Evolutionary biologist Colin Wright has ignited debate by asserting that the case of Jim Morris, a terminal cancer patient who began identifying as "Leela" under the influence of hormones and psychedelics, exposes the "intellectual bankruptcy" of contemporary gender ideology. Wright, a fellow at the Manhattan Institute and founding editor of Reality's Last Stand, argues that Morris's shifting identity undermines the central tenet that gender identity is innate and immutable, particularly when used to justify irreversible medical interventions for children.
Jim Morris, a 67-year-old man with terminal prostate cancer, reportedly underwent a profound shift in identity while on testosterone blockers and later, psychedelics. According to an LGBTQ Nation article, Morris embraced a "gender journey," adopting the name "Leela" and identifying as nonbinary, stating, "Cancer medication turned me nonbinary." This experience, detailed in a piece on Reality's Last Stand, describes Morris's initial adverse reactions to hormone therapy, followed by a period where he "leaned into" feminization and found a new sense of calm and love, culminating in his identification as Leela.
Wright contends that if an elderly man's identity can undergo such "dramatic and bizarre" changes due to external factors, it calls into question the notion that a child's "fleeting feelings" represent an "immutable truth" warranting permanent medical procedures. He criticizes the prevailing narrative that gender identity is fixed from an early age and should be affirmed with puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgeries. This perspective challenges the medical consensus, which often asserts a durable biological element underlying gender identity, though some scholars acknowledge fluidity.
The broader academic and legal discourse around gender identity's immutability is complex, with some legal frameworks defining gender identity as "as natural and immutable as being cisgender" to justify anti-discrimination protections. However, critics, including Wright, highlight that this legal and social interpretation often conflates gender non-conformity with a fixed "transgender identity," overlooking high desistance rates in childhood gender dysphoria. Concerns persist regarding the long-term outcomes and ethical implications of early medical interventions for minors, particularly given the lack of robust, long-term scientific data.
Wright consistently advocates for the biological reality of sex as binary, defined by gametes (sperm or ova), and critiques the expansion of the term "transgender" to encompass gender non-conformity. He argues that this broadened definition, coupled with the assertion of an immutable gender identity, creates a framework that can lead to unnecessary and potentially harmful medicalization, particularly for young people who might otherwise desist from gender dysphoria and identify as gay or lesbian adults. The debate underscores a fundamental tension between evolving social constructs of gender and traditional biological understandings of sex.