Interesting counter; it is very difficult to clearly communicate core ideas with such a heated topic, and when the underlying conceptions of the issue are so at odds. Up front - I think "delusion" is too loaded and not helpful in this context. Notably Glenn also distanced himself from offering any view at all by playing his devil's advocate stance when using this term. John seems to object to delusion because trans-identifying people do not appear delusional in other areas… "beyond" the exact issue we are discussing.
I see the term transphobic as a likewise loaded, unhelpful term; used primarily as a means to stifle vital discussion - the very discussion that John acknowledges needs to be had, regarding the "abuses" in areas like women's sports and "out of hand gender transitioning." I used it only pointing out that I see many instances on the more activist side which use this term as a catchall smear intended to stop discussion.
John would like to completely separate those issues from the simple civility of referring to someone as they wish to be referred, and focus solely on the latter. There is certainly a point to be made here, but he vastly underestimates the power of language in shaping our view of reality, including policy and law. John declares "obviously male and female are biological categories" - yet you mentioned "transgender female" referring to a male - and this is a perfect example of how language use can blur the line between sex and gender.
Reducing one's felt identity to psychology, I think would be an affront to many among the transgender activists, who would label such a reduction as transphobic. If it is indeed a solely psychological condition, the approach of physical body modification (to put it kindly) to accommodate this would be a severe departure from how any other issue would be handled.
The very conception of gender identity, is what I'm referring to as akin to a gendered soul. That's an analysis, similarly actually to John's labeling of "woke religion".
Regarding John's views - on a relisten he doesn't seem to fully accept the concept, but rather urges us to just honor it. He did attribute the idea that "identity soars above those things [chromosomes]" to "people" that he isn't comfortable with saying are delusional (trans-identifying people?), and didn't express this himself. John doesn't accept that he's "assenting to craziness" but also asserted that one's sense of gender identity is "frankly just as real" as the sex distinction. Depending on our definitions of reality, that can be fine, but only if there is no utility in sex distinction. If there is a need for societal protections/distinctions for females, and I contend there is, there is a need to stick to the "elementary" biological definition. This may cause an uncomfortable conflict, and hurt some people's feelings, but denying that we have to truly examine that is a serious problem.
This is too long already, but to close - no, saying there is an element of social contagion in this phenomenon is neither "of the far right" nor "debunked". Did you read the first article closely? There are many leaps to reach a conclusion - and it is focusing solely on their estimate of proportion of male to female proportions as they tried to derive from survey responses. There of course are different pathways and reasons for any individual to transition, and trying to use a derived overall ratio across all transitioners to claim that a certain driver is or isn't happening doesn't make sense. In any case there is also plenty of data which suggests otherwise (one such study: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Ratios-of-assigned-male-at-birth-AMAB-compared-to-assigned-female-at-birth-AFAB-for_fig1_371853540 )
Interesting counter; it is very difficult to clearly communicate core ideas with such a heated topic, and when the underlying conceptions of the issue are so at odds. Up front - I think "delusion" is too loaded and not helpful in this context. Notably Glenn also distanced himself from offering any view at all by playing his devil's advocate stance when using this term. John seems to object to delusion because trans-identifying people do not appear delusional in other areas… "beyond" the exact issue we are discussing.
I see the term transphobic as a likewise loaded, unhelpful term; used primarily as a means to stifle vital discussion - the very discussion that John acknowledges needs to be had, regarding the "abuses" in areas like women's sports and "out of hand gender transitioning." I used it only pointing out that I see many instances on the more activist side which use this term as a catchall smear intended to stop discussion.
John would like to completely separate those issues from the simple civility of referring to someone as they wish to be referred, and focus solely on the latter. There is certainly a point to be made here, but he vastly underestimates the power of language in shaping our view of reality, including policy and law. John declares "obviously male and female are biological categories" - yet you mentioned "transgender female" referring to a male - and this is a perfect example of how language use can blur the line between sex and gender.
Reducing one's felt identity to psychology, I think would be an affront to many among the transgender activists, who would label such a reduction as transphobic. If it is indeed a solely psychological condition, the approach of physical body modification (to put it kindly) to accommodate this would be a severe departure from how any other issue would be handled.
The very conception of gender identity, is what I'm referring to as akin to a gendered soul. That's an analysis, similarly actually to John's labeling of "woke religion".
Regarding John's views - on a relisten he doesn't seem to fully accept the concept, but rather urges us to just honor it. He did attribute the idea that "identity soars above those things [chromosomes]" to "people" that he isn't comfortable with saying are delusional (trans-identifying people?), and didn't express this himself. John doesn't accept that he's "assenting to craziness" but also asserted that one's sense of gender identity is "frankly just as real" as the sex distinction. Depending on our definitions of reality, that can be fine, but only if there is no utility in sex distinction. If there is a need for societal protections/distinctions for females, and I contend there is, there is a need to stick to the "elementary" biological definition. This may cause an uncomfortable conflict, and hurt some people's feelings, but denying that we have to truly examine that is a serious problem.
This is too long already, but to close - no, saying there is an element of social contagion in this phenomenon is neither "of the far right" nor "debunked". Did you read the first article closely? There are many leaps to reach a conclusion - and it is focusing solely on their estimate of proportion of male to female proportions as they tried to derive from survey responses. There of course are different pathways and reasons for any individual to transition, and trying to use a derived overall ratio across all transitioners to claim that a certain driver is or isn't happening doesn't make sense. In any case there is also plenty of data which suggests otherwise (one such study: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Ratios-of-assigned-male-at-birth-AMAB-compared-to-assigned-female-at-birth-AFAB-for_fig1_371853540 )