Is Trans-Identification a Social Contagion?

Is there such a thing as a Social Contagion 'Black-Hole'?

Re-published with permission from Jason’s substack.

---

What is Social Contagion?

Social Contagion refers to the phenomenon where behaviours, emotions, ideas, or attitudes spread through a group or social network, much like how a virus spreads in a population. It describes how individuals can “catch” certain behaviours or emotional states from others through social interactions, observation, or communication. According to Erik Erickson’s ‘Stages of Social Development’ the developmental challenge for youth and young adults is Identity vs. Role Confusion. For this population this formation of identity and roles occurs in the context of their culture, society and their peers, and I believe is influenced by the Social Contagion occurring there.

Social Contagion has been seen throughout human history. In recent decades in the western world it has been clearly linked to several mental health disorders and challenging behaviours in youth. These include Eating Disorders (Vandereycken, 2011; Lerman, 2023), Suicide (Syed et al, 2020; Abrutyn & Mueller, 2014); Deliberate Self harm (Taiminen et al, 1998; Ashka et al, 2018); Depression (Schwartz-Mette & Rose, 2012; Prinstein, 2010); Sexual behaviour (Potard et al, 2008; Peci, 2017); Alcohol and Drug use (Kristjansson et al, 2013) and a general deteriorating in mental health(University of Helsinki, 2024). It is clear that if there is a significant theme or groups of behaviours that grows and develops within a youth population there is significant opportunity for contagion to occur. This contagion factor seems to be a common part of the developmental challenge of Identity vs. Role Confusion. To believe that this is the case for youth in general but is not also the case with the youth in this transgendered avalanche seen in the past decade does not make sense and conflicts with the data regarding Social Contagion and youth.

Resilience is one of the more sought-after attributes for youth in the western world. There are numerous ideas, plans and theories that advise on helpful ways to develop resilience in youth. One way resilience in youth has been proven to be developed is through exposure to and the overcoming of general distress. If a youth is over-protected or is not allowed the opportunities to overcome developmental challenges, they struggle to learn resilience, often become risk avoidant and stall developmentally (Clarke et al, 2013; Boulton & Macaulay, 2022; Dexian et al, 2025). Is this the case with the experience of gender distress common with Gender Dysphoria and transgenderism? If instead of affirming a young person’s trans identity in order help avoid or reduce their gender distress could we try another approach? Could we attempt to help the young person build resilience by helping them to tolerate this distress and look deeply at what else might be going on to cause it? If a young person with an eating disorder asks for our help to ease their distress by restricting their eating, we would kindly say no and look deeper to what is causing the distress and for alternative means to tolerate and overcome it. Isn’t this the same kind of problem?

However, some authors do not accept that there is any link between Social Contagion and transgenderism, so there is no need to help them develop resilience. The AAP for example clearly states that there is no link between Social Contagion and youth identifying as transgendered. One of the largest of study’s by the AAP is titled “Sex Assigned at Birth Ratio among Transgender and Gender Diverse Adolescents in the United States” was published by the American Academy of Pediatrics in August 2022. It states it has collected data from about 100,000 youth to inform its opinion. The heading states ‘Study finds no evidence of Social Contagion among transgender youths. Information for this study was collected using the (YRBS) Youth Risk Behaviour Survey (2017 and 2019). It is unsure where they found the data to make this statement however. Of the 89 questions in the YRBS survey none mention the words or theme of Social Contagion. The only question that refers to device access, socialising or social media use is Q. 81 (2017 and 2019, p. 19) which asks about the hours of device use on an average school day. Again I ask, where did the data come from?

Other limitations of this study include the self-reported nature of the survey data and therefor the inability to establish causality between peer influence (or not) and transgender identification. The US Department of Health study 2025 stated the diagnosis of Gender Dysphoria is based entirely on subjective self-reports and behavioural observations, without any objective physical, imaging, or laboratory markers. The diagnosis centres on attitudes, feelings, and behaviours that are known to fluctuate during adolescence. In fact, on (p.182) of the study it states transgenderism is a “child led” process in which the patient’s personal “embodiment goals” form the basis for the determination of “medical necessity.”

So what about the personal testimony of youth who have once identified as trans and then detransitioned? Detransitioning is the cessation or reversal of a transgender identification or of gender transition by a previously trans individual. Specifically what is the testimony of some of these detransitioners in regard to Social Contagion? Max Lazzara states her identity was influenced by online communities, particularly Tumblr which led to her coming out as trans. Ky Schevers states she learned about transphobic ideologies within certain radical feminist communities. Keira Bell, a British woman who transitioned medically as a teenager and later detransitioned and successfully sued the Tavistock Centre (the only child and adolescent gender clinic in London) in the British High Court. This was one of the significant factors that led to the creation of UK’s Cass Review (the most up to date and comprehensive examination of trans research) which was published in 2024. Keira has been a vocal critic of what she perceives as a “Social Contagion” influencing young people to identify as transgender. Chloe Cole began hormone therapy and puberty blockers at age 13, underwent a double mastectomy at 15, and detransitioned at 16. Chloe has been outspoken about her belief that Social Contagion played a significant role in her decision to transition. Oli London states the influence of social trends plays a significant role in young people’s decisions to transition. And lastly Helena Kerschner attributes her initial identification as transgender to her involvement in online communities during her adolescence. At 15, feeling isolated and dissatisfied with her body, she became active on Tumblr, where she encountered content promoting gender ideology. This kind of testimony is heard in the vast majority of cases where detransitioners reflect on how they ended up coming out as trans. They point to Social Contagion as the ‘smoking gun’.

The Swedish Kinship University 2023 study and the ESCAP, 2024 study (European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry) take a more neutral position. They do not directly address the Social Contagion question, but state the findings imply that the increase in transgender identification is more likely due to improved social acceptance and reduced stigma rather than individuals adopting transgender identities due to peer influence. However, in this ESCAP study they also urge healthcare providers to adhere to the principle of “primum non nocere” (first, do no harm) and to avoid promoting experimental and unnecessarily invasive treatments with unproven psychosocial effects. That the dramatic increase in numbers of females in particular identifying as transgendered needs further investigation to identify causality before permanent interventions are made. The Swedish 2023 study identifies the poor reliability and instability of Gender Dysphoria diagnoses over time in specific children as a concern. This raises the question about the long-term appropriateness of medical interventions for a possibly transient phase in the child’s development.

ESCAP (2024) in another study insisted that their “research findings are published solely on the grounds of quality criteria and not based on their findings.” That is that they publish research with sound criteria whether or not they ‘like’ the outcomes. This suggests that they are concerned about the publication bias (in many articles/organisations) where studies that report favourable youth transition outcomes are frequently published even if they are “deeply methodologically flawed”. This does not speak directly to Social Contagion but does speak to the fact that much data in this field that is used for Social Contagion purposes is ideologically biased and methodologically flawed. This view was echoed by Dr Hilary Cass when she states that there is a dearth of robust research regarding gender-affirming care, that the research is of disappointingly poor quality, built on shaky ground and ideologically rather than scientifically based (Cass Review, 2024).

Furthering this statement of research which is methodologically flawed I have noted that none of the established, validated gender dysphoria surveys/questionnaires currently in use explicitly include questions about “Social Contagion” or peer/social influence as part of their diagnostic criteria or symptom assessment. The reason given for this is because it has been decided by the academics and clinicians who are leading this field that Social Contagion as a concept is controversial and not formally recognized in diagnostic manuals like DSM-5 or ICD-11. Clinicians are expected to assess social influences through clinical interviews rather than structured questionnaires. However, this is problematic as the assessment process for this population has been reduced to all but a brief tick box formality due to a skyrocketing number of new cases and an affirmation model that accepts a youth’s narrative at face value without thorough assessment. It does not see Gender Dysphoria itself as a mental health concern per se but is simply the way they were created to be.

Other authors state there may be a significant link between Social Contagion and transgenderism. Littman (2018) hypothesized that Social Contagion, the spread of behaviours or beliefs through peer influence might contribute to this phenomenon. Littman observed that many of these adolescents had friends who also identified as transgender, leading to the possibility that peer dynamics and online communities could play a role in the development of Gender Dysphoria in these cases. She obtained the data for this hypothesis from parents who challenged the pro-trans narrative. The parents were asked questions that attempted to gather data on Social Contagion such as …

1. Friends who had also come out as transgender around the same time.

2. Spent increased time online, especially on social media, prior to identifying as transgender.

3. Had a cluster of friends who transitioned together or began identifying as trans/non-binary within a short time span.

4. Whether their child had been exposed to transgender-related content online (e.g., YouTube, Tumblr, Reddit).

5. If their child had learned new terminology (like “binders”, “dead naming”, or “cisgender”) from online sources, rather than medical or psychological professionals.

The survey focused on youth who reportedly had no history of Gender Dysphoria in childhood, and who ‘came out’ suddenly during adolescence or young adulthood, often alongside a number of their peer group. As a result of asking questions aimed to gather data on Social Contagion, Littman was able to make the following hypothesis. That such patterns could resemble a process of Social Contagion, though she made it clear the study was exploratory and based on parental reports only, not the perspectives of the adolescents themselves. However we have included some reports of detransitioned youth above.

Another author Shriver 2020 states that a significant increase in transgender identification among teenage girls in the 2010s is due to Social Contagion. She suggests that this phenomenon is similar to past instances of Social Contagion, such as anorexia and bulimia, and is influenced by factors like social media exposure and peer dynamics. She also states that “the prevalence of transgender identification within some of the girls’ friend groups was more than seventy times the expected rate,” implying that peer influence plays a significant role in this phenomenon. Of course, this opinion and view has polarising opinions for and against.

Conclusion:

One of the key foundation beliefs of transgenderism is that…Trans people are not confused or going through a phase; their gender identity is a core and immutable part of themselves. This quote aligns with many national and international medical and psychological organisations such as the APA; AMA and WPATH. That these children and youth are born different, born not fitting into the binary sex or gender world around them, and thus need to be treated and supported in an appropriate manner to help manage the dysphoria and distress they experience. They don’t have an illness that can be caught like the flu they are just themselves. However, I do not accept the idea that the rainbow community in general and the trans community in particular exists in a Social Contagion black-hole. James Kirkup a British political author states that, “During a long Westminster career, I have never encountered a movement that has spread so swiftly and successfully and has so fiercely rejected any challenge to its orthodoxy. The transgender movement has advanced through Britain’s institutions with extraordinary speed. The only thing more extraordinary than the rapid spread of this new orthodoxy is how little scrutiny it has faced, and the aggressive intolerance directed towards those who question it.” This sounds like the ideology referred to by Hilary Cass’s review of gender research. I believe the evidence is clear that Social Contagion does and has affected the skyrocketing number of youth and young adults identifying as trans in the last decade. It is also clear that the Affirmation Model which has ensconced itself into the child, adolescent and young adult mental health fields denies the opportunity to assess and investigate for Social Contagion. How can we help with this issue of Social Contagion and treat these young people appropriately if we are not permitted to ask for or look for it? I believe we need to follow the advice of the ESCAP 2024 study to “primum non nocere” (first, do no harm). Even if by asking about Social Contagion we might appear on the surface to be causing harm ourselves.