Amy, I totally agree, and I'm so upset that my grandchild is about to be forcefully taught in kindergarten to see her perceptions as wrong. Can you talk, too, about a related matter: sex constancy? (Which seems to be a sort of opposite harm from gender ideology.) As I understand it, at some point (5? 6? 7?) children leave behind the belief that a doll's sex or a person's sex changes if they switch to clothes associated with the other sex. Children gain sex constancy and realize someone's still a boy even if he puts on a dress. It seems that the schools (and others) are actively striving to prevent kids from achieving the developmental stage of sex constancy. They are actively preventing maturation on this front (and many others). Agree?
Thank you for this observation. I retired from a Montessori school 7 years ago, before that kind of indoctrination was full-blown, so I'm not hearing from parents of school-aged kids these days.
But in 2010, a girl came to our school at three years old, insisting, "I'm really a boy, even though I have a vagina!" Her parents seemed just as befuddled as we teachers were about how to handle this, since she clearly was in awe of her 5-year-old brother, and her anatomical language suggested that the parents had explained something about the differences between boys and girls.
However, soon the parents found gender ideology, and gifted the whole staff with the book, "The Transgender Child." We accepted that, and the next year the girl came back to school with a "boy" name and buzz haircut. Her hairstyle the previous year had gone from a short bob to a pixy style, and she always wore clothes from the boy's department.
Obviously this was confusing to other children, and our education leader explained it as, "X feels, deep down inside, like a boy. Most girls feel like a girl deep down inside, but X doesn't; X feels like a boy, so we will treat him like a boy." (paraphrasing) One of the ironies that occurred to me later, is that the Montessori method considers that fantasy is not appropriate for children under 6 or 7. They need to first be grounded in reality before their immagination can be unleashed into the realm of the unreal. And here we were, encouraging a 3 and 4 year-old to BELIEVE a fantasy about herself.
The following year, X went to the local public school, and I only saw her once or twice more, while she was still elementary school age, so I don't know what happened to her after that; she'd be a young adult by now. I don't know if she got the puberty blockers and testosterone like the parents were describing as the "standard of care" at the time.
The thing I know from Montessori's observations, and the observations and studies by other child development experts, is that a child is literally unable to go against the wishes of his or her adult caregivers at that young an age. Once parents buy into the idea of their child being "trans," the child cannot opt out, or tell the parents s/he has changed her mind. X never really looked happy the times I saw her after her "social transition," and it occurs to me that TIFs seldom do.
I will probably always have regrets about my part in "transing" this child, even though at the time it seemed to be the right thing to do. The full extent of the damage that causes had not been exposed.
From a certain angle which this video spotlights, for me anyway, I'm not all that surprised that the medical community goes along with this ideological unreality.
Medical professionals often can't see and can't course-correct into reality, by listening to their own judgment, because they have outsourced it to "evidence based care" and "specialization". They aren't used to listening to real people, and so they can't hear the majority speak of their fundamental body responses to "trans" claims.
The medical community, especially at certain levels, is completely geared towards
- accepting whatever is in "research papers", because of the recent adoption of the "evidence based care" fallacy, which among its many problems ignores the existence of N=1 and experiences with reality;
- minimizing and ignoring patient reports of their medical reality in preference to listening to machines and perhaps to other specialists' interpretations of whatever some machine said about some narrow field of view it obtained on a real person's unique body.
As a result of all this, these medical professionals often get things gravely wrong or miss seeing symptoms that are in the less common category, and they can keep going this way because a/ the machine rubric or the fakeable research paper tells them they "did it right" and b/ the insurer confirms this false information by dispensing payment.
I know it might seem bizarre or counterintuitive that this is so, after all, Galen etc.: "listen to the patient", right?
But for "trans" ideology, "listen to the patient" opened the door to the problem:
- they are #believingallpatients including those with crafty personality disorders that are constructed around deception as a way to exist.
- they have outsourced their judgment to fakeable research papers and have deferred all common sense to that artificial substitute for whole experience.
So the medical community is existing in a praxis of altered reality.
I think this is the case particularly among those with comparatively less knowledge but with high opinions of themselves (nurse practitioners in particular). And when a set of claims that are wildly untrue are made, how are practitioners supposed to be able to discount them, when
- they can't have studied "the field" because it doesn't actually exist--but faked-up research papers do exist
- they think they can't discount something that "isn't in their area of expertise".
Especially those with narrow and sub-excellent education would be vulnerable to a totally faked area of knowledge.
And because medical professionals who meet with patients are now used to dismissing real-person reports of reality, they would be unable to hear all the people objecting to unreal claims such as "trans".
The reason this occurs to me is what you were saying about producing disembodiment.
I recognized the phenomenon.
These professionals are comfortable with their applied "judgment" being the cause of disembodiment and detachment from reality in real persons ("patients") and their clinical arc. What I mean is that the real-people patients who encounter an unreality-shipping medical professional may find themselves unable to get attention paid to their real situation and may have to create a fictional medical persona in order to be "seen".
The clinicians who generate this situation don't notice when they do this, at least not anymore.
It is less common among older and more educated clinicians, and if they do research too, that can sometimes help them not do this. Even then, though, the competency to not do this to real-people seems to follow Pareto's "rule" in distribution.
I can also confirm, this phenomenon happens in religious families and it will often be an assertion of authority over anything in the innermost part of their children's beings. So no saying "no" to anything said by the parent, no inner refusal to enjoy what a parent enjoys, no retreat, certainly no uncertainty about the religion, no boundaries, etc. A total blanket disregard. And I think this has a strong parallel in the more invasive "trans" demands.
Interesting. Thank you. May I ask, was there a typo in the sentence beginning, “What I mean is.…” Did you mean to write “reality-shipping,” please? I was confused there.
Aside from that.a lot of great insights to think about.
Hi, no, I meant unreality, as in, they are promoting a relationship of unreality and a relationship to unreality. Amongst everyone not just amongst a target couple like the slang word means. More like, a relationship between/towards unreality-and-_____ (fill in the blank, everyone).
The unreality comes from many places. For example if a surgeon only does surgery based on what a supine MRI can show, and not on a diagnosis of symptoms that only occur when a patient is standing up. If the patient has to learn to describe themselves when lying down, maybe figure out a way to attack it from an angle where they can maybe get partial treatment, they are forced into complicity in this relationship to themselves, premised on unreality. And the surgeon is relating to everyone in unreal (analogous but not true, artificial, partial, representative, mediated, rendered) ways.
That’s just a single example. Abstract the principles and apply them all over the place.
Now, in the case of the trans “patient” or wanna-be patient, they sometimes are the ones generating the unreality, which gets pushed through a mediated chain (the falsified or ideologically framed and mis-communicated research, for example), to the surgeon, who then has a relationship with themselves and the patient and everyone which are rooted in unreality.
Sometimes, though, a distressed and unnerved individual is “transed” by medical professionals who induce the patient to develop an unreal relationship with themselves. And these professionals themselves are operating in a floating haze of unreality that has been created over time by all these mediating practices which one by one chip away at the idea that the clinician can experience reality directly and then, for better or for worse, make decisions about how to treat that are not mediated through the funnel of “expert” micro-nibbles or (kaleidescopic? mirrored? refracted?) narrowly cropped pictures taken of this or that tiny portion of the elephant of reality.
And of course all pictures flatten what is dimensional. If it’s a MRI which purports to be 3-D in slices, well of course the gravity dimension is warped and the time dimension is barely available in research units, as of yet. There will be more dimensional loss beyond these, unless these imaging machines can figure out how to show what is clear (fluid).
That’s one sort of transformation which can create unreality and relationships to unreality without the shift even being noticed.
Wow, yes, that's awful to think about. I think the younger generations have never done the mental diagnosis work without being machine mediated, so I don't know if they'll be able to tell when AI is totally missing things or making things up, or what.
There will have to be a serious muster of patient-advocate-fighters who can draw a hard line and fight the fight while sick, or there will be no record of errors made that way. Because only what is insisted upon hard gets into the record for later review. It's not just for each of us individually that this will matter. It's broken windows theory, in a way. We need those of us capable of calling timeout on errors or obtuseness to really be vocal so that bad habits don't get worse.
You are right. It has basically limitless downside, or at least, none of us want to be there for it to get that bad.
But I have noticed, research coming out of China and South Korea is very tuned in and sensitive to what people are experiencing. This is a local problem, I think.
BRILLIANT video, which triggered this connection between issues and causes and effects, all of which I've been thinking about for a long time but never with exactly this linking clarity about unreality and each of our relationships to ourselves. Maybe some of the earlier videos too, I think yes, but this one really lit some burners for me!
Interesting. Thank you. May I ask, was there a typo in the sentence beginning, “What I mean is.…” Did you mean to write “reality-shipping,” please? I was confused there.
Aside from that, a lot of great insights to think about.
In the US, where 1% of the population now identifies as "transgender," for every 1 person born with an "intersex" condition, aka Disorder of Sex Development (DSD), there are 50 people who identify as "trans."
.
Therefore, 49 out of every 50 Americans who iidentify as "trans" do not have a DSD.
.
Bio-phobes (trans-identified people) who bring up DSDs in conversation are just trying to mislead everyone to believe that every bio-phobe has a DSD.
.
It's a red herring, for them to try to derail the conversation.
.
Whenever they bring up "intersex," or phenotype versus genotype (a reference to DSDs), I just interrupt to ask them, "Have you been diagnosed with a DSD?"
.
First, they usually ask, "What's that?"
.
After hearing that DSD refers to "intersex," they then sheepishly admit they haven't been diagnosed with one.
Amy, I totally agree, and I'm so upset that my grandchild is about to be forcefully taught in kindergarten to see her perceptions as wrong. Can you talk, too, about a related matter: sex constancy? (Which seems to be a sort of opposite harm from gender ideology.) As I understand it, at some point (5? 6? 7?) children leave behind the belief that a doll's sex or a person's sex changes if they switch to clothes associated with the other sex. Children gain sex constancy and realize someone's still a boy even if he puts on a dress. It seems that the schools (and others) are actively striving to prevent kids from achieving the developmental stage of sex constancy. They are actively preventing maturation on this front (and many others). Agree?
Thank you for this observation. I retired from a Montessori school 7 years ago, before that kind of indoctrination was full-blown, so I'm not hearing from parents of school-aged kids these days.
But in 2010, a girl came to our school at three years old, insisting, "I'm really a boy, even though I have a vagina!" Her parents seemed just as befuddled as we teachers were about how to handle this, since she clearly was in awe of her 5-year-old brother, and her anatomical language suggested that the parents had explained something about the differences between boys and girls.
However, soon the parents found gender ideology, and gifted the whole staff with the book, "The Transgender Child." We accepted that, and the next year the girl came back to school with a "boy" name and buzz haircut. Her hairstyle the previous year had gone from a short bob to a pixy style, and she always wore clothes from the boy's department.
Obviously this was confusing to other children, and our education leader explained it as, "X feels, deep down inside, like a boy. Most girls feel like a girl deep down inside, but X doesn't; X feels like a boy, so we will treat him like a boy." (paraphrasing) One of the ironies that occurred to me later, is that the Montessori method considers that fantasy is not appropriate for children under 6 or 7. They need to first be grounded in reality before their immagination can be unleashed into the realm of the unreal. And here we were, encouraging a 3 and 4 year-old to BELIEVE a fantasy about herself.
The following year, X went to the local public school, and I only saw her once or twice more, while she was still elementary school age, so I don't know what happened to her after that; she'd be a young adult by now. I don't know if she got the puberty blockers and testosterone like the parents were describing as the "standard of care" at the time.
The thing I know from Montessori's observations, and the observations and studies by other child development experts, is that a child is literally unable to go against the wishes of his or her adult caregivers at that young an age. Once parents buy into the idea of their child being "trans," the child cannot opt out, or tell the parents s/he has changed her mind. X never really looked happy the times I saw her after her "social transition," and it occurs to me that TIFs seldom do.
I will probably always have regrets about my part in "transing" this child, even though at the time it seemed to be the right thing to do. The full extent of the damage that causes had not been exposed.
From a certain angle which this video spotlights, for me anyway, I'm not all that surprised that the medical community goes along with this ideological unreality.
Medical professionals often can't see and can't course-correct into reality, by listening to their own judgment, because they have outsourced it to "evidence based care" and "specialization". They aren't used to listening to real people, and so they can't hear the majority speak of their fundamental body responses to "trans" claims.
The medical community, especially at certain levels, is completely geared towards
- accepting whatever is in "research papers", because of the recent adoption of the "evidence based care" fallacy, which among its many problems ignores the existence of N=1 and experiences with reality;
- minimizing and ignoring patient reports of their medical reality in preference to listening to machines and perhaps to other specialists' interpretations of whatever some machine said about some narrow field of view it obtained on a real person's unique body.
As a result of all this, these medical professionals often get things gravely wrong or miss seeing symptoms that are in the less common category, and they can keep going this way because a/ the machine rubric or the fakeable research paper tells them they "did it right" and b/ the insurer confirms this false information by dispensing payment.
I know it might seem bizarre or counterintuitive that this is so, after all, Galen etc.: "listen to the patient", right?
But for "trans" ideology, "listen to the patient" opened the door to the problem:
- they are #believingallpatients including those with crafty personality disorders that are constructed around deception as a way to exist.
- they have outsourced their judgment to fakeable research papers and have deferred all common sense to that artificial substitute for whole experience.
So the medical community is existing in a praxis of altered reality.
I think this is the case particularly among those with comparatively less knowledge but with high opinions of themselves (nurse practitioners in particular). And when a set of claims that are wildly untrue are made, how are practitioners supposed to be able to discount them, when
- they can't have studied "the field" because it doesn't actually exist--but faked-up research papers do exist
- they think they can't discount something that "isn't in their area of expertise".
Especially those with narrow and sub-excellent education would be vulnerable to a totally faked area of knowledge.
And because medical professionals who meet with patients are now used to dismissing real-person reports of reality, they would be unable to hear all the people objecting to unreal claims such as "trans".
The reason this occurs to me is what you were saying about producing disembodiment.
I recognized the phenomenon.
These professionals are comfortable with their applied "judgment" being the cause of disembodiment and detachment from reality in real persons ("patients") and their clinical arc. What I mean is that the real-people patients who encounter an unreality-shipping medical professional may find themselves unable to get attention paid to their real situation and may have to create a fictional medical persona in order to be "seen".
The clinicians who generate this situation don't notice when they do this, at least not anymore.
It is less common among older and more educated clinicians, and if they do research too, that can sometimes help them not do this. Even then, though, the competency to not do this to real-people seems to follow Pareto's "rule" in distribution.
I can also confirm, this phenomenon happens in religious families and it will often be an assertion of authority over anything in the innermost part of their children's beings. So no saying "no" to anything said by the parent, no inner refusal to enjoy what a parent enjoys, no retreat, certainly no uncertainty about the religion, no boundaries, etc. A total blanket disregard. And I think this has a strong parallel in the more invasive "trans" demands.
(edit to fix paragraph order)
Interesting. Thank you. May I ask, was there a typo in the sentence beginning, “What I mean is.…” Did you mean to write “reality-shipping,” please? I was confused there.
Aside from that.a lot of great insights to think about.
Hi, no, I meant unreality, as in, they are promoting a relationship of unreality and a relationship to unreality. Amongst everyone not just amongst a target couple like the slang word means. More like, a relationship between/towards unreality-and-_____ (fill in the blank, everyone).
The unreality comes from many places. For example if a surgeon only does surgery based on what a supine MRI can show, and not on a diagnosis of symptoms that only occur when a patient is standing up. If the patient has to learn to describe themselves when lying down, maybe figure out a way to attack it from an angle where they can maybe get partial treatment, they are forced into complicity in this relationship to themselves, premised on unreality. And the surgeon is relating to everyone in unreal (analogous but not true, artificial, partial, representative, mediated, rendered) ways.
That’s just a single example. Abstract the principles and apply them all over the place.
Now, in the case of the trans “patient” or wanna-be patient, they sometimes are the ones generating the unreality, which gets pushed through a mediated chain (the falsified or ideologically framed and mis-communicated research, for example), to the surgeon, who then has a relationship with themselves and the patient and everyone which are rooted in unreality.
Sometimes, though, a distressed and unnerved individual is “transed” by medical professionals who induce the patient to develop an unreal relationship with themselves. And these professionals themselves are operating in a floating haze of unreality that has been created over time by all these mediating practices which one by one chip away at the idea that the clinician can experience reality directly and then, for better or for worse, make decisions about how to treat that are not mediated through the funnel of “expert” micro-nibbles or (kaleidescopic? mirrored? refracted?) narrowly cropped pictures taken of this or that tiny portion of the elephant of reality.
And of course all pictures flatten what is dimensional. If it’s a MRI which purports to be 3-D in slices, well of course the gravity dimension is warped and the time dimension is barely available in research units, as of yet. There will be more dimensional loss beyond these, unless these imaging machines can figure out how to show what is clear (fluid).
That’s one sort of transformation which can create unreality and relationships to unreality without the shift even being noticed.
Yikes! And this is only going to get worse the more the medical industry relies on AI, the ultimate unreality!
Wow, yes, that's awful to think about. I think the younger generations have never done the mental diagnosis work without being machine mediated, so I don't know if they'll be able to tell when AI is totally missing things or making things up, or what.
There will have to be a serious muster of patient-advocate-fighters who can draw a hard line and fight the fight while sick, or there will be no record of errors made that way. Because only what is insisted upon hard gets into the record for later review. It's not just for each of us individually that this will matter. It's broken windows theory, in a way. We need those of us capable of calling timeout on errors or obtuseness to really be vocal so that bad habits don't get worse.
You are right. It has basically limitless downside, or at least, none of us want to be there for it to get that bad.
But I have noticed, research coming out of China and South Korea is very tuned in and sensitive to what people are experiencing. This is a local problem, I think.
Thank you. Brilliant insights!
BRILLIANT video, which triggered this connection between issues and causes and effects, all of which I've been thinking about for a long time but never with exactly this linking clarity about unreality and each of our relationships to ourselves. Maybe some of the earlier videos too, I think yes, but this one really lit some burners for me!
Interesting. Thank you. May I ask, was there a typo in the sentence beginning, “What I mean is.…” Did you mean to write “reality-shipping,” please? I was confused there.
Aside from that, a lot of great insights to think about.
Thank you, Amy!
.
In the US, where 1% of the population now identifies as "transgender," for every 1 person born with an "intersex" condition, aka Disorder of Sex Development (DSD), there are 50 people who identify as "trans."
.
Therefore, 49 out of every 50 Americans who iidentify as "trans" do not have a DSD.
.
Bio-phobes (trans-identified people) who bring up DSDs in conversation are just trying to mislead everyone to believe that every bio-phobe has a DSD.
.
It's a red herring, for them to try to derail the conversation.
.
Whenever they bring up "intersex," or phenotype versus genotype (a reference to DSDs), I just interrupt to ask them, "Have you been diagnosed with a DSD?"
.
First, they usually ask, "What's that?"
.
After hearing that DSD refers to "intersex," they then sheepishly admit they haven't been diagnosed with one.
.
And then they quickly change the subject.
.
It's another fun way to call them out.