theruddreport

[theruddreport]

Jamie Reed's War on Truth

Her rhetoric relies on misinformation and bad faith—but few adequately have questioned it. I explain how she distorts evidence, fuels fear, and impacts policies under the guise of concern.

By S. Rudd

------------------------------------------------

Jamie Reed Vs The Truth

Jamie Reed in 2023

One of the key assumptions underlying Jamie's opposition to healthcare access for transgender individuals is the belief that most trans people seeking hormonal interventions in gender clinics are homosexual relative to their birth sex (e.g., an androphilic trans woman or a gynephilic trans man). Jamie and her allies frequently use the phrase “stop transing gay kids” in public statements to argue that gender clinics are targeting supposedly pre-homosexual youth, transitioning them as a result of societal homophobia and anti-gay attitudes. Unlike much of the contemporary opposition to transgender rights—which often relies on slurs or accusations of individuals being "groomers"—this rhetoric is designed to appeal to liberal-minded individuals by invoking empathy and concern for sexual minorities. However, the data does not support Jamie’s conclusion; research indicates that the majority of patients in clinics beyond the prepubertal stages are not exclusively attracted to their birth gender.

What the Data Says about Sexuality in Representative Pubescent Trans Demographics

The earliest clinical populations of gender-dysphoric adolescents often contained a significant number of patients exclusively attracted to their birth sex (De Vries et al., 2011), leading to concerns about the potential influence of homophobia and anti-gay stigma in driving requests for gender transition services. However, the demographic profile of adolescents seeking care in gender clinics has shifted significantly over time. Contemporary research indicates that the majority of patients no longer fit this earlier pattern, with a much smaller proportion reporting exclusive attraction to the opposite of their birth sex than earlier studies reported (source).

This demographic change undermines the assumption that homophobia or anti-gay biases are primary motivators for seeking gender-affirming care. In fact, western samples typically report low rates of internalized homophobia (Chard et al., 2015), further undermining the idea that these factors play a significant role in the majority of patients in gender clinics. Contemporary publications from gender clinics also fail to support the narrative of “transing the gay away,” as the supermajority of patients, particularly those assigned male at birth, are predominantly androphilic. Take for instance McKenna et al, 2024, this study of over 200 patients at America’s first <18 gender clinic found that the supermajority of patients regardless of sex were not exclusively attracted to their birth sex. Consistent with this finding, (Reisner et al, 2023) found ~80% of trans women were not androphiliac.[1] 

McKenna et al, 2024, pictured above found that around ~85% of patients did not report exclusive birth sex attraction, with patients assigned male at birth reporting only ~10% being exclusive androphiles. The controversial and dubiously justified diagnosis of ‘ROGD boy’ (which this article is not long enough to unpack) created by Physician Lisa Littman found similar data, with 89.6% of assigned males with gender dysphoria being non-androphilic.

Littman’s survey found that approximately 8 in 9 AMAB gender-dysphoric patients were not attracted to their natal sex. This aligns with broader findings across representative samples, consistently showing that individuals attracted to their natal sex are underrepresented in contemporary clinical populations seeking gender-affirming care. This pattern casts significant doubt on the plausibility of homophobia being a primary driver of gender transitions in the current clinical population.

Over time, societal acceptance of gay individuals has grown markedly in many Western countries. Public opinion polls, such as those conducted by Galluphttps://news.gallup.com/poll/1651/gay-lesbian-rights.aspx), demonstrate that acceptance of homosexuality is at a three-decade high, with marriage equality widely enshrined in law and LGBTQ+ rights celebrated in mainstream culture. In this context, the argument that homophobia is compelling individuals to transition rather than embrace a gay or lesbian identity seems increasingly implausible. If anything, the rarity of homosexuality (defined by attraction to one's natal sex) among gender-dysphoric patients underscores that other factors are more likely contributing to the demand for gender-affirming care.

Despite this, certain critics of transgender healthcare, such as Reed, have avoided directly addressing these demographic trends or the sexual orientation of the contemporary gender-dysphoric cohort. Reed’s public statements often suggest that gender-affirming care functions as a form of systemic homophobia, exemplified by her repeated assertion that clinics are “transing gay kids.” However, this claim lacks evidence and ignores the changing demographic realities of clinical populations. Reed’s rhetoric relies on oversimplified, emotionally loaded phrases that fail to account for the data. Conceding that modern clinical populations differ from her sworn statements might weaken her arguments or expose her to legal challenges, potentially disincentivizing transparency.

Jamie Reed even got custom shirts for the phrase.

Understanding the motivations and demographics of individuals seeking gender-affirming care requires an evidence-based approach, not one predicated on outdated assumptions or generalized claims. As societal acceptance of homosexuality continues to grow, the persistence of narratives suggesting that homophobia drives gender transitions becomes increasingly difficult to substantiate.

Hormone Hypocrisies

Informed Dissent is a podcast hosted by anti-trans activists Lisa Selin Davis, Ben Appel, Cori/Corinna Cohn, Sarah “Eliza Mondegreen” Mittermaier, and Jamie Reed. The podcast focuses on cultural debates surrounding gender dysphoria treatments and frequently advocates for anti-trans policies. As of this writing, eight episodes have been released. However, the show has already featured numerous spurious claims, ranging from the implausible to the verifiably false, often based on little to no evidence. These include assertions such as the claim that homophobia drives gender transitions, a topic previously addressed and found lacking in credibility.

One particularly concerning claim arises in Episode 5, “Dr. Chu and the Poisoned Penis,” where Jamie Reed discusses the purported efficacy and inefficacy of hormone medications. Within the hour-long episode, Reed asserts that hormone therapies can lead to psychological deterioration in some individuals. While here at SAGA acknowledges that adverse psychological responses to medications are not unheard of—given the variability in individual reactions to any treatment—Reed’s framing raises important questions. She cites clinical observations where some patients reportedly experienced worsening mental health after starting puberty-delaying medications or cross-sex hormones. While this claim is not inherently controversial, her subsequent dismissal of other patients’ experiences is more troubling.

Reed appears to dismiss or downplay reports from transgender women describing psychological distress, including suicidal ideation when they are unable to access estrogen due to insurance or pharmacy barriers. This inconsistency is striking while Reed emphasizes potential negative outcomes when patients initiate hormone therapy, she simultaneously scoffs at and invalidates equally legitimate reports of distress caused by disruptions in access to hormone treatments.

To support her claim that patients exaggerate their psychological deterioration when unable to access hormone medications, Reed cites an alleged conversation with an endocrinologist at the center where she worked. She claimed the endocrinologist stated that missing prolonged access to hormonal medications is inconsequential and does not lead to significant psychological deterioration and added that she had “never met an endocrinologist who believed that [hormonal medications had sustained beneficial psychological effects in trans women.]” This anecdote is particularly questionable given Reed’s earlier acknowledgment of reported rapid psychological deterioration in some patients after initiating hormone therapies. Her outright dismissal of similar reports of distress and suicidal ideation caused by withdrawal is elucidating in demonstrating Reed’s selective and inconsistent approach to patient experiences, values, and preferences - undermining the credibility of her thesis.

Reed’s selective acknowledgment of patient experiences undermines her credibility and raises questions about the objectivity of her perspective. Her approach disregards the lived experiences of patients and the broader body of research on the mental health impacts of hormone therapy interruptions, casting doubt on the validity of her broader arguments.

Ultimately, these claims exemplify a broader trend within Informed Dissent and more broadly the activism of Jamie Reed: elevating anecdotal or selectively interpreted evidence to support predetermined conclusions against transgender people. For listeners seeking an evidence-based and balanced understanding of gender dysphoria treatments, the podcast, and Jamie Reed’s suspect claims, provide little reliable information and instead promotes a narrative that lacks scientific rigor and balance.

Rapid Onset Soul Damage and Hormonal Calvinism

Jamie Reed is best described as a "hormone Calvinist," a term mirroring the concept of "pharmacological Calvinism" introduced by psychiatrist Gerard Klerman in 1972. Just as pharmacological Calvinists hold the belief that medications that alleviate suffering are morally suspect, Reed exhibits a similar stance toward hormone therapies in the context of transgender care. To the Hormone Calvinist, any benefits brought by hormonal medications is both a sin and ontologically false. Her rhetoric often implies that the psychological benefits of hormone therapy—especially for transgender women—are nonexistent while all reports of psychological deterioration and physical health are blamed on the hormonal medicines prescribed to patients, reflecting a moral judgment rather than a nuanced understanding of patient needs and experiences. This stance aligns her with rhetoric, where the use of hormone treatments is seen with suspicion, and the positive effects of such treatments are dismissed and ridiculed. Reed's rejection of the therapeutic benefits of hormone treatments, coupled with her tendency to prioritize her personal and ideological beliefs over the lived experiences of transgender individuals, positions her as a hormone Calvinist.

If not solely due to her religious beliefs—Jamie Reed is, after all, a Christian—her hormone Calvinistic attitude might help explain her inflammatory statements regarding hormone therapy. In a recent YouTube interview with anti-trans activist Kate Harris, Reed described the use of hormonal medications as “the intentional destruction of a system within the body” (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MtGuaWGmDtI&t=2437s), further comparing hormone therapy, such as the administration of estrogen to transgender women, to self-harm performed by a physician. This stark language reflects a moralistic, almost religious view of hormone therapy, aligning with the tenets of "hormonal Calvinism," where the therapeutic benefits of such treatments are not only denied but framed as morally wrong.

  Reed ascribes a range of negative health outcomes—including obesity and high blood pressure—exclusively to hormones used in gender dysphoric patients whilst handwaving all suffering in those unable to access hormones as due to other factors. While these effects may be plausible for some individuals, Reed’s generalizations do not consider the equally plausible hypothesis that people predisposed to obesity may also be more likely to experience gender dysphoria or be transgender. Near the end of the interview with Harris, Reed’s Hormone Calvinism becomes even more overt when she asserts that gender-hormone therapy is “an insult to the soul.” This statement embodies the ideological and metaphysical, rather than evidence-based, foundation of her opposition to trans medical care. The immaterial, unfalsifiable, and unproven notion of Rapid-Onset damage to the soul—an idea tied to spiritual and religious beliefs—echoes a broader bioethical debate where such beliefs serve as a cornerstone of opposition to trans rights (or abortion rights for that matter). Such a framing reduces the complexity of medical care to a moral issue, disregarding the experiences and well-being of transgender individuals.

Rapid Onset Soul Damage, caused by Estrogen apparently.

Concluding Thoughts

Jamie Reed's stance on transgender healthcare, particularly her claims about the motivations behind gender-affirming care and the effects of hormone therapies, is built upon a series of assertions that fail to align with contemporary scientific data. While she suggests that gender transitions are largely driven by homophobia and anti-gay bias, the majority of clinical evidence contradicts this claim, showing that the demographics of individuals seeking gender-affirming care have evolved significantly. Most adolescents seeking care today do not align with the early assumptions that they are exclusively attracted to their birth sex, which undermines Reed's theory that homophobia drives the demand for gender transitions in addition to a staggeringly high gay acceptance compared to 30 years ago.

Furthermore, Reed's selective dismissal of patient experiences, especially regarding the psychological impact of hormone therapies, reveals a troubling lack of objectivity in her argumentation. By downplaying reports of distress caused by hormone therapy interruptions and focusing on anecdotal evidence that supports her predetermined views, Reed undermines her credibility as a reliable source on this topic. Her rhetoric, which can be described as morally driven and ideologically rigid, further complicates the discourse on transgender healthcare, making it difficult to engage with her claims in a scientifically rigorous manner.

Reed’s reliance on emotionally charged language and her tendency to attribute moral failings to medical practices such as hormone therapy—labeling them as damaging to the soul—reinforce her position as a "hormone Calvinist” and unreliable source. This ideological framework distorts the experiences of transgender individuals by framing their medical care as inherently harmful, rather than addressing the real health needs and well-being of the population she attacks. This perspective not only fails to support its claims with credible scientific evidence but also harms the ongoing conversation around transgender rights and healthcare. For a constructive discussion on these topics, it is advisable to prioritize evidence-based approaches that consider the complexities of individual experiences and medical needs, rather than relying on narratives that are grounded in moral judgments, unfalsifiable metaphysical claims and ideological beliefs.

[1] The existence of true bisexuality in natal males is a point of controversy in sexological circles, with some believing males who identify as bisexual are “pseudobisexual”. This article does not take an opinion on the validity of such arguments as such is beyond the scope of this writing.