The Cass Report, written by physician Hilary Cass at the behest of England’s National Health Service, made waves last week by questioning the health justification for the demand for and support from environmentalist groups for gender-dysphoric youngsters. The document states that the use of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones may be discontinued, not least because their long-term outcomes are unknown. Cass adopts a systematic approach, arguing that such assertions must be taken into account in the context of poor mental health and psychological distress among the broader youthful population, rather than taking small states of anxiety at face value.
“There will be significant institutional and legal repercussions for all of this, as well as relief (mixed with anger) from the part of all of us punished for rejecting gender ideology. It seems as though Britain is awakening from a shared bad dream. But how did any of these horrible and false suggestions get taken seriously, let alone find traction, in many cases permanently, on the bodies of kids? Here, serious psychodynamic questions are raised. First and foremost, how did the natural process of puberty—entering physical maturity—become pathologized? How and why did health professionals come to the conclusion that avoiding adulthood by using dangerous drugs was the best course of action for childhood suffering, not to mention incompetent people running pressure groups and charities?
The desire to suppress puberty in children—who usually have autism treatments, as Cass notes—must be understood in the context of a society that is more widely self-infantilizing. a society that values both security and children. Did the parents who consented to puberty blockers in any way like to keep their children from becoming adults? Did they unknowingly believe that their children would not be able to handle the difficulties of physical life? Puberty is terrible. For the first time, one is aware of various physical and social facets that require adjustment. Sometimes nervous, the opposite gender takes on a new meaning. Menstruation is usually disturbing for girls, just as younger men’s intimate feeling is often awkward and embarrassing.
Puberty is a time of heavy uncertainty, where one’s sense of self is little in location, though sorely longed for. It’s no wonder that young people hold onto names in the same way that generations before them held onto subculture and songs. Young folks constantly copy each other (and the images they see), not least of which because they seek role models beyond their families. A lifestyle drenched in physical pictures adds to the misunderstandings, with some seeking—understandably—to remain outside of the circle of desire.
In 1996, René Girard wrote an essay titled “Eating Disorders and Mimetic Desire.” Many people have noted that the desire to identify as “trans”—much like eating disorders (the two in fact are often correlated, as Cass finds)—has a strong mimetic dimension. Teenage groups of women who are adolescents immediately start identifying as “boys” or “nonbinary,” similar to how girls frequently act cruel and feige in their search for competitive bulk. According to Girard, “most of us are quietly conscious of this because most of us also want to be skinny,” and that is what persistent people really want to be.”
We did not overcome fear and profitability, however much we deny these intentions to ourselves. As Girard put it: “The method which has denied God first, next man, and eventually yet the individual, has certainly destroyed the dynamic urge which, on the contrary, is becoming more and more powerful. The person who most closely resembles the existing philosophy wins.” In a post-prohibition world, in which limits are there to be ignored, transcended, or smashed in the name of individual freedom, this looks a lot like trying to be the most free (in this case, free of being something perceived to be as dull and restrictive as “male” or “female”). As Girard said: “The persons with eating issues are not the people with a spiritual migraine, the reactionaries and the conservatives, but the most ‘liberated.’”
A concern of age and physical difference is what keeps people from perpetuating the trans mania.”
This imitation rivalry will grow, which may explain why earlier gender-specific deviations were deemed inappropriate. The person who completely commits to severe brain adjustment is showing superiority to those who only go through a haircut. Combined with the use of exponential language, the notion that rejecting female philosophy is like heresy; that refusing to use trans pronouns is a “hate crime,” or even that there is a “trans genocide” occurring—one can occupy the exalted role of “most socially desirable” and “most victimized” at the same time.
Humanity recreates ceremony with a gloomy vengeance in a culture without customs to acknowledge and celebrate the healthy transition between youth and adulthood, and without religious narratives to explain them. The fact that the contemporary method of excluding faith produces numerous caricatures, Girard wrote, is a great irony. The cost of making the attempt to cure a biological process may be taken into account as well as the effects of what it might have on our deeper social state of mind. A fear of age and intimate differences are what keeps the trans mania at bay.
There will need to be a judgment at all levels of society if we are past the fad’s level and the Cass report with its calm, sensible tone prevails. However, coming to terms with why we can no longer bear to mature and why accepting the sex we are has become so difficult has become a deeper reflection.
