Excellent article. During the Eighties I volunteered with an organization that sought to lead young people out of the cults that were flourishing at the time. The anti-cultists in organizations of this type tended to argue that cult members were victims of predatory cult leaders, rather than having agency and reasons of their own for joining the cult and working their way up the hierarchy. I found that many of the anti-cult people were highly authoritarian, and wanted their family members to return to the authoritarian family system or to a more acceptable authoritarian religion, but did not want cult members to question and come to their own conclusions. There was a lot of emphasis on the idea that "Anyone can be brainwashed into a cult."
Eventually, there was some peer reviewed research into the psychology of cult members, and unsurprisingly, the investigators found that people with certain kinds of mental illnesses, particularly Cluster B personality disorders, were overrepresented in the membership of cults. I no longer have these references on file, but I encourage everyone to look deeper into how members create cults and cult leaders as much or more than vice-versa. Luke Conway's book "Liberal Bullies," which focuses on leftist authoritarianism, explains how people with pre-existing authoritarian personality traits predominate in authoritarian mass movements.
Calling trans ideology a cult might feel clarifying or cathartic to some—especially detransitioners, distressed parents, or others who’ve experienced firsthand what they see as psychological manipulation or coercion. But as a strategy for persuasion or policy reform, the term is likely to do more harm than good.
First, there’s no identifiable cult leader, which undermines the analogy at the outset. Unlike classical cults built around charismatic figures like Jim Jones or Keith Raniere, gender ideology is a decentralized belief system enforced through institutions, professional bodies, and social media platforms. That makes the “cult” label less precise and more vulnerable to being dismissed as hyperbolic or conspiratorial.
Second, the term doesn’t map neatly onto legal or policy mechanisms. The U.S. has no statutes criminalizing “being a cult,” and prosecutors can only act when there are concrete violations (fraud, abuse, coercive confinement). No Republican attorney general is going to launch a prosecution based on cult analysis, nor will Democratic legislators rethink their positions because someone called gender ideology a cult. If anything, using that label plays into existing narratives that critics are hysterical or bigoted.
Third, it risks alienating the very people reformers need to reach. Centrist Democrats, liberal professionals, and institutional actors might agree that gender ideology has gone too far—particularly around youth medicalization, language policing, and the erosion of women’s rights—but they are unlikely to respond to language that sounds moralistic or sectarian. Calling something a cult doesn’t invite dialogue; it closes it down. Even people with deep concerns may tune out if the rhetoric feels more like denunciation than analysis.
Fourth, the cult label doesn’t help craft solutions. While it might illuminate certain mechanisms (thought reform, language control, emotional coercion), these insights can be expressed in clinical or psychological terms that are more digestible to professionals and policymakers. If the goal is to regulate medical practices, revise school policies, or challenge professional guidelines, the language of institutional capture, unquestionable dogma, and suppression of dissent is more likely to resonate than “cult.”
Lastly, there are more strategic ways to use cultic insight. One can describe the psychological dynamics—bounded choice, confession rituals, us-vs-them thinking—without ever using the word. This makes the critique accessible to a broader audience and harder to dismiss. It also shows respect for those who’ve adopted these beliefs out of vulnerability or idealism rather than malice or manipulation.
In short, calling trans ideology a cult may feel like a rhetorical win, but it’s unlikely to persuade wavering centrists, change Democratic minds, or create new legal avenues. If the goal is reform, not just condemnation, then it’s more effective to describe the dynamics soberly, avoid moral panic language, and frame the conversation in terms that policymakers and professionals can hear.
I have found that when I use the term "cult" in conversations with Democrats they immediately and without question assume I am talking about Trump's following. LOL!
I think of the woke people as an authoritarian mass movement, and the Dems think the same about Trump and his followers, but not about themselves.
I think that your recommendations are a better way to approach Dems if we are actually trying to change their minds. When I talk to my colleagues about the gender disaster, I am using references to professional ethics and the insufficient evidence base, and they react the same way as if I said they belong to a cult. (It's also the same way they would respond if they actually were cult members, but as you said, there is no point in trying to address that with them).
Excellent article. During the Eighties I volunteered with an organization that sought to lead young people out of the cults that were flourishing at the time. The anti-cultists in organizations of this type tended to argue that cult members were victims of predatory cult leaders, rather than having agency and reasons of their own for joining the cult and working their way up the hierarchy. I found that many of the anti-cult people were highly authoritarian, and wanted their family members to return to the authoritarian family system or to a more acceptable authoritarian religion, but did not want cult members to question and come to their own conclusions. There was a lot of emphasis on the idea that "Anyone can be brainwashed into a cult."
Eventually, there was some peer reviewed research into the psychology of cult members, and unsurprisingly, the investigators found that people with certain kinds of mental illnesses, particularly Cluster B personality disorders, were overrepresented in the membership of cults. I no longer have these references on file, but I encourage everyone to look deeper into how members create cults and cult leaders as much or more than vice-versa. Luke Conway's book "Liberal Bullies," which focuses on leftist authoritarianism, explains how people with pre-existing authoritarian personality traits predominate in authoritarian mass movements.
Calling trans ideology a cult might feel clarifying or cathartic to some—especially detransitioners, distressed parents, or others who’ve experienced firsthand what they see as psychological manipulation or coercion. But as a strategy for persuasion or policy reform, the term is likely to do more harm than good.
First, there’s no identifiable cult leader, which undermines the analogy at the outset. Unlike classical cults built around charismatic figures like Jim Jones or Keith Raniere, gender ideology is a decentralized belief system enforced through institutions, professional bodies, and social media platforms. That makes the “cult” label less precise and more vulnerable to being dismissed as hyperbolic or conspiratorial.
Second, the term doesn’t map neatly onto legal or policy mechanisms. The U.S. has no statutes criminalizing “being a cult,” and prosecutors can only act when there are concrete violations (fraud, abuse, coercive confinement). No Republican attorney general is going to launch a prosecution based on cult analysis, nor will Democratic legislators rethink their positions because someone called gender ideology a cult. If anything, using that label plays into existing narratives that critics are hysterical or bigoted.
Third, it risks alienating the very people reformers need to reach. Centrist Democrats, liberal professionals, and institutional actors might agree that gender ideology has gone too far—particularly around youth medicalization, language policing, and the erosion of women’s rights—but they are unlikely to respond to language that sounds moralistic or sectarian. Calling something a cult doesn’t invite dialogue; it closes it down. Even people with deep concerns may tune out if the rhetoric feels more like denunciation than analysis.
Fourth, the cult label doesn’t help craft solutions. While it might illuminate certain mechanisms (thought reform, language control, emotional coercion), these insights can be expressed in clinical or psychological terms that are more digestible to professionals and policymakers. If the goal is to regulate medical practices, revise school policies, or challenge professional guidelines, the language of institutional capture, unquestionable dogma, and suppression of dissent is more likely to resonate than “cult.”
Lastly, there are more strategic ways to use cultic insight. One can describe the psychological dynamics—bounded choice, confession rituals, us-vs-them thinking—without ever using the word. This makes the critique accessible to a broader audience and harder to dismiss. It also shows respect for those who’ve adopted these beliefs out of vulnerability or idealism rather than malice or manipulation.
In short, calling trans ideology a cult may feel like a rhetorical win, but it’s unlikely to persuade wavering centrists, change Democratic minds, or create new legal avenues. If the goal is reform, not just condemnation, then it’s more effective to describe the dynamics soberly, avoid moral panic language, and frame the conversation in terms that policymakers and professionals can hear.
I have found that when I use the term "cult" in conversations with Democrats they immediately and without question assume I am talking about Trump's following. LOL!
I think of the woke people as an authoritarian mass movement, and the Dems think the same about Trump and his followers, but not about themselves.
I think that your recommendations are a better way to approach Dems if we are actually trying to change their minds. When I talk to my colleagues about the gender disaster, I am using references to professional ethics and the insufficient evidence base, and they react the same way as if I said they belong to a cult. (It's also the same way they would respond if they actually were cult members, but as you said, there is no point in trying to address that with them).