Self-id is a misnomer. Anyone can "self-identify" however they please—as a precious child of God, Python fan, diva, heir of the Enlightenment, a man or a woman or neither, whatever that means to you. Of course, certain identities may—in quiet moments of self-reflection—sit a bit uneasily if inadequately supported by reality. A self-identified "artist" who never creates, for instance, might feel self-conscious when confronted with others’ artistic output. This isn’t anyone else’s problem besides the self-identified artist.
All of this goes against the cognitive behavioral therapy movement of the last 40 years: much of what bothers us is our interpretation of events, not the events themselves. I think you can take that a bit far: being in a concentration camp, or enslaved, or raped, *is* inherently traumatic--but most of life isn't that extreme. CBT is applicable to the overwhelming quotidian--which requires tremendous strength to endure. The every day slings & arrows of fortune... CBT has helped me develop boundaries and brush aside so much static and trivia.
According to CBT, you're not triggered: you choose to be triggered. No one is "making you feel" anything: you choose to feel dissed, misgendered, aggrieved, etc.
In the trans-identified world, everything is a micro-aggression waiting to happen.
In every book and session about psychotherapy, inner child work, etc there is a clear message that says 'If you expect the world to change to match the way you feel you're going to have a very difficult life'. Said like that it reminds us all how very infantile the whole thing is, and how deeply destructive to the world at large.
Like all abusers: if they can get you to lie to yourself through their own gaslighting of your reality, they can get you to do anything.
In this article, you are really going for the jugular, and you do it very effectively. I figured out myself that there is an exhibitionistic quality to transgender people, that transgender people are somewhat like entertainers who NEED the affirmation of the people they are performing for, but you delve into the psychology much more deeply than I ever have. You've given me extra ammunition to use in my arguments. Blaire White, a trans activist who agrees with you about these things, made the point in one of her videos that trans people are trying to deconstruct the world in their quest for acceptance, that they are expecting the world to meet THEM on THEIR turf -- which is pretty nervy given that they constitute 1% of the population, if that.
I'm going to use this opportunity to express my anger at CNN for posting an article about supporting LGBT children (authored by Rachel Fadem, obviously a trans-brainwashed zombie liberal). The article, of course, is full of bullshit. Among other people it describes a 19-year-old boy who decided to "come out" to his family as trans, and told his family to call him "zie", "zem" and "zeir". Ms. Fadem doesn't seem to understand that any person who is so phony and manipulative as to invent silly pronouns for himself is not having an authentic experience. Fadem then says, "It’s been hard for the teen to come out to zeir mother, especially as non-binary, because the mother often misgenders people and calls them their old names rather than their preferred names. Alex said that is demoralizing to zem." After reading that, I wasn't sure if I should laugh or throw up.
In Fadem's world, young children have all the wisdom and insight, and they tell their parents what "gender" means and how the parents should behave.
Psychotherapy and spiritual practice both teach us that the path to end suffering is to disidentify with labels and sub personalities and to care less about how others see us. Our perception of how the world sees us is just a projection of how we feel about ourselves anyway. Offence cannot be given, it can only be taken. This need to be regarded a certain way by others is non-acceptance of self and the more it's encouraged the unhappier the person will become.
I may identify as a cat but you are not obliged to allow me to stay in your cattery; locking me up in a cage would indeed not be in my actual best interests.
Beautifully put, Eliza. This is at the heart of my objection to all the identity clamour. One of my parents falsely identified themselves as a loving, caring person and everyone was obliged to shore up and maintain this person's idea of themselves, to the point of ignoring all evidence to the contrary. This is common with narcissists, I am reliably informed. It is an upside down world where we have to ignore what we see, hear and think in order to sustain what is essentially a lie., and being quite severely punished or shunned if we do not. It was damaging to me as a child and I have spent many, many years living with the results of my early indoctrination and being treated as if I was only there to reflect the greater glory of another. I can no longer do it, for my own sake.
I just posted this on Facebook; to me, it was an elegantly-stated, well-reasoned piece that made some good points.
To several of my Facebook friends, it was "hot TERF garbage". They played the old "You support denying trans people their right to exist!" card, as well as the "How is this different from how racists feel about black people? How is this different from how the Nazis feel about the Jews? Would you engage them in debate about the right of blacks and Jews to exist?" card.
I don't think I'll ever quite understand how saying "Someone's self-identified reality isn't necessarily my reality, their self-perception isn't my perception of them, and I shouldn't be forced to comply with their reality and self-perception" is the same as saying "They don't have the right to exist!"
Anyone know any good way to point out to them how these two statements aren't the same, in a way that will resonate?
Transgenderism behaves much like a religion in the way it attempts to legislate belief. If enough people can be browbeaten into going along with it, soon it will be accepted as truth by the mainstream, and dissenters will be vilified as heretics.
Brava! Nailed it. 🙌🏼 This is one of those few essays that I want to show my daughter… always hesitant because of the potential for relationship rupture but a mom can dream… so many great points.
Controlling people's thoughts, education, literacy, and speech are all tools of oppression. If someone has beliefs or opinions you object to and you see them as an equal, you can respectfully debate them or choose not to associate with them. Forcing someone to comply with your wishes and to pay lip service to your beliefs is typically the way one treats someone they view as less-than.
Superb, as always! I particularly like this sentence: "But the particular fragility of gender identities and their bearers requires the construction and maintenance of a psychic exoskeleton, the upkeep of which requires the outside world to participate." Psychic exoskeleton is such a great metaphor! It beautifully expresses the insight that maintaining a delusional gender identity requires continuous support from outside the individual.
It's worth noting that this feature of personal identity is by no means peculiar to gender ideology. In fact, it's arguably a universal characteristic that applies to all human identities. A cursory enumeration of the necessary elements that combine to form the personal identity of any one of us reveals that far more originates outside our own psyches than within us. The very language we must use to describe ourselves, both to others and to ourselves, is structured by the societies and cultures we inhabit. Our names, nationalities, core values, social standing, and so much more, are all bequeathed on us by the peculiar situations we were born into. All of us depend on a psychic exoskeleton for our identities.
The significant difference for gender ideology is that it aims to replace the biological constant of *sex* with the culturally constituted fiction of *gender*. (This isn't to say that gender is *entirely* independent from sex, only that gender is a cultural superstructure of concepts, roles, and generalizations, only loosely based on biological sex.) As a result, "gender identity" has no objectively verifiable, physical basis, independent of the mind and cannot be maintained for long without external validation. Those aspects of our identities that are based on biological sex, from birth forwards, are independently verifiable every time we pee.
Look at their language.
"This makes me feel"
"That is so triggering"
All of this goes against the cognitive behavioral therapy movement of the last 40 years: much of what bothers us is our interpretation of events, not the events themselves. I think you can take that a bit far: being in a concentration camp, or enslaved, or raped, *is* inherently traumatic--but most of life isn't that extreme. CBT is applicable to the overwhelming quotidian--which requires tremendous strength to endure. The every day slings & arrows of fortune... CBT has helped me develop boundaries and brush aside so much static and trivia.
According to CBT, you're not triggered: you choose to be triggered. No one is "making you feel" anything: you choose to feel dissed, misgendered, aggrieved, etc.
In the trans-identified world, everything is a micro-aggression waiting to happen.
In every book and session about psychotherapy, inner child work, etc there is a clear message that says 'If you expect the world to change to match the way you feel you're going to have a very difficult life'. Said like that it reminds us all how very infantile the whole thing is, and how deeply destructive to the world at large.
Like all abusers: if they can get you to lie to yourself through their own gaslighting of your reality, they can get you to do anything.
In this article, you are really going for the jugular, and you do it very effectively. I figured out myself that there is an exhibitionistic quality to transgender people, that transgender people are somewhat like entertainers who NEED the affirmation of the people they are performing for, but you delve into the psychology much more deeply than I ever have. You've given me extra ammunition to use in my arguments. Blaire White, a trans activist who agrees with you about these things, made the point in one of her videos that trans people are trying to deconstruct the world in their quest for acceptance, that they are expecting the world to meet THEM on THEIR turf -- which is pretty nervy given that they constitute 1% of the population, if that.
I'm going to use this opportunity to express my anger at CNN for posting an article about supporting LGBT children (authored by Rachel Fadem, obviously a trans-brainwashed zombie liberal). The article, of course, is full of bullshit. Among other people it describes a 19-year-old boy who decided to "come out" to his family as trans, and told his family to call him "zie", "zem" and "zeir". Ms. Fadem doesn't seem to understand that any person who is so phony and manipulative as to invent silly pronouns for himself is not having an authentic experience. Fadem then says, "It’s been hard for the teen to come out to zeir mother, especially as non-binary, because the mother often misgenders people and calls them their old names rather than their preferred names. Alex said that is demoralizing to zem." After reading that, I wasn't sure if I should laugh or throw up.
In Fadem's world, young children have all the wisdom and insight, and they tell their parents what "gender" means and how the parents should behave.
Hiya,
Psychotherapy and spiritual practice both teach us that the path to end suffering is to disidentify with labels and sub personalities and to care less about how others see us. Our perception of how the world sees us is just a projection of how we feel about ourselves anyway. Offence cannot be given, it can only be taken. This need to be regarded a certain way by others is non-acceptance of self and the more it's encouraged the unhappier the person will become.
I may identify as a cat but you are not obliged to allow me to stay in your cattery; locking me up in a cage would indeed not be in my actual best interests.
Jo
I will not give up my sexed language to appease people who deny their sex.
Beautifully put, Eliza. This is at the heart of my objection to all the identity clamour. One of my parents falsely identified themselves as a loving, caring person and everyone was obliged to shore up and maintain this person's idea of themselves, to the point of ignoring all evidence to the contrary. This is common with narcissists, I am reliably informed. It is an upside down world where we have to ignore what we see, hear and think in order to sustain what is essentially a lie., and being quite severely punished or shunned if we do not. It was damaging to me as a child and I have spent many, many years living with the results of my early indoctrination and being treated as if I was only there to reflect the greater glory of another. I can no longer do it, for my own sake.
What a splendid and clear description of the problem. And the interesting thing is that it can apply to any group or body of thought. Chapeau!
Fabulous piece, if I may say so.
Sincerely,
Napoleon Bonaparte
(remember to address me as that, or else)
I just posted this on Facebook; to me, it was an elegantly-stated, well-reasoned piece that made some good points.
To several of my Facebook friends, it was "hot TERF garbage". They played the old "You support denying trans people their right to exist!" card, as well as the "How is this different from how racists feel about black people? How is this different from how the Nazis feel about the Jews? Would you engage them in debate about the right of blacks and Jews to exist?" card.
I don't think I'll ever quite understand how saying "Someone's self-identified reality isn't necessarily my reality, their self-perception isn't my perception of them, and I shouldn't be forced to comply with their reality and self-perception" is the same as saying "They don't have the right to exist!"
Anyone know any good way to point out to them how these two statements aren't the same, in a way that will resonate?
Transgenderism behaves much like a religion in the way it attempts to legislate belief. If enough people can be browbeaten into going along with it, soon it will be accepted as truth by the mainstream, and dissenters will be vilified as heretics.
Brava! Nailed it. 🙌🏼 This is one of those few essays that I want to show my daughter… always hesitant because of the potential for relationship rupture but a mom can dream… so many great points.
Controlling people's thoughts, education, literacy, and speech are all tools of oppression. If someone has beliefs or opinions you object to and you see them as an equal, you can respectfully debate them or choose not to associate with them. Forcing someone to comply with your wishes and to pay lip service to your beliefs is typically the way one treats someone they view as less-than.
So very spot-on. Thank you for again posting what I wholeheartedly agree with, but have never articulated.
Superb, as always! I particularly like this sentence: "But the particular fragility of gender identities and their bearers requires the construction and maintenance of a psychic exoskeleton, the upkeep of which requires the outside world to participate." Psychic exoskeleton is such a great metaphor! It beautifully expresses the insight that maintaining a delusional gender identity requires continuous support from outside the individual.
It's worth noting that this feature of personal identity is by no means peculiar to gender ideology. In fact, it's arguably a universal characteristic that applies to all human identities. A cursory enumeration of the necessary elements that combine to form the personal identity of any one of us reveals that far more originates outside our own psyches than within us. The very language we must use to describe ourselves, both to others and to ourselves, is structured by the societies and cultures we inhabit. Our names, nationalities, core values, social standing, and so much more, are all bequeathed on us by the peculiar situations we were born into. All of us depend on a psychic exoskeleton for our identities.
The significant difference for gender ideology is that it aims to replace the biological constant of *sex* with the culturally constituted fiction of *gender*. (This isn't to say that gender is *entirely* independent from sex, only that gender is a cultural superstructure of concepts, roles, and generalizations, only loosely based on biological sex.) As a result, "gender identity" has no objectively verifiable, physical basis, independent of the mind and cannot be maintained for long without external validation. Those aspects of our identities that are based on biological sex, from birth forwards, are independently verifiable every time we pee.
This is perhaps your best post yet.
Excellent piece, thank you.