How the Idea of Social Contagion Shaped Trans Medicine

This article traces the historical and political use of the metaphor of “social contagion” in trans medicine, arguing that the framing of transgender identity and medical transition as epidemic-like has long served to limit access to care and stigmatize trans people. The author documents how concerns about “contagion” rooted in early 20th-century debates over homosexuality and sustained by tropes of the “vulnerable child” were used to justify suppression of medical transition and public information. From media-fueled fears to restrictive diagnostic criteria, the article examines how medical gatekeeping, political ideology, and historical epistemic injustice have shaped care access. It critiques contemporary resurgence of these metaphors especially through the lens of “rapid-onset gender dysphoria” as politically driven rather than evidence-based. The author calls for inclusive research, respect for trans subjectivity, and critical reflection on how public discourse and medical authority can either affirm or undermine patient autonomy

This article traces the historical and political use of the metaphor of “social contagion” in trans medicine, arguing that the framing of transgender identity and medical transition as epidemic-like has long served to limit access to care and stigmatize trans people. The author documents how concerns about “contagion” rooted in early 20th-century debates over homosexuality and sustained by tropes of the “vulnerable child” were used to justify suppression of medical transition and public information. From media-fueled fears to restrictive diagnostic criteria, the article examines how medical gatekeeping, political ideology, and historical epistemic injustice have shaped care access. It critiques contemporary resurgence of these metaphors especially through the lens of “rapid-onset gender dysphoria” as politically driven rather than evidence-based. The author calls for inclusive research, respect for trans subjectivity, and critical reflection on how public discourse and medical authority can either affirm or undermine patient autonomy