A Neurologist’s Perspective on Gender Identity 54%

By Christopher Wood0%

7/9/2026, 11:00:41 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 29 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority, Negativity Bias, and Availability Heuristic, with Ambiguity (Equivocation) as the most egregious example at 26.8% saturation with 103 hits. Analysis detected 1,036 faulty-reasoning hits from 384 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 52.5% and a BS Rank of 54% (10,062 of 21,886 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 54.00% of the article peer group.

Debates over what it means when someone who was born a girl claims to be a boy, or vice versa, have raged in recent years. 
Many activists and some experts assert that internally felt gender identity is determinative and indisputable, like the fact that water makes you wet. 
At the other end of the spectrum are those who regard claims of gender nonconformity as false and harmful beliefs. 
There is another condition in which the reliability of self-definition fails, one that intersects with transgender identification and gender nonconformity in interesting ways, but has much less notoriety. 
This is a condition I encounter regularly in my practice as a neurologist: Functional Neurological Disorder (FND), the current medical term of art for psychosomatic illness. 
It refers to a condition where someone experiences neurological symptoms that originate not in any physical damage to their nervous system, but in the subconscious mind. 
Psychosomatic illness, once known as hysteria, may sound like a vestigial branch of medicine, a condescending label used to explain away symptoms earlier generations of doctors couldn’t understand given their limited science. 
That is not the case. 
The concept of psychosomatic illness is alive and well, updated under the framework of FND. 
It is common and routinely diagnosed in clinics and hospitals. 
I estimate that between 5 and 10 percent of my new referrals are for patients with FND, and the literature suggests this rises to a quarter of patients at tertiary referral centers. 
Psychosomatic neurological illness is incredibly diverse and can manifest as shaking, migrating weakness, random body jerks, attacks of fainting or convulsions, pseudo tics, cognitive blocks, abnormal walking, facial contortions, and language disruptions, among other varieties. 
Its repertoire is nearly as broad as that of organic neurological illness. 
The current framework of FND has greatly sharpened the diagnostic accuracy of psychosomatic illness. 
Diagnosis rests on two pillars: first, determining that a patient’s symptoms are internally inconsistent, meaning they change or can be manipulated in ways that are not consistent with the structure of the nervous system, in particular changing when the patient is distracted; second, verifying that the symptoms are incongruent with known patterns of neuropathology. 
This framework is a powerful tool in the hands of a skilled clinician. 
“Many of my most interesting patients have FND.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 1.3%Christopher Wood: 2.1%Compact: 8.0%Confirmation Bias1.3%This article: 0.0%Christopher Wood: 0.0%Compact: 0.5%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 15.4%Christopher Wood: 11.4%Compact: 3.1%Availability Heuristic15.4%This article: 3.1%Christopher Wood: 0.8%Compact: 1.5%Representativeness Heuristic3.1%This article: 0.0%Christopher Wood: 2.1%Compact: 1.3%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 12.0%Christopher Wood: 5.4%Compact: 3.0%Overconfidence Bias12.0%This article: 13.8%Christopher Wood: 9.4%Compact: 5.2%Framing Effect13.8%This article: 0.0%Christopher Wood: 0.0%Compact: 0.3%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 3.9%Christopher Wood: 1.0%Compact: 0.5%Status Quo Bias3.9%This article: 0.0%Christopher Wood: 0.0%Compact: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Christopher Wood: 0.0%Compact: 2.7%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 8.3%Christopher Wood: 2.1%Compact: 1.7%Pessimism Bias8.3%This article: 20.8%Christopher Wood: 5.2%Compact: 7.2%Negativity Bias20.8%This article: 2.1%Christopher Wood: 0.5%Compact: 0.6%Self-Serving Bias2.1%This article: 0.0%Christopher Wood: 0.0%Compact: 1.5%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Christopher Wood: 0.0%Compact: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 5.2%Christopher Wood: 1.3%Compact: 2.6%In-Group Bias5.2%This article: 0.0%Christopher Wood: 0.0%Compact: 2.0%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 3.4%Christopher Wood: 0.8%Compact: 1.9%Halo Effect3.4%This article: 0.0%Christopher Wood: 0.0%Compact: 0.3%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Christopher Wood: 0.0%Compact: 0.1%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 6.5%Christopher Wood: 1.6%Compact: 1.3%Recency Bias6.5%This article: 0.0%Christopher Wood: 0.0%Compact: 0.8%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Christopher Wood: 0.0%Compact: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Christopher Wood: 0.0%Compact: 1.6%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 11.2%Christopher Wood: 5.6%Compact: 2.1%Straw Man11.2%This article: 24.0%Christopher Wood: 9.6%Compact: 3.6%Appeal to Authority24.0%This article: 5.2%Christopher Wood: 3.9%Compact: 2.8%False Dilemma5.2%This article: 0.0%Christopher Wood: 0.0%Compact: 1.7%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 14.1%Christopher Wood: 3.5%Compact: 0.5%Circular Reasoning14.1%This article: 8.3%Christopher Wood: 3.9%Compact: 13.1%Hasty Generalization8.3%This article: 0.0%Christopher Wood: 0.0%Compact: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Christopher Wood: 0.0%Compact: 0.8%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 10.4%Christopher Wood: 2.6%Compact: 4.8%Appeal to Emotion10.4%This article: 8.6%Christopher Wood: 4.0%Compact: 2.1%Begging the Question8.6%This article: 3.6%Christopher Wood: 0.9%Compact: 4.6%Post Hoc (False Cause)3.6%This article: 0.0%Christopher Wood: 0.0%Compact: 0.3%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Christopher Wood: 0.0%Compact: 0.6%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Christopher Wood: 0.0%Compact: 0.9%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 3.1%Christopher Wood: 0.8%Compact: 1.0%Composition/Division3.1%This article: 8.9%Christopher Wood: 8.6%Compact: 2.1%Anecdotal8.9%This article: 0.0%Christopher Wood: 0.0%Compact: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 26.8%Christopher Wood: 8.4%Compact: 1.8%Ambiguity (Equivocation)26.8%This article: 0.0%Christopher Wood: 0.0%Compact: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 7.3%Christopher Wood: 1.8%Compact: 0.2%Middle Ground7.3%This article: 8.3%Christopher Wood: 2.1%Compact: 0.1%Personal Incredulity8.3%This article: 0.0%Christopher Wood: 0.0%Compact: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Christopher Wood: 0.0%Compact: 0.5%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 2.1%Christopher Wood: 1.0%Compact: 1.9%Unattributed Quote2.1%This article: 9.4%Christopher Wood: 3.8%Compact: 1.5%Quote-first Misdirection9.4%This article: 14.3%Christopher Wood: 9.8%Compact: 13.0%Biased Writer Voice14.3%This article: 0.0%Christopher Wood: 0.0%Compact: 2.5%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Christopher Wood: 0.0%Compact: 1.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Christopher Wood: 0.0%Compact: 5.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 8.3%Christopher Wood: 2.1%Compact: 0.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…8.3%

384 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.