Roots

I am now fairly sure that Blanchard's work on homosexuality as abnormality and by extension his transsexualism taxonomy are rooted in self-rejection. 

This is a very common theme in older people who grew up with very rigid norms. Lindsey Graham was one recent example and there are countless others. 

The basic psychology says "if I can't live authentically neither can you" and at the very minimum I will make sure to stigmatize you. 

This vision of the world is myopic and rejects the human mosaic which is more accurate of how society would be were it devoid of judgement, shame and guilt. 

As a gay man himself and early boomer, Blanchard would have been exposed to very negative messaging about his own proclivities. The instinct toward self-rejection would have been virtually automatic. 

Many of the patients he saw in the 1980's would have been much the same and thus he took full advantage.

Soup

After a while, gender dysphoria and euphoria meld into a kind of soup. You get flare-ups of both at very tolerable levels. How much each person experiences will of course vary depending on many factors. 

The point is that we are eliminating a starve and feed cycle which produces peaks and valleys in favour of more harmony. Trust me when I say I know that it's easier said than done.

The aim is that a normalcy begins to be established. 

If we live only on euphoria the gloss could slowly come off the apple as we live increasingly in our target gender role. This may just be a sign to scale back and so no harm done. 

As always, we are striving for life balance and where that point lies is up to us.

Foregone conclusion?

I have assumed that I knew the answer to a question I am now less certain of. 

Does a person who faces a challenge right from the outset in life automatically develop greater resilience in other areas by virtue of the hard work it obliged? 

The reflex might be to say yes but then there are a myriad of factors involved including family dynamics, personality type, surrounding culture, etc. 

In other words, it isn't a foregone conclusion that introspection in one major area develops a general strengthening of the psyche. 

Perhaps it is that I prefer to think that it does.

Watching the interview with young Stephanie Lynnette made me think that her early life challenge added a dimension to her obvious maturity. By age 13 she had a major riddle to solve and that should have by extension added something to her arsenal of abilities.

It certainly appears to me that it did.

Stephanie Lynette

 

Just deserts

Investigating criminality is about justice and not revenge. When the Biden administration, under DOJ head Merrick Garland, failed to prosecute Trump in a timely manner for January 6th, they allowed the crime to appear almost tolerable. "We cannot prosecute a sitting president" was the rallying cry but for a crime much worse than Watergate? 

The GOP cut throat tactics have been shown to be far worse and yet the Dems wring their hands about what should be obvious. Therein lies the problem. 

When the new Congress and Senate members are sworn in, the same mistakes cannot be made and the most corrupt administration in US history must be made to pay for their crimes.

To do otherwise would mean lowering the bar and setting precedent for a repeat offense under a future president with far more intellect and malice than the idiot Trump.

A pragmatic

The Canadian progressive left isn't happy with Mark Carney because his more centrist type pragmatic liberalism doesn't sit well with them. 

I can understand both sides but acknowlwdge that the PM is in a tough position. He needs to advance the needs of the country which includes a diversification away from US dependence. 

At his core, Carney isn't a cultural warrior. He is a shrewd and highly intelligent diplomat who wants to see the most number of Canadians improve their lot in life. This implies sometimes taking a through line and compromising to the chagrin of more idealistic voters. 

I believe that once the boat is more steady, he will address progressive issues more firmly. First, however, you need to patch up the big holes so as not to take in water. 

Progressives like to call Carney a soft C conservative and perhaps decades ago that moniker would have fit. The fact that it no longer does is a testament to how far right the conservatives of today have moved.

An injection of perspective

I am at the hospital with my mother and sister and I happen to notice the transgender woman close to us checking in. 

She says her name is Miranda and she sports a Latina accent which perfectly matches the name. A pink purse nestles next to her on the counter coordinating with the track pants and white sneakers.

By my estimation she is under 40 and makes no attempt at voice correction. It's not an issue for her or perhaps she tried and failed. It doesn't matter anyway because no one cares; not the admitting clerk or those around who may have noticed that she was transgender. 

It's just a normal part of life plus at the hospital emergency, people have bigger concerns like the young woman not far from us crying in pain. 

It is a massive dose of perspective. 

As my mother pushes 91, we all agree it's time for a small apartment and this latest fall of hers confirms it for all of us.

Yet even more perspective.

A universal theme

I've had to do more work on myself over the past 4 years than in the previous 10. This is because the life schema I had built wasn't working properly except that career and other concerns were blocking the repair process. 

Thus, since retiring, it's turned out to be much more than just a cleanup phase. 

You may find you need to do the same as kicking the can down the road simply delays the inevitable. 

At each stage of life we do the best we can with the information at hand so there is little point in indulging in "could'ves" and "should'ves" later on. 

We take in the new information we've gathered about ourselves and progress into new territory. 

It's a universal theme, applicable in varying degrees, to everybody on this planet.

Unsafe

 

Mask off

Over the last few decades, we have completely lost the shame of saying things that are ignorant. It happened a little at a time because I remember the advent of the internet in the early 90's being far more genteel in its style and reserve. 

The brashness of stupid people took a while to climb to the current level helped along by the formation of like-minded packs. 

We went from the internet being a resource to primarily a spreader of propaganda. Unfounded opinion is now the core purpose along with glorifying drivel and sowing division. 

If you held a positive view of society, the last few decades would have certainly eroded it. The people and their opinions were always there, it's just that they were less prone to embarass themselves through overzealous sharing.

There isn't a cure for this other than to fix the ills that keep people unsettled and insecure about their prosperity. Repair their economic woes and the conspiracy movements will tend to become less popular. 

The problem for some of us is that we can't unsee or forget what we already have, so we work on finding the nuggets of goodness where we can. They are everywhere to be found.

I tell my son that in a way it's almost advantageous for him to see the world so mask off relatively early in his life. He can then adapt and work around it as we build towards a new era.

Ye of little faith

I was watching Matt Dillahunty debate Jordan Peterson on religion and it really was no contest. 

The problem for Peterson is that he isn't a believer but uses the mythology around it as panacea for what ails humanity. He clings to Cain and Abel, for example, as a universal morality allegory.

This may not be untrue but Peterson became famous and then picked up a largely conservative following which hung on his every word. He was their sage and intelligentsia for a right wing which was sorely missing it. 

He now cannot disown them so he rides the fence.

Peterson corners himself constantly because his style over substance methods don't work well with careful critical thinkers like Dillahunty. The captive audience for this debate was a little smarter than average and his dodge and weave didn't land so well. 

I don't agree with everything Dillahunty says but his rational approach doesn't allow for an easy escape. The subject matter is nebulous enough because of its lack of conclusive proof either way. 

You are left with faith as primary crutch and the reality of a vast universe around you to explain without all the proper tools at your disposal.