Episode 1673: Colin Wright | The Brogan Report

Introduction

Episode 1673, featuring evolutionary biologist Colin Wright, aired on June 25, 2021. Wright, whose actual PhD research focused on the collective behavior of social spiders and paper wasps, has built a second career as an anti-trans commentator. He is a fellow at the Manhattan Institute, founding editor of Reality’s Last Stand, and an academic advisor for the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine (SEGM) — an organization the Southern Poverty Law Center designated as an anti-LGBTQ+ hate group in its 2023 “Year in Hate & Extremism” report. Wright is also an adviser to Genspect, which received the same SPLC designation.

This three-hour conversation provided a massive platform for Wright to present a narrow, politically motivated framing of sex and gender science while dismissing the lived experiences of transgender people and the medical consensus on gender-affirming care.

Who is Colin Wright?

Colin Wright holds a PhD in evolutionary biology from UC Santa Barbara (2018) and was an Eberly Research Fellow at Penn State from 2018 to 2020. His academic research focused on animal personality and collective behavior in social spiders (genus Stegodyphus) and paper wasps (genus Polistes). He has published peer-reviewed papers on topics such as spider personality, collective foraging behavior, and ant-spider interactions.

Wright is not an expert in human medicine, endocrinology, psychology, or transgender healthcare. His PhD thesis was about spiders, not human sex development or gender identity. As critic Katja Thieme noted, Wright offers “a pinch of expertise plus a ton of speculation,” making broad claims about human gender and transgender issues while his actual research expertise lies in insect behavior.

Since leaving academia, Wright has been affiliated with politically conservative organizations including the Manhattan Institute and has published opinion pieces in outlets such as The Wall Street Journal and City Journal. He is a regular guest on right-wing media programs including Tucker Carlson Tonight.

Key Problematic Claims

Oversimplification of the Sex Binary

Wright’s central claim — that biological sex is strictly binary with no spectrum — represents a oversimplification that many biologists dispute. While it is true that humans produce only two types of gametes (sperm and ova), Wright uses this narrow gametic definition to dismiss the complexity of sex-related traits, intersex conditions, and the distinction between biological sex and gender identity.

What experts say:

Researchers at Yale School of Medicine have described SEGM, where Wright serves as an advisor, as “a small group of anti-trans activists” rather than a recognized scientific organization.
A spokesperson for the Endocrine Society described SEGM as outside the medical mainstream.
Multiple biologists have stated that Wright’s views are “not scientifically accurate” and not “supported by the majority of biologists” who work in relevant fields.
Wright conflates the gametic definition of sex (which is indeed bimodal at the cellular level) with the far more complex question of how sex manifests across the full range of human biology, including chromosomes, hormones, anatomy, and neurology.

Dismissal of Intersex People

Wright has consistently minimized intersex conditions, citing a figure of approximately 0.018% of births. However, broader definitions of differences of sex development used by medical researchers suggest intersex conditions may affect up to 1.7% of the population (per biologist Anne Fausto-Sterling’s widely cited estimate). By using the narrowest possible definition, Wright erases the experiences of millions of people whose biology does not fit neatly into a strict male/female binary.

Wright has promoted the discredited “social contagion” hypothesis regarding transgender identification among young people, which was based on Lisa Littman’s controversial 2018 study on “rapid-onset gender dysphoria” (ROGD). This concept has been widely criticized:

Littman’s original study surveyed parents on anti-trans websites rather than transgender youth themselves, introducing severe selection bias.
The journal PLOS ONE issued a correction and apology noting the study’s methodological limitations.
Over a dozen subsequent studies have contradicted the social contagion/ROGD hypothesis.
Proponents have since acknowledged that ROGD is indistinguishable from standard “late-onset” gender dysphoria, rendering the concept unfalsifiable and therefore unscientific.

Framing Academic Pushback as “Cancel Culture”

Wright presents himself as a victim of academic censorship, claiming he was pushed out of academia for his views on sex and gender. While Wright did face criticism from colleagues, this framing obscures the fact that his public commentary goes far beyond his areas of research expertise and aligns with a political movement actively seeking to restrict the rights and healthcare access of transgender people.

Joe Rogan’s Role

Rogan invited Wright specifically to discuss sex and gender — topics that fall outside Wright’s actual research expertise in insect behavior. Throughout the episode, Rogan:

Failed to question Wright’s credentials: Rogan did not probe whether someone whose research focused on spider personality and wasp behavior is qualified to make sweeping claims about human gender identity and transgender healthcare.
Amplified anti-trans framing: Rogan has repeatedly expressed skepticism about transgender identity across many episodes. By inviting Wright, he gave scientific-sounding cover to views that contradict the medical consensus of major organizations including the American Academy of Pediatrics, American Medical Association, American Psychiatric Association, and the Endocrine Society.
Presented a one-sided discussion: The episode featured no counterpoint from experts in transgender healthcare, endocrinology, or gender studies. The audience heard only Wright’s politically motivated framing.
Treated culture war commentary as science: Rather than examining Wright’s actual peer-reviewed research (on spiders), Rogan engaged enthusiastically with Wright’s opinion commentary on gender, lending it the veneer of scientific authority.

The Anti-Trans Network

Wright’s affiliations reveal the organized nature of anti-trans activism dressed up as scientific inquiry:

SEGM: Designated an anti-LGBTQ+ hate group by the SPLC. Writing in Science-Based Medicine, AJ Eckert described SEGM as a “transphobic organization.”
Genspect: Also designated an anti-LGBTQ+ hate group by the SPLC. Wright serves as an adviser to their Killarney Group.
Manhattan Institute: A conservative think tank where Wright is a fellow, which has published pieces promoting the social contagion hypothesis.
Quillette: Wright served as managing editor of this publication, which has been criticized for platforming anti-trans viewpoints under the banner of “freethought.”

The SPLC’s Project CAPTAIN report identified a network of over 60 groups with nearly 1,000 shared connections involved in anti-LGBTQ+ pseudoscience. Wright sits at a nexus of several of these organizations.

Real-World Harm

The rhetoric Wright promotes has tangible consequences:

Legislative Impact

Anti-trans talking points like those Wright amplifies have been used to justify restrictive legislation targeting transgender people, particularly transgender youth. In 2021 alone, at least 130 anti-transgender bills were introduced in state legislatures.

Violence

The year this episode aired, 2021, was the deadliest year on record for transgender people in the United States, with at least 50 transgender and gender non-conforming people killed. Rhetoric that frames transgender identity as a social contagion or mental illness contributes to the dehumanization that enables violence.

Youth Mental Health

According to the Trevor Project’s 2021 National Survey, 52% of transgender and nonbinary youth seriously considered suicide in the past year, and 20% attempted it. Research consistently shows that gender-affirming environments reduce these risks, while the kind of rhetoric promoted by Wright — dismissing transgender identity as ideology — increases them.

Undermining Medical Consensus

Major medical organizations worldwide support evidence-based gender-affirming care. Wright’s campaign to reframe this consensus as “ideology” undermines public trust in medical science and may deter families from seeking appropriate care for their children.

Conclusion

Episode 1673 is problematic because it platforms an insect behavior researcher as an authority on human gender and transgender healthcare, lending scientific credibility to claims that contradict the medical consensus of every major medical organization. Colin Wright’s affiliation with organizations designated as anti-LGBTQ+ hate groups by the SPLC, and his work with conservative think tanks, reveals that his commentary is driven by political activism rather than disinterested scientific inquiry.

Rogan’s failure to challenge Wright’s credentials, present counterpoints, or question the political context of Wright’s activism meant that millions of listeners received a one-sided, scientifically misleading presentation on a topic that directly affects the health and safety of transgender people. Responsible journalism requires scrutinizing a guest’s actual expertise and presenting balanced perspectives — especially when the topic involves vulnerable communities facing record levels of violence and legislative attacks.