What Covid “Lab Leak” and “Rushing Kids into Transition” Have in Common
and more general thoughts about conspiracy theories and negativity bias
Note: I did not intend for this essay to come out the day the United States v. Skrmetti Supreme Court decision dropped. But I suppose it is fitting since it’s a consequence of the phenomenon I describe here.
A couple months ago, I was listening to a podcast I regularly enjoy. The hosts are smart and well-read and often insightful in their analyses—I feel like I have learned a lot from them over the years. Which is why I was caught off guard when, during a recent episode, they gave credence to the Covid “lab leak” theory. While they did not fully endorse the theory per se, they portrayed it as quite plausible. More to the point, they played up the idea that there was a mass “cover up” to prevent people from “learning the facts” in the case, and that rather than media “suppressing the truth,” journalists should instead be allowed to “just ask questions” about these issues (these are not verbatim quotes, but rather paraphrases of the arguments made).
Notably, despite claiming that they wanted a full airing of the facts, they made zero attempt to accurately tell the other side of the story. In reality, experts in the field of virology have come to a consensus that the SARS-CoV-2 virus did not originate in a laboratory, and is most likely zoonotic in origin—that is, it jumped from another species to humans, as viruses often do—yet these facts and the multiple lines of evidence to support them were conspicuously absent from their retelling of this tale.
The purpose of this essay is not to convince you of this. If you are skeptical about the case for zoonosis over “lab leak,” I’d encourage you to listen to the recent If Books Could Kill podcast episode The Lab Leak Goes Mainstream, which debunks many of the theory’s most common talking points that the media has regurgitated over the last year or two. And if you want to delve deeper into the science on this matter, I highly recommend This Week in Virology (TWIV)’s episode How the pandemic began in Nature, in 5 key points (published in response to a 2024 New York Times pro-“lab leak” op-ed). The show notes for that episode also include links to eight previous TWIV episodes (dating back to 2021) where they covered this topic from various angles.
Instead, what I want to do in this essay is highlight the striking parallels between the Covid “lab leak” theory and what I will call the “rushing kids into transition” theory.
As with all conspiracy theories, these are both comprised of numerous “sub-theories” that proponents may vacillate between, even though they are often incompatible with one another. This makes debating these conspiracy theories exhausting, because as soon as you successfully counter one talking point, proponents will pivot: “okay, but what about X (or Y or Z) then?”
The sub-theories for “lab leak” (e.g., was the leaked virus a sample collected from the wild, or a gain-of-function experiment gone awry, or an intentional Chinese bioweapon) are addressed in the aforementioned podcasts. The sub-theories that comprise “rushing kids into transition” include claims that gender-affirming care is experimental and untested, that kids today are being “turned trans” due to “social contagion/ROGD” or “grooming,” that “young autistic girls” are especially susceptible, that most of these kids are “really gay or lesbian” and will eventually “grow out of it,” and/or that large numbers of these kids have since detransitioned. Each of those links will take you to a well-referenced essay that refutes the sub-theory in question.
In addition to being comprised of many sub-theories, Covid “lab leak” and “rushing kids into transition” are also strikingly similar in how they originated and gradually became legitimized by mainstream media, and in how otherwise intelligent people seem to become highly invested in these theories (and the idea that there must be some kind of “cover up” to prevent us from “learning the truth”) no matter how much evidence you provide them to the contrary.
Normally, I would run through all these parallels before providing my conclusions. But in this case, I think it will make much more sense if I provide my explanation for what is driving these similarities from the outset: There is a well-studied human cognitive bias, often called negativity bias, that refers to our tendency to dwell more on negative outcomes than positive or neutral ones, and to attribute negative (but not positive or neutral) outcomes to some external agent (reviewed in Rozin & Royzman, 2001; Morewedge, 2009). Or to put it another way, we often presume that positive or neutral events occur naturally or inexplicably, whereas negative events must have been caused by something or someone.
Here is a mundane example: If you were to drive home from work without incident, nobody would care or give it a second thought. It would be considered a taken-for-granted outcome and nobody would expect you to provide an account of how or why it happened. But if you got into an accident on your way home, well, then we would all want to know why and how it happened. You couldn’t say “I don’t know, I just got into an accident”—nobody would take that answer seriously, because something must have caused the accident! And if you do not provide an explanation that is satisfactory in our eyes, people will likely attribute causes or motives for you: Perhaps another driver cut you off? Or maybe you were speeding? Or drinking? Or fell asleep at the wheel?
Here is a pertinent example: Most people turn out to be heterosexual and cisgender—this is widely viewed as a positive or neutral outcome that requires no explanation. If you happen to have turned out this way, I’ll bet nobody has ever asked you “How do you know that you’re really straight?” or “What caused you to be straight?” LGBTQ+ people, on the other hand, are routinely asked these questions: We must either be “confused” (read: not really what we say we are) or else something “bad” must have “caused” us to turn out this way.
There is a consensus among contemporary gender and sexuality researchers that LGBTQ+ people arise as a part of natural variation—we inexplicably spring up in families and communities regardless of our upbringings (for more on this, please consult my video Trans People and Biological Sex: What the Science Says). While many straight people theoretically understand this, they sometimes apply this knowledge asymmetrically. For instance, they may accept that lesbian and gay people arise naturally, but doubt that this is true for trans people (quite possibly because they view “transgender” as a far more negative outcome than “gay”).
Or sometimes people who theoretically understand that LGBTQ+ people arise naturally will rescind that belief when someone close to them (such as their child) comes out. One interpretation of this is that, because they feel personally negatively impacted, they may presume their child’s queerness must have been caused by some external agent (e.g., their child must be keeping “bad company” or been influenced by “gender ideology”), whereas they wouldn’t think twice if it were someone else’s child (as that doesn’t negatively impact them).
In my Anti-Trans “Grooming” and “Social Contagion” Claims Explained essay, I open with a long list of previously proposed “causes” of transness, some of which might strike the average layperson as plausible (e.g., peer pressure among children, or feminizing hormones in the environment) while others might seem blatantly preposterous (e.g., a cabal of Jewish billionaires or Big Pharma orchestrating the whole thing). If you fall into the former camp, then you will likely make a distinction between critical thinkers like yourself who are “just asking questions” and “considering all the evidence,” and the unhinged conspiracists who have clearly fallen all the way down the rabbit hole. But I would argue that this is a difference in degree rather than kind.
While both of you may favor different theories (or sub-theories), you may nevertheless be similarly driven by negativity bias, wherein your pet theories provide the necessary “external agent” that must have “caused the negative outcome” in your minds. This negativity bias may also explain why both of you are skeptical of any evidence (whether anecdotal, peer-reviewed, or expert consensus) that suggests that a person’s transness is legitimate and likely occurred naturally or inexplicably.
Similar dynamics can be found with regards to the Covid. While many people theoretically understand that viruses arise naturally and inexplicably (via evolution and zoonosis), as soon as we are personally negatively impacted—especially to the degree that we all were during the COVID-19 pandemic—negativity bias will surely kick in. The external agent in this case could be local: “I must have caught the virus from that person who was coughing at the restaurant.” But the idea that the entire pandemic was caused by some external agent (a scientist who was careless, or a nation that intended to harm us) is understandably appealing.
So that is what I believe is going on. And with negativity bias in mind, here are some of the parallels that seem obvious to me (given my somewhat unique vantage point on these two particular issues) between how the Covid “lab leak” and “rushing kids into transition” conspiracy theories have played out:
1) Experts in these respective fields came to a consensus outside of most people’s purview.
I have been covering trans-related research and healthcare since the 2000s—I’ve read many journal articles and attended many trans health conferences over those decades. In this essay (with over 100 references), I provide a timeline of how the gender-affirmative model slowly but surely garnered consensus, both because it was shown to be efficacious and also because all other competing theories and therapies failed to pan out.
In the case of SARS-CoV-2, I am a biologist with training in molecular biology, genetics, and evolution. During the pandemic, I regularly kept up with new developments regarding the virus in scientific journals, as well as by reading and listening to science-based outlets like TWIV. There was an open discussion and an airing of facts among virologists over those first couple years. And gradually, as more and more information became available, they came to a consensus, based on both a lack of credible evidence for a lab leak, and multiple lines of evidence for zoonosis (as discussed in the aforementioned podcasts).
2) Covid “lab leak” and “rushing kids into transition” did not garner momentum at first because they were initially pushed by conspiracy theorists with obvious agendas
As discussed in The Lab Leak Goes Mainstream episode, early adopters of the “lab leak” theory were almost entirely Trumpists and other right-wing conspiracists who wanted to demonize China. Similarly, many of the “rushing kids into transition” talking points were invented on anti-trans parent websites and were quickly picked up by right-wing media outlets that promote an explicitly anti-LGBTQ+ agenda.
The average reader may not be aware of this early conspiracism, just as they likely never heard about how the expert consensuses were formed. But lay audiences would eventually be introduced to these conspiracy theories once . . .
3) A new wave of “experts” came on the scene wielding correlations and negativity bias
I put “expert” in quotes here partly because (with a few exceptions) these are not typically experts in the field in question (virology or trans healthcare). However, they may claim expertise more generally as scientists, doctors, academics, journalists, cultural critics, pundits, etc. The fact that these “experts” come from outside the field is not inherently damning. For instance, while I was never formally trained in gender studies or trans healthcare, I’ve spent many years reading, researching, and following these fields, so I feel capable of expressing informed opinions about of them. However, these particular “experts” tend to do two things that especially warrant me putting the word “expert” in scare quotes.
First, they ignore or dismiss the history of the field, especially how and why the previous consensus was formed. From these “experts’” perspective, the story almost always begins when they first appeared on the scene.
For instance, “rushing kids into transition” articles, news stories, etc., almost always begin with the sudden “mysterious” appearance of trans kids today and how doctors are just writing them prescriptions for puberty blockers and hormones without questioning their identities. This not only caricatures the gender-affirmative model, but it ignores over a half century of perpetual psychoanalysis, conversion therapies, strict gatekeeping, and many other protocols that did not work and actually caused trans youth and adults much harm. Furthermore, the notion that trans kids have suddenly “appeared” as if from out of nowhere ignores the fact that trans youth have always existed, it’s just that all those past protocols actively worked to disappear us from public view (either by forcing us into the closet, suicide, or dictating that we must live “stealth” if allowed to transition).
Pro-“lab leak” articles, news stories, etc., almost always begin in 2019 (the year the pandemic began) and rarely mention basic general facts about virus evolution and the role that zoonosis often plays. For instance, virologists believe that the virus that caused the original SARS outbreak in the early 2000s naturally arose in bats, then jumped to humans (likely via an intermediate species) in an animal market in southeastern China. These details are very similar to the scientific consensus regarding how SARS-CoV-2 originated—in other words, this has happened before—but you would never know this from listening to faux “experts” who start telling their rendition of the story in 2019.
The second thing these “experts” tend to do is ignore the principle of correlation does not imply causation. I cannot tell you how many times I’ve heard “lab leak” promoters say, “Did you know that Wuhan [where the COVID-19 pandemic started] has a research facility that studies coronaviruses?!?” as though this, in and of itself, is some kind of “smoking gun.” Of course, if you know anything about the original SARS outbreak, then it’s not that surprising that a major Chinese city like Wuhan would have a research facility that studies this class of viruses.
Faux “experts” who promote “rushing kids into transition” also tout correlations (and even mere anecdotes) as though they are “smoking guns.” Sometimes they will share statistics showing increases in the number of kids who identify as trans and jump to the conclusion that “social contagion” must be occurring (it’s not, see link). Or they will interview a few people who have detransitioned and insinuate that this must be happening to large numbers of trans kids (it’s not, see link).
So what drives these faux “experts” to dedicate so much time to these matters? Well, some of them may be the same conspiracists/anti-trans activists from point #2 above who are trying to come across as more “respectable” for mainstream audiences. Others may be grifters who, upon seeing these theories catch on (see next point), have decided to get in on the action.
But many of them are likely driven by negativity bias: They are convinced that something must have “caused” the imagined “bad” outcome and they feel compelled to get to the bottom of it. And no matter how much evidence you provide showing that the event in question most likely occurred naturally or inexplicably, it will always pale in comparison to any correlation or anecdote they can rustle up that suggests the presence of an external agent that set the negative event into motion.
4) The mainstream media snowball effect
Editors of mainstream media outlets who were once wary of publishing anything about “lab leak” theory back when it was largely promoted by Alex Jones types, or “rushing kids into transition” back when it was pushed chiefly by anti-trans/LGBTQ+ activists, now have “respectable experts” whom they can platform.
But why platform them at all? Well, in some cases, the editor may have an agenda of their own. Perhaps they (or their higher-ups) believe in the conspiracy theory, so publishing a reasonable-sounding “just asking questions” story allows them to disseminate these ideas without coming across as conspiratorialist themselves. Or in cases where the conspiracy theory is championed by one of two major political parties, editors may want to publish the story out of a sense of bothsidesism.
But even when editors are not acting upon a preconceived agenda, there are several aspects of these stories that are likely to entice them, as well as eventual audiences. First, stories that claim to uncover “new evidence that challenges the established consensus” will always be viewed (by editors and audiences alike) as “sexier” than stories that detail yet another piece of evidence that supports the existing consensus. Second, since we all harbor negativity bias, “lab leak” and “rushing kids into transition” stories will likely resonate with editors and audiences, who may come away thinking: “I always thought it was strange that there were suddenly so many trans kids, this article explains why!” or “The pandemic seemed to just come out of nowhere, so it makes sense that China was secretly behind it!”
In addition to not being aware of their own negativity bias, most people don’t know much about these particular scientific fields. So if the faux “expert” begins talking about furin cleavage sites or 80 percent desistance, the average person is likely to take these technical-sounding arguments at face value, since they cannot determine the veracity of these claims themselves. As a result, both editors and audiences may come away feeling like they learned a lot from the author when, in reality, they were spoon-fed a one-sided rendition of the story.
Once the story is published, it is likely to garner significant attention. Lay audiences may appreciate (and share) the story because it appeals to their own negativity bias. The conspiracy theorists who have been pushing these ideas for years will loudly laud the story and cite it as “proof” that they were right all along. And people who have familiarity with the field in question may strongly object to it or pen more lengthy critiques or rebuttals. While it is important to counter such misinformation, some of these latter efforts may inadvertently generate more attention for the original story.
This is where the snowball effect kicks in: The success of one such story will inevitably lead to others, as more and more media outlets join the fray. And the more stories like this that come out, the more that general audiences will view the topic as “controversial”—it is now a public “debate” that everyone feels free to participate in. Pundits who know literally nothing about the subject will confidently publish opinion pieces about it. And if you’re a writer (or podcaster, or YouTuber, etc.) who is trying to break through and raise your profile, perhaps you will give the topic a whirl too.
Here is an anecdote that I’ve told before that helps capture the ensuing feeding frenzy: In 2019, a year after The Atlantic published a high-profile “rushing kids into transition” cover story that led to countless copycat pieces, a journalist from a mainstream media outlet asked to interview me about my recent essay critiquing “ROGD” (a sub-theory of “social contagion”). During our phone call, I methodically addressed every pro-“ROGD” talking point she raised. Then suddenly out of nowhere, she began asking me questions about trans people and restrooms—a topic that has absolutely nothing to do with “ROGD” (other than they both involve trans people). So I patiently answered those questions as well. But then she pivoted yet again to another unrelated topic: trans people and sports.
It was clear at that point that she was merely fishing for a “sexy” “controversial” trans-related story. I don’t think she ever ended up publishing such a piece (thankfully). But many other writers did and continue to do so. And it’s quite clear in retrospect that all the “rushing kids into transition” stories of the late 2010s opened the floodgates to more and more “just asking questions about trans people” stories more generally. And this media onslaught has had very real negative consequences. As of today, twenty-six U.S. states have passed bans on gender-affirming care, impacting 39.4 percent of the country’s trans youth. And “rushing kids into transition” stories published in mainstream outlets like The Atlantic and New York Times are routinely cited in such legislation. (Note: today’s Supreme Court decision also cites several of these New York Times articles.)
5) Regarding imagined “cover ups”
In my introductory paragraph to this essay, I mentioned the podcast I was listening to that lent credence to the “lab leak” theory. While they said they weren’t completely convinced the theory was true, they definitely believe there was a “cover up” to prevent people from learning about it. I’ve heard similar sentiments regarding “rushing kids into transition,” where some pundits will say that, while they are unsure whether “social contagion” is occurring or whether gender-affirming care is effective, they are convinced that doctors and trans activists have engaged in efforts to “suppress” the truth and/or discussions about the issue. Let’s unpack these claims.
If you are aware of the actual history (points #1 and 2 above), then this notion of a “cover up” is entirely misplaced. Both these issues began with an expert consensus that arose through open discourse within the scientific field in question. So where did the idea that there was a “cover up” come from then? From the conspiracy theorists of course! Every conspiracy theory has a built in “cover up” associated with it, which furthers their ends in at least two different ways.
First, a “cover up” provides a convenient excuse for the fact that conspiracists tend to have way less evidence on their side. In their minds, that evidence does exist, but scientists (or the government, or other bad actors) are supposedly “concealing” or “suppressing” it. This is why they love the idea of whistleblowers, even when said “whistleblowers” turn out to be conspiracy theorists themselves. Second, imagined “cover ups” satisfy our negativity bias’s desire to find the “external agent” that has “caused the bad thing.” In this case: “it was scientists who created the virus/rushed kids into transition all along, and then they tried to hide evidence of what they had done!”
So when podcasters and pundits say they believe that there has been a cover up, they are not only ignoring previous discourses within the field in question, but they are also parroting one of conspiracy theorists’ favorite talking points.
And when pundits and podcasters say they are unsure if the “lab leak” or “rushing kids into transition” theories are true or not, this is not the “open minded” or “neutral” position they seem to think it is. What it actually means is that they reject the scientific consensus in a field that they do not have any personal expertise in. Which seems to me to be rather troubling.
But what’s arguably even more troubling is how easy it is for conspiracy theorists to launder their talking points into contemporary mainstream discourses so long as negativity bias is on their side.
Conclusion
There are countless conspiracy theories out there. This essay has considered but two, although I think we can learn a few more general lessons from the parallels between them.
First, we all like to believe that we are “rational” beings who view the world “objectively,” whereas we presume that conspiracy theorists are inherently “irrational” if not “unhinged,” and completely driven by “faulty thinking.” But this distinction is utter nonsense. All human beings (including me) are riddled with cognitive biases—here’s a whole Wikipedia page full of them. We are also vulnerable to making or falling for logical fallacies from time to time—indeed, this is why they are so pervasive. And we are all guilty of mistaking correlation for causation on occasion, especially when it confirms our priors or fits neatly into a narrative that we find appealing.
If we wish to better understand conspiracy theories, we must first recognize that we are all susceptible to these patterns of thinking. We should also keep in mind that conspiracy theories aren’t always about seemingly ridiculous things like Bigfoot, “flat earth,” or the moon landing being faked. Many of them may seem quite plausible or realistic. Especially if we don’t have much experience with the subject in question.
This essay has focused on two conspiracy theories for which I just so happen to be familiar with the field in question, so it is easier for me to recognize them for what they are. But there have been other times when I totally bought into a story that sounded fascinating or scandalous to me, only to later learn that it was a one-sided rendition that omitted important information. I was susceptible because I lacked prior knowledge about the topic, but also because these stories catered to what I consciously or unconsciously wanted to believe. And they often directly appealed to my negativity bias.
I cannot tell you how many times I have had people tell me that they could not trust my writings about the gender-affirmative model for trans youth because, as a trans person, I am supposedly “biased” on the issue. I am never quite sure what they mean by that. Do they think that I purposely want to “turn” these kids trans? I don’t even think that’s possible. Plus, how would that benefit me? (Of course, they’ve created conspiracy theories about this too.)
Having mulled this over for many years, I increasingly think that what these people mean by “biased” is that I don’t share their view that being trans is an inherently negative outcome. And because I don’t think it’s inherently negative, I am open to the many lines of evidence that transness arises naturally or inexplicably, whereas they are convinced that there must be some external agent that is “causing” it (which they wish to eliminate, of course).
Not all conspiracy theories are driven by negativity bias. But some of the most insidious ones are—the ones that simply feel “right” to us no matter the counterevidence. Hopefully, this introduction to negativity bias will help readers recognize this pervasive yet underdiscussed human tendency and apply it to their own lives.
This essay was made possible by my Patreon supporters — if you appreciate it, please consider supporting me there! You can also sign up for a paid or free subscription here: