Gender still at a crossroads in 2026

Loose reflections for a dawning year

Photo by Nunzio Guerrera on Unsplash

Where 2026 is starting

I anticipated 2025 was going to have major developments for trans and nonbinary people and those impacted in one way or another by gender dysphoria. I was not wrong. What follows are some key developments over this past year that stood out to me. It is not exhaustive, nor does it aim to be.

Politically, much of the backlash that has followed the socially celebrated transgender tipping point of 2014 reached a peak in 2025 and is set to continue into 2026, starting with a number of detransition lawsuits that will hit the US legal circuit in the new year.

Trans women in sports remains a hot button issue, with some sporting associations choosing to change course on including trans women in the female category, following rising pressure from female athletes and their supporters. Real world impacts: trans swimmer Lia Thomas was banned from competing in the women’s swimming category, including at the Olympics. And, though they are not trans, Algerian boxer Imane Khelif and South African sprinter Caster Semenya both have faced removal from elite competitions due to questions regarding their genetic sex.

In the US, passport changes have generated confusion and fear among US citizens travelling while trans. Also, the US government’s call for the removal of trans military personnel from the US military underscored the shifting tides of transgender acceptance in public life. On the legal circuit, Chase Strangio from the ACLU became the first openly transgender lawyer to argue in front of the US Supreme Court, regarding a legislative ban on gender affirming care for minors in Tennessee in US v Skrmetti (tldr: the ACLU lost).

Across the pond, the UK is in the midst of launching a hotly contested puberty blocker study that seems built to satisfy exactly no one. While one side is opposed to the study existing, some on the other side resent that limits on puberty blockers are considered at all. In other UK news, the UK Supreme Court ruled that the law defines a woman as a biological female, allowing for the exclusion of trans individuals from single-sex spaces like female prisons and domestic violence shelters — though interpretation of the law varies.

In Canada, one province, Alberta, has chosen to deploy the notwithstanding clause to legally limit medical interventions for minors, causing an uproar among activist organizations across the country, and leading to a legal challenge that is ongoing. Meanwhile, the Canadian media landscape continues to sidestep and largely ignore the complexities of the gender debate (with some notable exceptions).

Across the other pond, in Australia, the female creator of an online app for women is appealing a ruling in the Giggle vs Tickle lawsuit that found she had discriminated by removing a trans woman from her female-only app. The original lawsuit was largely considered to centre around the question of what is a woman.

Online, temperatures rose to boiling levels as one of the founding fathers of evidence-based medicine sought to distance himself from how his research findings were being used (spoiler alert: his team’s systematic reviews found that gender affirming medical practices had very little high or even moderate quality evidence to back them). In a now infamous interview with Stella O’Malley and Mia Hughes, Dr Gordon Guyatt of McMaster University lamented the ways the reviews on gender affirming medical practices were, in his opinion, being weaponized by bad faith actors to deny patients access to care.

Back in the US, activists led a campaign to have the Society for Evidence-Based Medicine (SEGM) lose their continuing education (CE) accreditation, which they had acquired through Washington State University’s Elson S. Floyd College of Medicine over a 9-month vetting process. While the videos are still publicly available on SEGM’s website they are no longer accessible through WSU’s learner portal pending a review.

What’s next?

These are some areas where I hope we can make progress in the coming year, which are of course informed by my status as a healthcare provider and as a medically masculinized female (or, transman) who cares about people thriving within their communities:

• Clinical research and training: More research into the longterm health outcomes of those who have medically undergone treatments for their gender dysphoria, to better understand under what circumstances the results were objectively positive, neutral or harmful. As well, more research into the benefits and potential harms of psychotherapy as a treatment for gender dysphoria. I hope we will see more even-handed training for clinicians of all kinds on the complexities surrounding gender-related healthcare.

• More good faith dialogue across difference: While for too long supporters of gender medicalization and those who oppose it have existed in siloes, largely viewing the other side as bigoted, the time has come for building bridges. Each side has its extremists but I believe most people are seeking better understanding. My hope is that the new year can pave the way for a coming together and a moving away from outrage politics. I very much would like to see more open, respectful dialogue among clinicians, researchers, journalists, and policy-makers.

• A commitment to medical and social inclusion of detransitioners: My hope is that those who choose to detransition will find more spaces to tell their stories in the public discourse about gender-related healthcare, so that treatment for all can improve. If it is true that some benefit from medicalization, while others are harmed, everyone benefits if we become better at telling these stories. Those who detransition deserve competent care and my hope is that the new year will pave the way for more honest discussions within healthcare circles, and among legacy LGBT organizations, on how best to support them.

• A commitment to a reality-based pluralism regarding gender. Because of my medico-legal transition, I am treated socially as a man in most of my day-to-day interactions, yet I accept that I am a medically masculinized female and do not seek to impose any particular language (e.g. pronouns) or viewpoint on others. While the conversations continue around whether transwomen / transmen are men or women, and under what circumstances, I hope as a society we can also hold space for individuals, wherever they stand on the gender discourse, to co-exist. I am not the same person now that I was 20+ years ago when I embarked on my gender transition. People change and beliefs change. What stays the same is that we are all human beings doing the best we can with the knowledge we have.

I’ll end with a quote, the author of which is beloved by many and deeply reviled by others. Regardless, she clearly articulates values I share: freedom of speech, freedom of inquiry, liberalism, pluralism, and non-violence.

“If you believe free speech is for you but not your political opponents, you're illiberal.
If no contrary evidence could change your beliefs, you're a fundamentalist.
If you believe the state should punish those with contrary views, you're a totalitarian.
If you believe political opponents should be punished with violence or death, you're a terrorist.”

I realize my hopes for 2026 might be wishful thinking. I dare to wish. This is my call for dialogue with dignity. Join me?

Happy New Year all.