In this three-part series, Dwight Panozzo, PhD, LCSW, shares his personal and professional journey through the complexities of Gender Identitarianism (GI), a movement he argues may qualify as a New Religious Movement (NRM). In Part 1, Panozzo candidly recounted his premature plunge into the GI debate, lacking the depth of knowledge required. In Part 2, he explained how this gap precipitated missteps in his practice.

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. In this culminating installment, he explains why he now believes that Gender Identitarianism (GI) is a New Religious Movement (NRM) anchored in unfalsifiable tenets. This post offers a framework for addressing GI’s challenges in clinical, cultural, and policy contexts.

Read the full series: Part 1: From Respect to Understanding | Part 2: Missteps in Treatment: Confronting the Limits of My Knowledge

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 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. It would end the unfair advantage GI currently enjoys over other religions. Its special status extends not only to legal and educational systems but also creates significant challenges in sports-related areas. This has led some to question whether GI has become a new state-sponsored religion. The claim has merit, but only because we have sleepwalked into the situation—no evidence suggests active promotion of it 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 distinct 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. 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 that have not yet been validated or verified to the level of a First Principle. 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 as reliance on unverifiable variables increases.

Be Aware of Personal Blind Spots

I have learned that staying silent when I have not thoroughly 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. I hope to 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 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. This is because ideas, like viruses, spread between people and can take hold when they meet psychological needs, regardless of their validity. Biosafety levels range 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 research on protected groups, such as children, when the variables are unfalsifiable.

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.

What I learned

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.

Continue reading: Part 1: From Respect to Understanding | Part 2: Missteps in Treatment

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.

The post Recognizing Gender Identity as a Belief System — Charting a Path Forward appeared first on Genspect.

In this three-part series, Dwight Panozzo, PhD, LCSW, shares his personal and professional journey through the complexities of Gender Identitarianism (GI), a movement he argues may qualify as a New Religious Movement (NRM). In this first post, Panozzo introduces his initial encounters with GI, reflecting on the cultural and clinical challenges it poses. His narrative, rooted in humility and critical inquiry, is a model of how honest reflection can help to deepen understanding and reduce harm in the gender debate.

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.

Read the full series: Part 2: Missteps in Treatment: Confronting the Limits of My Knowledge | Part 3: Recognizing Gender Identity as a Belief System

Gender identity has become a central topic in clinical practice and public discourse, raising strong emotions and complex ethical questions. As a mental health clinician, my views have evolved through years of experience, reflection, and personal missteps. While some of my perspectives may differ from widely accepted views, I invite readers to approach this narrative with an open mind, recognizing our shared commitment to reducing human suffering and promoting well-being for all. — Dwight Panozzo

Grounding

Life is short, the art long, opportunity fleeting, experience treacherous, and judgment difficult. – Hippocrates, C 460–C 370 BCE.

These are words that have stood the test of time for more than two millennia. Each of us grapples with some variation of them at some point. I have been told that comedy arises when we face a challenge, learn from it, and grow. A tragedy, on the other hand, occurs when we face a challenge but fail to learn from it. Just as all may benefit from the lessons in the comedy, all may suffer from the failure to learn the lessons of tragedy.

While it is a simplification, there is a profound truth embedded in it, just as in the words of Hippocrates. In this instance, the probable birth of a new religious movement (NRM) is considered: the perils that individuals, families, and society face because of it, as well as the tremendous opportunity for learning and growth that it presents to everyone.

As is likely with all NRMs, Gender Identitarianism (GI), also known as “transgenderism”, “gender identity”, and “gender queerness”, is a movement that evolves each day, and its borders, players, rituals, sacred texts, blasphemies, and promises change as well. It comes upon us with a speed that probably eclipses that of all previous NRMs, traveling as it does not only from the lips to the ears of humans but through printed words, images, and videos across the Internet.

While religiously motivated killing in support of GI by its adherents is rare, there are exceptions. The Teasley case, where a trans identified male allegedly killed a woman on a hiking trail because of her good looks, and the Zizian cult murders with multiple trans identified members allegedly killing six people, are recent high-profile cases. GI has arguably made up for these isolated cases in the social losses feared and experienced in the cancel culture associated with it, the profound upheaval it has caused in our culture, the ways that it has caused deep rifts in families, the opportunity cost of misdirecting resources away from other clinical issues, and the deep and abiding sadness experienced by detransitioners attempting to come to terms with what has happened to them. They face the task of determining which pathways to life’s rewards are permanently unavailable and how they will find meaning, purpose, and joy amidst their challenges.

The key issue in GI is the movement’s ferocity. It is a force of righteousness, arguably the most dangerous of motivations. My goal is to understand the source of that ferocity and our response to it.

This is also the story of my journey as a mental health clinician through the world of GI: how I acted with compassion and professionalism, but also with ignorance and may have caused harm, how I hid from it, how I entered a wilderness, and how I eventually emerged as a presumably wiser person.

Well-Intentioned Ignorance

I had spent more than 25 years of my adult life as a clinical social worker, in private practice for only 15 years, having earned an MSW, a certificate in psychoanalysis, and a PhD in Social Work, when GI entered my life in a profound way in 2016. Before then, my lived experience around GI had been limited to a coworker in an AIDS agency during the 1990s who dressed in pantsuits and wore thick pancake makeup but maintained his male name and pronouns. He also lost his job after an allegation of having stolen one or more clients’ pain medications on home visits.

It would be fair to say that, in terms of creating a mental model for me of persons engaged with GI, the representation that my experience of him created was a mixture of intellectual heft regarding his knowledge of substance misuse, mystery around his female presentation, and concern for what appeared to be profound flaws in character. I did not understand him, but I felt I had a duty as a human being to respect and support his path in life.

More than 20 years went by before I was confronted again with GI in a serious way. It is also fair to say that part of me was relieved when he was fired for the topsy-turvy aspects he brought to my life and to the lives of my coworkers and clients—yes, he was frequently talked about.

Speaking Out of Turn

In 2016, my local high school board was gripped with questions concerning its policy of supporting gender self-identification and allowing students with cross-gender identification to use the facilities of their choosing. I had lived in the district for more than a quarter century and felt that I had a duty to stand up and have my voice heard to support the members of the “T” in the LGBT rainbow. My speech was not longer than a few minutes, but it was quoted in the student-run online newsletter where I queried…

Where is the epidemic of crimes related to trans women using the women’s room or cisgendered people being traumatized by catching sight of unanticipated genitalia? Those things simply don’t exist, and that means that some of us are paranoid on this issue.

Notably, it is now becoming difficult to avoid stories of females being traumatized by being forced to change clothing in the presence of genitally intact transwomen or of females being raped by transwomen in congregate settings such as prisons and hospitals.

Being ahead of the curve, as it were, the absence of evidence was not evidence of absence. I now know this was my first critical error. The far worse error, from my perspective, was that I spoke at all, not because we should not all have a voice, but because I was speaking out of turn. While it was not quoted in the online newsletter, my far more grievous quote was, “I did not understand transgender people, but that did not mean that I could not respect and support them.” I did not understand what I was respecting nor what support of it could entail. Knowing when to speak and when to continue reviewing the literature on a topic is difficult.

My suspicion is that it should come when one’s review of the literature has reached what qualitative researchers refer to as “saturation.” That is, when no new data or concepts are revealed and further review only leads to reinforcement of what is already known. Having not formally reviewed the literature, I was speaking utterly out of turn.

Talking about what one does not understand is dangerous because of the nature of human knowledge, which tends to rest on chains of trust — and I was the weakest link.

My initial support for GI was well-intentioned but uninformed. In the next post, I’ll share how this ignorance shaped my treatment of transgender patients and the lessons I learned from those missteps.

Continue reading: Part 2: Missteps in Treatment: Confronting the Limits of My Knowledge | Part 3: Recognizing Gender Identity as a Belief System

Dwight Panozzo, PhD, licensed clinical social worker with 30+ years’ experience and Beyond Trans therapist directory member.

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.

Learning from Experience

Join Genspect this September at The Bigger Picture conference in New Mexico where we will grapple with the human and societal costs of medicalizing identity — and how telling the truth can set us free.

Tickets selling fast – secure your seat now.

The post From Respect to Understanding appeared first on Genspect.