Skip to content
Read • Question • ConnectAnthony’s notes & researchReturn with a new question
Anthony’s NotesA personal field guide
From the notebook

Trans Notes

  • Favoring the physical over the mental fantasy

Intersex and Transgender

On Intersex and Transgender:
Trans activists often point to the difficulty in ascertaining sex in those with what are called DSDs, or differences in sexual development (or, perhaps more contentiously, disorders of sexual development), involving congenital conditions in which anatomical, chromosomal, or gonadal sex is atypical, often mistakenly described as intersex conditions, as proof that sex is not binary, exists on a spectrum, and is a social construct in any event. This position fails for at least two reasons.

The first reason is that it is unclear why trans activists think that this is a useful argument in the first place. Biologists @FondOfBeetles and @SwipeWright point out that, in 99.98% of cases, we can ascertain sex through observation of genitalia. The miniscule number of remaining cases require further investigation to determine their sex development path. Those who identify as transgender do not, with the possibility of a miniscule fraction of cases, identify as intersex. Rather, they claim that their gender identity trumps their biological sex, which is going to be ascertainable in virtually all cases. The transgender argument is, in essence, that, because sex may be indeterminate in a tiny fraction of cases, we can ignore biological sex that is clearly and indisputably ascertainable in virtually all cases, and in any case in which biological sex is clearly ascertainable, in favor of gender identity. That’s not a very good argument.

The second reason is that it is not clear what trans activists think that the existence of DSDs proves. In the face of the claim that sex is binary and is determined by the gamete one produces, trans activists point out that some humans with DSDs do not produce any gametes. So what? The ambiguity or indeterminate situation in these conditions is usually the result of genetic mutation or chromosomal aberration and the existence of humans who do not produce gametes does not disprove that humans come in two sexes any more than the existence of genetic mutations that cause muscular dystrophy does not disprove that humans are beings who have functional skeletal muscles. The fact that there may be people who suffer from differing degrees of muscular dystrophy does not mean that skeletal muscles are a matter of their being a spectrum. Trans activists cannot argue that there are humans who can produce both gametes. A human with a DSD who can produce gametes will produce ova or sperm, not both. No true human hermaphrodites—beings with functioning male and female reproductive systems, able to produce both sperm and ova—have yet been found. The fact that some non-mammalian animals can switch from producing sperm to ova or ova to sperm, or that some may produce both, is certainly interesting but does not mean that the sex of humans is mutable. And it reinforces the sex binary in that these animals switch from ova to sperm or vice versa. They do not switch to some third gamete. x.com

  • Gender dysphoria is a term smuggled in by activist groups, used to be ‘gender identity disorder’
  • Social contagion
    • Friend groups
    • Area that are more political progressive
  • Sex Definition: Sex is defined by what gamete you produce, sperm or ovum. Universal definition even among plants and animals.
  • Gender can be whatever you want, but sex is male or female.
  • Transgender Definition
    • Hated for your own gentiles that starts very young
  • Advocates are saying it simultaneously saying its the best and worst time to be transgender
  • 0.05% of population diagnosed with traditional gender dysphoria in the past.
    • Now its up to 6%+ identifying other than their sex
    • 1 out of every 2,000 people.
  • In 97% of cases, if you socially transition young kids they won’t resist. Even if its just name and clothes.
  • You can’t change your sex, its all cosmetic

Billboard Chris & Dr. Colin Wright DEBATE Psychologist About Sex & Gender (link)

Taxpayer-funded Planned Parenthood boasts about being leader in transgender medical procedures | Fox News
Planned Parenthood Pivots to Hormones as a Major Funding Stream | Independent Women’s Forum
Permanent Birth Control Is in Demand in the US—but Hard to Get | WIRED
Canadian town fined for refusing to celebrate Pride Month, fly rainbow flag | Fox News

Is “White Supremacy” Causing an “Epidemic” of Transgender Murders? (City Journal, 2026)

Source and status

“Is ‘White Supremacy’ Causing an ‘Epidemic’ of Transgender Murders?”, Vincent Lundgren and Colin Wright, City Journal, March 31, 2026.

This is an argumentative magazine article based primarily on the authors’ T-CLEAR case-level report, which re-examines the Human Rights Campaign’s lists of transgender homicide victims. T-CLEAR is not peer-reviewed. Its underlying cases are linked to public records, but the coding was performed by one researcher without formal inter-rater reliability testing; several calculations were AI-assisted and had not been independently checked by a statistician when published. Treat the findings as an auditable challenge to HRC’s framing, not as settled epidemiology.

Core argument

Lundgren and Wright argue that the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) turns a concentrated, complicated pattern of homicide into an overly simple story about an “epidemic” caused chiefly by white supremacy and anti-trans hatred. Starting with HRC’s victim lists, T-CLEAR reviewed 304 deaths from 2015 through 2024 and coded publicly available information about suspects, relationships, circumstances, motives, and case outcomes. The authors contend that the known cases more often resemble familiar U.S. homicide patterns—especially intraracial and interpersonal violence—than organized or predominantly white-on-Black anti-trans violence.

What the underlying report says

  • Suspects and racial pattern: T-CLEAR reports 186 identified suspects and 189 racial classifications. Among suspects whose race was identified, 65.1% were Black and 18.0% were white. Roughly 80% of solved cases with known suspect and victim race were intraracial. The report itself says this largely reflects the disproportionately Black victim pool and the generally intraracial character of U.S. homicide; the figures should not be read as evidence of a race-specific propensity unique to these cases.
  • Bias findings: Ten of 301 coded cases (3.3%) received a confirmed anti-trans bias determination under the report’s rule—hate-crime charges or an explicit law-enforcement finding. That is a narrow evidentiary category, not a direct estimate of every killing in which bias may have played some role.
  • Large unknown category: Approximately 55% of cases had an unknown bias motive, largely because the case was unsolved or the public record was insufficient. The 3.3% figure is therefore a confirmed floor; it does not establish that the remaining 96.7% were free of anti-trans animus.
  • Circumstances: Intimate-partner, domestic, or family violence was the largest identified category—37 of 141 cases with a known circumstance (26%), or about 12% of all 304 cases. It was the leading known category, not the cause of “most” cases. Other identified circumstances included sex-work encounters, disputes, robbery, and relationship concealment or discovery.
  • Unsolved cases and clearance: The article says 118 of the 304 deaths remained unsolved. T-CLEAR reports an average identification/solve rate of about 61%, while acknowledging that its measure is not identical to the FBI’s homicide-clearance measure.
  • The HRC example: The article examines four Black transgender women whom a 2021 HRC report invoked while discussing white supremacy and discriminatory violence. One killing remained unsolved; all three identified suspects were Black men, and the public record did not show a hate-crime determination. The authors use this as evidence that HRC’s broad causal framing outran the known facts of those particular cases.

The homicide-rate dispute

The article relies on Alexis Dinno’s 2017 peer-reviewed study, “Homicide Rates of Transgender Individuals in the United States: 2010–2014”. Dinno found that the overall transgender homicide rate was probably lower than the cisgender rate under most modeled assumptions, while young Black and Latina transfeminine people had higher modeled rates than cisgender women of the same age and race.

T-CLEAR argues that comparing transgender women with non-transgender men of the same age and race is more informative because sex is strongly associated with homicide risk; using that comparison produces a lower rate for young Black transgender women than for young Black non-transgender men. This is an important sensitivity check, but it does not by itself resolve the substantive question. A female comparator asks how victims living and being perceived as women compare with other women; a male comparator controls for sex-linked homicide risk. Neither comparison, by itself, identifies motive or proves whether discrimination contributed indirectly.

Rate estimates are especially uncertain because both the numerator and denominator are imperfect: transgender status can be missed in death records, advocacy lists are media-based rather than a probability sample, and estimates of the transgender population have changed as survey methods and identification rates changed.

Evidence assessment

What the article supports well

  • HRC’s victim counts alone cannot establish that most killings were hate crimes or were caused by white supremacy.
  • The public record should distinguish confirmed bias, suspected bias, a documented alternative motive, and an unknown motive rather than treating all deaths as one causal category.
  • Prevention should include interventions matched to the observed risks: intimate-partner-violence services, emergency housing, violence reduction in high-risk neighborhoods, and protection for people exposed through survival sex work—not only general anti-bias messaging.

What remains unproven or overstated

  • The race of an immediate perpetrator does not, on its own, disprove a broader structural claim about poverty, housing instability, discrimination, policing, or exposure to dangerous work. HRC’s use of “white supremacy” is broader than “the killer was white,” so the article partly argues across two different meanings.
  • A lack of hate-crime charges is not the same as proof that identity-based hostility was absent. Hate-crime findings are narrow, depend on available evidence, and may be missed in unsolved or poorly documented cases.
  • T-CLEAR’s finding that intimate-partner violence is the largest known category should not be restated as “most transgender victims are killed by intimate partners.” More than half the cases had unclear or unknown motives.
  • The report is transparent enough to audit case by case, but its single-researcher coding, uncertain population denominator, geographic gaps, lack of peer review, and unverified AI-assisted calculations limit the strength of population-wide conclusions.

Bottom line

The article provides a serious reason to reject automatic claims that every transgender homicide is evidence of a single nationwide hate-crime epidemic. Its strongest contribution is the demand for case-level classification and prevention tailored to the actual circumstances. Its broader conclusion—that white supremacy and anti-trans bias are thereby disproved as meaningful factors—goes beyond what the incomplete and partly self-coded dataset can establish. The defensible takeaway is narrower: the available evidence points to a heterogeneous problem with substantial interpersonal, racial, economic, and situational dimensions, and public claims should preserve the difference between confirmed motive, plausible structural influence, and unknown cause.

Related: Transgender Ideology Violence

Sources