Another important factor fuelling rapidly rising Gender Dysphoria complaints is the positive attention and indeed celebration an awkward, overlooked teenager gets just by identifying as 'trans'. This is why I hold MSM 100% responsible for this outright insanity with their relentless positive spin and sympathies to trans lunacy.
"My own daughter echoed common themes when I asked her what it meant to feel “male” when she was biologically female."
What is conspicuously missing from the discussions and argumentation, are definitions.
The author of this piece is an attorney, meaning reliant for certain definitions on the expertise of others.
The missing definitions are "thought" and "feeling."
Thoughts are cognition, relying on ideation. "Feelings" are emotions.
Listen closely to what these confused, distressed kids say. "I feel that I am a ....." is utterly incoherent. No one "feels that they are" anything. They "think that they are a..." This is why logic is crucial.
"I feel angry" is verbal expression of an emotional state. "I feel sad" is another.
Decade after decade, I have observed the increasingly unhelpful and even destructive results of allowing the "concept creep" of verbalizing thoughts with the language reserved for feelings (emotions.)
This is foundational to neurosis and dysmorphia (emotional discomfort or suffering) being misdiagnosed as "gender dysphoria."
Words matter, because they define cognition. What we call "rumination" is a feedback loop between cognition and emotional state.
Correlation does not equal causation, but the correlation between the concept creep described above, and the accelerated reporting of "gender dysphoria," is very strong.
I think that correlation to be a nontrivial contributor to the suboptimal results of alleviating body-image related distress with cognitive therapy.
In other words, it's not necessarily true that the intractability of the problem is entirely owing to what's happening with the "sheep," when there's a nontrivial problem with the "shepherd."
“Decade after decade, I have observed the increasingly unhelpful and even destructive results of allowing the "concept creep" of verbalizing thoughts with the language reserved for feelings (emotions.)”
This is such an important point and one that I had never noticed - now it seems glaringly obvious.
Could you develop this idea into a longer essay e.g. for Substack?
That's a very good question. There is an essay to be had, and the challenge would be in selecting which of the myriad supporting examples would tie it all together into a concise illustration of why it's so necessary to make the distinction.
The central feature, is effective and meaningful communication when reconciling conflict. It first became an obstacle to effective conflict resolution within personal relationships; "talking past one another."
Later, I began to realize that it had crept into the world of business. Perhaps it was always there, and I simply didn't notice, didn't "connect the dots" until I began to see it as a factor in employee discipline and turnover. It can be devastating for staff and business mission alike.
Thank you for the reply and feedback. It's a distinction that is stubbornly resisted in daily life, but once seen, cannot be "unseen."
Here's a classic example: " I feel like you're not listening to me." There is no solution for this, because it is entirely subjective. The way forward, is to say "I think you're not listening to me, and it makes me feel angry" (or sad, etc.)
What is being demanded with that common example, is for the "not listening" person to take responsibility for another's internal emotional response. When we allow ourselves to fall into that epistemic trap, critical interpersonal boundaries are breached. That boundary-crossing creates a great deal of unnecessary misery and suffering.
We cannot reach an actionable consensus by asking "why do you feel that way?" The original assertion is actually two; the person thinks that the other person is not listening, and that thought affects the first person's emotional state (or vice-versa.)
Many a therapist will disagree with me, because the average therapist is only concerned with emotional dysregulation. Within pair bonds between people, there are shared material goals that require logical approaches, goals that cannot be achieved by focusing only on emotional states.
This does not discount emotion. All action has an emotional origin. A useful metaphor is that emotion is the fuel, cognition the engine. We fear freezing to death, and that is the incentive for building a shelter.
I could go on, but I think that you see my point. I'll just conclude by saying that, back in the seventies, the most successful residential treatment programs did acknowledge the distinction between primary emotions and their role in creating chaotic cognitive feedback loops. It took me three decades to understand the negative effects of concept creep in this context. When we're trying to parse why someone says that they "feel like" the opposite sex, we know that they have no frame of reference other than observed secondary sexual characteristics.
I felt saddened when I read that the author of this article could only elicit an "I don't know how to answer that" response. I went beyond compassion and sympathy to empathy, because empathy requires shared experience. The child, like everyone else, can only explain thoughts and express or share feelings.
That’s great! Looks like the core of an essay to me. Totally agree about the importance of both the rational and the emotional in influencing human action and interaction. As you point out problems arise when we conflate the two. Problems also arise when we ignore either of them.
"Problems also arise when we ignore either of them."
This is a highly astute observation, and the reason why I ask "what do you think and how do you feel" when consulting and counselling the staff of business operations.
Perhaps the essay you're suggesting, might become the first post on my personal Substack that is devoid of content, mainly because of time constraints.
Thank you again for your time and kindly encouragement.
One of the challenges such an essay might have to address would be a linguistic one. Language evolves through usage and words can change their accepted meaning over time. An obvious recent example would be the widespread use of “literally” (amongst younger generations) to mean the exact opposite of its original meaning. Another would be the Black drug dealers’ argot in “The Wire”, where “Y’feel me?” means “Do you understand what I’m saying?”.
Does language reflect or create the social world? I think it does both.
Still true!! My son turns 18 next month. I’ve written a pro and con list to give him. One final push/discussion before he can make his own stupid decisions. I’ve always stood in truth so our relationship is already strained. Anyhoo, my pro list is blank… that’s his side to think about. Cons are 4 pages of dot points backed up with source studies all linked. Sad that for his 18th rather than a party I’m planning an intervention 😫
And then there's the ••real•• reason for "transition" in pre-pubescent childhood: Because if you block a boy's puberty earlier, he might—for a limited time, anws—look more convincingly female-like for the predatory groomers who want him as a sex object. (Also why the groomers aren't clamoring with the same ferocity for the medical "transition" of pre-pubescent Girls, even though Girls are now 80 to 90 percent of all minors being "transitioned".)
In fact the real suicide surge comes 7-10 years after “transition,” when the “trans” outgrow their cult and realize they’ve screwed up their health for the rest of their lives, and spent the last decade making fools of themselves.
Even ACLU lawyer Kate "Chase" Strangio finally admitted to the Supreme Court, during arguments over Skrmetti, that gender dysphoria does NOT drive a person to suicide if left unchecked. She's on record saying that.
There is, however, concrete evidence that gender-enforcing medical interventions will likely drive a person to suicide:
It is a fervently held belief of the pro-trans crowd, though -- and it's used to justify just about everything: "Lifesaving gender affirmation treatment" etc. I don't know how we can fight this effectively. It's really ingrained in the public's mind.
Stopping puberty halts all normal development, including normal brain development: https://lucyleader.substack.com/p/time-critical-brain-development
It also sterilizes children permanently. Puberty cannot be "paused". https://lucyleader.substack.com/p/removing-the-possibility-of-normal
This is excellent, thank you.
Another important factor fuelling rapidly rising Gender Dysphoria complaints is the positive attention and indeed celebration an awkward, overlooked teenager gets just by identifying as 'trans'. This is why I hold MSM 100% responsible for this outright insanity with their relentless positive spin and sympathies to trans lunacy.
"My own daughter echoed common themes when I asked her what it meant to feel “male” when she was biologically female."
What is conspicuously missing from the discussions and argumentation, are definitions.
The author of this piece is an attorney, meaning reliant for certain definitions on the expertise of others.
The missing definitions are "thought" and "feeling."
Thoughts are cognition, relying on ideation. "Feelings" are emotions.
Listen closely to what these confused, distressed kids say. "I feel that I am a ....." is utterly incoherent. No one "feels that they are" anything. They "think that they are a..." This is why logic is crucial.
"I feel angry" is verbal expression of an emotional state. "I feel sad" is another.
Decade after decade, I have observed the increasingly unhelpful and even destructive results of allowing the "concept creep" of verbalizing thoughts with the language reserved for feelings (emotions.)
This is foundational to neurosis and dysmorphia (emotional discomfort or suffering) being misdiagnosed as "gender dysphoria."
Words matter, because they define cognition. What we call "rumination" is a feedback loop between cognition and emotional state.
Correlation does not equal causation, but the correlation between the concept creep described above, and the accelerated reporting of "gender dysphoria," is very strong.
I think that correlation to be a nontrivial contributor to the suboptimal results of alleviating body-image related distress with cognitive therapy.
In other words, it's not necessarily true that the intractability of the problem is entirely owing to what's happening with the "sheep," when there's a nontrivial problem with the "shepherd."
“Decade after decade, I have observed the increasingly unhelpful and even destructive results of allowing the "concept creep" of verbalizing thoughts with the language reserved for feelings (emotions.)”
This is such an important point and one that I had never noticed - now it seems glaringly obvious.
Could you develop this idea into a longer essay e.g. for Substack?
That's a very good question. There is an essay to be had, and the challenge would be in selecting which of the myriad supporting examples would tie it all together into a concise illustration of why it's so necessary to make the distinction.
The central feature, is effective and meaningful communication when reconciling conflict. It first became an obstacle to effective conflict resolution within personal relationships; "talking past one another."
Later, I began to realize that it had crept into the world of business. Perhaps it was always there, and I simply didn't notice, didn't "connect the dots" until I began to see it as a factor in employee discipline and turnover. It can be devastating for staff and business mission alike.
Thank you for the reply and feedback. It's a distinction that is stubbornly resisted in daily life, but once seen, cannot be "unseen."
Here's a classic example: " I feel like you're not listening to me." There is no solution for this, because it is entirely subjective. The way forward, is to say "I think you're not listening to me, and it makes me feel angry" (or sad, etc.)
What is being demanded with that common example, is for the "not listening" person to take responsibility for another's internal emotional response. When we allow ourselves to fall into that epistemic trap, critical interpersonal boundaries are breached. That boundary-crossing creates a great deal of unnecessary misery and suffering.
We cannot reach an actionable consensus by asking "why do you feel that way?" The original assertion is actually two; the person thinks that the other person is not listening, and that thought affects the first person's emotional state (or vice-versa.)
Many a therapist will disagree with me, because the average therapist is only concerned with emotional dysregulation. Within pair bonds between people, there are shared material goals that require logical approaches, goals that cannot be achieved by focusing only on emotional states.
This does not discount emotion. All action has an emotional origin. A useful metaphor is that emotion is the fuel, cognition the engine. We fear freezing to death, and that is the incentive for building a shelter.
I could go on, but I think that you see my point. I'll just conclude by saying that, back in the seventies, the most successful residential treatment programs did acknowledge the distinction between primary emotions and their role in creating chaotic cognitive feedback loops. It took me three decades to understand the negative effects of concept creep in this context. When we're trying to parse why someone says that they "feel like" the opposite sex, we know that they have no frame of reference other than observed secondary sexual characteristics.
I felt saddened when I read that the author of this article could only elicit an "I don't know how to answer that" response. I went beyond compassion and sympathy to empathy, because empathy requires shared experience. The child, like everyone else, can only explain thoughts and express or share feelings.
That’s great! Looks like the core of an essay to me. Totally agree about the importance of both the rational and the emotional in influencing human action and interaction. As you point out problems arise when we conflate the two. Problems also arise when we ignore either of them.
"Problems also arise when we ignore either of them."
This is a highly astute observation, and the reason why I ask "what do you think and how do you feel" when consulting and counselling the staff of business operations.
Perhaps the essay you're suggesting, might become the first post on my personal Substack that is devoid of content, mainly because of time constraints.
Thank you again for your time and kindly encouragement.
One of the challenges such an essay might have to address would be a linguistic one. Language evolves through usage and words can change their accepted meaning over time. An obvious recent example would be the widespread use of “literally” (amongst younger generations) to mean the exact opposite of its original meaning. Another would be the Black drug dealers’ argot in “The Wire”, where “Y’feel me?” means “Do you understand what I’m saying?”.
Does language reflect or create the social world? I think it does both.
Still true!! My son turns 18 next month. I’ve written a pro and con list to give him. One final push/discussion before he can make his own stupid decisions. I’ve always stood in truth so our relationship is already strained. Anyhoo, my pro list is blank… that’s his side to think about. Cons are 4 pages of dot points backed up with source studies all linked. Sad that for his 18th rather than a party I’m planning an intervention 😫
And then there's the ••real•• reason for "transition" in pre-pubescent childhood: Because if you block a boy's puberty earlier, he might—for a limited time, anws—look more convincingly female-like for the predatory groomers who want him as a sex object. (Also why the groomers aren't clamoring with the same ferocity for the medical "transition" of pre-pubescent Girls, even though Girls are now 80 to 90 percent of all minors being "transitioned".)
Beautiful. Thank you.
Thank you for reposting this!
🙏
“Gender Dysphoria likely will drive the person to suicide if left unchecked”
There is zero evidence of this.
In fact the real suicide surge comes 7-10 years after “transition,” when the “trans” outgrow their cult and realize they’ve screwed up their health for the rest of their lives, and spent the last decade making fools of themselves.
Even ACLU lawyer Kate "Chase" Strangio finally admitted to the Supreme Court, during arguments over Skrmetti, that gender dysphoria does NOT drive a person to suicide if left unchecked. She's on record saying that.
There is, however, concrete evidence that gender-enforcing medical interventions will likely drive a person to suicide:
https://www.pittparents.com/p/what-are-the-facts-about-the-relationship
It is a fervently held belief of the pro-trans crowd, though -- and it's used to justify just about everything: "Lifesaving gender affirmation treatment" etc. I don't know how we can fight this effectively. It's really ingrained in the public's mind.