The Rise of Transgender Ideology and Paraphilias in Mainstream Culture: A Critical Timeline

The emergence of transgender ideology as a mainstream phenomenon, alongside the growing visibility of paraphilias like body integrity identity disorder (BIID), represents a complex interplay of medical, cultural, and ideological shifts. This article traces the historical trajectory of these developments, critically examining how experimental surgeries and contested psychological conditions gained societal acceptance. Drawing on historical records, medical literature, and critical perspectives, including those of Jennifer Bilek, it argues that the normalisation of these practices raises significant ethical and societal concerns that warrant scrutiny.

Pre-20th Century: Early Recognition of Gender Variance and Body Modification

Ancient and Pre-Modern Practices:

Gender variance and body modification have historical precedents across cultures. Ancient texts, such as those from Mesopotamia and India, document individuals living outside binary gender norms, often in ritual or social roles. Surgical interventions, like castration for eunuchs, were performed in various societies, though not necessarily for gender affirmation. These practices were typically culturally specific and not medicalised in the modern sense.

Paraphilias and Body Alteration:

Early records of paraphilias, including desires for self-amputation, are sparse but present in anecdotal accounts of extreme body modification, often linked to religious or psychological motivations. These were not systematically studied or medicalised until much later.

Early 20th Century: Medicalisation of Gender and Body Dysmorphia

1910s–1920s: Pioneering Gender Surgeries:

The medicalisation of gender variance began in Europe with early experimental surgeries. Magnus Hirschfeld’s Institute for Sexual Science in Berlin (founded 1919) conducted some of the first documented gender-affirming surgeries, such as vaginoplasty for so-called “transwomen”. These procedures were rare, experimental, and often performed on individuals diagnosed with “transvestitism.”

Psychiatric Frameworks:

The early 20th century saw gender nonconformity and unusual body perceptions classified as mental disorders. Psychoanalysis, dominant at the time, often framed desires for gender transition or body alteration as pathological, rooted in sexual deviance or neurosis. This laid the groundwork for later diagnostic categories like paraphilias.

Mid-20th Century: Formalising Gender Dysphoria and Paraphilias

1950s: Emergence of “Transsexualism”:

Endocrinologist Harry Benjamin popularised the term “transsexualism” in the United States, advocating for hormone therapy and surgery to treat gender dysphoria. His 1966 book, The Transsexual Phenomenon, established protocols for psychological evaluation and medical intervention, later formalised as the Harry Benjamin Standards of Care. These standards aimed to set boundaries to access to surgery, requiring extensive psychiatric assessment.

1960s–1970s: Institutional Growth and Backlash:

The establishment of gender identity clinics, such as Johns Hopkins (1966), marked a turning point in legitimising “gender-affirming care”. However, these clinics faced controversy. In 1979, Johns Hopkins closed its clinic after a study by Jon Meyer questioned the long-term benefits of surgery, citing persistent psychological distress in some patients. This slowed mainstream acceptance temporarily.

Paraphilias Defined:

The American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM-III, 1980) introduced “paraphilias” as a category of psychosexual disorders, including apotemnophilia (desire for amputation) and transvestic fetishism. Apotemnophilia, first described by John Money in 1977, was initially understood as a sexual paraphilia, with case studies linking it to erotic fantasies about amputated limbs.

Late 20th Century: Cultural Shifts and Medical Controversies

1980s–1990s: Transgender Activism and Terminology Shift:

Transgender activism gained momentum, challenging the pathologising of gender nonconformity. The term “transgender” emerged as a broader, less clinical alternative to “transsexual,” encompassing those who did not seek surgery. Activists pushed for declassification of gender dysphoria as a mental disorder, framing it as a personal identity.

BIID and Ethical Debates:

Apotemnophilia, increasingly referred to as body integrity identity disorder (BIID), sparked ethical controversies. In the late 1990s, Scottish surgeon Robert Smith performed elective amputations on two BIID patients, prompting public outrage and debates over medical ethics. Critics argued that amputating healthy limbs violated the principle of “do no harm,” while proponents drew parallels to gender-affirming surgeries, citing patient autonomy and self-reported relief of psychological distress

Parallels Between BIID and Gender Dysphoria:

Researchers like Anne Lawrence (2006) noted similarities between BIID and gender dysphoria, including a mismatch between mental body image and physical form, early onset in childhood, and, in some cases, sexual arousal tied to the desired state (e.g., autogynephilia in men, acrotomophilia in BIID). These parallels fuelled debates over whether both conditions were identity disorders or paraphilias, complicating their medical and social acceptance.

Early 21st Century: Mainstreaming Transgender Ideology

2000s: Policy and Media Influence:

The 2000s saw transgender issues gain visibility through media representation and policy changes. The World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) updated its Standards of Care, emphasising patient-centred treatment, without evidence, and on reducing perceived barriers to hormone therapy and surgery. In 2014, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services lifted a Medicare ban on gender-affirming surgeries, expanding access.

Jennifer Bilek’s Critique:

Activist and critic Jennifer Bilek argues that the mainstreaming of transgender ideology was driven by a coalition of corporate, technological, and political interests. In her work, including her 11th Hour Blog, Bilek contends that billionaire philanthropists and biotech industries promoted transgenderism to normalise body modification and advance transhumanist agendas. She points to funding from organisations like the Arcus Foundation and the influence of tech elites as evidence of a top-down push to reshape societal norms around sex and gender. While some deem her as controversial, her research highlights the role of external actors in amplifying transgender visibility.

BIID Research and Reclassification:

BIID gained attention as a neurological rather than purely psychological condition. Studies, such as those by Ramachandran (2009), suggested abnormalities in the right parietal lobe, which governs body image. The International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11, 2018) recognized BIID as “body integrity dysphoria,” removing its paraphilic label to align it with gender dysphoria. This shift mirrored the de-pathologising of transgenderism, raising concerns about the medicalisation of extreme body modification desires.

2010s: Transgender Ideology as a “Mainstream Cult”

Rapid Cultural Acceptance:

The 2010s marked a tipping point for transgender ideology. High-profile figures like Caitlyn Jenner (2015) and increased representation in media normalised transgender identities. Schools adopted policies affirming students’ gender identities, often without parental consent, while social media platforms like Tumblr and Twitter amplified trans advocacy. Critics, including Bilek, argue this created a “cult-like” atmosphere, where questioning transgender ideology was stigmatised as bigoted transphobia.

Youth and Social Contagion:

The rise in transgender identification among adolescents, particularly girls, sparked debates over “rapid-onset gender dysphoria” (ROGD). A 2018 study by Lisa Littman suggested social influences, such as peer groups and online communities, contributed to sudden gender dysphoria in teens. Proponents see it as evidence of social contagion driving medical interventions.

Experimental Surgeries and Ethical Concerns:

Gender-affirming surgeries, including mastectomies and phalloplasty’s, became more accessible, often with less psychiatric oversight. Reports of regret and complications, such as those documented in the Cass Review (2024), raised alarms about the long-term impacts on minors. Similarly, rare cases of BIID patients accessing elective amputations underscored the risks of normalising irreversible procedures without robust evidence.

2020s: Backlash and Critical Reappraisal

Policy Pushback:

By the mid-2020s, several countries, including the UK and Sweden, restricted puberty blockers and surgeries for minors, citing insufficient evidence of safety and efficacy. The Cass Review, a comprehensive UK report, found “remarkably weak evidence” for gender-affirming care in youth, prompting policy reversals.

Paraphilias in Public Discourse:

The mainstreaming of BIID and other paraphilias remains limited but is evident in niche online communities and media portrayals (e.g., CSI: NY, Nip/Tuck). Critics argue that destigmatising paraphilias risks normalising harmful behaviours, particularly when medical intervention is framed as a solution. For example, the 1998 death of Philip Bondy, who died of gangrene after an unregulated BIID amputation, highlights the dangers of unchecked surgical access.

Why We Shouldn’t Accept Uncritical Normalisation: The rapid acceptance of transgender ideology and paraphilias raises several concerns:

  1. Medical Ethics: Irreversible surgeries for psychological conditions, whether gender dysphoria or BIID, lack long-term evidence of efficacy and carry significant risks, particularly for minors.
  2. Social Contagion: The role of social media and activist networks in amplifying these identities suggests a cultural rather than innate basis for some cases, necessitating caution.
  3. Erosion of Boundaries: Framing extreme body modification as a right risks undermining the distinction between therapeutic and elective procedures, potentially legitimizing harmful paraphilias.
  4. Corporate Influence: As Bilek argues, external funding and biotech interests may exploit vulnerable populations to normalise profitable medical interventions, raising questions about informed consent.

Complications in Male-to-Female (MtF) Gender Surgeries

Penile Inversion Vaginoplasty:

This is a common procedure for men who think they are women, involving the creation of a “neovagina” aka an open wound, using penile and scrotal tissue. Studies report a range of complications:

  • A 13-year review of 332 patients (1995–2008) found significant complication rates:
    • Meatal stenosis (narrowing of the urethral opening) was the most common issue, affecting 40% of patients, often requiring corrective surgery.
    • Vaginal introitus stricture occurred in 15% of cases, limiting vaginal function.
    • Vaginal stenosis (narrowing of the vaginal canal) was reported in 12%, and loss of vaginal depth in 8%.
    • Vaginal wall necrosis (tissue death) occurred in 3%, and partial clitoral necrosis in 2%. These complications could impair functionality or sensation.
  • A 2018 study of 330 MtF patients undergoing penile inversion vaginoplasty reported a 5.8% overall complication rate, with wound infection being the most common (1.5%), followed by hematoma and seroma.
  • A 2019 multicentre study using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database (488 cases, 2011–2019) found that 1 in 20 patients experienced severe complications within 30 days, including unplanned reoperation (4.7%), often for wound problems, vaginal bleeding, or hematoma. Minor complications, such as surgical site infections or urinary tract infections, were more common. Risk factors for readmission included higher BMI, diabetes, hypertension, and higher ASA class.
  • Specific Case Example: Historical cases, such as Lili Elbe (1930–1931), illustrate early risks. Elbe underwent multiple experimental surgeries, including a uterine transplant, and died at age 48 from complications, likely due to organ rejection or infection, highlighting the dangers of pioneering procedures with limited medical technology.

Complications in Female-to-Male (FtM) Gender-Affirming Surgeries

Phalloplasty:

This complex procedure constructs a “neophallus” and is associated with high complication rates due to its technical difficulty:

  • A post on X referenced a 2019 case in Ohio where an 18-year-old transgender man underwent phalloplasty and died from complications. Reported complication rates for phalloplasty can reach up to 80%, with risks including severe infection, necrosis, urinary tract stenosis, and wound breakdown.
  • A 2018–2021 review of the ACS NSQIP Paediatric database noted that phalloplasty had the highest complication rate among gender-affirming surgeries, though specific rates for minors were not detailed.
  • A 2024 study mentioned that phalloplasty complications often include urethral lengthening issues, with some patients requiring several revision surgeries, some resulting in incontinence.

Metoidioplasty:

  • This procedure uses hormone-altered clitoral tissue to create a small phallus. A 2020 case in Oregon, reported on X, described a 16-year-old transgender boy who died post-metoidioplasty due to unspecified complications. This aligns with risks like infection or tissue necrosis.
  • Chest Masculinisation Surgery (Top Surgery): Generally safer, but not without risks:
    • A 2018–2021 study of 108 transgender minors found a low complication rate (2.8% required reoperation for hematoma evacuation, 0.9% had surgical site infections or wound dehiscence).
    • Complications can include drain blockage, wound infection, or dehiscence (wound reopening), particularly in patients with larger breasts or poor skin elasticity, loss of nipples and deformities where breast tissue remains.

Severe Outcomes and Fatalities

Sepsis and Death: A 2018 WPATH symposium reportedly discussed a youth who died from sepsis following phalloplasty, as noted in a post on X. Sepsis is a known risk in complex surgeries involving tissue grafts or implants.

Colon Vaginoplasty Risks: A post on X highlighted concerns about colon vaginoplasty, where intestinal tissue is used to create a “neovagina”. Complications can include massive infections due to bacterial exposure.

Mental Health and Regret

While not a physical complication, regret or poor mental health outcomes post-surgery are significant:

A 2020 correction to a Swedish study (originally published in 2019) found no mental health benefit from gender-affirming surgery when compared to transgender individuals who hadn’t undergone surgery. The initial claim of an 8% reduction in mental health utilisation per year post-surgery was overturned, suggesting surgery may not alleviate psychological distress.

A 2018 Heritage Foundation report cited a Swedish study showing a 19-times higher suicide rate among post-operative transgender individuals 10–15 years after surgery compared to matched controls, though this study is older and context-specific.

Regret rates are generally hard to quantify, but many cases exist, particularly among those with pre-existing mental health issues, undiagnosed comorbidities, social instability, or unrealistic expectations

Critical Considerations and Limitations

  • Data Quality: Many studies on gender-affirming surgery complications are limited by small sample sizes, lack of control groups, and high loss to follow-up. For instance, a 2016 CMS memo noted low-quality evidence due to observational study designs and confounding factors.
  • Variability in Outcomes: Complication rates vary by surgeon expertise, patient health, and procedure type and other medical care or lack of.

Conclusion

The trajectory of transgender ideology and paraphilias like BIID reflects a shift from fringe medical practices to mainstream cultural phenomena, driven by activism, media, and institutional support. While proponents frame these as expressions of identity and autonomy, critics highlight the ethical, medical, and societal risks of uncritical acceptance. A balanced approach requires rigorous scrutiny of evidence, protection of vulnerable populations, and resistance to ideological pressures that prioritise affirmation over critical inquiry. The parallels between gender-affirming care and BIID surgeries underscore the need for a cautious, evidence-based framework to address these complex issues. In a world where ethics matter – None of these surgeries should be permitted on the basis that they are experimental and dangerous.

Reference Links: