Another hit out of the ballpark. Thorough and great links. And I like how you've contextualized trans within existing body modification practices.
I've watched in my lifetime the lexical evolution from the clunky adult-only "transsexual" to "transgender" to "trans*" and now just child-friendly 'trans". This last term looks and feels as if it's been liberated from the flesh altogether. Somehow, something with a hint of the spiritual cache of "transpersonal" (the now somewhat dated-sounding 70s psychological jargon), has become more marketable, catchy, and somehow more futuristic. "It's not just your parents' trans!"
The transsexualism of the 20th century involved no religious cultism as far as I know. For me the new/old cultish religious energy is critical to understanding what is going on. It's as if several different cultural streams suddenly found a way to intersect in 2012 in order to create a true Frankenstein's monster.
The mutilation of children's sex organs (e.g., circumcision), is an ancient and established practice. As a man who was circumcized as well as a psychotherapist, I've long been interested in this cultural blindspot, which is obviously a traumatic injury for the babies involved. Generally speaking, as therapists we are against creating more childhood trauma, but often enough, not here. The religious conditioning is so deep that most of us just live unaware of the cognitive dissonance. To say anything about it is to place oneself within an irritating, perhaps even antisemitic -- is the possible charge -- group of dissidents.
The mutilation has two main functions. One is as an incredibly powerful binding act. Parents who promote or allow these acts demonstrate their allegiance to the religion or cult beyond their natural instinct to protect their child. This is a cementing of follower to group identity, which is no doubt one of the main reasons the practice began.
The other function is the sublimation of sexual energy into the scholarly/mental, and, the hope is, into the spiritual. (This is stated explicitly in some religious texts.) Within a tribal group context, it is pulling that otherwise free and often chaotic energy into the service of the group both to bind it and fuel religious practices, which again, serves the group.
A key difference now is the movement from a spiritual to a material culture. While circumcision appears to be about sublimation, the new cult arises out of our modern nihilistic, materialistic milieu. As with the fervor of some new atheists, its feel is both strident and literal, so it supports cutting off the offending organs altogether and replacing them with impotent symbols of the other sex. Sometimes these almost read like badges of triumph. So it seems less about sublimation and more like repression, yet retaining the binding element of the ancient practice. Which is exactly what many of the detransers describe.
I know I'm making very general statements here ... each life and decision is different, but it's important to try to understand the broad picture from a variety of perspectives. This is just one.
Final point: Regardless of what young transers are saying about their motivation and the success or failure in the attempt, it's easy to empathize with how they've been caught in an ancient and deep cultural channel and are being swept along in its currents: the very ancient practices of harnessing sexual energy and binding to group identity. They deserve better guidance.
Stop using the gay community as a shield to justify your transphobia. As a cisgender gay man we heard the same arguments you are making now that we weren’t born gay. The sheer irony is that you are claiming you are “liberal”. My guess is you are as homophobic as you are transphobic.
I will not use the cults language. It makes more sense to me to use body dysmorphia cult.
This was excellent we really need people like you to stop this woman and child, gay and lesbian hating cult
Another hit out of the ballpark. Thorough and great links. And I like how you've contextualized trans within existing body modification practices.
I've watched in my lifetime the lexical evolution from the clunky adult-only "transsexual" to "transgender" to "trans*" and now just child-friendly 'trans". This last term looks and feels as if it's been liberated from the flesh altogether. Somehow, something with a hint of the spiritual cache of "transpersonal" (the now somewhat dated-sounding 70s psychological jargon), has become more marketable, catchy, and somehow more futuristic. "It's not just your parents' trans!"
The transsexualism of the 20th century involved no religious cultism as far as I know. For me the new/old cultish religious energy is critical to understanding what is going on. It's as if several different cultural streams suddenly found a way to intersect in 2012 in order to create a true Frankenstein's monster.
The mutilation of children's sex organs (e.g., circumcision), is an ancient and established practice. As a man who was circumcized as well as a psychotherapist, I've long been interested in this cultural blindspot, which is obviously a traumatic injury for the babies involved. Generally speaking, as therapists we are against creating more childhood trauma, but often enough, not here. The religious conditioning is so deep that most of us just live unaware of the cognitive dissonance. To say anything about it is to place oneself within an irritating, perhaps even antisemitic -- is the possible charge -- group of dissidents.
The mutilation has two main functions. One is as an incredibly powerful binding act. Parents who promote or allow these acts demonstrate their allegiance to the religion or cult beyond their natural instinct to protect their child. This is a cementing of follower to group identity, which is no doubt one of the main reasons the practice began.
The other function is the sublimation of sexual energy into the scholarly/mental, and, the hope is, into the spiritual. (This is stated explicitly in some religious texts.) Within a tribal group context, it is pulling that otherwise free and often chaotic energy into the service of the group both to bind it and fuel religious practices, which again, serves the group.
A key difference now is the movement from a spiritual to a material culture. While circumcision appears to be about sublimation, the new cult arises out of our modern nihilistic, materialistic milieu. As with the fervor of some new atheists, its feel is both strident and literal, so it supports cutting off the offending organs altogether and replacing them with impotent symbols of the other sex. Sometimes these almost read like badges of triumph. So it seems less about sublimation and more like repression, yet retaining the binding element of the ancient practice. Which is exactly what many of the detransers describe.
I know I'm making very general statements here ... each life and decision is different, but it's important to try to understand the broad picture from a variety of perspectives. This is just one.
Final point: Regardless of what young transers are saying about their motivation and the success or failure in the attempt, it's easy to empathize with how they've been caught in an ancient and deep cultural channel and are being swept along in its currents: the very ancient practices of harnessing sexual energy and binding to group identity. They deserve better guidance.
Stop using the gay community as a shield to justify your transphobia. As a cisgender gay man we heard the same arguments you are making now that we weren’t born gay. The sheer irony is that you are claiming you are “liberal”. My guess is you are as homophobic as you are transphobic.
Absolutely brilliant. Thank you!