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.
Hi Mark, thank you for this fantastic comment. The idea of sexual mutilation as a binding ritual is something I had not thought of or recognized, though it makes perfect sense. I enjoyed reading your analysis- very thoughtful and insightful.
If you subscribe to James Lindsay, etc. proposition that “woke” is a religion which forwards man as the new God, then the current trans body modification practice is a religious expression.
I think you're right. Could you point me to where he talks about man as the new God? Considering this further, I think this might be one of the best ways to understand the powerful, mainly unconscious emotional energies propelling this movement.
Conventional religions (I'm thinking the Abrahamic religions as well as Buddhism/Hinduism and Native American religions) all treat man/ego/self as the central problem to be dealt with. And it's dealt with either by submission or realization. They all teach a worldview and practices that attempt to tame or displace identity and egoism from the center of our concern.
When these are rejected for nebulous spiritualities of the sort on offer wherever spirituality is sold on the internet, it seems as if the message of self-undercutting is one of the first to go. The "transcendent" remains as a sort of transhumanism -- becoming more than human, an immortal android who can swap out parts, upload the mind, etc. It's a fantasy of unlimited power over matter and freedom from any constraint -- so the lizard brain remains undercover.
The Tibetan mediation master Chögyam Trungpa called this the "Cosmic Ape".
Arg! I had a much longer comment typed out then hit the wrong tab close. But! Here are the three talks that flush out Lindsay's view of Man as the new God in the contemporary interpretation of Marxist philosophy. Ultimately, if Man is the new God, then there is no Supreme Being or The Good to submit to.
You might also consider the implications of Liberation politics on both society and the body as posited by Aleksandr Dugin. As with all philosophy, you don't need agree with him to understand his perspective and its easy to acknowledge that what he has to say about the West can be quite jarring but give it a think. This is an interview with Dr Michael Millerman explaining Dugin which is a good intro as Dugin is a prolific contemporary philosopher.
Been there with deleting comments :) I would have liked to read that. But thanks for all the links. Lindsay (and Peterson, too, for me) have been pretty indispensable the past couple years doing the heavy public lifting so that I/we all can better grasp what's happening. I've sort of ignored Dugin (and Millerman too, who I've noticed before) until today maybe because I knew it would be a significant time hit. Anyway I thought the video you sent was fantastic, super helpful. I'll have to rewatch to digest more.
I was raised Catholic but became seriously involved in (Tibetan) Buddhism in my late 20s, and found that the philosophy pioneered by Nagarjuna, especially the super-clear distinction between the relative and the absolute, to be maybe the most helpful thing I'd ever encountered in making sense of experience. So I sort of "look back" at Western philosophy through that adopted lens. But it's also foreign to the Judeo-Christian mindset, and Jung actually warned of this, saying that we'd never really get it ... and sometimes I think he might be right. But I love encountering big-picture thinkers like these guys who are making sense of the present.
If you like I'll share my thoughts on the videos; though sort of off-topic here. I've got a gmail username, markcounseling, we could connect that way if you wish. Regardless, thanks!
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.
Hi Mark, thank you for this fantastic comment. The idea of sexual mutilation as a binding ritual is something I had not thought of or recognized, though it makes perfect sense. I enjoyed reading your analysis- very thoughtful and insightful.
If you subscribe to James Lindsay, etc. proposition that “woke” is a religion which forwards man as the new God, then the current trans body modification practice is a religious expression.
I think you're right. Could you point me to where he talks about man as the new God? Considering this further, I think this might be one of the best ways to understand the powerful, mainly unconscious emotional energies propelling this movement.
Conventional religions (I'm thinking the Abrahamic religions as well as Buddhism/Hinduism and Native American religions) all treat man/ego/self as the central problem to be dealt with. And it's dealt with either by submission or realization. They all teach a worldview and practices that attempt to tame or displace identity and egoism from the center of our concern.
When these are rejected for nebulous spiritualities of the sort on offer wherever spirituality is sold on the internet, it seems as if the message of self-undercutting is one of the first to go. The "transcendent" remains as a sort of transhumanism -- becoming more than human, an immortal android who can swap out parts, upload the mind, etc. It's a fantasy of unlimited power over matter and freedom from any constraint -- so the lizard brain remains undercover.
The Tibetan mediation master Chögyam Trungpa called this the "Cosmic Ape".
Arg! I had a much longer comment typed out then hit the wrong tab close. But! Here are the three talks that flush out Lindsay's view of Man as the new God in the contemporary interpretation of Marxist philosophy. Ultimately, if Man is the new God, then there is no Supreme Being or The Good to submit to.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fAkI901zLqY&t=20s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqj-MKG9SnU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=auuyVSu9HEc&t=3s
You might also consider the implications of Liberation politics on both society and the body as posited by Aleksandr Dugin. As with all philosophy, you don't need agree with him to understand his perspective and its easy to acknowledge that what he has to say about the West can be quite jarring but give it a think. This is an interview with Dr Michael Millerman explaining Dugin which is a good intro as Dugin is a prolific contemporary philosopher.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nlh0q4n6-Rs
Been there with deleting comments :) I would have liked to read that. But thanks for all the links. Lindsay (and Peterson, too, for me) have been pretty indispensable the past couple years doing the heavy public lifting so that I/we all can better grasp what's happening. I've sort of ignored Dugin (and Millerman too, who I've noticed before) until today maybe because I knew it would be a significant time hit. Anyway I thought the video you sent was fantastic, super helpful. I'll have to rewatch to digest more.
I was raised Catholic but became seriously involved in (Tibetan) Buddhism in my late 20s, and found that the philosophy pioneered by Nagarjuna, especially the super-clear distinction between the relative and the absolute, to be maybe the most helpful thing I'd ever encountered in making sense of experience. So I sort of "look back" at Western philosophy through that adopted lens. But it's also foreign to the Judeo-Christian mindset, and Jung actually warned of this, saying that we'd never really get it ... and sometimes I think he might be right. But I love encountering big-picture thinkers like these guys who are making sense of the present.
If you like I'll share my thoughts on the videos; though sort of off-topic here. I've got a gmail username, markcounseling, we could connect that way if you wish. Regardless, thanks!
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!