Gender: A Narrower Lens
An analysis of the Gender: A Wider Lens podcast and what it’s purpose and goals are
Everyone has a podcast nowadays. For even the most niche of subjects, there exists at least a dozen audio podcasts of 5 people sitting in a room talking about it for an hour. It’s unsurprising, then, that Gender Critical people are some of the most prolific podcasters. Gender: A Wider Lens is one of the biggest and most influential of these. It is hosted by Stella O’Malley and Sasha Ayad, two therapists. On Apple Podcasts, it is described as a podcast that “explore[s] diverse perspectives through a psychological lens, fostering open dialogue on gender identity, transition, and the transgender umbrella.” The actual content of the podcast is anything but this. The podcast only focuses on one lens: the Gender Critical lens. I listened to 24 episodes and this is my analysis.
Typically, each episode consists of an interview with an individual or a discussion on a certain topic pertaining to gender. If this was taking a wider lens, you would expect a wide range of people from all across the gender spectrum, from nonbinary people to trans people to cis people. This is not at all what you see in Gender: A Wider Lens. Almost all of the guests are cis, with only a couple detransitioners and trans people who parrot the gender critical line. Though the podcast claims to want to take a more professional approach to gender, it commonly brings on people like Graham Linnehan who have no professional experience in medicine or psychology to be guests. The actual psychologists invited are not much better, including people who have been discredited in their field like James Cantor, Ray Blanchard, and J.Michael Bailey.
The veneer of scientific scrutiny the two hosts profess falls away almost instantly when they begin to interview their guest. Stella and Sasha offer very little pushback to any ideas presented by their guests. Though there has been plenty of evidence to suggest some of their whistleblower guests like Jamie Reed and Eithan Haim have violated professional ethics or have made dubious claims, none of these is interrogated. Instead, softball questions and trite exclamations of “Oh wow, what a good point!” are the name of the game. It is essentially a platform for their guests to uncritically spout their views on gender. They only quibble with the minutiae, such as “should we not misgender people for optics reasons?” or “are women’s gender roles more strict than men’s?”
One of the more bizarre aspects of the show is the way the hosts, particularly Stella, describe their anti-trans movement. They use the term “gender” as a proper noun, oftentimes asking guests “how did you get involved with Gender?” They take a highly anachronistic view of the so-called “gender wars”. The hosts often cite 2016-2017 as the time “gender went crazy”. In their view, the modern day trans movement is almost completely detached from any historical LGBTQ+ movements. They go so far as to try and drive a wedge between gay and trans people with a whole episode dedicated to claiming “Trans is not the new gay”. They claim that everything with trans healthcare was fine until those darned trans activists came along in 2016 and selfishly ruined everything. There is no working analysis of the history of transgender struggle and acceptance, as that would add credibility to the movement. Instead there is a scant few mentions of how the 90s were better for trans healthcare than now because of more gatekeeping. Mia Hughes even said on the show that kids and adults actually benefit from stricter gatekeeping. She never follows this up with any proof, but quietly ignores the numerous testimonials of people harmed by trans medical gatekeeping in the supposedly utopian 1990s and 2000s.
Sasha and Stella take Ken Zucker’s approach to psychotherapy in the show; that is, the purpose of the therapist is to try to get patients to desist from their dysphoria and a continued trans identity is a bad outcome. They believe it is better to be a self-loathing gay person with body issues (though they will claim this person is content) than to be a happy trans person who undergoes medical treatment. Any medical intervention is anathema to them. After all, why mess with a “healthy” body? They had Zucker on to say as much. Their philosophy is not new. A paper from 2017 says much the same. An oft cited study from the 1980s concurs, stating that most gender nonconformity results in homosexuality. In believing this, Stella and Sasha believe that the principle of bodily autonomy is less important than their beliefs of what an individual might do or become. They are psychologists, so they must know best. It’s stated several times throughout the show that therapists should be there to provide answers, not work through problems. It is a strict and dogmatic belief that they are the arbiters of other people’s bodies, and it shows throughout the program.
Whenever there is an ‘Ad break’, Stella and Sasha always say how they are “sponsored” by Genspect and the Gender Exploratory Therapy Association (now Therapy First). The use of the word “sponsor” is strange. It’s very different from how most podcasts advertise and market themselves. Other podcasts like Behind the Bastards tend to have sponsors in the usual way, wherein companies unaffiliated with the podcast hosts pay money to have their products and services advertised to the podcast’s viewership. Podcasts that don’t have sponsors like Well There’s Your Problem tend to advertise their organizations or patreons to raise money for the podcast. These podcasts make it clear that the organization/patreon is affiliated with the podcast hosts. The problem for Gender: A Wider Lens is that Genspect and Therapy First are not unaffiliated with Sasha and Stella. Stella founded Genspect and Sasha founded Therapy First. Their own organizations are “sponsoring” their podcasts. It seems somewhat dishonest to imply a disconnected sponsorship relationship when the show runners founded both groups. I’ve never seen another podcast advertise like this, and it makes me raise an eyebrow. It seems to be an attempt to make Sasha’s and Stella’s organizations and themselves look more legitimate.
Regardless, the true purpose of this podcast is obvious if you read between the lines. It is designed to take people in the more liberal camp and introduce them to more radical right wing beliefs about gender. It caters to the sensibilities of liberals by having a highly curated appearance but slowly introducing ideas like “trans kids don’t exist” and “actually trans people harm gay rights”. Sasha and Stella offer a platform to guests liberals otherwise would not listen to because of their extreme rhetoric and grant them an air of respectability and sensibility. This doesn’t go over the heads of some guests, however, as evidenced by comments on their YouTube channel. On their episode about Colin Wright one commenter laments about their mentioning Wright’s appearance on Tucker Carlson, saying “Please don’t use Tucker Carlson as a way to enhance your guests’ credibility.”
In their episode on January Littlejohn, one commenter notes how January’s controlling attitude towards her non-binary child’s hair is concerning, saying “[W]hy mention that her daughter’s (sic) hair is now long? As if that is some sort of success?”
The January Littlejohn episode is especially clear as to its real purpose. Littlejohn is a religious fundamentalist hand picked for spearheading DeSantis’ ‘don’t say gay’ bill. Her husband, Jeff, is a Republican attorney who briefly served as the Deputy secretary to the Department of Environmental Protection and is the son of Chuck Littlejohn, a longtime lobbyist. Obviously, having deep connections to the Republican Party doesn’t play well for the more liberal minded viewers of Gender: A Wider Lens, so this crucial context is ignored. Her religious sensibilities and relationship to republican politicians are never mentioned. She’s portrayed as simply a ‘concerned parent’ caught in the middle of the ‘gender craze’. While proponents of trans people on the podcast are always shown to be biased political actors, opponents are never shown to have any politics other than genuine concern for health. As the appearance of being apolitical and unbiased is popular in the United States, it becomes crystal clear why Stella and Sasha frame their episodes in this way.
Gender: A Wider Lens should really be called Gender: A Narrower Lens. The show's name is even more puzzling considering Stella and Sasha constantly rip on postmodernism, even though the use of various lenses (sometimes literally a widening of said lenses) of analysis is a hallmark of postmodern thought. Alas, this is assuming the creators are good faith actors. They are not. Gender: A Wider Lens is not designed to discuss and grapple with the complexities of gender, it’s designed to add legitimacy to fringe and despicable beliefs. It is reputation laundering. Their guests who go on shows hosted by guys who defend dictators like Putin are treated as if they just went on Jimmy Fallon for a promotional gig. One of their dream guests is the heir to an apartheid-era emerald mine. Their experts are discredited hacks who can’t stop from getting in trouble with governments and universities. It is a fraudulent podcast made by fraudulent scientists.