Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

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

153 replies

BiPsychle · 24/06/2020 21:45

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.

OP posts:
dayoftheclownfish · 25/06/2020 13:05

Another question, BiPsychle, since you mention the importance of myth and symbol, is there a connection between Jung’s thought and that of philosopher René Girard?
And again, what’s the answer? Return to the old Gods? Strikes me as unrealistic in such a secular country but one never knows ...

OnlyTheLangoftheTitBerg · 25/06/2020 13:07

@Xanthangum

Yes I get that this might be the explanation for individuals like Dawn Butler or Jo Swinson.

But there are lots of institutions - NHS, civil service, Police and lots of private companies - where people are fearful of speaking out. How does this explain institutional capture?

Going back to this point, I have believed all along that this is TPAs exploiting the culture shift among certain institutions in the wake of the McPherson Report. Posit transpeople as The Most Oppressed Ever and the likes of the police, the Civil Service etc will fall over themselves to centre trans policies and cede to trans demands in the determination not to repeat the (very real) mistakes of institutional racism with another “minority” group.
TheProdigalKittensReturn · 25/06/2020 13:09

The most important thing I think is realizing the utter futility of trying to approach someone who's in the grip of whatever we're going to call the compulsion the OP describes using reason or logic, or even appeals to decency or fairness. They don't care. I'm not sure they can care in the state of mind they're in. Which doesn't mean never engaging with them at all, though if you're going to find it too stressful then maybe don't, but it does mean remembering that you are primarily addressing the people reading, not the TRA who's currently making you the focus of their incoherent rage.

The other thing to take away from this is that when they're raging out at you it's not you, not really. You could be anyone telling them something that they find existentially threatening. So try not to take it personally to the point where it upsets you, and disengage if you need to.

RedToothBrush · 25/06/2020 13:11

Queer theory has stepped into one of those gaps in vocabulary and filled it to overflowing with complete fucking nonsense, but the thing is people don't really have any other language to use, so they default to what's available, and then over time using that language influences how they think about the concepts they're trying to describe.

Queer theory itself is an interesting exercise in restricting who can participate in it because it uses language which is 'exclusive'. Its excludes people who don't have the vocabulary and aren't able to verbalise opinions using the 'elite language' (see how the Church used language to keep power to an elite before the Bible was translated to the masses). It is a deliberate strategy to impose superiority in the form of 'perceived wisdom' through the use of language.

As an aside I have posted this a few types over the years but it's worth looking at and learning a bit about propaganda techniques and reflecting on where you see them and who uses them in large volumes.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_techniques
This is a relatively simple and understandable list explaining them.

Propaganda is a persuasion technique. If many are used in large volumes it generally points to a lack of substance to an argument beyond the surface level.

Material reality does not need to use propaganda because it stays the same regardless of the language you use to describe things or explain them.

The truth always shines through eventually because material reality is unavoidable.

Extensive use of propaganda is generally about hiding the truth, although propaganda in and of itself is a neutral thing that can be used to good as well as bad and should not be classed as something that should never be used.

The point is ultimately that, where you see it and recognise it, you should always ask questions about motive and what material reality is.

Using over intellectualised arguments and exclusionary language to deconstruct reality is the ultimate way of trying to hide reality.

We should live in a world of Ronseals not Word Salad.

If you can't explain a difficult and complex idea and concept in an easy way that has universal understanding then the idea itself is flawed and you are an elitist. We should all strive not to oversimplify things but use language to communicate in a way which bring everyone into the conversation and aids understanding rather than excluding them or deliberately trying to marginalise or even shame them for a lack of opportunities in education. Shouting 'educate yourself' is a good example of this exclusionary elitist behaviour.

This post probably goes completely counter to my point about over intellectualising, but I hope you understand why I've made it!

RedToothBrush · 25/06/2020 13:15

At this crossroads we have safeguarding which is all about preventing exploitation and is about highlighting material reality. It points out the nature of how humans naturally seek whatever advantage they can to gain power over others no matter how destructive and nasty that maybe.

It's an uncomfortable truth that doesn't sit well which ideologies which are founded on the very need to exclude or protect an elite set of interests.

TheProdigalKittensReturn · 25/06/2020 13:18

Oh yeah, if you want to talk about "inclusive", queer theory most definitely ain't it. Even Butler's fans admit they have no idea what she's on about half the time (apparently they regard this as a failing on their part, which again tells you a great deal about the level of manipulation going on).

BiPsychle · 25/06/2020 13:28

@dayoftheclownfish

Another question, BiPsychle, since you mention the importance of myth and symbol, is there a connection between Jung’s thought and that of philosopher René Girard? And again, what’s the answer? Return to the old Gods? Strikes me as unrealistic in such a secular country but one never knows ...
Funny you should ask that, @dayoftheclownfish, but I just bought Girard's Violence and the Sacred because a friend recommended it to me based on my Jungian approach to all of this. Which is a long-winded way of saying there probably is, but I've yet to read about it!

The "old gods" really are just 'avatars' based on pre-thought, pre-conscious symbols - so it's probably a matter of re-envisaging them than returning to them. This is personal work, though. Jung was all about personal revelation and inner work - about re-enlivening the sacred through felt experience of it, rather than replication (and he was highly critical of most traditional religions for this kind of meaningless replication). He did a talk very early on in his career about this (the Zofingia Lectures).

OP posts:
Goosefoot · 25/06/2020 13:30

@TheProdigalKittensReturn

I think part of our inability to describe it is deliberate - there is a lot of political obfuscation going on; and part of it is because we are hitting up against the unconscious. We are feeling it rather than being able to see it clearly

If you want to make sure people can't fight back against something then making sure they have no way to even discuss what they're trying to fight is a great way to accomplish that goal. Some stuff we just don't have good words for, like the type of men I was trying to describe earlier. Queer theory has stepped into one of those gaps in vocabulary and filled it to overflowing with complete fucking nonsense, but the thing is people don't really have any other language to use, so they default to what's available, and then over time using that language influences how they think about the concepts they're trying to describe. This is why I get stubborn when people are all, can't we just concede this particular word? Well, no, because when you do that it has an impact on how people are able to talk about concepts and issues and how they mentally frame the world around them, as well as their own feelings, impulses, etc. Language is really, really important.

I always come back to the idea of boundaries too. Who doesn't want which group of people to have them, and why? Who does the erosion of those boundaries benefit?

I may be wading into controversial waters here (but when has that ever stopped me) but I do wonder if some of the things we are wanting to talk about are best communicated through tropes, literary figures, and what are now dismissively called stereotypes. While the drive to avoid imposing stereotype on individuals and rethink certain very negative ones has been almost wholly positive, it's been accompanied by a tendency to dismiss the perception of patterns and types as simply an invalid way to think that doesn't have any basis in truth.

We're also increasingly culturally impoverished in terms of things like literary allusions, or images from sacred texts, that are well known enough to form the basis of a common language. Popular films don't really seem to fill the gap.

It's not accidental maybe that when delving into the unconscious people like Freud and Jung ended up turning to images taken from mythology, just as Plato turned to myth to describe some of his most fundamental philosophical principles. We live in an age when even texts that were always understood as having a deeper spiritual meaning that was more real and more true that the concrete meaning of the words are read by many as a sort of literal scientific/historic text. We've been conditioned to believe the truth of words is obvious and concrete, and I wonder if that is a way we can really approach our deeper selves effectivly.

Tootletum · 25/06/2020 13:32

@CaraDune I completely agree. It's weird. If I compare it to animal rights, the responses make no sense. The basic tenets of animal rights are great and everyone agrees with not causing unnecessary suffering to animals. Then the definition of "unnecessary" got a bit weird. There were always a hard core of psychos in the animal rights movement, who thought that scientists who conducted experiments on animals - eg. To test medicines or vaccines - should be murdered for causing "unnecessary" suffering. This was never acceptable. But for some reason in this debate, a small group of people seek to redefine "woman" and terrorise everyone who disagrees.

BiPsychle · 25/06/2020 13:33

@TheProdigalKittensReturn

The most important thing I think is realizing the utter futility of trying to approach someone who's in the grip of whatever we're going to call the compulsion the OP describes using reason or logic, or even appeals to decency or fairness. They don't care. I'm not sure they can care in the state of mind they're in. Which doesn't mean never engaging with them at all, though if you're going to find it too stressful then maybe don't, but it does mean remembering that you are primarily addressing the people reading, not the TRA who's currently making you the focus of their incoherent rage.

The other thing to take away from this is that when they're raging out at you it's not you, not really. You could be anyone telling them something that they find existentially threatening. So try not to take it personally to the point where it upsets you, and disengage if you need to.

Exactly. It's not you; you've become a screen for their projections. You have, as Melanie Klein would say, become "the bad object": the repository for everything disowned in oneself, which is then split off and thrust out at another person or group or thing. If this happens to you and you find yourself tongue-tied or in some way unable to act, you have in some way taken this on ("introjection").

The best way to deal with it in this case is to try to recognise it for the 'game' it is, and to step out of it. There is no way of winning; just leaving, which deactivates it.

OP posts:
BiPsychle · 25/06/2020 13:36

@Goosefoot - I think your comments about myth and symbolism lie at the heart of what we have lost, and how we can find it again. (Or, more accurately, how we can find ourselves again.)

OP posts:
lionheart · 25/06/2020 13:45

Yes. The Jungian emphasis on 'spirit' might be easier to appropriate perhaps. I've seen quite a few references to 'feminine' spirit in trans writings ...

Do you have a reference for the book?

Goosefoot · 25/06/2020 13:45

@dayoftheclownfish

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?

I find there isn't a lot, my older kids are 15 and 12, and it's a bit odd, actually. Music for example seems to be listened to differently by most as it's influenced very much by the algorithms of Spotify etc. They tend to be in a lot of activities if they are middle class but those seem less defining. Differences in dress are less important.

A heck of a lot of the culture seems related to their phones. They spend money on tech and accessories rather than music or fashion. Their cultural references are youtubers. They also seem very caught up in the present, whereas when I was a teen there was a sense of the cultural background of people our parents age, what films they watched for example or the music of the 60s and 70s. My kids are quite unusual among their friends for example in knowing older films and music, probably mainly because they've been home educated.

dayoftheclownfish · 25/06/2020 13:50

Girard is having a bit of a moment, there was a long article on him in the New York Review of Books a couple of years ago and he has some high-profile fans. He is also a Christian. An interesting thinker.

But coming back to the emphasis on working on the self (and I have probably misunderstood), can you have meaningful rituals without a collective? One of the appeals of Catholicism and similar religions is that everyone, everywhere says the same words, in the same order, which anchors the faithful in a shared system of meaning. But Jung disapproved? Why?

BiPsychle · 25/06/2020 13:55

@lionheart

Yes. The Jungian emphasis on 'spirit' might be easier to appropriate perhaps. I've seen quite a few references to 'feminine' spirit in trans writings ...

Do you have a reference for the book?

It's this one, @lionheart:

punctumbooks.com/titles/clinical-encounters-in-sexuality-psychoanalytic-practice-and-queer-theory/

OP posts:
BiPsychle · 25/06/2020 13:58

@dayoftheclownfish

Girard is having a bit of a moment, there was a long article on him in the New York Review of Books a couple of years ago and he has some high-profile fans. He is also a Christian. An interesting thinker.

But coming back to the emphasis on working on the self (and I have probably misunderstood), can you have meaningful rituals without a collective? One of the appeals of Catholicism and similar religions is that everyone, everywhere says the same words, in the same order, which anchors the faithful in a shared system of meaning. But Jung disapproved? Why?

Because he argued that the words became meaningless when repeated: you cannot replicate spiritual experience, and religions, in trying to do so through chanted prayer and ritual, become echoes of something that was once revelatory, and is now simply perfunctory and performative.

I think you can have meaningful rituals. Analysis and some forms of therapy are part of this for many people. Art and creativity; active imagination, etc. Jung's Red Book is his own account of his own explorations with/of the unconscious - but that was an extreme.

OP posts:
picklemewalnuts · 25/06/2020 13:59

Myth and symbolism... I may be wildly off here, I won't know until I've written it down! Well, having written it I don't know whether it's at all relevant. But here we go...

I'm broadly speaking Christian- I see it as the framework within which I experience life and the supernatural, and make sense of it. I don't see it as a material reality which other people are out of line with- I'm happy for them to have their own framework.

When we experience both explicable material reality and inexplicable things, we order them somehow in our minds using frameworks we are familiar with. For some it's ghosts, astrology, chinese medicine etc. Generally speaking those frameworks are benevolent and helpful. Occasionally they become extreme and abusively enforced on others.

There are times when science and rationalism and concrete reality fall short of what we experience.

picklemewalnuts · 25/06/2020 13:59

That took me so long to write, everything's moved on!

BiPsychle · 25/06/2020 14:03

@picklemewalnuts

That took me so long to write, everything's moved on!
I don't think so, @picklemewalnuts :) It's pertinent, and actually illustrates that not all religion is dry and performative. It can be enlivened when it becomes a personal experience.
OP posts:
picklemewalnuts · 25/06/2020 14:11

I'm going to have to step away- my brain's daily ration has been used up and it's stopped making sense of anything. I'll try again later after a rest.

Thank you all for interesting stimulating thoughts!

Goosefoot · 25/06/2020 14:14

No picklemewalnuts, I think you are right in the right spot.

Frankly I think Jung is quite wrong that we can find this meaning individualistically. If that were true he wouldn't have had to turn to collective stories to name things. Perhaps he took all that collective culture for granted a little too much.

One of the interesting things about modern art is the extent to which really abstract art, that is very much about the inner vision, fails to function for most people. In fact quite often we can't even tell if it is fraudulent, artistically and spiritually speaking. Even when it seems authentic though, a real inner vision of some kind, it's meaning is locked away from the viewer. It's a private vision, because it has no language or form that can be recognised, and the purer the abstraction the more that is the case. What does it offer the viewer? Very little, it's a sort of mental masturbation.

We are a species that thinks in language and form, and the language and images we know are what forms our thinking.

For all that there is a need for some interior work to be done alone, there is a lot of function in also engaging in it collectively, and it's often sharing ritual with others that makes it meaningful and part of the collective memory or experience.

FantaOra · 25/06/2020 14:17

So we do our best to stay immune and speak truth to power - but to try to dismantle the crowd directly is to become identified with it, and therefore to become it.

This point made yesterday by BiP is critical to me.

I see so much of this from people on Twitter and here even, and have done it myself. The engagement in hand to hand fighting with people in the grip of this truly does mean it has you in it's grip too.

I think Kathleen Stock alluded to this recently, which got her a pasting, but she was saying a similar thing. The "what is a woman" venting is you becoming part of the gender critical versus trans battlefield cohort, without changing their minds, when actually what you what we needed to do be immune to this trench warfare and work on protecting the law.

We have done this a lot and it has worked in terms of Liz Truss's announcements but excessive energy is spent on raging at individuals.

BiPsychle · 25/06/2020 14:19

@Goosefoot

No picklemewalnuts, I think you are right in the right spot.

Frankly I think Jung is quite wrong that we can find this meaning individualistically. If that were true he wouldn't have had to turn to collective stories to name things. Perhaps he took all that collective culture for granted a little too much.

One of the interesting things about modern art is the extent to which really abstract art, that is very much about the inner vision, fails to function for most people. In fact quite often we can't even tell if it is fraudulent, artistically and spiritually speaking. Even when it seems authentic though, a real inner vision of some kind, it's meaning is locked away from the viewer. It's a private vision, because it has no language or form that can be recognised, and the purer the abstraction the more that is the case. What does it offer the viewer? Very little, it's a sort of mental masturbation.

We are a species that thinks in language and form, and the language and images we know are what forms our thinking.

For all that there is a need for some interior work to be done alone, there is a lot of function in also engaging in it collectively, and it's often sharing ritual with others that makes it meaningful and part of the collective memory or experience.

I don't think there's a contradiction in your thought and Jung's. Collective gatherings and collective culture, yes - and also personal revelation. Religious experience is always personal: no two people go through exactly the same thing. How can they? But the events surrounding that personal experience will have a collective element to it. That's why Jung referred to the collective unconscious: that part of the unconscious that is shared, ancestral, and primordial.
OP posts:
BiPsychle · 25/06/2020 14:20

@FantaOra

So we do our best to stay immune and speak truth to power - but to try to dismantle the crowd directly is to become identified with it, and therefore to become it.

This point made yesterday by BiP is critical to me.

I see so much of this from people on Twitter and here even, and have done it myself. The engagement in hand to hand fighting with people in the grip of this truly does mean it has you in it's grip too.

I think Kathleen Stock alluded to this recently, which got her a pasting, but she was saying a similar thing. The "what is a woman" venting is you becoming part of the gender critical versus trans battlefield cohort, without changing their minds, when actually what you what we needed to do be immune to this trench warfare and work on protecting the law.

We have done this a lot and it has worked in terms of Liz Truss's announcements but excessive energy is spent on raging at individuals.

Quite! :)
OP posts:
Antibles · 25/06/2020 14:40

I quite agree with your title OP.

This is definitely not about the truth. It's about power. The power men want over women and the anger some men feel when they don't have it.

Sure, I can well imagine they are subsconsciously angry at their mothers or similar figures for having had power over them in the past.

They are angry at women for withholding sex from them if they (men) feel entitled to it. I'm sure many men's utopia is a world in which they could fuck any woman any time anywhere should they so choose so are pretty much permanently frustrated in that respect.

They are angry that women have 100% certainty that they (women) are the biological parent of a baby. I don't think they're especially envious of women for being women per se, merely this reproductive advantage. On the other hand, they do have unpleasant means at their disposal of stripping women of their reproductive autonomy and forcing them to carry their (the man's) baby - rape and all the societal controls we see.

I think some of them are screwed up with a sexual fetish about the accountrements of femininity. It's an easy fetish to imprint on their imprintable brains because they are surounded by it but society mostly forbids them from going there. Perhaps they are angry about that too.

I don't think they want to be us. They just want to punish us for not letting them have complete and utter control over us.