Recognizing Gender Identity as a Belief System — Charting a Path Forward
From Respect to Understanding: One Clinician’s Journey of Learning in the Era of Gender Identitarianism – Part 3 By Dwight Panozzo, PhD, LCSW
In this final installment of Dwight Panozzo’s series, he synthesizes his journey, arguing that Gender Identitarianism (GI) is a New Religious Movement (NRM) rooted in unfalsifiable beliefs. At Genspect, we support rigorous inquiry into gender issues, and Panozzo’s call for ethical research and clinical practices aligns with our mission to prioritize evidence and compassion. This post offers a framework for addressing GI’s challenges in clinical, cultural, and policy contexts.1
In 2023 I became a member of Therapy First and Beyond Trans. I have now worked with dozens of youth who identify as transgender and two transgender people contemplating detransition. After thousands of hours of listening to patients, reading the relevant literature from all sides, and reflecting on the whole in light of my critical evaluation of unfalsifiable therapeutic interventions, I see the issues surrounding GI with far greater clarity.
What is Gender Identity?
I now understand gender identity as an unfalsifiable belief that a person is in some critical way other than their sex. I use the term sex purposefully instead of its far more confusing variant, gender, as the latter is so easily made open to interpretation. The former, however, is immutably binary in all higher species, except in rare instances where an error occurs in development, leading to a disorder/difference in sexual development (DSD).
I have learned that, for the GI adherent, biological sex is not the issue. Instead, it is a deeply personal feeling about who they are that is only knowable to them: their gender identity. This belief, which stands in opposition to what is known (their sex), is profoundly important, perhaps sacred, to them. It is this core characteristic of the unfalsifiable variable of GI that defines it as a religious entity, rather than merely a concept describing human behavior or a political ideology. This is because all religions are rooted in religious beliefs—defined here as sincerely held convictions not subject to the falsifiability processes associated with scientifically acquired understandings, also known as ascertainments.
While GI, unlike most other religions, does not share a belief in a supreme being, it shares similarities with faiths like Buddhism and Ethical Culture that have a set of core beliefs and rituals central to their practice. Instead, GI rests on the faith in the individual’s identification of their “gendered soul” and supports the person engaging with their “gender journey”. The oppression for those afflicted with GI beliefs often arises when their conviction weakens or drops away. Unfortunately, those still in the grip of the belief system tend to see detransitioners as not having been truly trans in the first place, as my patients have repeatedly told me when I have asked them about detransitioners.
I have determined that the primary issue with GI is its recognition as a religion, as it has been consistently treated as anything but a religion by governmental structures across jurisdictions. An important reason for this mistreatment is likely that GI does not identify itself as a religious entity. Indeed, most adherents would likely be uncomfortable viewing it as a religion. Admittedly, my expectation is based on an unrepresentative sample —my patients— but most of them do identify as atheistic or firmly agnostic. These patients believe that they are entirely rational and only follow science.
Unfortunately, believing that we are rational and following science does not mean that we are doing either of those things. I certainly wasn’t in 2016 and 2017 when it came to this issue. I have concluded that when I avoid attempting to validate an idea, my avoidance is not in keeping with the scientific method; it is antithetical to it. Around the topics I avoid validating, I am likely engaging in some mélange of misplaced chain of trust dependency and religious speech.
To keep this in focus, I try to remember that even if five billion people are certain that Jesus rose from the dead, that belief does not increase the likelihood that the event occurred. Scientific validation requires a set of procedures and theoretical tests. Humanity has benefited greatly from scientific procedures, yet we repeatedly make the same errors, neglecting rigorous validation criteria or a thorough review of literature, as I did in 2016. This is deeply unfortunate, as history is filled with examples of our failure to prioritize what is known to be true over what we wish were true.
Pathways Forward
My understanding of GI as an NRM left me with several questions: How can we ethically assist people around GI? How can we protect our cultural development? And what can we learn from this fraught period of our development as a species?
Recognize GI as a belief system and treat it accordingly
The Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution forbids the government from establishing a state religion. That, however, is precisely what has been occurring with GI for decades. It is this promulgation that is responsible for the damage created by GI among young people. Telling people that something is true when it is apparently nothing more than an idea in other people’s imaginations is dangerous. History is replete with both bizarre and horrific examples of this.
In GI we have seen the manipulation of highly plastic young minds desperately seeking solutions to the maturational challenges they confront. As Jung said, “People don’t have ideas. Ideas have people.” Indeed, it is the youth who have more difficulty navigating reality who are the most susceptible to GI.
Among the all youth I have seen in my practice nearly all are on the autism spectrum, have ADHD, or are coping with depression. Instead of protecting these young minds with so many challenges to surmount, we have done a great disservice to them: exposing their minds not only to that which is not true but to that which can never be true, for instance when the GI religious belief extends to them believing they have actually changed their sex through transition.
The promulgation of the NRM of GI has gone in three basic directions, all rooted in a misunderstanding of the nature of GI. First, it has trickled down from the halls of academia to the very youngest years of elementary education. Young people are asked to think about their own position as framed within the concept of gender, unaware that they are engaging with an unfalsifiable religious idea. This is because it is presented as though it were a scientifically validated concept which they accept as part of the educational chain of trust.
Next, it spread to medicine and behavioral medicine, where it created an expressway for troubled youth to medicalize their dysphoria and engage in hormonal and surgical procedures that permanently alter their bodies at taxpayer or insurance subscriber expense. Finally, in government it has led to the creation of laws and policies across multiple jurisdictions that afford GI status and protections far beyond those of other religions.
Treating GI for what it is — the belief system of an NRM in schools, healthcare settings, and government would save many billions of dollars and would end the unfair advantage GI currently enjoys over other religions. Its special status extends not only to legal and educational systems but has created significant challenges in sports-related areas as well. This has led some to question if GI has become a new state-sponsored religion. The claim has merit but only because we have slept walked into the situation—no evidence suggests its active promulgation as an NRM in any sector.
As a religion, GI is a very particular type. It is one of the Gnostic varieties in which the adherents believe they have discovered a secret knowledge that, with its practices, allows them to escape various forms of suffering; in this case it is the unchangeable nature of our sex. It has also been likened to a form of Cartesian dualism in which the mind and body are conceptualized as different entities. It is this dualism that underlies the popular statement of many GI adherents that they “were born in the wrong body.”
Return to First Principles
The harm caused by social engineering related to GI led me to conclude that we have a responsibility to freely investigate only phenomena whose variables have been validated at the level of Aristotle’s First Principles (FP). Just as investigations in all sciences must be grounded in verifiable truths, excluding unfalsifiable beliefs from hypotheses, the social sciences must follow suit. Permitting ungrounded GI beliefs in the social sciences has already caused significant harm, as seen in the experiences of detransitioners.
We can and should establish specific testing conditions for variables not yet validated or verifiable to the FP level. At the same time, let us be clear: investigations that bypass this rigor are likely to involve deception, with the risk to human welfare and flourishing increasing alongside reliance on unvalidatable variables.
Be Aware of Personal Blind Spots
I have learned that staying silent when I have not fully studied a phenomenon is an act of compassion for others. When I spoke without fully understanding, especially when I was holding forth from my position as a PhD, I was likely serving my narcissism. I was undoubtedly doing this in my speech to my school board. Taking the time to ponder all sides requires effort, but had I done so, it would have led to less suffering for others. Hopefully, I could have collated and weighed out the various data streams to the best of my abilities. This is expressly what I did not do in 2016. How can we make sure that we avoid such mistakes as researchers?
Ethical Research Protocols
Research involving unfalsifiable concepts, such as GI, should be treated similarly to research with bio pathogens, requiring containment measures akin to biosafety levels (BSL). This is because ideas, like viruses, spread between people and can take hold when they meet psychological needs, regardless of their validity. BSL ranges from Level I, needing minimal protection, to Level IV, demanding extreme precautions for pathogens deadly to humans.
This would require a paradigmatic shift, because much behavioral research assumes that variables like GI reflect traits determined by an individual's genetic makeup (genotypic level), rather than, as evidence suggests, traits shaped by the interaction of genes and environment, expressed as observable characteristics (phenotypic level).
In practical terms, most behavioral research, such as observational or survey studies, operates within a low-risk Level I biosafety zone, provided the variables are falsifiable. Level II protocols would involve falsifiable intervention variables, such as those used in treatments for depression or substance misuse that do not rely on a “Higher Power.” Level III protocols should apply to unfalsifiable variables, like those involving a Higher Power or GI, when studying unprotected adult populations. Level IV protocols would be reserved for unfalsifiable variables when researching protected groups, such as children.
Developing a Level IV protocol that avoids permanent harm to some study participants might be difficult to imagine, but researchers should not be discouraged from trying, as my skepticism may stem from a failure of my creativity. It is also evident that unfalsifiable variables used as change agents likely induce delusions in participants. We accept this risk in situations like the “Higher Power” concept in substance misuse treatment, where the benefit for individuals struggling with addiction, unable to benefit from harm reduction, is considered existential. Introducing the unfalsifiable Higher Power concept, already widespread in our culture, is accepted as a social good, despite promoting what is not verifiably true.
Moving Forward with Gender
Given the unfalsifiable nature of gender at the core of the GI NRM, scientifically grounded options are limited. Pioneers in gender research who employed watchful waiting likely adopted the most beneficial approach: alleviating suffering through non-medicalized psychotherapy, reserving medicalization for those who truly need it.
Due to its NRM status, medicalization for GI in the U.S. should be funded by adherents not by public or insurance funds. If recognized as such, adherents could pursue body modifications as part of their religious freedom. From this perspective, behavioral health and medical professionals would step back, allowing GI specialists to focus on their work, similar to those performing religious circumcisions or female genital alterations for cultural or religious reasons. At the same time, they would face stigma from those who view their practices as ranging from unnecessary to medically tortuous.
Conclusion
My good intentions to be of service to my community in 2016 were insufficient. I now perceive the gender issue more realistically but achieving that perception required several factors. It required a willingness to be wrong, a curiosity to engage with politically contentious and obfuscatory material, and the courage to speak openly when I had come to saturation in my explorations. Because the willingness to be wrong is part of a recursive process, I have realized I must maintain humility and be open to seeking new information to update my understanding. Given our tribalistic nature, that process is best served by occasionally exposing myself to those I think of as being “on the other side.” I also have a duty to myself to step aside from the torrent of well-intentioned but scientifically ungrounded thought in this area.
Human life is exceptionally difficult; we are keenly aware of our limitations, and the pain they cause is so overwhelming that we are likely to flee from them to some degree with every thought we have. GI seems an instantiation of this phenomenon on a cultural scale. Being male or female includes multiple benefits and tradeoffs—it’s tough work, regardless of our sex. It is important to remember that we seldom have a tailwind in life; making progress despite headwinds is our greatest achievement. Getting that progress through categorizing GI as an NRM and creating protective standards around research involving unfalsifiable variables will likely serve us.
Dwight Panozzo, PhD, licensed clinical social worker with 30+ years’ experience and Beyond Trans therapist directory member.
Download the original essay here.
Genspect publishes a variety of authors with different perspectives. Any opinions expressed in this article are the author’s and do not necessarily reflect Genspect’s official position. For more on Genspect, visit our FAQs.
The Courage to Do Better
Join Genspect for The Bigger Picture conference in Albuquerque, New Mexico, on September 27–28, 2025, to explore the multifaceted impact of trans ideology on society. As Dwight Panozzo shares in his essay, understanding this complex social phenomenon requires moving beyond a single perspective and demands both time and humility. At Genspect, we recognize that no single lens can fully capture its implications. Don’t miss this chance to reflect on the past four years, assess current insights, and discuss the profound effects on medical professionals, parents, families, and individuals whose lives and health have been permanently changed.
Come along, share your insights and connect with a community dedicated to leading us beyond gender and toward a healthier culture. Register now at genspect.org.
Tickets selling fast - secure your seat now.
This excerpt has been lightly edited and shortened for Substack
From Seminar Room to State Doctrine: The Unquestioned Ascent of Queer Theory
Dwight Panozzo’s framing of gender identitarianism as a belief system—not a science—is both timely and courageous. But we must go deeper, to the intellectual taproot of the current crisis. Gender identity, as a concept, did not simply arise from clinical observation or democratic consensus. It is the operational child of queer theory—a radical academic project with unapologetically subversive aims.
Queer theory was never intended as a descriptive tool to map human variation. It was designed to destabilize: to undermine stable sexual and gender identities, to "trouble" the normative, and to celebrate the transgressive. As a rhetorical and intellectual strategy, it wore its anti-foundationalism as a badge of honour. As long as it remained cloistered within humanities departments, it seemed like a harmless exercise in postmodern provocation. But it didn’t stay there.
What followed was a slow, undemocratic metastasis. Over a span of two decades, queer theory’s core commitments—instability, anti-essentialism, and the sacralization of individual self-narration—were smuggled into medicine, education, corporate governance, and law. This migration happened without scrutiny, without legislative or public review, and most egregiously, without an ethics panel ever asking: What are the long-term effects of teaching children that identity is infinitely fluid and self-generated? Or: What moral or psychological risks attend the institutionalization of a framework that elevates transgression to a virtue and sees normativity as oppression?
Imagine if any other theoretical movement—say, one rooted in sociobiology or IQ determinism—had tried to insert itself this deeply into public life. There would have been alarm bells. Editorials. Senate hearings. But queer theory, cloaked in the moral force of inclusion and the academic prestige of poststructuralism, evaded such interrogation. Its greatest rhetorical achievement was to render critique suspect, if not outright hateful.
Panozzo rightly identifies gender identitarianism as a new religious movement, complete with dogma, blasphemy codes, and rituals of purification. But unlike most religions, this one did not grow from grassroots spiritual needs—it was constructed, piece by piece, in graduate seminars. That in itself is not a crime. But handing such a system over to institutions—schools, clinics, courts—without public understanding or consent is a moral and civic failure of the highest order.
What began as theoretical mischief in the academy became state-sponsored ideology. Deconstruction, once a literary game, is now written into school policies and medical protocols. And yet there has been no reckoning. No retrospective examination of how we got here. No pause to ask: Was this wise? Was this ethical?
Panozzo’s piece opens a door. Let’s walk through it with moral seriousness. Let’s ask why a society that claims to value evidence, deliberation, and pluralism allowed such a destabilizing belief system to become its new civic religion. Let’s ask why those who raised questions were dismissed as bigots rather than heard as citizens.
And above all, let us insist that future ideas—no matter how “inclusive” their branding—face the ethical and evidentiary tests that queer theory never had to endure.
If the gender woo is "recognized" as a religion, as Scientology has been, they will get all the tax breaks and other special benefits bestowed on religions. They will also be permitted to teach their religion to their children in parochial schools, and no one will be able to protect those kids from indoctrination into mutilation beliefs and practices.