This interview is based on Kat Fuller’s chapter ‘Moral panic: Transphobia, gender ideology and far-right conspiracy’, co-authored with Quinnehtukqut McLamore.
This interview was conducted by Fran Amery.
***
Why has there been such a huge focus on detransitioners or so-called ‘desisters’ in the present anti-trans moral panic?
The recent fixation on detransitioning in the anti-trans moral panics connects with the strategic change by the same conservative and religious organizations that previously led campaigns against same-sex marriage, reproductive rights, and affirmative action. After the U.S. Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage, groups such as the Heritage Foundation, Alliance Defending Freedom, and the Focus on the Family redirected their attention toward trans people, applying the same fear-mongering techniques through detrans narratives. If you look at the massive increase of bills against gender affirmative care and access to public spaces for trans people in the United States since 2020, you would notice that a handful of conservative groups like Family Research Council and anti-DEI organization Do No Harm are forerunners of these bills, with wordings that depicts transness as a belief system (e.g., “trans agenda” or “transgenderism”). The idea that a person could regret their (medical) transition can sound disturbing to some. The trauma narratives from detrans people are weaponized because they offer what appears to be emotionally compelling “evidence” against gender-affirming care, but also with false empathy towards trans people through insidious concern. Because the general public has a limited understanding of medical science, mental health, or social science and theories of gender, disinformation thrives through emotionalism of hate, confusion, fear, and disgust. This also enforces willful ignorance through the subconscious disgust towards de/trans people that differ from cisnormativity, as the line between cisness and transness is not as straightforward as some like to believe. U.S. culture often emphasizes a superficial admiration for STEM without a deep understanding of scientific methods, the history of flawed research, or even critical philosophical perspectives, such as the assumption that there are biological markers of queerness without understanding its complexity, as this relies on natural fallacy (“natural is good” and vice versa) and ignores those using this approach for eugenicist goals, like terminating “gay genes.” This also includes discussions about who is “truly” transgender based on gender essentialism, such as claims of a “female” vs “male” brains or vague understandings of chromosomes, especially when people assert they can determine someone’s “true sex” from outward appearances or “natural” traits like broad shoulders or voice, and even speech patterns. These arguments are often made by people who believe we must accept our “biological reality.”
Detransition narratives also grab people’s attention through dramatic headlines such as “I Regret My Sex Change” or “Woman Becomes Man—Then Changes Back,” which rely on shock value and are often accompanied by before-and-after photos that evoke stronger emotions. However, these stories rarely acknowledge that detransition doesn’t always mean regret, and that many people detransition for several reasons, like learning they are non-binary rather than binary gender, social stigma of being trans, family pressure, fear of violence, medical concerns, lack of financial security, or barriers to medical care. Detransitioning is often a temporary pause, a survival strategy in hostile transphobic environments, especially when there is a lack of discussion of those who re-transition later in life. There is also a lack of discussion of cis people desiring non-cisnormative surgeries and hormones, such as the case with cis women wanting to be flat-chested or cis men desiring estrogens. They are dismissed as mentally ill, without understanding how they are any different from cis women getting laser hair removal sessions or cis men getting top surgery if they have gynecomastia. The language of anti-trans narratives in detransitioning includes claiming to join a “trans cult” and framing gender dysphoria as a mental illness, which holds similarity to the ex-gay movement. The similarity lies in the fact that, although they are identified differently, the feelings remain the same, such as claims of overcoming “same-sex attraction” through repression and no longer identifying with the “gay lifestyle” by entering into a heterosexual marriage and starting a nuclear family. People can detransition because they develop internalized transphobia rooted in shame and seek safety through repression.
Detrans stories with trauma narratives mirror other forms of moral panic rhetoric. Just as advocates for anti–sex work laws argue that these laws will prevent or stop sex human trafficking, but in reality, they tend to further harm sex workers and do little to actually help trafficking victims, anti-trans legislation is similarly motivated by cultural narratives rather than evidence or effective solutions. The stories used to justify these laws tend to rely on public fears against “folk devils” for social problems like corrupted youth, predatory influences, and the collapse of “traditional” or “Western” values, as scholars like Stanley Cohen (1972) and Erich Goode & Nachman Ben-Yehuda (1994) concluded in their studies. These types of detrans narratives scapegoat trans people as folk devils: morally dangerous against the supposed social order and in need of government intervention. Detransition stories have been used to portray gender-affirming care as reckless experimentation, dehumanizing both trans and detrans individuals as objects instead of recognizing their lived experiences.
Even language plays a crucial role in maintaining this panic. Terms like “detransitioner,” like “transitioner,” reduce people to the act of transitioning and frame transitioning as an extremist act or impulsive decision. Similarly, “desisters,” a term referring to those who repressed their gender dysphoria, as they “desist” by framing their desire to transition as if it were alcoholism. Using the term to emphasize people, like detrans people or people who detransition, better communicates to the public. Moral panic thrives on labels that dehumanize, flatten, and categorize. Detransition is appealing by its “neutral” or “empathetic” approach, masking cissexism and transphobia under the guise of concern. By claiming to “protect” women and children, anti-trans movements justify restrictions that harm trans and detrans people alike, while ignoring the actual causes of detransition—social stigma or political violence, medical gatekeeping, or fluidity of gendering.
Could you tell us more about the role that ‘parent advocacy’ has played in this?
The “parents’ rights movement,” like Moms for Liberty, has become a significant force in the anti-trans movement moral panic surrounding gender-affirmative care for youth, largely by framing parents as “victims” of schools, therapists, and social media that supposedly “turn” children trans. Groups against trans rights rely on widespread confusion about what gender-affirming care actually means, such as confusing it as only medical transition, or without understanding how some prefer to mostly socially transition, like changes in names, pronouns, and gender expression. Transitioning can differ for each person and may vary in changes, yet parents’ rights rhetoric treats even reversible changes as catastrophic, claiming that social transition inevitably leads to medical intervention. This fear-driven narrative is designed to activate parental anxiety about the potential error of transition regret rather than reflect the reality of it.
A friend of mine who has interviewed parents involved in anti-trans groups for her research shared a very interesting perspective for me to consider. These parents are not often right-wing; many hold liberal or centrist views. However, their main concern is ensuring their children are constantly safe and content. The framing, though, is that we cannot be continually happy and will face obstacles or challenges. Puberty is, after all, a difficult experience to begin with. With surgeries and hormones, similar to vaccines being needles and less familiar chemicals, it sounds scary to parents to picture their children undergoing such procedures.
For many parents, the idea of having a trans child feels disturbing because it disrupts a deeply held image of who their child “should” be. Parents often mistake their projections, such as their hopes, expectations, and fantasies, for truths about their children. When youth come out as trans or question their gender, it challenges these assumptions. Fears of potential regret deepen this panic: parents imagine their child making an irreversible mistake, even though research shows that people who detransition often do so under external pressure—not because they were “rushed.”
A significant aspect of this panic is the concept of “rapid-onset gender dysphoria” (ROGD), proposed by Lisa Littman based solely on surveys from parents from online forums with transphobic arguments. Because it completely excludes trans youth’s perspectives or experiences in their own words and pathologizes based on a “social contagion,” ROGD reassures parents that their children are not truly trans; that they are confused, manipulated, or influenced by external forces. This narrative lets parents avoid confronting their own limited understanding of gender and the reality that their children have inner lives they may never have fully seen.
Like many other aspects of their lives, youth often hide their true feelings from their parents to maintain a sense of privacy and form their own identity. For example, they may hide their secular beliefs from their evangelical religious parents, fall in love with someone of a different race and ethnicity despite their parents’ prejudices, or pursue hobbies and careers that their parents deem as inferior choices. This process is part of their journey to discover what feels right to them and pursue happiness, rather than simply conform to social expectations. As a result, parents may often struggle to accept it when their children come out as queer. Even if the parents believe themselves to be progressive towards LGBTQ+ topics like supporting same-sex marriage or having “gay friends,” if they hold strong biases, such as believing being queer is a “disorder” or express disgust by using queerphobic slurs, they are hinting to their children that they are not safe for them to come out. Unaccepting parents also don’t realize that they are reacting through the stages of grief: denial, depression, anger, bargaining, but without acceptance as the final stage, as they are stuck between the stages, with these anti-trans movements preventing them from entering the acceptance stage.
Anti-trans movements often highlight these stories as evidence of inherent danger, ignoring other important aspects that are also dangerous routes to consider. The claim of protecting the public by potential regret usually overlooks the fact that every major life decision carries uncertainty: people often regret their career choices, the location they moved to, marriages, or even having children. Pregnancy and childbirth can be far more medically dangerous with risks like Diabetes and medical error in C-section delivery. Even driving a car is statistically risky for young drivers under 25. When parents respond to their fear by exerting excessive control over their children, they also harm their children’s well-being, especially if their children are trans. Restricting gender-affirming care mirrors other parental control movements under the guise of protecting children, such as the anti-vaxxers or parents who oppose reproductive care and comprehensive sexual education. These movements are increasing harm towards youth by limiting their autonomy, such as their understanding of consent in relationships or preventing STDs from spreading. Many trans youth remain closeted, not out of confusion but because they’re aware that their parents will reject them, which can lead to dangerous outcomes. The outcomes include severe abuse, being thrown out of homes (leading to homelessness), or even being murdered. If you look at cases like a 10-year-old killed by his stepfather for coming out gay, and honor killings, you understand why youth hide parts of their lives to avoid dangerous consequences.
Basically, the parents’ rights movement worsens the lack of understanding of their children’s trans experiences by encouraging parents to see transness as a threat without understanding what it exactly is. Through the use of fear that creates false empathy for trans youth, promoting flawed concepts like ROGD without a critical evaluation, and the exploitation of regret-centered detrans narratives, the movement reinforces parental control over youth autonomy, which ironically harms them than protecting them. This also generates a moral panic that erases the complexity of identity and lived experiences through oversimplification and rigid roles, and that further estranges young people from their parents.
Your recent book chapter with Dr. Quinnehtukqut McLamore focuses on how online ‘gender critical’ ecosystems circulate disinformation. Could you tell us more about this?
Although gender-critical groups are not far-right, what often associates them with the far-right is their concern about “women’s safety” and their Western understanding of gender, sex, and sexuality. This alliance is stronger online, where gender-critical figures spread disinformation in digital media, such as Poise Parker being interviewed by Jean-François Gariépy, and the think tanks against “gender ideology” like SEGM shared funding streams with right-wing Christian groups like Alliance Defending Freedom, especially regarding how they relate to the idea of “Intellectual Dark Web.” They frame themselves as defenders of “free speech,” insisting that trans inclusion in culture represents authoritarian control by “cancel culture.” These groups also mislead the public into believing that recognizing trans rights is dangerous for cis women and children, such as the fear-mongering claims about public spaces like bathrooms, sports, medical care, and schools, despite the overwhelming evidence that trans people pose no more threat in these spaces than cis people. They frequently intensify cases by misinformation, to imply that trans feminine people are inherently deceptive or predatory and that trans masculine people are “lost girls” suffering supposed internalized misogyny or homophobia. Their campaigns against gender-affirming care rely heavily on gender essentialism and emotionally charged words like claiming top surgery is a form of “mutilation” or trans women sharing space with cis women is a form of “rape.” These narratives spread easily across platforms like YouTube, Twitter/X, and Substack newsletters, forming viral ecosystems of transphobic public outrage. This also includes more alternative social media platforms like Ovarit, where users share similar beliefs, as they see mainstream platforms like Reddit banning the subreddit R/gendercritical as proof of losing free speech.
Public figures, especially those with academic backgrounds like Kathleen Stock and Helen Joyce, appear in social and news media to proclaim that they are “controversial” for their beliefs, when in reality, they are simply wrong. Even the term “gender criticals” suggests they are critical of the concept of gender, especially with the vague and often-used term “gender ideology.” Yet, they contradict themselves by refusing to understand how the concepts of sex and gender differ across other cultures and lived experiences. These differences are significant enough to challenge the rigid dualistic roles between male and female in both identity and bodies. It’s also worth noting that gender criticals are not always radical feminists, as figures like JK Rowling still differ from Julie Bindel by their political beliefs in feminism, such as Bindel being a political lesbian while Rowling is not, yet they still share similar beliefs about trans people. By various groups claiming to protect cis women by asserting that a “universal womanhood experience” exists, they build a political bridge between reactionary anti-gender forces and mainstream audiences through the notion of “default” traits of cisgender women. This includes a lack of understanding of intersexual traits like chromosomes, absent periods or hirsutism, or the subjectivity of experiences that various types of women differ, such as whiteness and classism.
The chapter suggests that key players in this ecosystem align with both ‘liberal’ groups and the broader far-right ecosystem. How do they manage this – does it generate tensions for them or has it provided a means for bringing far-right ideas into the liberal ‘mainstream’?
Many of these figures who move between liberal circles and the far-right ecosystem experience ideological tension, but it doesn’t prevent collaboration. Instead, through shared transphobia and cisnormative beliefs, it functions as a bridge that allows far-right ideas to enter liberal and centrist spaces under the guise of “common sense,” as noted with those identifying as gender criticals. This is why even people who identify as liberal or anything outside of the right-wing label can adopt dog-whistling talking points like “biological sex,” “protecting women,” or “saving children” without recognizing that these ideas stem from fascism. The imagery used to portray trans people or allies as grotesque, irrational, or even dangerous “SJWs” reinforces this narrative. This is why the “intellectual dark web” became popular for presenting flawed ideas as provocative truths.
This crossover comes from the ambiguity of political labels. Terms like “liberal,” “progressive,” or “leftist,” are often collapsed together, even though they describe different ideologies. Many self-described liberals, much like people who call themselves “apolitical,” assume their beliefs are neutral, moderate, or even “common sense.” Their alliance suggests a common ground despite different beliefs. This illusion of neutrality allows people to see themselves as rational non-extremists by rejecting scholarship in gender studies or queer theory as “ideological,” or “irrelevant.” That type of anti-intellectualism creates a perfect storm, making far-right narratives appear more reasonable than they actually are.
Tensions do exist; for example, Helen Joyce expresses disdain towards Matt Walsh on X/Twitter, and JK Rowling claims to oppose Donald Trump but while asserting that he has rights to be “offensive and bigoted” in the United Kingdom. Yet these disagreements rarely delay anti-trans collaboration. They may clash on economics or foreign policy, but they unite when opposing what they call “gender ideology” and the “woke mob.” In this ecosystem, trans and non-binary people turn into the imaginary threat that binds them together. Similar to how different countries unite against a shared perceived enemy, trans, non-binary, and queer people become the imagined moral threat that unites them against the “wokeism” as they believe far-left politics is tyrannical without understanding its meaning. As Judith Butler explains in their book Who’s Afraid of Gender? (2024), this panic is built through phantasm; fantasy-driven fear in which trans people and allies are blamed for broader anxieties about social instability. This connects with anti-intellectualism by framing any research, knowledge, or even discourse about gender through a non-cissexist perspective as suspicious or morally corrupted. In this logic, academic fields like gender studies, queer theory, and even sociology are dismissed as ideological propaganda. This also includes failing to connect how so-called “woke” studies, like social science, humanities, and liberal arts, affect our understanding of social inequality, such as grasping the concepts of biopolitics and governmentality by Foucault, or recognizing how documenting the impact of historical racism is crucial to improving human rights.
***
Kat Fuller is the co-founder of the Canadian Institute of Far-Right Studies and a PhD student in sociology at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. Their research mainly focuses on disinformation in digital spaces, especially from anti-trans groups related to detransitioning. This includes topics such as anti-intellectualism, fascist politics, conspiracy theories, and far-right media.
Kat is a member of the RPRN.
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0