Trans Rights: There's little point in arguing facts. This is not about facts.

[BiPsychle]

My background is in psychoanalysis and psychodynamic theory, and while, granted, to every person with a hammer, every problem is a nail, I do believe that there's a psychoanalytic approach to the trans rights debate that explains the level of energy in perceived attacks against the TR movement, and the need to mobilise to silence any question that they are right and their opponents are wrong. And when you see it this way, you begin to understand why arguing facts is pointless and doesn't work - why no matter what logic is brought into the debate, the resistance remains, and in fact increases, along with a certain sense of hysteria.

I work regularly with clients who are in problematic relationships with others. I note often that these relationships are defined by a dynamic that is so powerful that it runs the risk of destroying everything else - namely, a "fight to the death". But a fight about what? And against what?

The fight, in one form or another, is typically an existential fight where the party is 'hooked into' their perceived opponent: they believe they are fighting for their very existence; they need a hook to hang this on to; and one of the strongest and most destructive hooks is envy.

From a psychoanalytic perspective, there are many men out there who envy women to the point of hatred. At its most extreme - and there is nothing more extreme than a dysfunctional relationship with woman, i.e. "mother" - the envy goes so deep that, theoretically, there is an unconscious desire to 'consume' the other. In this case, for someone to consume "woman". The theory goes that by becoming her, she no longer exists, the protagonist takes her place, vengeance is exacted, and pain assuaged.

In other words, this is theoretically an unconscious drive to take womanhood and motherhood over, and to have a new ruler in her place. To obliterate anything to do with woman by overlaying something that looks like her, but is a facsimile of her. This might explain why there is so much new language around reproduction and menstruation - the one thing where a man may feel that he is shut out.

I understand that to many people this is foreign. But I've lived, eaten, and breathed the world of the unconscious for years, and it has offered an enlightening perspective on several radical movements going on right now (each with a different, but linked, explanation). And I thought I'd offer it here, because I'm not political, but I am deeply interested in the motivations of a person's psyche, and well versed in subtexts that operate therein.

So: facts are irrelevant. This isn't factual. It is emotional and psychological ... and for the most part unconscious, which means it is very hard to get to, because you are attacking a person's deeply entrenched defences - and those defences are there for good reason: to hold back childhood pain and devastation. I write this final sentence as a reason, and not an excuse, for what's happening. Because another piece of the puzzle here is a prevailing inability to take responsibility for one's past, and therefore one's present actions.

Individually and collectively, we are reaping what our forebears sowed.

Oh wrt a unifying theory - bourdieu had a bit of a bash at it. Habitus etc.
I think feminist ideas are always much more helpful for analysing feminist issues, but I do have a soft spot for bourdieu of late

‘Brexit fits into thus because people had a growing distain for what they thought 'Human rights' and 'workers rights' were. The desire to leave the EU and the European Courts was, in part, due to a desire to leave the ECHR.’

But in the run up to the referendum unions all across Europe were telling their members that the EU was going to remove workers’ rights under TTIP. My union is USDAW and we were told that. It changed my coworkers’ attitude to Brexit and at the time it was true. Trump was later elected and embraced protectionism so it did not come to pass but at the time of Brexit TTIP was looming and unions were warning workers.

One of the main criticisms of the EU is that it provides an easy way for businesses across Europe to work together but no way for unions across different countries to unite against businesses.

I agree that the law has become meaningless to ordinary people due to legal aid cuts, but while there may have been people who erroneously thought leaving the EU would remove human or workers’ rights, there were also very many who believed the EU was planning to remove workers’ rights, because at the time it was.

Sorry to nitpick. I otherwise thought your post was pointing out something really important. People have forgotten what it was like before human rights were created after world war 2, and that is key to what is happening.

@SuperLoudPoppingAction

Oh wrt a unifying theory - bourdieu had a bit of a bash at it. Habitus etc. I think feminist ideas are always much more helpful for analysing feminist issues, but I do have a soft spot for bourdieu of late

A lot of these questions aren't feminist issues as such, though.

@Stripesgalore

‘Brexit fits into thus because people had a growing distain for what they thought 'Human rights' and 'workers rights' were. The desire to leave the EU and the European Courts was, in part, due to a desire to leave the ECHR.’

But in the run up to the referendum unions all across Europe were telling their members that the EU was going to remove workers’ rights under TTIP. My union is USDAW and we were told that. It changed my coworkers’ attitude to Brexit and at the time it was true. Trump was later elected and embraced protectionism so it did not come to pass but at the time of Brexit TTIP was looming and unions were warning workers.

One of the main criticisms of the EU is that it provides an easy way for businesses across Europe to work together but no way for unions across different countries to unite against businesses.

I agree that the law has become meaningless to ordinary people due to legal aid cuts, but while there may have been people who erroneously thought leaving the EU would remove human or workers’ rights, there were also very many who believed the EU was planning to remove workers’ rights, because at the time it was.

Sorry to nitpick. I otherwise thought your post was pointing out something really important. People have forgotten what it was like before human rights were created after world war 2, and that is key to what is happening.

Yeah, I thought this was a key difference among Leavers and Remainers - did they see the EU in terms of being an enabler of globalism and all that means for workers and also for culture, or did they see it as a vehicle for internationalism - thinking globally, international cooperation, cultural exchange and enrichment.

I think this analysis rings true for many of the most extreme and scary TRAs, and have also noted that the men I've known who were for lack of a better word rather feminine in presentation or personality (flamboyant might be a better word in terms of the look men like that often adopt, and soft or gentle for the personality type, I dunno, we really don't have good vocabulary for talking about this stuff) who also accepted that they're men and got along well with women they all seem to have a good relationship with their mother, and to have had good relationships with other women and girls growing up. Lots of female friends in childhood due to just not really being that interested in the stuff the other boys were doing seems to be a common theme, as does close relationships with sisters or aunts or female cousins that persist into adulthood. I feel like there's a key breaking point around the time where it's normal for boys to be pushed out of women's spaces where as small children they'd have been welcome if accompanied by their mothers, so around age 8 or so, where some boys like that just accept that that's the way things work and that they're going to have to learn to form bonds with other boys and exist in their spaces, which allows them to also maintain their bonds with women and girls, just in a slightly adjusted for separate spaces way, while a second set of boys become enraged by what they perceive as a cruel and unfair rejection and that somehow turns over time into the seething hatred of women that you see in some TRAs.

Just a theory, and mostly based on the men who I've seen successfully navigate that process and come out the other side capable of maintaining healthy, positive relationships with women while recognizing that we and they are in different categories.

Hello @BiPsychle Not looking to derail but can I pick you up on the idea that 'no one is devoid of the need to take responsibility.' How can you take responsibility for things that happened to you as a child when you were a child? What do you do when the person who should take responsibility is unable to? a prevailing inability to take responsibility for one's past, and therefore one's present actions If you catch yourself becoming your parent, and stop, is that enough to break the cycle? What part of our past are we responsible for exactly - should we not simply be accountable for our present actions? Thanks in advance

I agree with RedToothBrush too though - analyzing what makes a virulently misogynistic TRA is useful in a know why people are behaving the way they are sense, but there's also a lot of societal and political stuff going on that's allowed them to attain the level of power and influence that they have, and that's having a particularly strong impact on younger people. You need to look at all the different puzzle pieces and figure out how they fit together to have any hope of pushing back against what's happening.

I'm not saying I have my explanation perfect but I do think it's about how power structures work and how people use this at times of political instability for their own ends to get an advantage and gain more power.

The 'why?' question always has to go in parallel with 'why now?' to fully understand whats happening.

@EyesOpening

I don't claim to understand a word of what's been said on this thread but when you say "And when you see it this way, you begin to understand why arguing facts is pointless and doesn't work" I would think that what most people are doing, is not trying to convince the person they're arguing with, necessarily but those other people watching the argument

Yes, I agree.

@FlibbertyGiblets

What form does the hysteria take, you made a ref in your OP. And (forgive me, am no academic) who is hysterical. Sorry to be thick, it is late and I am hot.

Hysteria from a psychoanalytical standpoint is slightly different in emphasis: it is an upsurge in affect caused by a disruption in the unconscious and the threat of its being brought to consciousness. It is misplaced or displaced 'psychic energy', and often associated with what Jung would refer to as a "complex". I'm attributing the hysteria primarily to those on the far left of the debate (because it is also political).

@TheProdigalKittensReturn

I think this analysis rings true for many of the most extreme and scary TRAs, and have also noted that the men I've known who were for lack of a better word rather feminine in presentation or personality (flamboyant might be a better word in terms of the look men like that often adopt, and soft or gentle for the personality type, I dunno, we really don't have good vocabulary for talking about this stuff) who also accepted that they're men and got along well with women they all seem to have a good relationship with their mother, and to have had good relationships with other women and girls growing up. Lots of female friends in childhood due to just not really being that interested in the stuff the other boys were doing seems to be a common theme, as does close relationships with sisters or aunts or female cousins that persist into adulthood. I feel like there's a key breaking point around the time where it's normal for boys to be pushed out of women's spaces where as small children they'd have been welcome if accompanied by their mothers, so around age 8 or so, where some boys like that just accept that that's the way things work and that they're going to have to learn to form bonds with other boys and exist in their spaces, which allows them to also maintain their bonds with women and girls, just in a slightly adjusted for separate spaces way, while a second set of boys become enraged by what they perceive as a cruel and unfair rejection and that somehow turns over time into the seething hatred of women that you see in some TRAs.

Just a theory, and mostly based on the men who I've seen successfully navigate that process and come out the other side capable of maintaining healthy, positive relationships with women while recognizing that we and they are in different categories.

Yes, I agree with this. Whenever I deal with dysfunctional behaviour, I look back at a person's relationship with their parents. Nearly always, when there is psychic disturbance, there is a highly problematic relationship with either one parent or the other, or both. An "engulfing" mother coupled with an absent father can be particularly damaging.

@PareidoliaNephophile

Hello *@BiPsychle* Not looking to derail but can I pick you up on the idea that 'no one is devoid of the need to take responsibility.' How can you take responsibility for things that happened to you as a child when you were a child? What do you do when the person who should take responsibility is unable to? a prevailing inability to take responsibility for one's past, and therefore one's present actions If you catch yourself becoming your parent, and stop, is that enough to break the cycle? What part of our past are we responsible for exactly - should we not simply be accountable for our present actions? Thanks in advance

Because there is a difference between taking the blame, and taking responsibility.

I'll use a personal example. I grew up in a highly dysfunctional family (hence one of the reasons I was drawn to psychoanalytic thought), and I realised at a certain point in my life that if I were to have even the remotest chance of trying to heal, I'd have to do it myself. My parents were unable to accept the damage they wrought; I could never rely on them either for insight, or an apology, or an attempt to make amends.

From a psychoanalytical perspective, we have very little conscious control over our deep-seated wounding, so to try and stop isn't always possible. It's a case of visiting, revisiting, and revisiting. Insight is just the beginning; then there is a long period or working through.

*of working through

@TheProdigalKittensReturn

I agree with RedToothBrush too though - analyzing what makes a virulently misogynistic TRA is useful in a know why people are behaving the way they are sense, but there's also a lot of societal and political stuff going on that's allowed them to attain the level of power and influence that they have, and that's having a particularly strong impact on younger people. You need to look at all the different puzzle pieces and figure out how they fit together to have any hope of pushing back against what's happening.

Absolutely. @RedToothBrush provides the political context; I provided a more personal, inner one. Put them together, and we have a raging conflagration on our hands.

Good historical analysis from Red, I think.

Would like to hear more about your take on the generational break (previous generation big on global culture and music, this one focused on public display of political opinion - the way everyone seems to be crazy about flags at the moment seems to support that), can you pin it down a bit more?

But the history of human rights, and how they have been reinterpreted since the end of the Cold War, seems indeed central to this story.

@RedToothBrush

I'm not saying I have my explanation perfect but I do think it's about how power structures work and how people use this at times of political instability for their own ends to get an advantage and gain more power.

The 'why?' question always has to go in parallel with 'why now?' to fully understand whats happening.

I totally agree, @RedToothBrush. I'm grateful you provided political/social context. My focus has always been inside. I'm not particularly political. Both need to go hand in hand to get the fuller picture.

Placemarking.

I know it may initially sound insignificant, but I think that the lack of many/any really big subcultures to grab onto in terms of music etc has left a lot of adolescents with nowhere except "gender" to turn in terms of how to process those don't quite fit in with the other kids feelings. The teen in our family has been going back decades to find stuff she can connect with, or to other parts of the world, because there's just nothing for her in contemporary youth culture.

And there I was thinking that I couldn't find any big, decent subcultures because I was getting older :) I agree: we are in a cultural deadzone right now in many areas. I think the internet and social media have done a fair bit to throttle creativity.

That's interesting - can you be more specific? What passes for youth culture today but is shallow and empty?

TBH, I'm not sure things were that much better in the 1990s and 2000s - or were they?

This is a great thread - thank you to all of you who have contributed brilliant insights.

@BiPsychle - what introductory texts would you recommend that I read to get a handle on the sort of stuff you're talking about?

My specific point would be, OK, so you're a kid who feels like a misfit. You don't like the stuff your peers like and you go looking for something in terms of music or books or whatever that speaks to you in a "this is it, I've found my people" kind of way. What is there, other than gender crap? Up until a generation ago there was always something. I don't think it's just being older that makes it seem like a wasteland now, if there was anything that suited the angsty tweens and teenagers of the present my niece wouldn't be working her way through 80s and 90s goth culture.

Would like to hear more about your take on the generational break (previous generation big on global culture and music, this one focused on public display of political opinion - the way everyone seems to be crazy about flags at the moment seems to support that), can you pin it down a bit more?

It's not particularly unique. Flag waving nationalists have long been common at generational breaks from the past.

This particular generation are embarrassed by nationalism and view it with suspicion as its associated with the far right. The St George's Cross has already been appropriated. The Union Jack symbolises Brexit. This is a generation that can't connect to that because they have lots of friends (particularly relating to online communities) who live in different companies.

So any flag waving has to be associated with globalised ideals that fit that. We also have the rise of hyper commercialisation and propaganda (yep cultural movements are big on propaganda - symbolism is all about that). Advertising is a form of propaganda. So you have cross over between a generation lacking direction and propaganda led by corporate interests rather than national ones that we've had in the past.

Leaders to youth culture are celebrities rather than politicians. So people lead by those with corporate interests rather than politicians (politicians have a responsibility to the public as a whole and have to reflect that to a degree or they have unrest, whereas corporate leaders only have to be answerable to shareholders and those who like their products without much power on them from those who disagree with their corporate values).

You have to put into context here how Apple, fir example, is richer than many countries. Arguably it has more in common with the East India Company than other corporations for this reason because of the power and influence it derives from this.

And of course corporate bodies are outside the accountability of democracy and have a vested interest in eroding barriers to exploitation.

There's a theory about how we go through cycles of periods of rising authoritarianism, enslavement, revolution, liberalisation, corruption of liberalism returning to rising authoritarianism across several generations (I think this lasts around 200 - 300 years or so) and humans are doomed to repeat this because of human nature.

One thing I notice is that the TR campaign is centred around emotion, not facts. So it's always personal stories of a child who had many emotional problems, was bu!lied and then transistioned and was then happy. Its designed to make people raising any objection or even asking questions like 'are there other reasons for this young persons unhappiness' feel bad. They don't use middle aged transistioners in this way.

Pointing out facts like the number of autistic children, the massive rise in children wanting to transistion, the number who are gay, the logical inconsistencies in trans beliefs, doesn't cut it against an emotional appeal coupled with a virtue signalling declaration that you believe in trans rights despite being unable to articulate what those rights are and which ones they don't have.

I enjoyed the general election campaign where Jo Swinson et al were asked the straightforward question 'what is a woman' and found themselves unable to answer in any coherent way.

@SenselessUbiquity

This is a great thread - thank you to all of you who have contributed brilliant insights.

@BiPsychle - what introductory texts would you recommend that I read to get a handle on the sort of stuff you're talking about?

Gosh, so difficult! You can either go with theoretical - which is dry and can take ages to hit on the correct subjects - or with practical. I'd go the latter as a starter, because the books are written for laypersons, and I'd start with the following:

• They F**k You Up, by Oliver James
• What Matters Most, by James Hollis

If you want theory, without the specific application we're discussing here, then I'd try the "A Very Short Introduction" series, either on Psychoanalysis or Jung, or read An Introduction to Melanie Klein.