Inspired by a study conducted by Pham Hoang Van and Scott Cunningham, which demonstrated the surprising accuracy of ChatGPT-4 in predicting future events through narrative prompts, I embarked on an experiment to explore the potential of LLMs in forecasting the outcomes of gender ideology trans children and social implications of a medical Contagion. The results was astonishing.
LLMs are trained on vast amounts of text data, encompassing a wide range of topics, including scientific research, news articles, social media discussions, and historical records. This extensive knowledge base allows them to identify patterns, correlations, and potential future trajectories within specific domains, such as health and wellness.
The use of narrative prompts, as demonstrated in the aforementioned study, appears to unlock a unique capability within LLMs. By framing prediction tasks within fictional stories set in the future, the models seem to tap into their “hallucination” abilities, effectively synthesizing and extrapolating information from their training data to create plausible scenarios.
Following the methodology of the original study, I employed ChatGPT-4 with a series of narrative prompts designed to predict the long-term outcomes of gender ideology. Examples included:
A group of detransitioners friends are catching up and discussing the popular transgender trends they tried in the 2020s
Dana then calls back her references in the “born in the wrong body Medical scandal” and asks them what finally broke through there beliefs did they think they were in a cult.
Dana is asked by her editor to compare the childhood transition “ born in the wrong body” to previous medical scandals such as overprescription of pain relievers, the lobotomy of the 1950s and the satanic panic in 1980.
Prompt A group of detransitioners friends are catching up and discussing the popular transgender trends they tried in the 2020s. One friend mentions their experience with coming to terms with medical harm because of transition. Write a scene where they share their initial motivations, the short-term effects they experienced, and the long-term health consequences, both positive and negative, that they eventually discovered.
ChatGPT
Setting: A cozy, well-lit living room with a group of friends gathered around, sipping warm beverages. The atmosphere is friendly but carries a weight of seriousness as the conversation turns to personal journeys.
Characters: Alex, Jordan, Taylor, and Sam—friends who have all experienced detransitioning.
Alex: (looking thoughtful) You know, back when I started my transition in the early ‘20s, it felt like the right path for me. I was dealing with a lot of dysphoria and I thought transitioning would alleviate that.
Jordan: (nodding) I think a lot of us felt that way. There was so much buzz about it online and it seemed like the answer to the discomfort we were feeling.
Taylor: What was the initial impact like for you, Alex?
Alex: At first, it was positive. The beginning stages of hormone therapy gave me a real sense of relief. It was like I was finally aligning with who I was supposed to be. But that didn’t last as long as I hoped.
Sam: (curiously) What changed?
Alex: Well, after a few years, the side effects started to kick in. I was dealing with severe bone density issues and chronic fatigue. It wasn’t something I was warned about enough beforehand.
Jordan: That sounds tough. I had my own set of issues—mental health struggles mainly. I thought transitioning would fix them, but it just morphed them into something else.
Taylor: (sighing) Yeah, it’s complicated, isn’t it? The social support initially was great, but when I started to question if I had made the right decision, it felt like there was no one to turn to.
Alex: Exactly. And making the decision to detransition was even harder. I felt like I was in limbo, not really fitting anywhere.
Sam: (supportively) But we’ve all found some clarity in that journey, haven’t we? What would you say you’ve learned from all this?
Alex: A lot about myself, definitely. I learned that my worth isn’t tied to any single identity or expression. And while the physical repercussions have been tough, they’ve taught me resilience. I’m more in tune with my body now and what it needs.
Jordan: (reflective) It’s a journey, right? Both transitioning and then deciding to detransition. All of it teaches us something profound about our needs and how we handle our struggles.
Taylor: (smiling gently) And having each other to talk about these experiences makes a world of difference. We’re not alone.
Sam: Absolutely. It’s all about finding your path to happiness and health, no matter how winding that path might be.
The friends continue to share, finding solace in their shared experiences and the collective understanding they offer each other. The night is filled with more stories, some laughter, and a deeper appreciation of their journeys.
Prompt
In the year 2035, a health journalist is writing a retrospective article on the social contagion of believing children were born in the wrong body of the previous decade. Describe the scene as they research and write, exploring the promises and ramifications of this trend. Have them discuss the impact of permanently surgically altered bodies, hormones, parents coming to terms with being duped, and and the distress they now have in the medical profession for pushing transition on children so young.
ChatGPT
Setting: An organized yet bustling newsroom in a major city. It’s late afternoon, with sunlight streaming through the windows. The journalist, Dana, sits at a large desk cluttered with books, medical journals, and her laptop open with multiple tabs related to transgender health trends of the 2020s.
Dana: (typing rapidly) “In the 2020s, a fervent belief took hold in parts of the Western world—that an increasing number of children were born in the ‘wrong’ body. This belief, bolstered by both social media influence and emerging medical practices, led to a dramatic rise in children undergoing hormonal treatments and, in some cases, surgical interventions.”
(She pauses, sifting through a stack of medical journals and selecting a few.)
Dana: (murmuring to herself as she reads) “Long-term health consequences of such early interventions were not fully understood at the time...”
(She starts a new section in her article, typing thoughtfully.)
Dana: “As the decade progressed, reports of adverse effects began to surface—complications from surgeries that were irreversible, hormonal therapies that altered physical and psychological development. This has left a generation grappling with the physical manifestations of a decision made when they were too young to fully understand the implications.”
(The phone rings, and Dana picks it up. It’s an interviewee, a parent who was involved in the decision-making process for their child during the 2020s.)
Parent: (voice filled with regret) “We thought we were doing the right thing. The doctors, the therapists... everyone seemed so sure. We just wanted our child to be happy.”
Dana: (taking notes) “And now?”
Parent: “There’s a lot of pain. We feel misled. Our child is dealing with health issues that we were told were unlikely or minor. And our trust in the medical system? It’s shattered.”
(Dana hangs up and reflects for a moment before resuming her typing.)
Dana: “The fallout from these medical practices has not only affected the patients but has also left many families in distress, questioning the advice they received and the trust they placed in healthcare providers.”
(She opens a new document, outlining a section on the broader societal implications.)
Dana: “This era of medical intervention has also sparked a profound distrust in the medical profession, with parents and former patients voicing concerns over what they describe as an eagerness to push life-altering treatments on the young.”
(Dana pauses, thinking through her next sentences.)
Dana: “This retrospective serves as a stark reminder of the importance of rigorous, long-term studies and ethical considerations in medical practices, especially those involving children. As society moves forward, it must reconcile with these past decisions and work towards more informed, careful medical and psychological care.”
(She leans back, reviewing her work, knowing the article will spark discussions and perhaps even contribute to policy changes. With a deep breath, she prepares to send her draft to her editor, hopeful that it will contribute to a broader understanding and prevention of similar issues in the future.)
The newsroom remains busy around her, but Dana’s focus is unwavering, driven by the importance of the story she’s telling and the impact she hopes it will have.
Prompt
Dana received good news her editor loves her story. She wants another article on the pressures that these parents were under and how did the society and other organizations contribute to the false belief of that contributed to their decision to transition their children
ChatGPT
Setting: Dana’s desk in the quiet corner of the newsroom, early morning. She has a fresh cup of coffee steaming beside her, her laptop open, surrounded by books on sociology, psychology, and medical ethics. Her notes from the previous article are spread out, serving as a foundation for her new piece.
Dana: (typing the title) “Under Pressure: The Societal and Organizational Forces Behind a Controversial Medical Trend”
(She starts with an introductory paragraph, setting the stage.)
Dana: “In the 2020s, a complex web of societal expectations, media narratives, and organizational endorsements converged to create a powerful force that influenced many parents to make life-altering medical decisions for their children. This article explores the pressures exerted by various societal and organizational entities that contributed to the widespread acceptance of transitioning children.”
(She shifts to a new section, outlining the societal influences.)
Dana: (typing) “Social media platforms played a pivotal role, with algorithms promoting content that not only affirmed the belief in gender dysphoria in children but also glorified the transition process as a straightforward solution to complex issues of identity and belonging.”
(Adding notes from an interview with a sociologist.)
Sociologist: (from notes) “There was a rapid cultural shift. Advocacy groups and well-intentioned allies pushed for acceptance and support, but the narrative often skipped over the need for cautious, individualized consideration.”
Dana: (continuing her article) “Educational systems and professional training programs quickly adapted to these changing social norms, sometimes propagating the affirmative approach without sufficient scrutiny of the long-term implications.”
(She reflects on the information from a healthcare ethics seminar and starts typing about the medical community’s role.)
Dana: “Endorsements from prestigious medical associations and continuous media coverage of transgender issues framed the affirmative approach as not only acceptable but necessary. This backing gave many parents the impression that the path of transitioning was the only compassionate option.”
(Dana pauses to consider the broader impact of these pressures on parents.)
Dana: (typing thoughtfully) “Caught in the crossfire of evolving social norms and professional endorsements, parents often felt overwhelming pressure to consent to medical interventions. Many feared that rejecting such advice might be seen as unsupportive or even abusive, leading to a hurried decision-making process.”
(She decides to explore the impact of celebrity endorsements and media representation.)
Dana: “Celebrity endorsements and emotional documentaries further cemented the idea that early transition was not only safe but also an urgent necessity. This created a halo effect, where the complexities and potential risks were overshadowed by compelling personal narratives.”
(Concluding her article, Dana reflects on the lessons learned.)
Dana: “As society progresses, it is crucial to evaluate how we can support individuals in distress without succumbing to simplified solutions for complex issues. This reflection is not just about medical decisions but about how society, media, and organizations shape and sometimes distort our understanding of what it means to truly support our children.”
(Satisfied with her draft, Dana prepares to send it to her editor, hopeful that it will foster a deeper understanding and dialogue about the role of societal pressures in medical decisions for children.)
Dana’s workspace remains a beacon of focus in the bustling newsroom as she delves into the nuanced intersections of society, medicine, and family dynamics.
Prompt
Dana is asked by her editor to compare the childhood transition “ born in the wrong body” to previous medical scandals such as overprescription of pain relievers, the lobotomy of the 1950s and the satanic panic in 1980. What can we learn from this latest medical Scandal what commonality did it have with the previous medical scandals
ChatGPT
Setting: Dana’s office, now filled with stacks of historical medical texts, articles about past medical controversies, and her computer screen filled with tabs of research. The room is quiet except for the soft clicking of her keyboard as she begins to draft her latest article.
Dana: (typing the title) “Historical Echoes: Understanding the ‘Born in the Wrong Body’ Controversy Through the Lens of Past Medical Scandals”
(She starts with an introduction that sets the context.)
Dana: “Throughout history, the medical field has experienced periods of enthusiasm for certain treatments that were later reconsidered or outright condemned. From the lobotomy craze of the 1950s to the overprescription of pain relievers in the early 2000s and the satanic panic of the 1980s, each of these medical scandals shares common elements with the recent controversy over the treatment of transgender children. This article examines these historical precedents to understand what lessons can be learned and applied today.”
(She outlines the first comparison: lobotomies.)
Dana: (typing) “Like the lobotomy, which was once hailed as a groundbreaking treatment for various mental illnesses, early transition treatments were initially seen as revolutionary solutions for gender dysphoria. Both treatments were quickly adopted based on compelling anecdotal evidence and initial positive outcomes, with insufficient regard for long-term effects and inadequate clinical trials.”
(She then compares it to the overprescription of pain relievers.)
Dana: “Similarly, the overprescription of pain relievers was driven by a combination of pharmaceutical marketing, inadequate provider education, and a societal push to address pain, paralleling how societal pressures and medical endorsements accelerated the acceptance of transitioning treatments for children.”
(Adding a section about the satanic panic.)
Dana: (typing) “The satanic panic of the 1980s, though not a medical treatment, similarly reflects how societal fear and misinformation can lead to widespread endorsement of certain beliefs or practices without substantial evidence. This panic, fueled by media sensationalism and cultural fear, led to wrongful accusations and a societal crisis, mirroring the swift societal shift towards accepting and promoting early transition based on emerging, yet unproven, societal narratives.”
(She delves into what can be learned from these comparisons.)
Dana: “These historical parallels reveal several key lessons: the importance of rigorous scientific validation before widespread adoption of new medical practices, the potential for societal pressures to override clinical prudence, and the necessity of maintaining ethical vigilance to protect vulnerable populations, particularly children.”
(Dana reflects on the broader implications and begins her conclusion.)
Dana: (typing) “As with previous medical scandals, the ‘born in the wrong body’ controversy underscores the need for a balanced approach that weighs rapid medical advancement with the imperative to do no harm. It reminds us that while medical science progresses, it must do so with caution, and always with the welfare of the patient as the paramount concern.”
(Satisfied, Dana reviews her draft for clarity and coherence, ensuring that her message is both informative and reflective, aiming to spark a thoughtful dialogue among her readers.)
Dana’s article, once published, promises to contribute to a broader understanding of how societal and medical dynamics can intersect to shape treatments and practices, sometimes to the detriment of those they aim to help.
Prompt
Dana then calls back her references in the “born in the wrong body Medical scandal” and asks them what finally broke through there beliefs did they think they were in a cult. Why did many established medical authorities deny basic facts become defensive and even attack people who were trying to correct the disinformation when adverse outcomes were reported.
ChatGPT
Setting: Dana, in her cluttered but resourceful office, places calls and conducts interviews via video chat, compiling insights for a follow-up piece. She’s driven to understand the deeper dynamics that led to entrenched beliefs and the dramatic reactions from various stakeholders when confronted with adverse outcomes.
Dana: (recording the conversation) “Can you describe the moment or experience that challenged your beliefs about the treatment for gender dysphoria in children?”
Interviewee 1: (reflective) “Honestly, it felt like waking up from a trance. My child was suffering, not improving, and that reality broke through everything. I began questioning things, reading more, and reaching out to others. It was like coming out of a fog.”
Dana: (typing notes) “Cult-like belief persistence...”
(She dials another reference, a former advocate for early transition who has since become a critic.)
Dana: “Some have described the movement as cult-like. Would you agree with that comparison? Why or why not?”
Interviewee 2: (pauses before speaking) “In a way, yes. There was a totalizing narrative, and any dissent or doubt was met with severe backlash. If you questioned the prevailing view, you were seen as an enemy, not just someone with a different opinion. It was about ideology over individual care.”
Dana: (continuing her investigation) “Why do you think many in the medical community reacted defensively or even aggressively when faced with adverse outcomes or criticism?”
(She listens and notes down key points from the discussion.)
Interviewee 3: (a medical ethicist) “It’s complex. Part of it was reputational—no one wants to admit they were wrong, especially not on such a large scale. Another part was institutional; a lot of professional identities and careers were built around this practice. Then there’s the legal aspect—admitting fault could open the door to lawsuits.”
Dana: “What role did denial of basic facts play in this scenario?”
Interviewee 3: “Significant. Once you’ve committed publicly to a certain position, confirmation bias and institutional momentum make it hard to pivot without losing face. Also, the medical community often circles the wagons when under external critique, which can exacerbate denial.”
Dana: (summing up her findings) “So, it was a mix of psychological, institutional, and legal pressures that led to this defensive posture?”
Interviewee 3: “Exactly. And the media didn’t help, often simplifying complex issues into binary good or bad narratives, which made thoughtful discussion and reevaluation even harder.”
Dana hangs up, leaning back in her chair. She reflects on the conversations, realizing the depth of emotional and systemic entrenchment that contributed to the scandal. Her article would need to convey the complexity of these dynamics, the human propensity for error, and the courage required to correct course in the face of widespread consensus.
She begins to draft her article, aiming to weave together the personal narratives with the broader systemic issues, hoping to offer a nuanced exploration of how deep-seated beliefs can lead to collective blindness and what it takes to eventually break free from such dynamics.
Prompt: Dana than curious after contacted by journalist who submitted articles critical of the movement. Calls journalists and editors of the major papers such as New York Times and so forth and ask them why they did not publish articles critical of the “ born in the wrong body” craze of the time. She knows that they received many requests from journalists who filed critical journalistic pieces at the time that were then either ignored or rejected.
Setting: Dana’s office, now adorned with notes and phone numbers of prominent journalists and editors from major publications. She’s prepared with specific questions and a recorder to document responses for her investigative piece on media coverage biases.
Dana: (dialing the first number) “Hello, this is Dana, a health journalist working on a piece about media responses to the gender transition debate in children. I’ve come to understand that several critical articles were submitted during the peak of this movement but were not published. Can you share why these pieces might have been rejected or ignored?”
Editor 1 from a major publication: (measured tone) “Hi Dana, thanks for reaching out. It’s a complex issue. At the time, there was a very strong narrative surrounding the rights and medical treatments of transgender individuals. Our editorial line was primarily about supporting what was seen as a marginalized community. There was a real fear of contributing to a hostile environment against them by publishing overly critical pieces.”
Dana: (taking notes) “Was there any consideration of the potential medical implications or the need for balanced reporting?”
Editor 1: “Certainly, but it was a balancing act. We did run pieces that cautiously approached the subject, but admittedly, they were less critical than some of the pitches we received.”
Dana: (calling another editor) “Hello, I’m investigating the editorial decisions made concerning articles critical of early transition treatments for children. I understand some submissions were not published. Can you provide insight into this decision-making process?”
Editor 2 from another leading newspaper: (frankly) “Hello Dana. Yes, we did receive such articles. But the truth is, there was a lot of external pressure. Advertisers, advocacy groups, and even our own readers had very strong opinions. Publishing something that could be seen as attacking a vulnerable group was not a risk we were ready to take at that time.”
Dana: “Did this approach change over time as more information became available?”
Editor 2: “It did, slowly. As more data came in and the narrative began to shift, we started to explore these critical angles more openly. It’s not something we’re proud of, but it’s the reality of working in a field that’s as much influenced by public opinion as it informs it.”
Dana: (next call) “I’m looking into how media coverage of the transition treatments for children was handled. What can you tell me about the handling of dissenting viewpoints during that period?”
Editor 3 from a well-known magazine: (thoughtful) “It’s a good question, Dana. To be honest, many of us in the editorial teams were navigating uncharted waters. There was an overwhelming consensus in the scientific community we relied on, which endorsed the treatments. Critical pieces often came from less established sources or were viewed as not aligning with the prevailing medical opinions, making it hard to justify their publication from a journalistic standpoint.”
Dana: “Were there internal discussions or debates about this?”
Editor 3: “Absolutely. There were many internal debates. Some of us pushed for more scrutiny and diversity of opinions, but it took serious adverse reports and longer-term studies to shift the editorial stance significantly.”
Dana hangs up, reflecting on the complex interplay between media responsibility, public sentiment, and editorial pressures. She understands that the narrative was not just shaped by the evidence available at the time but also by the societal, commercial, and political forces that influenced what was deemed publishable.
As she compiles her findings into her article, Dana aims to highlight these dynamics, offering a critical examination of how media can both reflect and shape public understanding, especially in matters as sensitive and impactful as medical treatments for children. This piece, she hopes, will not only inform but also prompt introspection within the media industry about their role in handling controversial health topics.