The Anatomy of Scientific Misdirection

A Response to City Journal's "Transgender Brain Studies are Fatally Flawed"

As I have seen this article from the City Journal making the rounds to help bolster recent claims and rhetoric, I thought it was a good idea to provide an analysis of the article, the information it puts out there, and to provide a little more information and a little more context.

The City Journal recently published an article claiming to expose fatal flaws in transgender brain research. The authors, Colin Wright, Samuel Stagg, and Christina Buttons, present what appears to be a methodologically rigorous critique of neuroscientific studies. Their central thesis sounds reasonable enough. Studies on transgender brains, they argue, fail to control for sexual orientation, rendering their conclusions invalid.

This would be a valuable scientific contribution if it were accurate. It is not.

The Yarden Silveira Case: Establishing Causation

The article opens with the story of Yarden Silveira, a detransitioner who died following complications from surgery. The authors use this case to establish a causal relationship between brain sex research and medical harm, explicitly stating that 'for individuals like Yarden Silveira, [the brain sex narrative] contributed to life-altering—and ultimately life-ending—medical decisions.

The Misrepresentation: The authors explicitly state that "for individuals like Yarden Silveira, [the brain sex narrative] contributed to life-altering—and ultimately life-ending—medical decisions based on a flawed understanding of the science."

The Fallacy: Post hoc ergo propter hoc. A person believing in brain sex theory and later experiencing surgical complications does not establish causation between the scientific theory and the medical outcome. This is particularly manipulative when using a tragedy to advance an argument.

The Facts: Medical decisions for gender dysphoria treatment are based on clinical guidelines that consider multiple factors including persistent gender dysphoria, mental health assessment, and informed consent [1]. No medical protocol prescribes surgery based solely on brain scan results. The conflation of pop-culture understanding with clinical practice misrepresents how medical decisions are actually made.

The Cultural Influence Claim

The authors dedicate significant space to pop culture examples, citing a 2009 Law & Order episode and the children's book 'I Am Jazz.' They then connect these entertainment portrayals directly to medical decision-making, stating that 'there is reason to believe the brain sex narrative has influenced many young people's decisions to pursue medical transition.’

The Misrepresentation: They create an unsubstantiated causal chain from pop culture representation to medical decision-making without establishing the intermediate steps.

The Fallacy: Post hoc reasoning. The existence of simplified narratives in entertainment media, followed by medical transitions, does not establish that the media caused the medical decisions.

The Facts: Medical decisions follow clinical protocols involving persistent gender dysphoria, mental health assessment, and informed consent [1]. While cultural narratives may influence how people understand their experiences, clinical decisions are based on established diagnostic criteria and treatment guidelines, not entertainment media.

Methodological Focus: Control for Sexual Orientation

The article's core methodological claim concerns sexual orientation controls. The authors state that research shows 'an inconsistent—or complete lack of—control for individuals' sexual orientation,' presenting this as a broad failure that invalidates transgender brain research.

The Claim: "The central flaw in current research purporting to validate the cross-sex brain hypothesis is an inconsistent—or complete lack of—control for individuals' sexual orientation."

The Misrepresentation: The authors present this as a universal or near-universal failure across the field, suggesting researchers have been uniformly incompetent or deceptive.

The Fallacy: Cherry-picking and suppressed evidence. The authors cite primarily studies from 2009-2012 while ignoring more recent research that directly addresses their concern.

The Facts: Multiple studies HAVE controlled for sexual orientation, and the results directly contradict the article's thesis. When Manzouri and Savic (2018) controlled for sexual orientation, transgender groups showed mostly sex-typical brain values EXCEPT in the right inferior fronto-occipital tract, which connects brain areas mediating own body perception [3][4]. This finding suggests gender identity has neurological correlates independent of sexual orientation, particularly in regions related to body self-perception.

Furthermore, the field has acknowledged this methodological concern for years. A 2016 review explicitly stated that "control groups in studies of the transsexual brain must be homogenous in regards to sexual orientation" [5]. Researchers are not ignorant of this issue. They have been addressing it.

The Savic and Arver Research

The authors present the 2011 Savic and Arver study as key evidence supporting their thesis. This study found that when controlling for sexual orientation, brain differences in transgender individuals were "much less pronounced" than previously reported [6][7].

The Misrepresentation: They present this study as representative of what happens when proper controls are applied, while ignoring contradictory research using similar controls.

The Fallacy: Cherry-picking. Using one study that supports their position while dismissing studies with similar methodology that contradict it.

The Facts: Science does not work through single studies but through convergent evidence. More recent research using larger samples and improved methodology has found that transgender individuals show "their own unique brain phenotype" rather than simply matching either birth sex or gender identity [8]. A 2022 mega-analysis found that "the underlying brain anatomy in transgender people is shifted away from their biological sex towards their gender identity" [9]. Crucially, when Manzouri and Savic (2018) controlled for sexual orientation, they found that transgender groups showed mostly sex-typical brain values EXCEPT in the right inferior fronto-occipital tract, which connects brain areas mediating own body perception [3][4]. This suggests that proper controls reveal more nuanced patterns rather than eliminating all differences.

The Putamen Finding

The authors critique Luders et al. for finding larger putamen volumes in male-to-female transgender individuals compared to males, arguing this contradicts established sex differences [10].

The Claim: This finding is "anomalous and incongruent" because males typically have larger putamens than females, so the result must be wrong.

The Fallacy: Argument from incredulity. Because a finding contradicts expectations, it must be false.

The Facts: The authors ignore that this unexpected finding might actually support the complexity of transgender neurobiology. Recent research acknowledges that transgender brains do not simply mirror opposite-sex patterns but represent unique phenotypes [8]. The putamen finding, rather than invalidating the research, suggests that assuming simple "male" or "female" brain patterns is itself the flawed approach. Moreover, researchers themselves have noted this could be influenced by sexual orientation [11], demonstrating scientific transparency rather than deception.

The Buttons Survey

To support their argument that brain sex narratives cause medical harm, the authors cite a 'forthcoming survey conducted by coauthor Buttons' claiming that 49.2% of detransitioners were told they had a 'wrong brain' and 85.7% were told transgender identity was biological.

The Methodological Red Flags:

• "Forthcoming" means not peer-reviewed - no independent scholars have evaluated the methodology
• Self-selected online surveys attract those with grievances while missing those who detransitioned quietly
• 85.7% agreement is suspiciously high for any complex medical interaction, suggesting either leading questions or sample bias

The Facts: Without seeing the actual survey questions, response rates, or sampling methodology, these numbers are essentially meaningless. Real research describes how participants were recruited, exact questions asked, response rates, and limitations. Buttons provides none of this.

Addressing Methodological Limitations

The article identifies several methodological limitations in transgender brain research, then concludes that these issues render the entire field 'fatally flawed.'

The Strategy: Identify real limitations in early studies, ignore how the field has addressed them, then declare the entire enterprise invalid.

The Fallacy: Hasty Generalization. This represents a significant logical leap from acknowledging study limitations to dismissing an entire scientific field.

The Reality: Sexual orientation IS a confound that needs controlling. Sample sizes ARE often small. Results DO vary between studies. These are legitimate concerns that researchers acknowledge and work to address. But these limitations do not justify dismissing all biological research on gender identity, especially when more recent, methodologically improved studies address many of these concerns.

The current scientific consensus, based on converging evidence from multiple studies using various methodologies, suggests that gender identity likely has some biological basis, though more complex than initially theorized [13][14]. When sexual orientation is controlled, some differences disappear while others persist, particularly in regions related to body perception [3][4]. Transgender brains appear to represent unique phenotypes rather than simply matching opposite-sex patterns [8].

Of Brain Scans and Identity

The authors spend considerable effort arguing that brain scans cannot definitively identify transgender individuals, stating "brain scans cannot verify whether a person 'is transgender.'"

The Misrepresentation: They attack a position no serious researcher holds.

The Fallacy: Straw man. No neuroscientist claims brain scans can diagnose gender identity at the individual level. This is like arguing depression research is invalid because MRIs cannot diagnose clinical depression in individuals.

The Facts: Neuroscience research examines population-level patterns, not individual diagnostics. Finding average differences between groups informs our understanding of underlying biology without claiming deterministic individual identification. The authors surely understand this distinction—it is taught in undergraduate statistics—making their argument deliberately misleading.

Ironically, they acknowledge this themselves, writing "Differences in group averages do not mean that every individual within a group shares those characteristics." Yet they present this as a devastating critique rather than... exactly what every researcher already knows and states explicitly in their papers.

The Homosexuality Comparison

The authors note that "homosexuality is associated with a cross-sex shift in certain brain structures" but "activists avoid claiming that gays and lesbians exhibit a brain-body mismatch."

The Self-Own: This comparison undermines their entire argument. If sexual orientation has neurological correlates that we accept without pathologizing, why would gender identity having neurological correlates be inherently problematic? They're essentially admitting that brain differences can relate to identity and orientation without requiring "correction."

The False Equivalence: Gender dysphoria causes clinically significant distress that often responds to transition-related care. Being gay does not inherently cause distress requiring medical intervention. The difference is not in the neuroscience but in the clinical presentation and treatment outcomes.

Meet the Authors

Having documented the systematic misrepresentations in their article, it becomes relevant to examine who these authors are, who funds their work, and why they might engage in such selective scholarship.

Colin Wright styles himself as a politically neutral scientist, claiming in various outlets to be a "lifelong Democrat" who "never voted for a Republican" [15][16]. Yet Wright currently serves as a Manhattan Institute Fellow [17], writes pieces with titles like "Republicans, Don't Alienate the Atheists" [18], and runs a Substack called "Reality's Last Stand" dedicated almost exclusively to opposing transgender rights and what he terms "gender ideology" [19].

Wright has been documented as "a key historical figure in the oppression of trans and gender diverse people" [20]. His claim that "the left moved, not me" while literally advising the Republican Party and working for conservative think tanks suggests a disconnect between self-presentation and reality. His political transformation is exemplified by his famous cartoon showing himself as stationary while claiming the left moved away from him, later amplified by Elon Musk [21].

Christina Buttons presents herself as an investigative reporter concerned with scientific accuracy [22]. What she does not prominently advertise is her recent employment at The Daily Wire, where she worked until March 2023 [23]. Her real name is Christina Berry, and she has been documented as a "former sex worker, illustrator, and anti-transgender activist" [24].

She resigned from The Daily Wire not over ideological differences about transgender issues but over tactical disagreements about messaging. According to her own resignation letter, while Matt Walsh engaged in what she considered inflammatory rhetoric, Buttons preferred more subtle approaches to achieve the same goals [12]. She describes herself as a "Former SJW" who created content for "wefuckinghatedonaldtrump" before her political transformation [25], suggesting a pattern of ideological swings that might inform her current advocacy. In 2024, Berry joined the Manhattan Institute [24], further cementing her institutional ties to anti-transgender activism and beginning a relationship with her co-author Colin Wright [24].

Sammy Stagg maintains the lowest profile of the three but has been documented as "a student and anti-transgender activist" affiliated with "anti-trans organizations the Manhattan Institute and Genspect" [26]. His contributions to City Journal focus almost exclusively on opposing what he terms "gender ideology" [27][28].

Notably, Stagg appears to be a primary promoter of the "no one is born in the wrong body" rhetorical device. At the 2023 Genspect conference in Denver, Stagg was scheduled to "discuss the contested science over brain scans to prove that no one is 'born in the wrong body'" [29]. This reveals a fundamental misunderstanding or deliberate misrepresentation of transgender experience. The "wrong body" narrative is and always has been a metaphor for the distress of gender dysphoria, not a literal scientific claim about embryonic development. Attacking it as if it were a biological assertion rather than phenomenological description is like debunking "broken hearts" by pointing out that cardiac tissue remains structurally intact after romantic rejection.

All three authors share institutional affiliation with the Manhattan Institute, a conservative think tank that has made opposing transgender rights a significant part of its culture war portfolio. Understanding who funds this institute reveals the deeper financial infrastructure supporting their advocacy.

The Manhattan Institute's Financial Backing reads like a who's who of conservative mega-donors [30][31][32]:

• Koch Brothers: The Claude R. Lambe Foundation (Koch Family Foundation) gave $2,075,000 between 2001 and 2012 [33]
• John M. Olin Foundation: $6,779,500 in total funding [32]
• Searle Freedom Trust: $5,886,000 [32]
• Sarah Scaife Foundation: $5,765,000 [32]
• William E. Simon Foundation: $4,066,200 [32]
• Richard Mellon Scaife: Donated tens of millions over two decades [34]

The institute does not fully disclose its donors [31], but tax filings reveal it is "funded largely by major corporations and conservative foundations" [30]. These same foundations have historically funded climate change denial, opposition to healthcare reform, and various culture war initiatives [30][33].

City Journal itself, where this piece appears, is rated as "Right" biased by AllSides Media [35] and "Right Biased" by Media Bias/Fact Check, which notes it favors "conservative and libertarian causes" [36]. Published by the Manhattan Institute, it routinely features content opposing transgender rights and has become a go-to publication for articles challenging the validity of transgender identity. Recent City Journal articles include titles like "A Battle for Cultural Survival" discussing "the Left's hyper-aggressive transgender ideology" [37] and multiple pieces framing transgender rights as threats to society [38][39].

This context matters not as an ad hominem but as an explanation for the patterns we have documented. When three individuals specifically designated as anti-transgender activists [20][24][26] write for a publication with known ideological opposition to transgender rights, funded by the same conservative foundations that have bankrolled decades of culture war initiatives, and when their article demonstrates systematic cherry-picking of older studies while ignoring recent contradictory research, their institutional and ideological commitments provide the most parsimonious explanation for these choices.

The fact that all three are documented as part of a coordinated anti-transgender movement, with Wright described as a "key historical figure in the oppression" of transgender people [20], Buttons/Berry as having joined multiple anti-trans organizations [24], and Stagg as affiliated with groups specifically organized to oppose gender-affirming care while promoting the literalist attack on metaphorical language [26][29], reveals this is not dispassionate scientific analysis but coordinated activism backed by millions in conservative funding.

To return to the analogy of the Flat Earth Journal: when shocking revelations about scientific fields come from sources documented as activists opposing those fields, delivered by authors who dedicate their careers to that opposition, published in outlets known for that same opposition, all funded by the same network of conservative foundations with explicit political agendas, we should indeed be suspicious. Not because of who they are, but because their documented activism and financial backing explain the methodological choices we have already demonstrated to be flawed.

The Manhattan Institute's recent focus includes hosting anti-transgender seminars and publishing content specifically targeting transgender healthcare and rights. When scientific critique comes from an organization receiving millions from conservative donors with explicit political agendas, promoted by fellows whose salaries are paid by those same donors, the line between scholarship and advocacy becomes not just blurred but erased.

The Bigger Picture: Reasonable Concerns, Unreasonable Conclusions

The City Journal article demonstrates a sophisticated form of scientific denialism. Rather than overtly rejecting science, it selectively emphasizes uncertainties and limitations while ignoring advances and convergent findings. This creates an impression of scientific invalidity where none exists.

The authors are correct that early "female brain in male body" narratives were oversimplified. They are correct that sexual orientation must be controlled. They are correct that some studies have methodological limitations. But they are profoundly incorrect in their conclusion that these issues render the entire field "fatally flawed."

What we see here is not scientific critique but advocacy dressed in academic language. The selective citation of older studies, the dismissal of recent research, and the leap from "it's complicated" to "it's invalid" reveal an agenda that has nothing to do with improving scientific rigor and everything to do with undermining support for transgender healthcare and rights.

The tragedy is not that brain sex research exists, but that legitimate scientific discussions about methodology are being weaponized by activists who present themselves as neutral observers while pursuing documented political agendas. When former Daily Wire employees and Manhattan Institute fellows present themselves as concerned scientists just asking questions, we should recognize the pattern. This is not science. This is politics wearing a lab coat.

The scientific process is working exactly as it should. Early hypotheses have been refined, methodologies improved, and understanding has become more sophisticated. That transgender neurobiology is complex does not mean it is nonexistent. That early studies had limitations does not mean current research is invalid. And that three political activists can cherry-pick studies does not mean they have exposed a fatal flaw in an entire scientific field.

They have only exposed their own.

References

[1] Coleman, E., et al. (2022). Standards of Care for the Health of Transgender and Gender Diverse People, Version 8. International Journal of Transgender Health, 23(S1), S1-S259.

[2] American Psychological Association. (2015). Guidelines for psychological practice with transgender and gender nonconservative people. American Psychologist, 70(9), 832-864.

[3] Manzouri, A., & Savic, I. (2018). Structural connections in the brain in relation to gender identity and sexual orientation. Scientific Reports, 8, Article 16895.

[4] Manzouri, A., & Savic, I. (2019). Cerebral sex dimorphism and sexual orientation. Human Brain Mapping, 40(5), 1175-1186.

[5] Guillamon, A., Junque, C., & Gómez-Gil, E. (2016). A review of the status of brain structure research in transsexualism. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 45(7), 1615-1648.

[6] Savic, I., & Arver, S. (2011). Sex dimorphism of the brain in male-to-female transsexuals. Cerebral Cortex, 21(11), 2525-2533.

[7] Savic, I., & Arver, S. (2011). Sexual differentiation of the human brain in relation to gender identity and sexual orientation. Progress in Brain Research, 186, 41-62.

[8] Mueller, S. C., Guillamon, A., Zubiaurre-Elorza, L., et al. (2021). The neuroanatomy of transgender identity: Mega-analytic findings from the ENIGMA transgender persons working group. Journal of Sexual Medicine, 18(6), 1122-1129.

[9] Kurth, F., Gaser, C., Sánchez, F. J., & Luders, E. (2022). Brain sex in transgender women is shifted towards gender identity. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 11(6), Article 1582.

[10] Luders, E., Sánchez, F. J., Gaser, C., Toga, A. W., Narr, K. L., Hamilton, L. S., & Vilain, E. (2009). Regional gray matter variation in male-to-female transsexualism. NeuroImage, 46(4), 904-907.

[11] Luders, E., Sánchez, F. J., Tosun, D., Shattuck, D. W., Gaser, C., Vilain, E., & Toga, A. W. (2012). Increased cortical thickness in male-to-female transsexualism. Journal of Behavioral and Brain Science, 2(3), 357-362.

[12] Buttons, C. (2023, March 7). Why I'm leaving The Daily Wire. Reality's Last Stand. https://www.realityslaststand.com/p/why-im-leaving-the-daily-wire

[13] Roselli, C. E. (2018). Neurobiology of gender identity and sexual orientation. Journal of Neuroendocrinology, 30(7), Article e12562.

[14] Frigerio, A., Ballerini, L., & Valdés Hernández, M. (2021). Structural, functional, and metabolic brain differences as a function of gender identity or sexual orientation: A systematic review of the human neuroimaging literature. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 50(8), 3329-3352.

[15] Wright, C. (2024, November 15). Dear Democrats, I tried to warn you. Reality's Last Stand. https://www.realityslaststand.com/p/dear-democrats-i-tried-to-warn-you

[16] Wright, C. (2022, May 16). Elon Musk tweeted my cartoon. Reality's Last Stand. https://www.realityslaststand.com/p/my-political-journey

[17] Wright, C. (2024). Christ is King is the woke right's Black Lives Matter. Reality's Last Stand. https://www.realityslaststand.com/p/christ-is-king-is-the-christian-rights

[18] Wright, C. (2023). Republicans, don't alienate the atheists. Reality's Last Stand. https://www.realityslaststand.com/p/republicans-dont-alienate-the-atheists

[19] Wright, C. (2020, December 3). Reality's Last Stand. Substack. https://www.realityslaststand.com/

[20] Transgender Map. (2022, October 29). Colin Wright vs. transgender people. https://www.transgendermap.com/issues/biology/colin-wright/

[21] Yahoo News. (2024). Democrats did themselves no favors by veering hard to the left. https://www.yahoo.com/news/democrats-did-themselves-no-favors-120015080.html

[22] Famous People FAQ. (n.d.). Who is Christina Buttons? Biography, age, husband, net worth. https://famouspeoplefaq.com/christina-buttons/

[23] Mediaite. (2023, March 7). Christina Buttons announces resignation from The Daily Wire. https://www.mediaite.com/media/news/reporter-quits-the-daily-wire-with-scathing-open-letter-decrying-overtly-partisan-trans-coverage/

[24] Transgender Map. (2024). "Christina Buttons" / Christina Berry vs. transgender people. https://www.transgendermap.com/issues/topics/media/christina-buttons/

[25] Nevada News and Views. (2024, October 22). Former SJW encourages you to vote on policy, not personality. https://nevadanewsandviews.com/former-sjw-encourages-you-to-vote-on-policy-not-personality/

[26] Transgender Map. (2023, December 3). Sammy Stagg vs. transgender people. https://www.transgendermap.com/issues/biology/sammy-stagg/

[27] Stagg, S. (2023, May 22). Gender ideology's shaky twin pillars. City Journal. https://www.city-journal.org/article/gender-ideologys-shaky-twin-pillars

[28] City Journal. (2023, May 23). Samuel Stagg. https://www.city-journal.org/person/samuel-stagg

[29] Genspect. (2023, September 19). Genspect releases full programme for Denver conference. https://genspect.org/genspect-releases-full-programme-for-denver-conference/

[30] Center for Judicial Diversity. (2019, June 14). Fact sheet: Manhattan Institute. https://centerjd.org/content/fact-sheet-manhattan-institute

[31] InfluenceWatch. (2018, March 9). Manhattan Institute for Policy Research. https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/manhattan-institute-for-policy-research/

[32] DeSmog. (2015, September 5). Manhattan Institute for Policy Research. https://www.desmog.com/manhattan-institute-policy-research/

[33] SourceWatch. (2017, September 29). Talk: Manhattan Institute for Policy Research. https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Talk:Manhattan_Institute_for_Policy_Research

[34] Wikipedia. (2024). The Heritage Foundation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heritage_Foundation

[35] AllSides. (2018, March 10). City Journal media bias. https://www.allsides.com/news-source/city-journal-media-bias

[36] Media Bias/Fact Check. (2016, November 29). City Journal - Bias and credibility. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/city-journal/

[37] City Journal. (2023, July 2). A battle for cultural survival. https://www.city-journal.org/article/a-battle-for-cultural-survival

[38] City Journal. (2022, June 6). The gender variant universe. https://www.city-journal.org/article/the-gender-variant-universe

[39] City Journal. (2024). A radical measure. https://www.city-journal.org/article/new-version-of-era-could-entrench-new-yorks-misguided-gender-policies