Social media cannot make someone trans. Gender identity is fixed before birth, and no amount of online content can change it. What social media can do is help trans people find each other, feel less alone, and finally put a name to something they already knew about themselves.
Where does this idea come from?
The argument goes something like this: trans people post about their transitions, young people see those posts, and something tips. The visibility itself becomes the cause. Top surgery photos, pronoun bios, transition timelines, proud pictures at Pride: the worry is that all of it is recruiting.
It sounds plausible until you examine it for a moment, and the moment you do, a much simpler counter-argument appears: most families have several children. They all have the same internet. They all have the same feeds, the same algorithms, the same access to the same content. And only one of them is trans. If social media were making people trans, you would expect more than one per household. The fact that it does not work that way tells you something about what is actually going on.
You cannot change somebody's gender identity
The premise underneath the social media panic is that you can make someone trans. That you can watch enough content, absorb enough representation, spend enough time in the right online spaces, and end up with a gender identity that is different from the one you were born with. And we know that is not how it works.
Gender identity is not persuadable. It is not a preference, a phase, or a position you arrive at through exposure. Think about what trans people themselves report: many of them, on realising they are trans, do not rush towards it. They run from it. They throw themselves into their birth gender. They do every socially expected thing: the relationships, the job, the appearance, the performance. They try, sometimes for years, to make the feeling go away. And it does not. Because you cannot change somebody who is transgender into somebody who is cisgender, and for exactly the same reason, you cannot change somebody who is cisgender into somebody who is transgender. It does not work in either direction.
What exploring actually looks like, and what it is not
Children explore. That is what childhood is for. A child who plays with trucks and then plays with dolls, who loves pink and then loves blue, who wants to be a cat and tucks a tea towel into their pyjamas as a tail: none of that tells you anything about their gender identity. It tells you they are a child, doing what children do. And we should be glad of it. The exploration is healthy. It is not a warning sign.
The distinction that matters is not what a child plays with or wears. It is what they say about who they are. There is a world of difference between "I like playing with the boys" and "I am a boy." The first is a preference, the second is an identity. When children are listened to properly, that difference is audible. Trans children are not saying they prefer certain toys or certain friends. They are saying something much more fundamental about themselves.
Teenagers explore too, and that is just as important. Style, friendship groups, interests, expression: all of it is legitimate, all of it is healthy, and none of it converts anyone into a gender they are not. Some teenagers will explore pronouns and names. Some will try on different ways of being in the world. What they cannot do is change their gender identity through that process. The exploration might help them find it. It does not create it.
What LGBT groups actually do
There is a version of the same anxiety about LGBT groups: that having them draws people in, and being drawn in changes people. The hiking club analogy is a useful one here. You might join the hiking club and discover you hate hiking. Or you might join it and discover that you love it, and that you have finally found your people. The hiking club did not make you a hiker. It gave you a place to find out whether hiking was already for you.
LGBT spaces work the same way. They do not convert. They gather. They provide a place where people who are already like each other can find each other, recognise each other, and feel less alone. The sense of recognition people feel when they walk into those spaces is not manufactured by the space. It is something they brought with them.
What social media actually does for trans people
Trans people have always existed. What has changed in recent decades is visibility, and what has changed with visibility is access to language and community. A trans teenager in a small town, thirty years ago, might never have encountered another trans person, never have had a word for what they felt, and never have known that the feeling they were living with was something millions of other people lived with too. Now they can find all of that on a phone.
That is not recruitment, it is recognition. There is a profound difference between content that creates an identity and content that names one that was already there. When somebody watches a transition timeline and thinks "that is me," what is happening is not that the video made them trans, it is that the video showed them something they had been trying to understand about themselves for years.
So yes, more young people are able to name their gender identity now than could a generation ago. That looks, from the outside, like an increase. What it actually is, is an emergence: the same number of trans people that have always existed, now with better access to the language and the community that makes it possible to say so.
What about regret?
Regret is real and deserves to be taken seriously, but the research picture, as I understand it from what clinicians and researchers in this field consistently report, is that people who regret transition steps are mostly not regretting their gender identity. They are regretting the specific steps they took, and often for reasons connected to how the world treated them: the rejection, the discrimination, the difficulty of living as a trans person in a society that is not reliably kind about it.
Regret also exists across all of medicine and all of life. People regret knee operations. People regret tattoos. People regret marriages. The existence of regret in a small number of cases is not a reason to withdraw care from everyone. We do not cancel knee surgery because a significant proportion of people who have it wish they had not. The same logic applies here: regret among a minority is not evidence that gender diversity is not real, and it is not a reason to deny care to the much larger number of people for whom it is transformative.
What social media's responsibility actually is
None of this means social media has no responsibilities. Platforms should apply consistent standards to their content. That is a reasonable ask. But "apply content standards" is a very different thing from "suppress trans visibility because visibility might be contagious." The concern about influence conflates two completely separate questions: whether content is appropriate and safe, and whether trans people existing in public makes more trans people exist. The first question is legitimate. The second rests on a premise that the evidence does not support.
Trans people posting about their lives, sharing their transitions, celebrating their surgery, building community: none of that is grooming or recruiting. It is people living, and being visible while they do it. If that visibility helps another trans person recognise themselves, that is not a harm. That is exactly what representation is supposed to do.
If there is a topic that you would like me to cover, just let Sammy know.
Dr Helen Webberley is a gender specialist, medical educator, and advocate. She is the founder of GenderGP and works full-time in promoting understanding of gender diversity.
Comments