One of my friends who gave feedback on my draft is a gay cis man who very helpfully pointed out that there was a similar Double Bind dynamic in the gay community, complete with the medicalization piece (AIDS, PrEP), and worries about finding a “gay gene” leading to eradication. I overlooked this because of the Eye of Sauron effect you mentioned. It’s certainly not limited to the trans issue.
It also seems to me less than obvious that biology serves as a standard of legitimacy more broadly, even within medicalized discourse. Schizophrenia and bipolar are generally seen as mostly biological in etiology but “illegitimate,” for instance.
I think the key distinction is social legitimacy versus ‘the medical community believes insurance should cover this’. The second isn’t apolitical but I do think it’s mostly downstream of biological reality.
One of my friends who gave feedback on my draft is a gay cis man who very helpfully pointed out that there was a similar Double Bind dynamic in the gay community, complete with the medicalization piece (AIDS, PrEP), and worries about finding a “gay gene” leading to eradication. I overlooked this because of the Eye of Sauron effect you mentioned. It’s certainly not limited to the trans issue.
I think the key distinction is social legitimacy versus ‘the medical community believes insurance should cover this’. The second isn’t apolitical but I do think it’s mostly downstream of biological reality.
Scott’s post on this You Don’t Want A Purely Biological, Apolitical Taxonomy Of Mental Disorders is great.