There are some people however, religious zealots, who will not accept that I don’t share their belief. I must believe what they do. I must accept their dogmas. I must join them and say what they want me to say, or they will attempt to punish me for my heresy.

Now compare this to gender ideology. Gender disciples require that infidels must believe what they believe, think what they think, and literally say what they want you to say. You MUST use the pronouns that they DEMAND. This is religious zealotry. I will not encourage it by participating. I will not “just be nice” and “just go along.” This only encourages a destructive ideology that is intolerant of other people’s beliefs. I simply don’t want to participate. And in a free society, we all need to be tolerant of other people who have different beliefs than us. We can agree or disagree, but we should never be forced to participate. Nor should we tolerate intolerant beliefs.

Of course, a religious zealot won’t see it that way. The zealot knows The Truth, and you don’t. You are an infidel, and must be vilified, punished, or worse.

Related content:

Leslie Elliott Boyce discusses why, and how, we can gently decline to participate:

Julia Beck explains how transgenderism is anti-gay and anti-lesbian:

Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters, by Abigail Shrier

Following is a full summary of the book:

Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters (2020) is a investigative book by Abigail Shrier, a Wall Street Journal contributor and journalist. It examines what the author describes as a sudden, dramatic surge in transgender identification and medical transition among adolescent girls (natal females) in the 2010s, particularly in Western countries.

Shrier’s core thesis is that this is not primarily an organic increase in innate gender dysphoria or “true” transgender identity (as historically understood) but a social contagion affecting vulnerable teenage girls. These girls - often high-anxiety, depressive, or dealing with other issues - adopt a transgender identity under peer, social media, school, and cultural influence, leading many down a path of irreversible medical interventions (puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgeries like mastectomies). She argues this model of “gender-affirming care” is ideologically driven, lacks robust long-term evidence, and harms many who would otherwise resolve their distress.

Historical Context vs. Recent Surge (The “Puzzle”)

Historically, gender dysphoria (then often called gender identity disorder) was extremely rare - roughly 0.01% of the population - almost exclusively affecting young boys with early-onset symptoms, with most (estimates of 60–90% in older studies) desisting by adulthood under a “watchful waiting” approach. There was little to no documented sudden onset in adolescent girls.

Shrier documents a sharp reversal post-2012/2014: massive increases in referrals to gender clinics (e.g., UK data showed thousands of percent rises, with natal females becoming the majority). Many cases involve sudden (“rapid-onset”) identification in teens with no childhood history, often in friend-group clusters. She links this to social factors rather than a sudden biological shift.

Key Arguments and Evidence Presented

Shrier draws on nearly 200 interviews (parents, detransitioners, clinicians, and some affected individuals), Littman’s 2018 research, clinic data trends, online content analysis, and expert critiques. Main elements include:

• Rapid-Onset Gender Dysphoria (ROGD) and Social Contagion: Endorsing Lisa Littman’s controversial 2018 paper, Shrier describes ROGD as sudden transgender identification in adolescents, heavily influenced by prolonged social media immersion (Tumblr, Reddit, YouTube, TikTok), peer groups (multiple friends “coming out” together), and online communities. Many had prior mental health struggles (anxiety, depression, autism spectrum traits, trauma, eating disorders, or same-sex attraction). “Trans” identity provides community, status, and an explanation for teen distress - paralleling past contagions like anorexia or cutting among girls.

• Social Media and Influencers (“The Influencers”): Platforms and trans YouTubers/TikTok creators promote transition as empowering or a fix for body image, bullying, or not fitting feminine stereotypes. They offer scripts for coming out, binding, or starting hormones, sometimes encouraging secrecy from parents. Shrier notes “trans” as a high-status identity in some teen circles, while lesbian or tomboy identities may feel lower-status.

• Schools and Institutions (“The Schools”): Policies often socially transition students (new names/pronouns) without parental notification, teach gender as fluid/identity-based rather than biological, and host affirming assemblies. This creates secrecy and pressure, sidelining parents.

• Parents’ Experiences (“The Moms and Dads”): Many interviewed parents were LGBTQ-supportive but blindsided. Therapists and activists often frame non-affirmation as abusive or suicidal-risk-inducing, pressuring families. Shrier portrays this as a dilemma where parents fear losing their child or being labeled bigots.

• Critique of Affirmative Care (“The Shrinks” and medical chapters): The dominant “affirmative” model - accept self-ID immediately and proceed to social/medical transition - is criticized as ideological capture over evidence-based medicine. Puberty blockers are marketed as a reversible “pause button” but, per Shrier, nearly always lead to cross-sex hormones (with risks of infertility, sexual dysfunction, bone density loss, and other effects). Testosterone causes permanent changes (deeper voice, facial hair, clitoral enlargement). “Top surgery” (double mastectomy) is common for girls and presented as low-risk. Shrier highlights weak evidence for benefits in this adolescent-onset cohort and profiles dissenting clinicians (e.g., Kenneth Zucker) who faced professional repercussions for advocating exploratory therapy.

• Silencing of Dissent (“The Dissidents”): Experts and researchers questioning the surge or affirmative model (Littman, Zucker, others) faced attacks, retractions, firings, or harassment. Shrier argues this chills open inquiry.

• Detransition and Regret (“The Regret” and “The Transformation”): Profiles young women who pursued hormones and/or mastectomies, later realizing it did not resolve underlying issues (often autism, trauma, or orientation-related distress). They report health complications, infertility, voice changes, and social ostracism from trans communities upon detransitioning. Shrier emphasizes these stories are under-discussed due to political pressures.

• Broader Cultural Impacts: The phenomenon affects lesbians (erasure or pressure to accept trans-identified partners), women’s sports/spaces/privacy, and reinforces rigid gender stereotypes by medicalizing girls who don’t conform.

Conclusions and Recommendations (“The Way Back”)

Shrier concludes that a generation of girls - especially those with co-occurring mental health challenges - is being rushed into irreversible harm under the guise of compassion. The affirmative model disregards desistance data, comorbidities, and social influences, prioritizing identity affirmation over thorough psychological exploration. True early-onset transgender cases (rare, persistent from childhood) are distinct from this adolescent surge.

Her advice to parents and society:

• Treat this as a serious social/psychological phenomenon requiring caution, not celebration.

• Limit social media and smartphone access for teens.

• Do not reflexively affirm names/pronouns or socially transition; maintain parental authority and explore root causes (therapy for anxiety, trauma, family dynamics, etc.).

• Seek clinicians open to “watchful waiting” or exploratory approaches rather than affirmation-only.

• Many affected girls may grow out of it or identify as lesbian/gay; support natural development.

• Society needs independent research, protection of single-sex spaces/sports, and recognition that medical transition is not a neutral or low-risk solution for most in this cohort.

• Detransitioners deserve support; their experiences validate concerns about rushed care.

The book ends on a note of urgency mixed with hope: recovery and desistance are possible with the right approach, and protecting vulnerable girls from ideological pressures is a parental and societal duty.

If reading books isn’t your thing, Abigail gave an informative talk at Hillsdale College on this issue:

Related further reading:

Brief Summary of The Parasitic Mind by Gad Saad (2020)

Gad Saad, an evolutionary psychologist, argues that modern society is infected by “idea pathogens” - irrational ideologies (postmodernism, radical victimhood culture, gender ideology, and social justice activism) that spread like biological parasites or mind viruses. These pathogens prioritize feelings over facts, reject objective truth and biological reality, suppress free speech through cancel culture and political correctness, and erode common sense.

Incubated in universities and amplified by social media, they create Ostrich Parasitic Syndrome (willful denial of uncomfortable truths) and threaten Western civilization’s foundations of reason, liberty, and progress.

Postscript:

Watch the full video here →

Jeremy Boreing recently released a video on this topic. It is excellent, and I highly recommend it (especially if you consider yourself conservative or on the right). It’s 35 minutes. Skip watching a shitty sitcom some night and watch this instead:

For reference, following is a list of some of the persuasion tactics Jeremy discusses in his video:

• Pre-suasion - Priming the audience by telling them what they’re about to see or what it means before they actually evaluate the evidence.

• Presupposition - Embedding assumptions as if they’re already established facts (e.g., slipping controversial claims into the structure of a sentence).

• Assertion stacking - Rapidly layering multiple confident claims or certainty signals so quickly that the viewer’s brain stops critically tracking each one.

• Asymmetric skepticism - Applying extreme doubt or demands for proof to mainstream/official sources, while treating alternative or contrarian claims as obvious or self-evident.

• Authority transfer - Using one credible or compelling point to lend unearned credibility to a string of weaker or unrelated claims.

• Manufactured “waking up” / illusion of insight - Creating an emotional rush of sudden profound understanding (“I’ve been lied to my whole life!”) that feels like personal enlightenment but functions like religious conversion.

• False consensus signaling - Using language that implies “everyone already knows this” or “it’s obvious to smart people,” making disagreement feel isolating or dumb.

• Epistemic closure - Signaling that a question is already settled, so further inquiry or evidence-seeking seems unnecessary or naive.

• Burden shifting - Flipping the burden of proof onto skeptics (“Prove me wrong”) while treating the original claim as the default position.

• Motivated reasoning with hedges - Starting from a desired conclusion, admitting gaps in evidence, then still pushing it forward with minor disclaimers for plausible deniability.

• Collective certainty (“We don’t know know, but we know”) - Turning admitted uncertainty or lack of hard proof into group-level conviction through phrasing like Candace’s style.

• Social proof - Implying widespread agreement or crowd validation to encourage adoption of the view.

• Repetition (illusory truth effect) - Repeating claims with calm confidence so they begin to feel true simply through familiarity.

• Framing / narrative preloading - Structuring stories or documentaries (e.g., like Loose Change) to guide the viewer toward a predetermined interpretation.

• Hedges paired with certainty - Delivering strong assertions upfront, then adding soft qualifiers at the end for cover.

• Inversion - Making the act of skepticism itself seem suspicious or in need of explanation (“Why are you still defending the official story?”).

• Thought-terminating phrases - Using words like “Obviously,” “Clearly,” “Of course,” or “Everyone knows” to short-circuit critical thinking.

• Authority / credential smuggling via partial truths - Leveraging real insights or admitted mainstream failures to smuggle in broader conspiratorial worldviews.

And here is a list of his examples of social contagions:

• Eugenics (early 20th century movement) - He brings this up as a classic case of a pseudoscientific idea that spread rapidly among intellectuals and elites using similar certainty-signaling and “enlightened” framing.

• Overpopulation / Population Bomb panic (1960s–1970s) - The fear that the world was about to collapse due to too many people, popularized by Paul Ehrlich and others.

• Climate Panic (often grouped with the above as environmental doomsday narratives) - He lumps this in with overpopulation as recurring “end is near” contagions sold through similar methods.

• COVID-era hysteria / COVID policies and responses (2020–2022) - Specifically the lockdowns, mandates, and the rapid shift in public belief and compliance that he sees as driven by fear + authority + asymmetric skepticism.

• BLM / 2020 racial justice wave - Mentioned as one of the “contagions of the 2020s.”

• Transgenderism / Gender ideology / Rapid-onset gender dysphoria in youth - He explicitly compares the current wave of anti-Israel sentiment to transgenderism as a social contagion.

• The current anti-Israel / Antisemitism wave (on the right and online) - This is the main contemporary example he’s warning about in the video - he argues it’s spreading via the same tactics and is becoming the latest social contagion.

And a few more related examples that he touches on:

• Loose Change / 9/11 truther conspiracy theories - Used early in the video as a case study of the “manufactured eureka / waking up” feeling.

• Pearl Harbor conspiracy theories - Tucker clip analyzed as an example of pre-suasion and framing.

• Moon landing denial - Brought up in the section on authority transfer.

• Bolshevism (mentioned in broader discussion of revolutionary/ideological contagions).

Full disclosure, I had Grok extract these lists for me.

Postscript: Jeremy’s followup video on agency:

And banger of a video essay, on toxic femininity:

Classical liberalism is a political philosophy emphasizing individual liberty, limited government, free markets, and the rule of law.

And conservatism?

Conservatism is a political philosophy that values tradition, limited government, social stability, and preserving established institutions and practices.

Progressivism?

Progressivism is a political philosophy advocating for social, political, and economic reforms to address inequalities and promote change, often through government intervention and innovation.

Briefly define left wing vs right wing

Left Wing: Advocates for social equality, government intervention in the economy, and progressive reforms to address social issues, often emphasizing collective welfare.

Right Wing: Emphasizes tradition, limited government, free markets, and social stability, often prioritizing individual responsibility and established institutions.

Present day American definition of liberal

In present-day America, a liberal typically supports progressive policies, government intervention to promote social equity and economic fairness, and individual rights, often emphasizing issues like healthcare access, environmental protection, and social justice. Liberals tend to favor reform and inclusivity, aligning with the Democratic Party.

So liberals today are progressives, not classical liberals

Yes, in present-day America, liberals are more aligned with progressivism, focusing on social equity, government intervention, and reform, rather than classical liberalism’s emphasis on limited government and free markets.

And conservatives today are conserving liberalism

In present-day America, conservatives often aim to preserve principles akin to classical liberalism, such as limited government, free markets, and individual liberties, while also emphasizing traditional values and social stability. However, modern conservatism can blend these with other priorities, like cultural traditions or national security, and isn’t solely focused on conserving classical liberalism. It aligns closely with the Republican Party.

So conservatives and classical liberals are right wing, and progressives and socialists are left wing

Broadly, yes. In the U.S. context:

Right Wing: Conservatives and classical liberals align here, emphasizing limited government, free markets, individual liberties (classical liberalism), and traditional values (conservatism).

Left Wing: Progressives and socialists align here, advocating for social equity, government intervention, and reforms (progressivism) or collective ownership and wealth redistribution (socialism).

The lines can blur, but this captures the general divide.

Full disclosure: AI assisted me in writing this article.

There are many definitions of Woke. I will use Peter Boghossian definition here, as it is reasonably neutral and complete. Peter defines “woke” in two layers, its original positive sense and its contemporary (often pejorative) usage as an ideology.

Original Meaning

Originally, “woke” simply meant to become aware of—specifically, waking up to the reality, horror, and pervasiveness of racism and injustice (particularly how people with dark skin have been treated historically and systemically). Boghossian describes it as people feeling “born again” in their understanding of injustice, like a conversion experience where they suddenly “see” systemic oppression that others miss.

Contemporary Meaning (as an Ideology)

Today, Boghossian uses “woke” (or wokeness, wokeism, or Critical Social Justice) to describe a rigid ideological framework that has evolved far beyond that. He often calls it a “new religion” or secular faith that fills the void left by declining traditional religion, complete with its own dogmas, sacred tenets, saints, heretics, and rituals of public shaming or cancellation.

In his “Woke in Plain English” series and related talks, he breaks it down with core beliefs and practices:

• Censorship is necessary to protect the “oppressed” from “harmful” ideas or speech.

• Evidence and reason are subordinate to “lived experience,” identity, and narratives of power/oppression (e.g., if data or logic conflicts with a claim of systemic injustice, the narrative often wins).

• Diversity means people who look different but think alike (ideological conformity disguised as variety).

• Inclusion often means creating “safe” or “welcoming” spaces by restricting speech that might offend favored identity groups—leading to exclusion of dissenters.

• Prioritizing racial (or other identity-based) justice above all other values, including free speech, truth-seeking, merit, or due process. If there’s a conflict, social justice trumps everything else.

Boghossian frequently frames wokeness as a performative, moralistic ideology rooted in postmodernism, critical theory (especially Critical Race Theory and intersectionality), and a worldview that sees society primarily through lenses of power, privilege, and perpetual victimhood/oppressor dynamics. He argues it rejects objective truth in favor of “my truth” based on identity, distorts language (redefining terms like equity, justice, or harm), and has been catastrophic for institutions like universities, where it functions as a “dogma factory” that undermines reason, science, and open inquiry.

In short, for Boghossian, calling something “woke” today usually signals a shift from genuine awareness of injustice to an authoritarian, evidence-resistant belief system that weaponizes compassion and morality to enforce conformity and remake society. He has contrasted it with classical liberalism, which he favors: pursuing justice through evidence, reason, and individual rights rather than group-based power struggles.

He has explored this extensively in videos, his Substack, interviews, and collaborations (e.g., with James Lindsay or Michael Shellenberger on “Woke Religion: A Taxonomy”). His critique is that while addressing real injustices is good, the woke approach often creates more division, erodes trust in evidence, and leads to cultural self-sabotage.

§

Heterodox Thinkers

Following is a list of heterodox thinkers whose writings I recommend. While there may be one or two conservatives, most are liberals, disenfranchised liberals, and even a few progressives. I include them so as not to put off my intended readers here - contemporary liberals. The easiest place to start would be X (links provided). But if you object to that site, a Google search on any of them should turn up plenty of articles elsewhere.

• Michael Shellenberger: Environmental journalist, author (Apocalypse Never), and founder of Environmental Progress. Formerly a progressive/Democrat-leaning liberal; now self-describes as liberal in compassion, libertarian in freedom, and conservative in some instincts. Strongly anti-woke: describes wokeism as a secular religion with dogmas of guilt, victimhood, and censorship that harms institutions, science, and progress (e.g., on climate, homelessness, and free speech). Co-authored “Woke Religion: A Taxonomy” with Boghossian.

• Jonathan Haidt: Social psychologist, professor, and author (The Righteous Mind, The Coddling of the American Mind). Non-partisan centrist (former lifelong Democrat, now independent). Highly critical of “woke” campus culture, safetyism, cancel culture, and DEI: argues they promote illiberalism, fragility, and power-based thinking over evidence and viewpoint diversity. Calls for abolishing or reforming DEI to save academia.

• Peter Boghossian: Philosopher, former Portland State University professor, and author. Classical liberal who prioritizes reason, evidence, and free inquiry. One of the most vocal anti-woke critics: calls wokeism/Critical Social Justice a rigid, evidence-resistant ideology (or “new religion”) that subordinates truth, science, and speech to identity-based power narratives. Co-creator of the “Grievance Studies” hoax and “Woke in Plain English” series.

• Coleman Hughes: Writer, podcaster (Conversations with Coleman), and author (The End of Race Politics). Liberal/center-left with classical liberal leanings. Strongly anti-woke on race: advocates colorblindness (treating people without regard to race in policy and life) over identity politics, DEI, and “antiracism” as currently practiced. Argues race-based approaches increase division and that class/socioeconomics are better proxies for disadvantage.

• Konstantin Kisin: Russian-British comedian, writer, and co-host of Triggernometry podcast. Libertarian-leaning, pro-Western values, reluctantly accepts “right-wing” label in recent years while rejecting strict left/right binaries. Fiercely anti-woke: argues woke culture promotes victimhood over agency, feelings over truth, and self-loathing of the West; says it has “gone too far” and distracts from real progress.

• Ayaan Hirsi Ali: Somali-born activist, author, and former politician (Netherlands). Classical liberal, secular feminist, and critic of Islamism (ex-Muslim). Strongly anti-woke: equates aspects of wokeism to a totalitarian ideology or new religion that mirrors Islamism in demanding purity, suppressing speech, and deconstructing Western civilization. Sees both as enemies of Enlightenment values and free societies.

• Rob Henderson: Author (Troubled) and psychologist known for “luxury beliefs” concept. Working-class background, U.S. military veteran. Conservative-leaning or heterodox (critiques elite progressive culture). Anti-woke: argues many progressive ideas (including identity politics and certain social policies) are status-signaling “luxury beliefs” that harm the working class while elites avoid the consequences.

• Colin Wright: Evolutionary biologist, writer, and editor. Liberal background. Strongly anti-woke, especially on sex/gender: defends biological reality of sex as binary in humans (with rare disorders of development), criticizes gender ideology, self-ID policies, and the subordination of science to activism in academia and medicine.

• Matt Taibbi: Investigative journalist, author (Hate Inc.), former Rolling Stone. Left-leaning populist/critic of power. Anti-woke in practice: rails against corporate media “wokeness,” censorship (e.g., Twitter Files), and identity-based moral panics as tools of elite control; prioritizes free speech and class over race/gender frameworks.

• Gad Saad: Evolutionary psychologist, professor, and author (The Parasitic Mind). Classical liberal with libertarian streaks. Outspoken anti-woke: calls wokeism an “idea pathogen” or mental parasite that spreads via universities and media, undermining reason, biology, free speech, and merit in favor of identity victimhood.

• Christopher Rufo: Investigative journalist, filmmaker, and senior fellow at Manhattan Institute. Conservative. Leading anti-woke activist: popularized opposition to Critical Race Theory in schools/government, campaigns against DEI programs, and documents how identity-based ideologies have captured institutions. Advocates defunding or reforming captured bureaucracies.

• James Lindsay: Author (Cynical Theories), mathematician, and co-host of New Discourses. Formerly liberal/left-leaning; now strongly anti-woke. Views wokeism as applied postmodernism/Critical Theory that rejects objective truth for power narratives; co-authored the “Grievance Studies” hoax exposing academic corruption.

• Bari Weiss: Journalist, author, and founder of The Free Press. Formerly left-leaning (New York Times op-ed writer); resigned citing ideological intolerance. Heterodox liberal. Anti-woke: criticizes cancel culture, identity politics, and institutional capture by progressive orthodoxy; champions free speech and viewpoint diversity.

• Helen Pluckrose: Author (Cynical Theories), editor, and liberal humanist. Left-liberal. Prominent anti-woke voice: co-led the “Grievance Studies” hoax with Lindsay and Boghossian; argues that “woke”/Critical Social Justice distorts liberalism by prioritizing group identity and lived experience over universal reason and evidence.

• John McWhorter: Linguist, professor (Columbia), and author (Woke Racism). Liberal/Democrat-leaning Black intellectual. Strongly anti-woke: calls third-wave antiracism a “new religion” that infantilizes Black people, promotes victimhood, and harms genuine progress; advocates colorblind policies and critiques DEI as counterproductive.

• Warren Smith: Educator, YouTuber (Secret Scholar Society), filmmaker. Independent/anti-partisan “American” who critiques both sides but leans toward competence-focused governance. Anti-woke: pushes Socratic teaching against ideological conformity; challenges students on topics like J.K. Rowling, free speech, and cultural issues in education and media.

• Cathy Young: Journalist, author, contributing editor at Reason. Classical liberal/libertarian. Critically anti-woke: long-time opponent of identity politics excesses, cancel culture, and feminist/anti-racist overreach; defends individualism, due process, and nuance against tribal moralism.

• Yascha Mounk: Political scientist, Johns Hopkins professor, author (The Identity Trap). Liberal democrat. Anti-woke: warns that identity synthesis (”wokeness”) undermines liberal democracy by prioritizing group rights over individual ones; advocates universalism and free speech against illiberal progressivism.