To the Editors,
I appreciate the opportunity to respond to the two published critiques of my op-ed, “The transgender umbrella is failing – it’s time to face the truth.” Ironically, in attempting to refute my argument, I believe their responses reinforce its validity.
Disagreement does not render something baseless. Decades of research do not become misinformation simply because they challenge prevailing narratives. Credible sources do not lack substantial basis because they present uncomfortable truths.
Raising concerns about the trans umbrella’s impact on the trans community is not an “erasure of trans history” — it is an act of care for those most affected, including the two authors who responded to my piece, who, regardless of their stance, I care about.
This experience calls to mind Julian Andreone’s incisive Daily op-ed, “LTE: Culture-crusading NU students make it harder for progressives like me to get things done in D.C.,” a piece I’d strongly recommend to students.
Andreone compellingly argues that the liberally elitist academic model stifles open discourse — a reality that should concern any student who values intellectual excellence and genuine ideological exchange in their college experience. His perspective is especially relevant in light of how ideological gatekeeping weakens academic objectivity and alienates those who might otherwise be allies in the fight for meaningful progress.
In my case, the two opposing authors assert that my piece is part of a broader pattern of “platforming baseless anti-trans talking points.” This characterization is unfair. The increasing rates of transgender identification among youth are well-documented, and discussions around potential contributing factors — including social influence — are ongoing within medical and psychological fields.
Silencing these discussions by labeling them “transphobic” inhibits the very progress we should all be striving for: to support transgender people who suffer from gender dysphoria. Journalism is meant to introduce new perspectives, yet the two authors dismiss me outright rather than considering my analysis.
If the goal is to stimulate diversity, why is my perspective — one rooted in my research, clinical experience and genuine concern — met with vehement outrage instead of measured and thoughtful discourse?
The claim that the “social contagion” theory is “thoroughly debunked” is misleading. While admittedly controversial, researchers like Lisa Littman have raised valid concerns about peer influence in adolescent gender identity development. Dismissing this discussion outright ignores social dynamics’ vital role in identity formation.
Similarly, the notion that children are never prescribed hormones after a single visit is an oversimplification. While many gender clinics follow thorough assessment protocols, documented cases exist where expedited medical interventions have occurred, raising ethical concerns even among gender-affirming practitioners. Acknowledging this reality is not fear-mongering but a call for quantified evidence-based approaches. I think this is important.
It is troubling that so many young people today have been led to believe that gender is the defining aspect of identity rather than one of many traits that shape who they are. Previous generations found purpose in resilience, strength of character and the courage to face adversity. Have we abandoned that part of the human experience?
I believe social acceptance is a privilege that today’s youth are fortunate to inherit, but the cost is collective when it comes at the expense of open dialogue. We forfeit the intellectual depth necessary for progress when dissent is met not with conversation but with condemnation.
Instead of engaging with my argument, critics resort to calling my perspective bigoted and transphobic — when, in reality, I am a compassionate and intellectually nuanced thinker, driven by empathy that resists ideological boundaries. This reaction is not proof of my wrongness; it is proof of an academic culture that has abandoned dialogue in favor of a zealous ideological doctrine.
The authors labeled my perspective as “anti-trans,” but in truth, it is profoundly pro-trans –- just not an uncritically pro-trans umbrella. My support for transgender individuals is unwavering, yet I question why those who are not trans hold such influence in defining the trans experience. If we truly prioritize trans people’s well-being, we must engage in unbiased dialogue at the intersection of gender, psychology and medical ethics.
This issue is deeply personal to me. As the trans umbrella expands, so does public alienation, fracturing solidarity instead of fostering it. Substantive progress and development require the courage to confront difficult truths rather than dismiss them as “bigotry.”
My conclusions are not reactionary; they are the product of years of research, clinical work and lived experience. My goal is not to undermine trans individuals but to advocate for their well-being.
The painful reality is that people who truly experience gender dysphoria — not their well-intentioned allies —- are being harmed by the indiscriminate broadening of the trans umbrella. To acknowledge this is not an act of hostility but of deep care and responsibility.
Dismissing legitimate concerns –- especially from a gay, liberal psychological researcher –- as “anti-trans rhetoric” neither serves the interests of trans individuals nor upholds the critical inquiry that journalism should champion. If research is not a gateway to meaningful discourse, then what, truly, is the purpose of academia?
Kevin Waldman is a student at The Graduate School. He can be contacted at [email protected]. If you would like to respond publicly to this op-ed, send a Letter to the Editor to [email protected]. The views expressed in this piece do not necessarily reflect the views of all staff members of The Daily Northwestern.
