Hello Philosophy Society!

Discussion 1: Trans Activism

Cancel culture is not necessarily a means for justice. The trans activist groups have unjustly canceled people, like a well respected professor and clinical psychologist who teaches the psychology of human sexuality. He and his colleagues have made efforts to understand human nature in the context of human sexuality so that we know what the truth of our own nature is as a species. These researchers have suffered undue harm socially and publicly, like the form of dogmatic cancel culture, that is not based in evidence, critical thinking or ethics.

Certain unethical approaches like supporting hormone blockers for children before the onset of puberty have lifelong consequences like preventing women from having children or ever being able to experience an orgasm later on in life. Taking an affirming approach towards those who are still growing and have not fully understood themselves can have serious consequences that are irreversible. In contrast, the watchful waiting approach is one where parents would allow the child to grow up and discover their own identity as they mature into an adult. This can have the benefit of not engaging in irreversible hormone blockers or surgery that could be regretted later in life.

Another issue with the affirming approach is the lack of screening for pre-existing mental health conditions. A finding from a study in Sweden, was that 40% of all people who are trans also have autism. Sapir states,

Autism is fundamentally a social disorder and people who suffer from it are vulnerable and do not necessarily know why they may feel uncomfortable socially.

It would be inappropriate to push a trans ideology on people who suffer from autism at the expense of the autistic person. Another disorder, Borderline Personality Disorder, is another example where the person directly suffers from problems of identity. Pushing an ideology on individuals who are vulnerable is not ethical. Sapir states,

Another issue is the distinction between gender dysphoria being a mental illness or being something that is to be funded by the government. The problem would be that if it is a mental illness, then it is not something that we would want to condone with irreversible surgery. If it is not a mental illness and hence non-diagnosable, it would not qualify for funding from the government health plan.

There is a small percentage of people, 0.02%, who are trans and would benefit from hormone therapy and surgery when they are the appropriate age and have had pre-existing mental health conditions screened for. Another study compared people who went through sexual reassignment surgery and those that did not after 10 years. It was found that those who went through the surgery showed no difference in mental health or wellbeing compared to those who identified as trans that did not go through the surgery. This is important because these surgeries are very hard on the physical body. For example men who transition into women have to continually have their surgeries adjusted because the body recognizes the surgery as a wound and continually tries to heal itself.

Clayton (2022) recently published an article reviewing the scientific integrity of the gender affirming approach and how there is a serious lack of evidence in supporting the effectiveness of it as a treatment for gender dysphoria in contrast to other non surgical treatments. Clayton states that within much of the research on the affirming approach, there is an

First, Cayton identifies, as Sapir does, that the increase in those identifying as trans suffer from neurodevelopmental and psychiatric disorders. The claim supporting affirming treatments improving quality of life is not supported by unbiased evidence including the lack of randomized controlled trials. There is large concern using puberty-hormone blockers and genital surgery for they cause permanent sterility. There is no evidence supporting that trans people do not want to have children. These complications raise serious bioethical issues in administering procedures that render children as young as ten infertile or sterile due to the procedures. (3)

The use of puberty blockers has been shown to cause cardiovascular health issues, risk of cancer, problems in bone mineral density leading to osteoporosis and fractures, and impacting brain development. Surgeries have complications that lead to problems in sexual functioning in arousal and attaining orgasm. (3) Clayton lists many alternative approaches to the affirming method that does not have the risks associated with the hormone or surgery procedures like assessment and diagnosis, treatment of preexisting conditions, education, therapy, and watchful waiting. (6)

The observational research supporting affirming techniques has been shown to be biased in not distinguishing between actual effects and placebo. The effect on reducing suicide has

The social contagion phenomena is supported by selectively showing celebrity ‘success’ stories of transition but excluding people with gender dysphoria that do not transition or delay until adulthood, those that choose psychological means, negative transition experiences, and detransitioning regret. (8)

It is important for us to accept people who are LGBTQ and to have a harmonious society for all genders. It is also important to be mindful that being trans can have serious lifelong consequences that cannot be undone. It is important for the wellbeing of those who wish to go through with procedures are adults and are not being coerced into ideologies because they are vulnerable.

Some other important issues that have arisen from the trans activist ‘affirming without questioning’ approach. There have been men in every major country that have ‘identified’ as women, placed in women only prisons, raped and impregnated other female inmates and guards. Not asking questions and being critical has allowed harm to come to women in a place where they were supposed to be safe from men. It is important that the affirming narrative of the trans ideology does not allow harm to come to women in prisons, children, athletes, etc. because the same affirming narrative can be used by psychopathic, antisocial men. Respecting the expression of each other’s gender does not need to come at the cost of placing other people in danger or taking away the effort of biological women in society. Distinctions are important, independent of how some people feel.

Clayton, A. Gender-Affirming Treatment of Gender Dysphoria in Youth: A Perfect Storm Environment for the Placebo Effect—The Implications for Research and Clinical Practice. Arch Sex Behav (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-022-02472-8 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-022-02472-8#citeas

Sapir, Leor. (2022) Affirming Deception. Eye on the News. https://www.city-journal.org/wpath-finally-acknowledges-europes-restrictions-on-gender-affirming-care

Discussion 2: Eudaimonia

Eudaimonia means to live well or the good life. It was first discussed by Aristotle in his books Eudemian and Nicomachean Ethics. The Good Life would be one where we do not suffer or at least have learned to manage mental illness. Being depressed is not something we would think aline’s with the good life. The Philosophy Society is a place where people get together to learn about habits, skills, and principles for the Good Life. The first place to begin is our emotions because they cause most of the suffering for many people.

The first step is to be aware of our mental states and how they fluctuate. We can develop an awareness of where our baseline state is. If we deviate from that state, we can implement a response to increase our wellbeing. Practicing mindfulness through meditation is the best way to develop this skill. When we learn to recognize not only our baseline state but also negative emotions we are experiencing, we can move to the second step.

The second step is an awareness of the automatic thought associated with the negative emotion. Burn’s and the philosophy of CBT would direct us to identifying the distortion within the automatic thought. From there we can move to the third step, which is the development of a rational response to the automatic, distorted, thought.

Even though there may be many limitations and problems within the human condition, we have the capacity for learning and habit development. Like magic, we can retain information, build skills, and rely on habitual processes that grow and develop over time. This means we are not condemned to repeating the same mistakes over and over. We can change ourselves and hence change the results that occur from our experiences.

Philosophy Academy: Feeling Good

Chapter 6: Verbal Judo: Learn to Talk Back When You’re Under the Fire of Criticism

Today we finished chapter 6, pages 135 - 148. On page 135, Burns begins with a three step process in dealing with criticism.

Step One - Empathy: When we are being criticized, the person may have malicious intentions or want to help us. The criticism itself can be correct, false or somewhat accurate. It is important to be socratic first by asking clarification questions of the person criticizing you to find out exactly what they mean. It is important to not allow ourselves to be defensive or judgmental during this step and focus on finding specific information to future your understanding of the other person’s perspective. (135)

If the criticism is vague, insulting, distorted with labels, etc, ‘unpack’ these terms with the socratic method by getting them to expand on what they mean by them or what they refer to. What was it that made the other person upset or triggered the criticism in the first place? It is important to make an effort to not engage in an attack/defense fight but to communicate in a collaborating and respectful way. Burns shows a role-playing approach to practice this method on page 136-7.

When we ask specific questions, we lessen the probability that the other person will disengage and reject the conversation. From there, both of you can focus on solving concrete problems when you listen to the other person’s perspective and make an effort to understand it. Most often, any anger and hostility will be defused towards a problem solving orientation. Blaming each other or debating usually doesn’t lead to a constructive outcome. (137)

Even if the criticism seems completely wrong, being empathetic through socratic questioning and being specific will help determine what the other person really means. Asking for more information helps exemplify what the words mean or what your actions meant to them. Being empathetic essentially is making an effort to see through the other person’s perspective. (137)

Step Two - Disarming the Critic: We have three options when being criticized: 1. Criticize in response, leading to an unproductive fight, 2. Being avoidant and trying to escape, which can be humiliating or a reduction in our self-esteem, and 3. a skillful means of disarming the person criticizing you by removing the motivation that sprouted the criticism in the first place. (137) Burns states, “Whether your critic is right or wrong, initially find some way to agree with [them].” (137-8)

If the criticism is correct, agree with it, be appreciative that the person shared it with you and communicate that you did not intend to cause harm to their feelings or be insensitive. Burns gives a good example on page 138 where he develops a collaborating approach to the criticism given. If it is the case that the criticism is unfair and invalid, it isn’t realistic for a change to occur. If it is nonsense, one can “agree in principle with the criticism, or …find some grain of truth in the statement and agree with that, or…acknowledge that the person’s upset is understandable because it is based on how they view the situation.” (Burns 138)

The steps are:

1) find how to agree with whatever they say

2) avoid being sarcastic and defensive

3) commit yourself to speaking the truth (138)

Burns gives a dialogue on pages 138-9 that show how to do this process. He demonstrates that he does not fight back, but finds a way to agree with the other person. This removes antagonistic motivation from them, disarming them successfully. Burns conceptualizes this as ‘winning through avoiding a fight.’ Once the other person is calm, they will be in a state of mind conducive to communication. (139)

Burns does a role reversal (139-40) to allow the patient practice in the method of asking clarification questions to increase empathy and a valid agreement via the disarming technique. He suggests practicing this method with a friend in a role-playing model to develop mastery of skills necessary for real life situations. Another way to practice is to actually write out imaginary dialogues between oneself and some hostile critic. You can prepare empathetic questions and agreement disarming statements in advance. (140)

It is a major mistake if we feel the tendency to defend ourselves when being unjustly accused. If we give into this predisposition, the opponent can increase the intensity of their attack because of our inability to ‘read through the lines’ of their criticism. They may up the volume of their speech because we have shown an inability to listen. We can also harm the relationship if we reactively attack back and result in them exiting communication. This is not good for we lose the opportunity to distill out the truth from their perspective or state of mind. (141)

Responding with empathy and disarming though agreement reduces hostility in the other person and they will feel we are listening and respecting them. If we make a mistake by not applying these techniques, it is important to analyze those mistakes and review how to act differently in handling the situation. Role-playing can be a great help to help correct mistakes made in previous conversations until we master a comfortable approach. (141-2)

Step Three - Feedback and Negotiation: After empathetic listening and disarming through agreement, it is then appropriate to explain your position and emotions in a tactful and assertive manner and negotiate differences. If the criticism is incorrect, it can be identified constructively through an objective acknowledgement that we may see things incorrectly. If the issue is based on facts rather than ego or pride, we can avoid harmful labels and fighting. We can acknowledge that we do make errors as well, even if we ‘know’ they made the mistake, and suggest both of us fact-check the situation. The evidence will show itself and your confidence is only meaningful when backed by evidence. This non-polarizing approach allows the person who is wrong to save-face by avoiding a confrontation that puts one’s self-respect in question. (142)

The difference can be an issue of taste rather than a matter of fact. To come to a collaborative perspective together, we are more likely to be successful by communicating our position with diplomacy. If they continually continue to attack you, you can simply repeat an assertive response in a kind but firm way until the other person gets tired of being aggressive or upset. (143)

Solutions may need to be negotiated or compromised in between both positions by each person settling for part of what they want. The more we are empathetic and disarm the other person, the higher chances we will get more of what we want. It may also be the case that we are wrong and the other person is right. If we agree with their criticism, thank them for the information, and apologize for any harm we caused, we can expect that their respect for us will also increase. (143)

Burns identifies that we do have the right to defend ourselves from criticism and we can even get angry if we want to. The important thing to remember is not that we have feelings, like anger, but how we express our feelings. It is important to be mindful not to damage our relationship with the other person by becoming defensive and vengful. In the moment, an angered outburst may feel good but there will often be negative consequences to that relationship and anyone who observes the outburst. (144)

The Anti-Heckler Technique: Burns offers a very useful method when being criticized in front of an audience. When being heckled, the heckler usually has three primary characteristics:

1) The comments are intensely critical, are inaccurate and irrelevant to the content

2) the heckler is not well regarded amongst their peer group

3) the comments are aggressive and abusive

Burn’s response to this kind of pressure is to:

1) Begin by thanking the person for their comments

2) recognize that the points brought up are important

3) focus on the need for more knowledge needed about the points and direct the heckler to pursue further research on the topics identified

4) invite the heckler to discuss the points in detail after the presentation

Burns recognizes that any technique has limitations and will not necessarily bring about an intended result but at the same time often hecklers end up being the most appreciative participants at public talks. (145)

Summary: When being criticized, we can go down one of three paths: sad, mad and the glad route. Either option will be a ‘total experience,’ involving our thinking, feelings, behaviour, and how our body functions. On page 146, Burns shows a flow chart of either option, how it affects our thoughts, feelings and behaviour. If someone is depressed, they usually will follow the sad route, automatically believing the critic is correct without systematically inquiring if a mistake was made. They can be distorted by jumping to conclusions, magnify, label themselves, evaluate themselves from a perfectionistic framework, determine an error means they are worthless and result in a loss of self-esteem. (145-7)

If one becomes angry from criticism, they can defend themselves from a perceived horror that they are imperfect and refuse to admit you made an error. They tend to respond with accusations in a temporary sense of ‘self-righteous indignation’ that ultimately poisons the relationship. (147)

The best option is where one acts from a position of self-esteem, a sense that no matter what criticism comes your way, you have value. Burns states, “It is based on the premise that you are a worthwhile human being and have no need to be perfect. When you are criticized, your initial response is to investigate.” It is important to determine if the criticism has any grain of truth in it, if there are any reasonable objections to it and if it is true that we did make a mistake. When we ask nonjudgmental questions, we can put ourselves in a position to find a solution.

If we are wrong, we can come to terms with our mistake and make a commitment to correcting what is in our control for the future. If the critic is incorrect, we can identify how their evidence or perspective was off and help them understand or develop greater empathy. When we know our self-esteem is never in question, it doesn't matter if we were right or wrong when we make an effort to understand what the other person is saying and make efforts to collaborate. (147-8)

https://www.achillesjustice.com/post/feeling-good

Burns, David. Feeling Good: The New Mood Therapy. Harper Publishing. New York, 1999.

Feeling Good: The New Mood Therapy Mass Market Paperback – Dec 30 2008

© Achilles Atlas Justice and achillesjustice.com, 2018-22. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Achilles Atlas Justice and achillesjustice.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.