Secondly, if we say that JG is vulnerable, it's actually hugely patronising. And tbh no other adults get a free pass to be dicks online (or anywhere in RL) because people think they're vulnerable. Prisons are FULL of vulnerable men and women. If we removed all vulnerable people from prison, they'd be empty save for a few fraudsters.
Jackie Green suffers from this weird infantilising thing that's going on with the TRA movement.
Jackie is 30 years old. Like Daniel Radcliffe is 33 years old. Like Prince Harry is 38.
What do theyhave in common? Their media persona / value is about their experience in their youth and this Peter Pan phenomena that springs from it.
I think that's fascinating in itself. They aren't young anymore. With youth the quality of innocence and vulnerability is intertwined. But in reality by the age of 30 we typically hold people responsible for their actions and mistakes and having had the benefit of time to outgrow the recklessness and vulnerability of their youth.
Women don't tend to get the same longevity of that innocence as they take on responsibility when they have children.
How does Jackie Green sit within that context as Jackie gets older? And is unable to have children? Forever a child in the minds of the public.
I note at this point that Jackie Greens existence in the public eye isn't for Jackie's benefit. It's always for Suzie. Suzie built a life, career and purpose around Jackie. Jackie's purpose in life is what exactly?
If Jackie rejects their identity, they reject their mother and discredit their mother.
That makes for a really difficult situation for Jackie once confronted with it. That Jackie has ANY doubts at this point is actually significant to me for this reason. It explains the vitriol in a sense - Jackie is presented with a choice of making their own peace with themselves and resolving what's going on OR accepting and supporting their mother and the purpose in life that Suzie decided FOR her child. A decision that normally a child makes for themselves rather than is imposed on them by a parent.
The reverse is true too. Attacking the ideology is a personal attack on Suzie Green the mother. Few people react well to personal attacks on their mother and it has to be seen in this context.
All whilst having taken puberty blockers which knock points off your IQ (thus potentially your ability to process and resolve some of these issues intellectually).
But clearly Jackie is questioning something, and that's the only exit route from the ideology.
Why is it uncomfortable to watch? Precisely because it puts responsibility on Jackie to take some adult responsibility and almost give a life update as to whether their transition has worked or not. Jackie has the power as an adult to stand up to mum and say this isn't cool, or to double down despite obvious self doubts that have crept in. Jackie isn't powerless at this point. Jackie is independent and not living with Suzie. Jackie doesn't want to take the responsibility of being the poster child and role model but can't say 'its all a pile of crap' either. Infantilising behavior is a way to avoid that dilemma, cos 'oh they are so vulnerable'. It's avoidance of stepping up and saying there is a problem. That's not simply vulnerability. That's being cowardly when you know you are being used to sell this to a bunch of new kids and you are fundamentally unhappy and still chasing the wind.
At what point should we deem Jackie to have responsibility? Or are we saying that Jackie lacks capacity - and therefore would be 'not guilt' by default if they committed a crime?
At 30, the concept of innocence and powerlessness over Jackie's own life, doesn't wash completely.
I feel terribly sorry for how Jackie is a victim, but Jackie's isn't 15 anymore either. Jackie could stop harm to others.