One of the tropes of the current wave of transhate that is sweeping the world is the lie that the haters are trying to “protect” children.
The truth is not only that the suppression the hate is trying to cause harmful to all trans and gender diverse (including non-binary) - to the point of driving them to death by suicide (to be clear: the bigots are the ones responsible for that, not the victim who dies by suicide) - children, but other children are scarred by the promotion of conditional acceptance generally.
This sort of harm is very well described in Gabor Maté’s book “The Myth of Normal: Trauma, Illness & Healing in a Toxic Culture”, and as an example, consider the following from that book (I’ve removed the name of an evil transphobe, but I’ve let the author’s annoying and wrong use of alternating binary pronouns stand untouched):
“Consider the prescription of psychologist and mega-bestselling author J_____ P_______: “An angry child should sit by himself until he calms down. Then he should be allowed to return to normal life. That means the child wins—instead of his anger. The rule is ‘Come be with us as soon as you can behave properly.’ This is a very good deal for child, parent and society.” Is it, though? Notice the assumption: anger in a young child is neither normal nor acceptable. Contra her inborn need for unconditional warmth, any positive response to the child is to be distinctly conditional. She is not to be accepted for who she is, only for how she is. Here’s the problem: even if the parent wins the behavior-modification game, the child loses. We have instilled in her the anxiety of being rejected if her emotional self were to surface. This exacts a heavy toll on both physical and mental health. While the expression of an emotion can be inhibited, or even its conscious experience blocked, the emotion itself is energy that cannot be obliterated. By banishing feelings from awareness, we merely send them underground, a locked cellar of emotions that will continue to haunt many lives. I know for myself that the early hardening of my heart to my own pain shielded me not only from grief but also from joy.”
Thus, in fact, such conditional acceptance of children (i.e., - “you can only be loved if you fit within these parameters that I have set out of my own fears, insecurity and inherited/taught limitations”) is - apart from the direct harm caused to its victims - actively harming, and also perpetuating the previous harm that is inhibiting adults from normal mature functioning.
PS - I have subsequently found Gabor Maté is anti-neurodivergent: see “Why Dr Gabor Mate' is Worse Than Wrong About ADHD” https://youtu.be/bO19LWJ0ZnM?si=0K-F78xW6ZeklNcR Neurodivergence is one of those conditions which, as with same sex/gender attraction and gender divergence, needs to be accepted and welcomed, not “cured” or prevented.
The haters are suffering as a result of their own emotional scarring - not only on this issue but other areas of their lives.
This harm is also harming society - not only by the direct and indirect health and loss of potential costs of all forms of discrimination, but by the direct and indirect health and loss of potential costs of the emotional scarring caused by patriarchy warped forms of parenting and its offshoots.
It is a crippling hate and self-hate founded in the irreducible (see Gabor Maté’s book) need of all human children for contact, and “rest” (sort of security - again, see Gabor Maté’s book).
Identifying an issue is one thing; the inevitable next question is: “what next - what’s the cure or fix?”
And at this point I’d like to turn to one of my favourite activists: Dr Martin Luther King Jr.:
Like an unchecked cancer, hate corrodes the personality and eats away its vital unity.
The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral. Returning violence with violence only multiplies violence, add deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars.
(Keep
in mind that the emotional abuse being considered in this post IS a form of violence,
and this saying applies as equally to that as to physical violence.)
This supports my and Gabor Maté’s points about the internal damage of hate to the hater.
However:
It may be true that the law cannot change the heart, but it can restrain the heartless.
If someone has a gun and is shooting people, they are obviously in need of help to address whatever has driven them to that terrible act, but the immediate need is to curtail the harm that is being done.
In the context of bigots, they are actively causing harm to individuals and society, and that harm must be curtailed - which is where laws against discrimination, vilification, or inciting crimes (including hate speech) are so necessary ... as is ensuring those laws are properly implemented.
There can be a flaw there in that police can be harmed both by their upbringing, if similar to the flawed model discussed above, and by the heart-hardening trauma of police work. I’ve long advocated for better mental heath care for police and other emergency services personnel (and members of the military, who are often scarred by their training into being able to kill but not de-scarred when they are demobilised), but I now also advocate for admission and initial & ongoing training of police to deliberately and specifically include assessment and management of unconscious bias.
I suspect I’ve been seeing a gender-stereotypical unconscious bias along the line of toxic masculinity prevent police taking action on a stalking matter in a regional area of my state: that has to change.
Similar biases can and do apply, in my opinion, in other areas of our judicial system - from potentially out of date attitudes of judges to the sometimes unconscious and sometimes deliberate & flaunted conscious bias of some law makers.
Those too have to change.
How?
Activism - prolonged, persistent, unrelenting, deliberate & intelligently planned and continuously adapted to the ever-changing-world activism aimed at changing hearts and minds, including education.
(I would like to see that education also in schools, but that would also have to address the fact that parents can be an active block - which could possibly be managed as part of a scheme to generally help parents cope with what is coming up in their children’s education, but that is a topic for a post or many elsewhere.)
In writing that, I am also mindful of:
The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.
(the saying dates back to Theodore Parker, in the 1850s)
I am also mindful of the following sayings by Dr King:
I have always tried, and still try, to keep that in mind when engaging in any activism, but I also keep the need to curtail active harm in mind as well.
It is a moral balancing act, requiring moral courage.
PS - one of my writing projects over the last few years has been a book tentatively titled “The Scarred of Modern Life”. Although intended to be a short book, I’m currently inclined towards not proceeding with that, as Gabor Maté’s book is so much better than anything I could cover - although I may be able to add some human rights / activism perspectives ...
Where I can, I will try to highlight possible flaws / issues you should consider:
- there may be flawed logical arguments in the above: to find out more about such flaws and thinking generally, I recommend Brendan Myers’ free online course “Clear and Present Thinking”;
- I could be wrong - so keep your thinking caps on, and make up your own minds for yourself.
If you appreciated this post, please consider promoting it - there are some links below.
Vote Yes for the Voice in Australia.
Finally, remember: we need to be more human being rather than human doing.
