Trans Kids Exist vs. No They Don’t

with Mia Hughes and Exulansic

In this Spectrum Street Epistemology episode, we engage the claim: There is such a thing as a trans child. This assertion sparks conflict, exposing raw tensions in beliefs about biology, personal identity, and medical ethics. Researcher Mia Hughes steps into the fray, arguing that no one is "born trans"—biology dictates one is either male or female. Opposite her, a parent of a non-binary child defends the concept, citing intersex conditions, brain-body mismatches (e.g., a "female brain" in a male body), and the fluidity of gender expression. The conversation quickly spirals into deeper question, most importantly: Are we mislabeling kids who might grow up gay? (UK’s Andrew Doyle has done fantastic work exploring on this subject.)

Remember Jazz Jennings? Jazz was a poster child for early transition. Diagnosed as trans by his mother and raised as a girl, Jazz underwent irreversible surgeries, including genital removal. Now, he’s a lifelong medical patient, grappling with distress and a future devoid of orgasm and children. What if Jazz had been allowed to grow up as a gay man? I can claim with near certainty he would have been happier and he certainly would have been healthier. Hughes posits this sane alternative, highlighting the path not taken—one free from scalpels and lifelong hormone dependency.

The spotlight shifts to WPATH (the World Professional Association for Transgender Health), whose standards of care dominate North American medical practice. The parent who participated is completely unaware of WPATH’s dark side—its protocols, often experimental, nearly always lead to irreversible harm, like infertility and chronic health issues (See Abigail Shrier’s work).

Enter Exulansic, a skeptic of gender-affirming care and a de-transitioner, who challenges the parent: What is gender-affirming care? It is a broad umbrella—hormones, surgeries, social transition—often based on self-diagnosis rather than rigorous evidence (or any evidence for that matter). Gender dysphoria, the distress of feeling misaligned with one’s body, drives these interventions, but Exulansic continues to challenge: When someone undergoes such drastic changes, do they convince themselves it was the right choice to cope? And what happens when regret sets in? The trans “community,” Exulansic notes, often shuns de-transitioners, leaving them isolated. What about their “lived experiences”? Or do lived experiences only matter if they support the existing narratives? And yes, they only matter if they do.

The crux of the debate lands on minors. Should those under 18 be allowed to consent to procedures that render them infertile and orgasm free? Hughes and Exulansic argue no—minors lack the capacity to make such life-altering decisions. Unlike other medical fields, where diagnoses rely on clear evidence, gender-affirming care often hinges on subjective feelings, bypassing the scientific method. WPATH’s influence is vast, yet its standards lack the robust research backing a sane person would expect from medical guidelines. If WPATH’s ideological capture were exposed—say, through biased research or suppressed dissent—would it shake the parent’s belief in trans identity as a fixed truth? They hesitate, admitting that lived experience often overshadows evidence in this debate.

Exulansic makes the claim: Why did we leap to cutting off genitals before studying the long-term impacts? Why not explore traits, psychological patterns, or less invasive options first? This isn’t a debate—it’s a call to halt the mutilation and sterilization of children across North America until science, not ideology, guides the way.