Andrea Long Chu and the Conveniently Timed Polemic

New York Magazine published a trans writer’s lengthy defense of no holds barred transition—right on the heels of the WPATH Files. Was it a coincidence?

On March 11th, New York Magazine made waves with a story titled the Moral Case for Letting Trans Kids Change their Bodies, penned by trans writer Andrea Long Chu. It somehow made the cover. 

In the accompanying photo, a bizarre assemblage of sexual personae gaze out at the reader, seeming to blend together in strange simulacrums of one another, baby-faced men and Amazonian women. The caption identifies the photographs as part of a series titled “Self Evident Truths.” But if these truths are so self-evident, one wonders, why must the body be fundamentally changed to live them out? 

Looking at the photoset in context with the article, something else jumps out at the reader: the author argues for letting “trans kids” medically transition—yet the portraits are all of adults. This serves as a prelude for Long Chu’s thesis, that in essence, kids are just little adults and must be treated as such. “For now,” Chu states, “parents must learn to treat their kids as what they are: human beings capable of freedom.” 

A proper analysis of this piece wouldn’t be complete without some background info on its writer. Andrea Long Chu, formerly Andy, is a trans-identified man who has admitted that sissy porn caused his trans identity, and who has continually espoused a deeply degrading and porn-sick view of what it means to be a woman, something he knows nothing about. Despite this—or perhaps because of it—Long Chu has become a respected “public intellectual”, writing for n+1, the New York Times, New York Magazine, and various academic journals. He even won a Pulitzer. 

Image via Genevieve Gluck on X.

In his most recent treatise, Chu unfurls a winding and mostly nonsensical argument for why “trans kids” should be given unrestricted access to hormones and surgery— not because it would benefit them, but simply because. “True political change we must bring about ourselves,” he writes. “Sex-affirming care has always served someone’s moral vision for society. There is no reason it cannot serve ours.” Ever the opportunist, Chu weaponizes the medicalization of a vulnerable, confused population to advance the goals of the sexually sick. He doesn’t make the “moral case” for child transition, as his title purports to. Instead, he uses child transition in service of the trans movement’s “moral vision for society.” But Chu’s is a moral vision stunningly free of morals—other than the mantra of transition as a human right. 

“Transgender rights” have always been synonymous with the right to modify the body, though this has rarely been said outright. Chu makes explicit the framing of body modification as a human right—one which should be available to all who ask for it and paid for by the state. Otherwise it’s oppression. Otherwise it’s a human rights abuse. Otherwise it’s conversion therapy. 

Chu’s argument lays bare all that trans activists have been hinting at for a while now, too afraid or perhaps too aware of its implications to say. Chu never had such inhibitions. “We must be prepared to defend the idea that, in principle, everyone should have access to sex-changing medical care, regardless of age, gender identity, social environment, or psychiatric history,” he writes. Of all the insane claims made in the article (and there are many) this is the most shocking. It’s also no coincidence, in my opinion, that it attempts to justify every discovery unearthed by the WPATH Files, and then some.

In the files, author Mia Hughes notes that patient groups unable to provide informed consent to “gender affirming care” are being treated anyway, namely children and adults with serious mental health conditions. The report details disturbing conversations between activist doctors discussing how impossible it is to obtain consent from underage patients who “haven’t even had high school biology yet”. Similarly, the files document patients with severe mental health conditions—including DID (dissociative identity disorder), major depressive disorder, PTSD, cPTSD, schizoid typical traits, and alcohol use disorder—being treated with hormones and irreversible surgeries. Chu hand waves both concerns, arguing in favor of medical transition regardless of “age” or “psychiatric history.”

Chu also singles out “social environment,” seemingly referring to the theory of trans social contagion, or rapid onset gender dysphoria (ROGD), seen primarily in teenage girls. Strangely, he also lists “gender identity,”defined by trans ideology roughly as “an innate inner sense of being a man, woman, or something in between''. But gender identity is ostensibly the apparatus which makes someone trans—described by trans activists as when someone’s “gender identity” misaligns with their “sex assigned at birth”. Something like a sexed soul, as Helen Joyce puts it. So why would Chu call this out? My theory is that he’s pointing to the right of autogynephiles to transition for sexual pleasure, regardless of if they feel they’re “really a woman inside” or not. Transition doesn’t have to alleviate gender dysphoria or help someone live as their true self, whatever that means. If it fulfills some twisted sexual fantasy like Chu’s, it’s a human right.

In this single quote, Chu attempts to knock down every bureaucratic barrier to transition one by one. Young children, the mentally ill, sexual perverts, those socially influenced or pressured, and those that aren’t even “trans” by activists’ own definition should all be allowed unfettered access to wrong-sex hormones and irreversible, experimental surgery. According to Chu,“everyone” should have access to “sex-changing” medical care—at any age, for any reason, and regardless of psychiatric condition. Infertility, regret, and increased suicidality be damned. As long as it's serving someone’s moral cause, right? 

I’m not suggesting that Chu knew when the WPATH Files would be made public or what they would reveal—but I am suggesting that he edited his piece in accordance with the files. In the wake of particularly damning evidence that certain vulnerable groups are being allowed to transition, Chu lazily argues that the factors making consent impossible don’t actually matter. Since there’s no longer any denying what these doctors are doing to people, Chu doesn’t bother. Instead, he frames it as a non-issue. Of course they’re transing children and the mentally ill—and why shouldn’t they?

The reality is bleak but the good news is this: if this is the best the trans lobby has, then we can take them. If this lazy, half-baked, and nonsensical “moral case” for no holds barred transition is the best activists can come up with, then we should have no trouble pushing back. Because irreversible, sterilizing body modification is not a human right. There is no moral case for transition—regardless of age, reason, or psychiatric history. 

Thank you for reading.