missing from the whole gender/sexuality definition is a spectrum of salience. Some people are like capital S straight or Capital M male, right, they get the ick from imagining kissing someone of the same gender, or they’re very into their male identity and don’t like participating in traditionally female activities.
On the other hand I think there are people (myself) who are just low salience, which may explain the rise in nonbinary identification. The older I get the older I would say I’m straight and male, but I also just don’t care, I am sometimes attracted to men, and I participate in trasditionally female activities or personality traits. I’m not tied to my maleness or my straightness.
I think it’s a hair more complicated than that but directionally correct.
I think gender is stupid, I have just always hated gender norms, but I’m also not crazy about labels. There was a moment, probably prior to 2023 where I experimented with the term non-binary because that’s where the culture was. And now, I would probably just not answer that question in the surveys. But I didn’t change, I still think gender is stupid, and I’m either cishet male or non-binary pansexual depending on how deep into the conversation we get.
This whole thing is overblown in the first place. It’s weird for a magazine called skeptic to show an assertive preference for binary definitions of gender and sexuality.
I think everyone should question their gender. The idea that you should try and conform to some definition of what society thinks you should be based on your genitals is crazy. How your formulate your personality should be way more dynamic than that.
In the article it states: “Faced with mounting evidence that trans is in decline, some progressive and transactivist writers have shifted to arguing that Republican attacks on their movement have pushed trans people back into the closet. However, the FIRE data shows that non-binary students self-censor their opinions less than other students, and feel as free as anyone else to voice their views on transgender issues, with no change after Donald Trump took office for the second time. Accounting for the political views of non-binary students and their peers, there is no evidence that the speech climate for non-binary students worsened on red state campuses more than blue state campuses after 2024. This is not about trans people going back into the closet.”
which talks about the harm that labels do to people with variant sexual and identity and makes the case that "transgender-cisgender" is itself a binary that divides and obscures the truth. Similarly, "non-binary" creates a binary. 20 years ago you have have an alternative gender expression and maybe have some challenges but today it may be harder rather than easier because people are polarized about it.
Non-binary people and binary trans people have different incentives. In the ideal of most binary trans people they blend in and are indistinguishable from cis people. Going undetected is safest for them.
That is not the case for we non-binary. Our various ideals most often would not afford us the "luxury" of blending in that way. Our safety is gained from gathering allies. To do so we must be bold and loud so we are known, and can attract like-minds to our side.
Yeah, they have the quote "This is a stunning reversal in the culture that will reverberate through society and politics in the coming years." but I'm more inclined to think from the start to the end the whole thing will be forgotten in 20 years.
This was interesting to read but didn't pass the sniff test for me. I strongly believe there are secular trends in sexual and gender identity, and it's worth noting that the trends they discuss — real or spurious — predated the current US administration. At the same time I'm not sure I trusted this data and it seems to be misinterpreted a bit.
First, the surveys in the article are kind of odd and idiosyncratic in terms of samples, and not exactly top of the line in terms of methodology either.
Second, relatedly, the rates of non-cis-hetero endorsement are super high in some of those figures, way higher than makes any sense. The absolute rates themselves are enough to call into question anything that is said about them.
Sure enough, the article mentions that when you apply weighting, the trends disappear:
https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/fact-check-no-there-is-no...
All in all it suggests there's something about these surveys and their participants that is affecting things.
To their credit, the authors of the article mention a lot of their problems. They address the fact that not endorsing gender isn't the same thing as endorsing being trans, and they also cite the weighting issue. But they have this kindy of hand-wavy response to it that isn't really a response. The idea that weights aren't necessary or can be misleading is a ridiculous response in this kind of situation. And who cares if nonbinary-type response rates correlate 0.7 with trans identification? Maybe that rest of the variance is what accounts for changes at any given period.
I'd be more convinced by a series of rigorous surveys with rigorous methodology. Admittedly it's kind of hard to measure this sort of thing, but clearly something isn't working with this.
Also in the end, even if you take these data at face value, what should you conclude other than that secular trends are influencing the way people respond to, and maybe think about, questions about their sexual or gender identity? That's interesting but let's say the trend lines go back to what they were pre-2010 or so. Ok, the rest of the endorsers are still there, it's not 0% endorsement, and even if it were that would be a bit suspicious. And how do we interpret survey responses among the rest? That they're being open-minded about their sexual or gender identity a bit? How much? Did the respondents themselves change? What does this matter in terms of policy? That sexual and gender identification is more fluid than people might think, or that it implies something about freedom of speech?
Something I think is missing from the whole gender/sexuality definition is a spectrum of salience. Some people are like capital S straight or Capital M male, right, they get the ick from imagining kissing someone of the same gender, or they’re very into their male identity and don’t like participating in traditionally female activities.
On the other hand I think there are people (myself) who are just low salience, which may explain the rise in nonbinary identification. The older I get the older I would say I’m straight and male, but I also just don’t care, I am sometimes attracted to men, and I participate in trasditionally female activities or personality traits. I’m not tied to my maleness or my straightness.
Gender dysphoria isn't in decline, they've just gone back into hiding since society is regressing back to 1955 levels of racism and bigotry.
All you did was chase them into the closet, and they'll be back.
I think it’s a hair more complicated than that but directionally correct.
I think gender is stupid, I have just always hated gender norms, but I’m also not crazy about labels. There was a moment, probably prior to 2023 where I experimented with the term non-binary because that’s where the culture was. And now, I would probably just not answer that question in the surveys. But I didn’t change, I still think gender is stupid, and I’m either cishet male or non-binary pansexual depending on how deep into the conversation we get.
This whole thing is overblown in the first place. It’s weird for a magazine called skeptic to show an assertive preference for binary definitions of gender and sexuality.
I think everyone should question their gender. The idea that you should try and conform to some definition of what society thinks you should be based on your genitals is crazy. How your formulate your personality should be way more dynamic than that.
In the article it states: “Faced with mounting evidence that trans is in decline, some progressive and transactivist writers have shifted to arguing that Republican attacks on their movement have pushed trans people back into the closet. However, the FIRE data shows that non-binary students self-censor their opinions less than other students, and feel as free as anyone else to voice their views on transgender issues, with no change after Donald Trump took office for the second time. Accounting for the political views of non-binary students and their peers, there is no evidence that the speech climate for non-binary students worsened on red state campuses more than blue state campuses after 2024. This is not about trans people going back into the closet.”
I greatly enjoyed
https://www.bloomsbury.com/us/rainbow-trap-9781350429680/
which talks about the harm that labels do to people with variant sexual and identity and makes the case that "transgender-cisgender" is itself a binary that divides and obscures the truth. Similarly, "non-binary" creates a binary. 20 years ago you have have an alternative gender expression and maybe have some challenges but today it may be harder rather than easier because people are polarized about it.
Non-binary people and binary trans people have different incentives. In the ideal of most binary trans people they blend in and are indistinguishable from cis people. Going undetected is safest for them. That is not the case for we non-binary. Our various ideals most often would not afford us the "luxury" of blending in that way. Our safety is gained from gathering allies. To do so we must be bold and loud so we are known, and can attract like-minds to our side.
If their data can be believed, the peak was 2023, and the decline started by 2024. So I'm not sure your explanation matches their data.
Looks like this should be the URL
https://www.skeptic.com/article/transgenderism-is-in-rapid-d...
Yeah, they have the quote "This is a stunning reversal in the culture that will reverberate through society and politics in the coming years." but I'm more inclined to think from the start to the end the whole thing will be forgotten in 20 years.
It seems like HN auto replaces the URL and breaks pages that require JS, haven’t figured out why or a way around it