The Respectability Politics of Trans Exclusion

The Respectability Politics of Trans Exclusion

Like our recent article that showed how ‘When We Police Ourselves’ applies to the broad LGBTQIA+ community with ‘The Convenient Fiction of the "Good Gay,"‘ here we get to examine whether those same concepts and framework apply to the 'gender critical' side, wherein we see the emergence of the “real trans” heirarchy.

A Close Reading of Teed Rockwell's Velvet Hammer

There is a recurring pattern in essays that appears in progressive spaces with clockwork regularity. I have already argued against it elsewhere, I have read more than a few recent opinion pieces and political commentary calling for a more "moderate approach." It typically opens with sympathy for marginalized people. It cites legitimate research. It speaks in measured tones about complex issues. And then, paragraph by paragraph, it builds toward the same conclusions that outright bigots reach through slurs and violence. Teed Rockwell's article exemplifies this genre.

Teed Rockwell's 'Brain Scans CAN Tell Us Important Things About Trans People' offers a case study worth examining. Preceding their recent "Moderate Gender Manifesto", this piece seems a pillar that supports their manifesto project: establishing biological criteria for trans identity while claiming to support trans rights.

In Rockwell's case, they cite real neuroscience: the Zhou study, Kruijver's research, studies that actually validate trans experiences. But something curious happens between citation and conclusion. Research meant to understand becomes a tool to gatekeep. Correlation transforms into prescription. Science designed to reveal truth becomes a barrier to access.

What emerges is a pattern: making discrimination palatable to progressives making discrimination palatable to progressives while giving conservatives language that disarms opposition. The playbook has been used against every marginalized group in history. Wrap discrimination in concern, sprinkle it with sympathy and season it with some science, and present yourself as the moderate voice between extremes. It transforms "I do not think trans women are women" into "the neurological evidence suggests categorical complexity requiring careful consideration."

As we'll see, Rockwell's approach creates what amounts to a gentleman's guide to gatekeeping. Let us examine how this works, piece by piece, to understand not just what Rockwell argues but how they argue it, and why that matters.

The Opening Gambit: Establishing Reasonable Credentials

Rockwell begins by acknowledging that some pro-trans arguments are "wrong and inconsistent."[1] This is not random. It is strategic positioning. By criticizing "both sides," they establish themselves as the reasonable arbiter, the adult in the room. This is respectability politics 101: appear balanced while systematically dismantling only one side's position.

Notice what they do not do: they do not actually engage with the strongest arguments for trans rights. Instead, they cherry-pick weaker positions, knock them down, then use that victory to justify their predetermined conclusions. It is intellectual shadowboxing, impressive to watch but ultimately meaningless.

Consider these rhetorical moves:

"Asserting trans identity changes biological sex"

Rockwell claims "you cannot change your biology merely by asserting you are something else." This misrepresents the actual position. No serious trans advocate claims that declaring "I am trans" changes chromosomes or primary sex characteristics. By framing it as mere "assertion," Rockwell dismisses the lived reality of trans experience, the potential biological underpinnings, and the actual biological changes possible through medical transition.

"Categories Mean Nothing"

Rockwell suggests trans advocates believe "essentially nothing is real" or that "anyone can define male and female however they like." This transforms "categories are complex with fuzzy boundaries" into "categories are meaningless," then attacks that nihilistic position nobody actually holds. Trans advocates argue for expanding understanding of existing categories, not destroying them.

The TikTok Caricature

Rockwell dismisses people on TikTok as "checking out costumes for a Halloween party," cherry-picking playful or experimental content to represent all trans discourse while ignoring serious trans voices on the same platform and everywhere else.

"No dysphoria = probably just gay"

Rockwell states that people without gender dysphoria are "probably just gay and not trans at all." This conflates gender identity with sexual orientation while creating a hierarchy of "real" versus "fake" trans people. It is a No True Scotsman fallacy wrapped in sympathy. Dysphoria exists on a spectrum; some experience it intensely, others mildly, some not at all. Gender euphoria can exist without dysphoria, and medical gatekeeping based on suffering levels has been largely abandoned by major medical organizations.

The "Reasonable Middle"

Rockwell structures their argument as a defense to Kat Highsmith’s attacks. Kat is a rather vocal TERF ideologue. Rockwell positions themself as disagreeing with both anti-trans extremism and "trans extremism" (their strawmen from earlier).

Oddly enough, Rockwell and Highsmith reach the same conclusion: trans exclusion. They just use different routes and different extremes. When Highsmith's position is "trans do not exist it is all a fraud," then "gatekeeping and brain scan tests" start to seem reasonable to the non-extremist. By arguing against an anti-trans activists’ methods while accepting her conclusions, Rockwell makes trans exclusion seem like the reasonable middle ground.

It is like saying "I disagree with the Klan's methods AND with civil rights activists" while still supporting segregation, just with nicer language and scientific citations. These were the same voters who said that school integration was proceeding too quickly. You are not in the middle; you are just offering prejudice with better PR.

This pattern has a name: respectability politics.

The Science Smokescreen

The BSTc studies Rockwell cites are real. Zhou found differences. Kruijver confirmed them.[2][3] But respectability politics strips away context, ignores limitations, and transforms correlation into prescription.

The Zhou study examined six trans women.[4] Six. All deceased. The Kruijver study? Seven trans women.[5] Also deceased. Why deceased? Because these studies could only properly examine their brains in a postmortem state.

Rockwell also cites Garcia-Falgueras and Swaab (2008), Rametti et al. (2011), and various studies on cortical thickness, functional connectivity, and brain activation patterns. These suffer from the same fundamental limitations: small sample sizes, inability to control for lived experience effects, massive population overlap, and no diagnostic validity.

More damning: the BSTc does not sexually differentiate until adulthood[6], yet most trans people report childhood dysphoria. Assuming that Rockwell has researched their citations, they know this contradicts their argument yet omit it. The alternative; that they haven't actually read the studies they cite, is equally damning.

Allow me to demonstrate the academic smokescreen in action:

One might note that Rockwell's interpretation of the Zhou and Kruijver studies demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of statistical power and generalizability. The methodological limitations inherent in post-mortem brain tissue analysis, combined with the confounding variables of hormone exposure and the non-representative sample demographics, render any diagnostic application epistemologically untenable. Furthermore, the neuroplasticity literature suggests that observed structural differences may represent consequences rather than causes of gender identity formation.

Let me translate what I just did: I used academic language to make a simple point seem complex. Rockwell does this consistently. The simple point? You cannot diagnose millions of living people using thirteen dead ones, nor via other methods that do not have the resolution or capability to function in a diagnostic capacity. The academic wrapper does not make it more true, just less accessible.

Whether examining white matter (Rametti), gray matter regions (Garcia-Falgueras), or functional connectivity patterns, the story remains the same; interesting correlations that cannot and should not become gatekeeping tools. The researchers themselves consistently warn against diagnostic application.

Yet Rockwell uses these thirteen dead individuals and marshals these studies toward that very purpose: to argue for gatekeeping millions of living trans people. This is not scientific reasoning; it is false equivalency with footnotes.

So what purpose do these studies serve? These studies do serve a purpose, just not the one Rockwell imagines. They demonstrate, through converging evidence, that gender identity involves neurobiological processes, much as studies have shown biological components to sexual orientation. This is natural human variation, not mental illness, not a choice, not a "social contagion." The tragic case of David Reimer and others forcibly reassigned at birth proves that gender identity cannot be imposed or changed, that it is innate.

But here is what Rockwell fails to grasp: establishing biological basis is not the same as creating diagnostic criteria. We do not demand brain scans to verify someone is "really" gay, despite decades of research showing neurological correlates of sexual orientation. Why? Because we recognize that identity is complex, that biological markers show population trends not individual diagnostics, and most importantly, that people are the authorities on their own identities.

Rockwell wants it both ways: to use these studies as proof that "real" trans people exist while simultaneously using them to gatekeep who qualifies as "real." This is not science, it is selective application of science to justify predetermined conclusions and exclusion.

The Reasonable Extremist's Two-Step

Watch how Rockwell dances between positions:

Step One: "Trans people have different brain structures" (establishing sympathy)

Step Two: "Therefore we need brain scans before allowing transition" (implementing gatekeeping)

This is the respectability two-step: validate the identity just enough to avoid seeming hateful, then use that validation to justify restriction. It is like saying "I believe you are hungry, which is why I must lock the refrigerator until you prove you really need food."

The particularly insidious part? They position this gatekeeping as protection: "This would protect patients from the tragedy of having to de-transition."[7] In respectability politics, oppression always wears the mask of concern.

Rockwell conveniently ignores that regret rates after gender-affirming surgery are extraordinarily low. A systematic review and meta-analysis of nearly 8,000 patients found an overall regret rate of just 0.9%[8], with rates below 0.12% for transfeminine individuals. Detransition rates are also minimal, with systematic reviews finding rates between 0-2.4% for surgical detransition and 0-9.8% for hormonal treatment, with most studies clustering around 1-2%. These figures become even smaller when we account for the fact that 82.5% of those who do detransition cite external factors like family pressure, societal stigma, or employment discrimination as their reason, not that transitioning was wrong for them.[9] Furthermore, of that 82.5%, many will go on to transition in the future. Rockwell's "protection" addresses a problem that barely exists while ignoring the actual harms of gatekeeping.

Consider that 73% of women report regret related to their cesarean births[10], with complication rates ranging from 6% for elective to 15% for emergency procedures[11]. About 1 in 4 people who receive a tattoo regret it[12]. We do not stop all cesarean procedures because of complications and a high regret rate, just as we do not ban elective procedures like tattoos for the same reason. But for gender-affirming care, with its 0.9% regret rate, we should?

Creating the Hierarchy

They write: "many of these people are not trans biologically, and therefore will not experience the relief that most trans people experience."[13] Whatever the intent, the effect of Rockwell's argument is to create categories of legitimacy.

This is respectability politics at its most refined: accepting some to exclude many. By creating "biologically real" trans people (who conveniently can only be identified through unavailable brain scans), they can claim to support trans rights while denying those rights to most trans people.

It is the "good ones" strategy, used throughout history. "Good" Black people who "knew their place." "Good" women who did not want the vote. "Good" gays who stayed closeted. Now it is "good" trans people who pass impossible neurological tests.

Let us be specific about what Rockwell's proposal means in practice. A trans teenager in Arkansas would need access to fMRI technology that costs $1,000-5,000 per scan. Rural trans people would travel hundreds of miles to academic medical centers. Insurance would not cover "diagnostic" brain imaging for gender identity. Wait times for specialized neuroimaging already extend months. No standardized protocols exist for interpreting these scans diagnostically.

This is not hypothetical. This is Rockwell advocating for a system where only wealthy, urban trans people near research universities could even attempt to "prove" their identity, assuming such a scan could ever be made diagnostic.

The TikTok Tell

Even the most practiced politician will occasionally expose their underlying position. Rockwell's comes when discussing trans people on TikTok: "you find people who sound more like they are checking out costumes for a Halloween party."[14]

The source Rockwell cites for this dismissal is revealing. 'Sex Reality Bites' is a gender-critical Substack that promotes social contagion theories (rejected by major medical organizations[26][27]) and opposes affirming care for trans youth. Rockwell does not cite research about TikTok trans content. He does not engage critically with this source, nor does he attempt to verify, analyze, or perform his own research to draw his own independent conclusions. There is no “reasonable middle ground” take or analysis here. Instead, he cites this blog post claiming to have watched 'thousands' of videos and concluding they represent dangerous trends. Opinion pieces, regardless of perspective, cannot serve as empirical evidence for claims about identity.This is inadequate sourcing for any empirical claim, let alone one about identity. This is not scholarship; it's citing prejudice to justify prejudice.

The practical effect of Rockwell's argument is to delegitimize most trans people; or at the very least, renders most trans identities suspect. This is not an isolated incident but part of the pattern established throughout his work.

The brain scan argument is not about science; it is about finding a respectable way to say "you are not really trans." Somewhat predictable, this is wrapped up under the guise of “protecting people from themselves” to justify the gatekeeping measures.

The Philosophical Shell Game

When Rockwell needs theoretical cover, they turn to philosophy. In their article "Aristotle, Wittgenstein, and Gender Identity," they argue that gender categories lack essential properties, that definitions are fuzzy because members share "family resemblances" rather than strict characteristics.[15]

Here is the con: Rockwell uses Wittgenstein to argue we cannot definitively say trans women are women (categories are too fuzzy), then immediately demands Aristotelian essential properties (brain structures) to determine who is "really" trans.[16] This is philosophical three-card monte.

If Rockwell were philosophically consistent, they would choose one of these positions[17]:

1. Universal Fuzzy Logic: Apply Wittgensteinian family resemblance to ALL gender categories. If categories lack essential properties, then cisgender identity is just as "fuzzy" as transgender identity—everyone's gender becomes equally self-determined.
2. Universal Biological Testing: Demand brain scans, chromosomes, and hormone tests for EVERYONE before allowing them to identify as any gender. If biology determines "real" gender, apply it universally.

But Rockwell chooses neither. Instead, they cherry-pick concepts. Wittgenstein when excluding trans women from womanhood, Aristotle when demanding neurological proof for transition. When it serves to exclude, categories are complex and undefinable. When it serves to gatekeep, suddenly we need precise biological markers.

The tell is in the selectivity: Why must trans people prove who they are in Rockwell's model? Because they fall outside statistical norms? We either treat people equally, or we argue some are more equal than others. The latter being indefensible, the former making Rockwell's position impossible to implement.

Contemporary philosophers of gender largely converge: Gender categories are indeed socially constructed with fuzzy boundaries, which is precisely why self-identification is the most coherent approach. Social construction does not mean "not real." Money is socially constructed but undeniably real. It means boundaries are maintained through social practice rather than biological essence.

This is not philosophy; it is what philosopher Jason Stanley calls "undermining propaganda," using academic sophistication to restrict rights while maintaining plausible deniability.[18] Real philosophy demands consistency and follows arguments wherever they lead.

The Mirror Test

Here's a simple experiment I like to call the mirror test. We apply Rockwell's standards to cisgender people. This demonstrates just how "reasonable" this would be, observe:

• Demand brain scans before allowing cis women into women's sports
• Require neurological verification before cis men can use men's bathrooms
• Test every child for various biological markers before assigning them a gender
• You may only play on sports teams that have a quorum assembly AND approve your application to play. This is required to play in any ranked, league sport.
• A requirement to hold a “cisnormative certificate” to prove you are who and what you say you are, and should be presented upon request, for other’s comfort and assurances.

Sounds absurd? That is because it is. The only reason it seems "reasonable" for trans people is because we've already othered them. Rockwell never explains why only trans people need to prove their gender. The answer is uncomfortable: because they fundamentally see trans identity as suspicious, as a thing to be pathologized, or as a condition, while viewing cis identity as natural.

The Sports Panic: One Swimmer, Universal Conclusions

"Lia Thomas was rightly banned," Rockwell declares, using one athlete to justify universal exclusion.[19] They focus on "masculine shoulders and arms" as defining features, but do not engage with the complexity of athletic performance, the vast diversity among athletes, or the fact that hormone therapy dramatically reduces strength and speed[24].

Research shows that after 2-3 years of hormone therapy, most performance differences fall within the natural variation found in women's sports[22]. Elite female athletes already show enormous variation, some cisgender women have testosterone levels in the typical male range, some have unusual height or muscle mass. Michael Phelps has abnormally long arms and double-jointed ankles, natural advantages we celebrate rather than ban.

But Rockwell uses one swimmer to create universal policy. Notice that we are back to measuring bodies, deciding who's too masculine, too tall, too strong. Notably, we don't scrutinize male athletes the same way. When men have unique advantages, these are venerated and they become 'virtuosos of their time.' Yet with cisgender women, the same advantages become grounds to question their legitimacy as professional athletes, their very womanhood called into question. One need only look at the historical pattern to see this thread wending its way through women's sports and public perception, and we have not touched upon the more recent 'transvestigating' trend.

This is to say nothing of the dearth of trans women dominating sports despite participating for years. If trans women had such insurmountable advantages, where are all the trans champions? It is the same misogynistic policing of women's bodies that kept them out of marathons until 1972, just with updated vocabulary and a new scope that includes transmisogyny, as defined by Julia Serano[25].

From Brain Scans to Broader Framework

While Rockwell’s ‘Brain Scans…’ article predates their 'Moderate Gender Manifesto,' it establishes the biological gatekeeping framework that manifesto would later expand upon. Rockwell's manifesto makes explicit what the brain scan article implies. They present it as finding "common ground," but what they actually propose is a comprehensive rollback of trans rights wrapped in reasonable language.[20]

The manifesto argues that trans people deserve protection from discrimination while simultaneously creating impossible barriers to that protection. They claim to support trans people while arguing that children cannot know they're trans, that most current trans identification is "social contagion," and that we need biological tests to prove "real" transness via brain scans. They propose that decisions about trans women in sports should be made by cisgender women athletes voting on the matter.

If this seems reasonable to you, then imagine if we had let white athletes vote on whether Jackie Robinson could play with them. How do you think that would have gone?

Most tellingly, they argue that "gender is socially constructed, but not individually determined," using this to justify why trans women shouldn't have access to women's spaces.

This is respectability politics at its most refined: acknowledging social construction to sound progressive while using it to deny individual identity. They're saying society gets to determine your gender, not you, which is precisely the opposite of what social construction theory actually argues.

As I detailed in my response to this manifesto[23], what Rockwell presents as moderation is actually the gender-critical wishlist with academic window dressing. It's extremism wearing a cardigan, discrimination with a bibliography.

The Historical Echo

This playbook is not new. Consider these parallels:

1920s: "I support women's advancement, but biology shows they're unsuited for certain roles. We must protect them from themselves."

1960s: "I support Negro rights, but science shows their brains are different. We need separate facilities for everyone's comfort."

Today: "I support trans people, but brain scans show differences. We need biological verification for everyone's safety."

MLK Jr. identified this pattern in his "Letter from Birmingham Jail":

"I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to 'order' than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice."

Rockwell presents themself as that moderate, not the Twitter TERF hurling slurs, but the reasonable academic who just wants "scientific verification" before allowing rights. Same stumbling block, updated vocabulary.

The Fundamental Contradiction

The scientists who conducted these studies explicitly warn against using them for diagnosis. Zhou, Kruijver, and their colleagues state that population-level differences cannot determine individual identity. The overlap between groups makes diagnostic use impossible.[21]

This critical caveat goes unacknowledged in Rockwell's argument. The research does not support gatekeeping. It actively contradicts it.

Yet Rockwell's framework depends on ignoring this scientific consensus. The result is an argument that makes exclusion palatable to people who consider themselves progressive. It makes unreasonable positions sound reasonable by wrapping them in academic citations. It provides the "scientific" cover story for what remains, at its core, the same old bigotry: "You are not who you say you are."

Predictable Objections

I can already hear the responses:

"You are being unfair to Rockwell's nuanced position."
Actually, I am taking them at their word. When someone says brain scans should determine who can transition, that is not nuance, that is gatekeeping with extra steps.

"You're misrepresenting Rockwell's position on [specific topic]."
I quote Rockwell directly throughout. If the direct quotes misrepresent the position, that's a problem with the position, not the quotation.

“Anything about ad hominem attacks”
This analysis examines the arguments and their implications, not the author's character or intentions. Good people can make harmful arguments; examining those arguments is not a personal attack.

"You are too angry about this."
Notice how demanding calm discussion of discrimination is itself a form of respectability politics? Rockwell can calmly propose denying healthcare; I am supposed to respond without emotion? This appears to be tone policing.

"The science is still developing."
Exactly. Which is why using preliminary neuroscience to restrict rights is premature at best, malicious at worst. You do not beta-test human rights.

Why This Matters

Respectability politics slips past the defenses that would otherwise block open bigotry. Progressive people who would reject overt transmisia might accept Rockwell's "reasonable concerns" or “moderate compromises.” Medical providers might implement gatekeeping believing it is scientifically justified. Policy makers might restrict rights thinking they are being moderate.

This is how oppression evolves: not through dramatic reversal, but through reasonable-sounding restrictions, scientific-seeming justifications, and moderate-appearing positions. Rockwell's article is not just wrong; it is a template for making discrimination respectable.

What they have made is a velvet hammer; discrimination that feels soft to those who wield it, devastating to those it strikes.

The Inconvenient Truth

The real inconvenient truth is not about brain scans or biology. It is that respectability politics works. It provides cover for people who want to discriminate but do not want to seem discriminatory. It offers scientific vocabulary for ancient prejudices. It transforms "I do not think trans women are women" into "the neurological evidence suggests categorical complexity." It appeals to the moderates on both sides of the aisle, and even the moderates from within the targeted minority’s own community.

Rockwell's article represents the gentrification of gatekeeping, the respectability politics of exclusion, the academic decoration of discrimination. Whether bigotry arrives in a lab coat or a MAGA hat, whether it speaks in citations or slurs, whether it claims concern or admits contempt, it remains what it is: an attempt to deny people their fundamental right to exist as themselves.

The brain scans are real. The science is valid. Trans people's experiences are legitimate. But using that science to sort people into "real" and "fake" categories? That is not research. That is respectability politics doing what it always does: making oppression look reasonable, one citation at a time.

N.B. Special thanks to Larry Erickson for giving me a new gut-check on my writing, what I now call: Larry's Lens™

References

[1] Rockwell, T. (2025, June 18). Brain scans CAN tell us important things about trans people. Teed's Newsletter. https://teedrockwell.substack.com/p/brain-scans-can-tell-us-important

[2] Kruijver, F. P., Zhou, J. N., Pool, C. W., Hofman, M. A., Gooren, L. J., & Swaab, D. F. (2000). Male-to-female transsexuals have female neuron numbers in a limbic nucleus. The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, 85(5), 2034-2041.

[3] Zhou, J. N., Hofman, M. A., Gooren, L. J., & Swaab, D. F. (1995). A sex difference in the human brain and its relation to transsexuality. Nature, 378(6552), 68-70.

[4] See [3] above.

[5] See [2] above.

[6] Chung, W. C., De Vries, G. J., & Swaab, D. F. (2002). Sexual differentiation of the bed nucleus of the stria terminalis in humans may extend into adulthood. Journal of Neuroscience, 22(3), 1027-1033.

[7] See [1] above.

[8] Bustos, V. P., Bustos, S. S., Mascaro, A., Del Corral, G., Forte, A. J., Ciudad, P., Kim, E. A., Langstein, H. N., & Manrique, O. J. (2021). Regret after gender-affirmation surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis of prevalence. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. Global Open, 9(3), e3477. https://doi.org/10.1097/GOX.0000000000003477

[9] Turban, J. L., Loo, S. S., Almazan, A. N., & Keuroghlian, A. S. (2021). Factors leading to "detransition" among transgender and gender diverse people in the United States: A mixed-methods analysis. LGBT Health, 8(4), 273-280.

[10] Burcher, P., Cheyney, M. J., Li, K. N., Hushmendy, S., & Kiley, K. C. (2016). Cesarean birth regret and dissatisfaction: A qualitative approach. Birth, 43(4). https://doi.org/10.1111/birt.12240

[11] Konheim-Kalkstein, Y. L., & Miron-Shatz, T. (2021). "If only I had...": Regrets from women with an unplanned cesarean delivery. Psychology & Health. https://doi.org/10.1177/1359105319891543

[12] Rao, A., & Yadav, P. (2024). Tattoo regret. CosmoDerma, 4(112). https://doi.org/10.25259/CSDM_70_2024

[13-16] See [1] above.

[17] Yes, there are more options to list here. That would lead into writing a rebuttal to the entire article, which should really stand as its own article, so I listed the two options that seemed most salient to the position Rockwell is making and in scope of the articles referenced versus the argument I am making.

[18] Stanley, J. (2015). How propaganda works. Princeton University Press.

[19, 20] See [1] above.

[21] Arraiza Zabalegui, M. (2024). After the trans brain: A critique of the neurobiological accounts of embodied trans* identities. History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences, 46(1), 10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40656-023-00602-6

[22]Harper, J., Roberts, T., Anderson, L., et al. (2021). How does hormone transition in transgender women change body composition, muscle strength and haemoglobin? Systematic review with a focus on the implications for sport participation. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 55(15), 865-872.

[23] PITT. (2025, August 11). My Response to Teed Rockwell's “A Moderate Gender Manifesto” - A 3/5ths Compromise for the 21st Century.” People With Inconvenient Truths about Transphobes. https://pittpeople.substack.com/p/my-response-to-rockwells-manifesto

[24]Roberts, T. A., Rosario, R., & Meyer-Bahlburg, H. F. L. (2020). Effect of gender affirming hormones on athletic performance in transwomen and transmen: Implications for sporting organisations and legislators. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 55(11), 577-583.

[25] Serano, J. (2016). Whipping girl: A transsexual woman on sexism and the scapegoating of femininity (2nd ed.). Seal Press.

[26] Greta R. Bauer, Margaret L. Lawson, Daniel L. Metzger,. Do Clinical Data from Transgender Adolescents Support the Phenomenon of “Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria”?. The Journal of Pediatrics. Vol 243. 2022. Pgs 224-227.e2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpeds.2021.11.020.

[27] Coalition for the Advancement & Application of Psychological Science. (2021). CAAPS position statement on rapid-onset gender dysphoria (ROGD). https://www.caaps.co/rogd-statement