Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Perpetua's avatar

Thanks for sharing! I found your piece informative and well-reported, though I'm left wanting to know more about how we got here.

I read the NYT article that you linked, and I find it alarming that there seems to be a lack of a shared reality between practitioners like Dr. Guralnik and most other people (I hope? I cannot imagine living life according to the principles she lays out; I'm neurotic enough!). In the context of your reporting, I found this line to be almost chilling: "New words make new thoughts and feelings possible." Later in the piece, she seems to welcome the intrusion of new, charged terms like "white fragility" and "Karen" into therapy.

Interestingly, the couples that she profiles don't actually support the thesis that a critical social justice framework is useful in therapy. Most of the couples seemed hindered by mapping social issues like BLM or #metoo onto their personal lives; Dr. Guralnik describes them as going around and around in circles without making a lot of progress, worrying about systemic forces beyond their control. The CSJ approach described in the article also seemed to result in the therapist favoring the "more oppressed" or "less privileged" half of each couple; in each example, the one who was "more privileged" had to come around to the partner's point of view. There wasn't an emphasis on mutual understanding.

I did peek at the NYT top rated comments, and they were critical for the most part. Which brings me back to my first question—most people don't like this way of thinking about the world. So how did we get here?

Expand full comment
Ute Heggen's avatar

It is not transphobic to say the diagnosis has a history of low quality published research, continuing through to the present, and that politics and profit are the machines driving the "in the initial appointment" diagnoses. As well, the mental health field has done an extremely poor job of advising patients and their families how to deal with suicidal ideation ethically. It is unethical and immoral to promote the choice of suicide, exceptions being those with serious terminal illness. Dr. Ray Blanchard, the originator of the "2 years of crossdressing while keeping a job" Blanchard Protocols for the letter leading to surgeries said, "It's too disruptive to acknowledge that it is a sexual obsession." This means that back in his heyday, he felt no ethical quandary in telling the wives of crossdressing men that it was our duty to do sex role play "to keep the marriage together." As usual, actual women's voices were unheard.

Expand full comment
7 more comments...

No posts