• Hey! We're on Twitter!

  • Buy The Book!

  •  

     

    Click to Buy The Mug

    Buy The Book

Greetings, esteemed colleagues. As a public service, it’s now time to perform a psychiatric diagnosis of somebody you’ve never treated. You know, like how Robin of Berkeley and all those other alleged mental health workers on the right do. Our subject is one Dr. Mike A. (To preserve his anonymity, we won’t use his whole name, but we do have to use his academic title or he has a hissy fit.)
Subject is a middle-aged, divorced college professor who has recently suffered a professional setback. He exhibits anger, a lack of empathy, problems interacting with others, and general jerkiness; his claims of superiority over others seem to be a fragile construct to protect him from his secret fears of his own lack of worth.

What follows are notes from his most recent session:

“The Eunuch Horn”
Dr. A. spends the whole session criticizing one Kate Bornstein, whose writings on transgendered issues are apparently frquently used in “Sociology of Gender” courses. Subject becomes incensed over the idea that one’s brain can reflect a different gender than that of the genitals that supposedly God gave one.

Subject readily accepts Bornstein’s assertion that there is a “gender pyramid,” and states that “the factors that help one climb to the top of the hierarchy include “Being white, being a citizen of the USA, being a Protestant-defined Christian, being heterosexual, [...] possessing a well-formed, above-average-length penis, a pair of reasonably-matched testicles, and at least an average sperm count.” What he strenuously objects to is the idea that one should “dismantle the pyramid altogether” by refusing to accept the idea that these factors make one superior. [Why is this idea so repugnant to Subject? Does he suspect that he doesn't possess some of the qualities that would raise him to the top of the pyramid but hates the idea that one can challenge these cultural preferences?]

Here are some of Subject’s words:

It’s not at all surprising that Bornstein’s readers are asked to contemplate what their God-given gender assignment does for them. In higher education, the focus is always on them. It is certainly never on God.

Dr, Mike’s point apparently being that if God gives one male genitalia, then one is flouting God’s will by changing this. Dr. Mike never addresses the issue of whether children born with cleft palates should just accept their God-given mouth without complaint, because resorting to surgery would show their lack of accord with God’s will.

In the past, I have offended some transgendered persons by asking these two questions: 1) Does the act of removing a man’s penis make him into a woman? 2) If your answer to #1 is “yes,” does re-attaching it to his forehead make him a unicorn?

Those two questions are my little way of asking the transgendered community whether there is any limit to their delusional belief that they can simply be whatever they perceive themselves to be. Their “reassignment” of mental illness – saying that others who oppose them suffer from “trans-phobia” – supplies the answer.

Dr. Mike’s emphatic declaration that the transgendered are mentally ill for not being content with the body they were born with seems too angry to simply be an intellectual critique of an idea that he doesn’t agree with. What else is going on here?

Clearly, today’s “intellectual” is unwilling to admit that a man who thinks he is a woman is mentally ill. But what about the man who thinks he is God?

And what about the man who is positive that he knows God’s will? Why does Subject feel that trying to match one’s self-perceived gender with one’s body is playing God? Why is the idea of sexual-reassignment so threatening to Subject?

Before long, “intellectuals” will side-step the issue. There will be no contradiction between being human and not-human. We will have rebelled against “God” as a perfect classification.

Dear colleagues, I suspect that there are many issues that we could address. So, below the fold you will find a very brief review of Subject’s previous 15 sessions.

Subject, Dr. A.

Here is a brief survey of the notes I took at Subject’s previous sessions (you can consult an idex of the complete notes here). Hopefully they will help you to make a diagnosis so that Dr. A. can get the help he needs.

Session 1 (4 May 2010) “Dude Talks Like a Lady”
Subject spent the session ranting about how his university was sponsoring a seminar on transgendered issues. For some reason this seminar made Dr. Mike very angry, even though he was in Colorado, and thus not even in the same state as the attendees. He concluded by advising all parents that they would “do well to keep their children as far away from UNC Gomorrah as possible.” [Dr. A. often wonders why he never gets full marks in the "Plays well with others" portion of his performance reviews, but seems to lack any awareness of why this might be.]

Session 2 “May How to Win Friends and Manipulate Hypocrites”
Dr. A. shares some self-initiated correspondence with the adviser to campus gay, lesbian, and transgendered group sponsoring the forum that so riled him. [Even though the missives are tedious and petty, the adviser may be one of the Subject's numerous imaginary foes.]

Session 3 “Chapter 639: Conclusion”
Subject quits his poorly-paying position as a columnist with a shoddy news service because he included his columns as part of his promotion application, and then didn’t promoted. Subject feels that this demonstrates that he his right to free speech has been infringed. He blames the transgendered.

Session 4: “Islamophobia is a Social Disease”
Subject says that “a few weeks ago” one of his liberal colleagues called the police because she was afraid he’d incite violence by picking fights with Muslims. Subject claims that this proves that liberals are hypocrites. [It's possible the whole incident is imaginary.] Dr. A. makes no mention of having resigned the week before.

Session 5: “UC Islam, I See Anti-Semitism”
Subject spends the session ranting about Moslems.

Session 6: “John 14:6 For Dummies”
Dr. A. becomes indignant over fellow Christians who believe that Jesus loves everyone, because Subject’s God.is an angry God who harshly punishes all failures to follow the rule. [Subject's family of origin needs to be explored, as father issues seem possible.]

Session 7: “Smiling for Dollars”
Subject spends another session bashing more popular, less divisive Christians. Dr. A. seems to believe that being liked means that one is going to hell.

Session 8: Get Back to Africa
Dr. A. bashes journalist Helen Thomas by “cleverly” changing anti-Semitism to prejudice against blacks. He seems angry at not just Thomas, but also Arabs, blacks, and other minority groups.

Session 9: “Who Knows Anything Anyway?”
Another session devoted to claiming that Jesus hates those who love others.

Session 10: “ODD Humanitarianism”
Dr. A. “proves” that there is no such thing as Oppositional Defiance Disorder, and claims that some kids are just evil. [The symptoms of ODD that Subject cites seem to mirror his own behavior quite closely. Is this why he is so insistent that ODD is just a liberal label for jerkiness?]

Session 11: “An Immodest Proposal”
Subject exclaims “I can’t stand atheists.” He comes up with a complex and fanciful plan to teach them all a lesson, but claims at the end that is was just a joke.

Session 12: “My Apology to the DAMNED”

Subject states that, ” Although they think they are smart, the atheists who read my columns constantly write with remarks showing their lack of comprehension of my arguments. ” [The feeling that others think they are smarter than he, thus evoking in him the need to show his superiority, is an ongoing issue with Subject. This need to best those whose existence makes Subject feel inferior is the cause of his frequent imaginary confrontations.]

Session 13: “Genocide Awareness Day”
Subject uses what he feels is humor to express his opinion on abortions and feminists. [His hostility towards women is apparent to the observer, but not to him.]

Session 14: “Intellectuals and Human Nature”
Subject claims that liberals are idiots because they believe that human beings are inherently good. [Dr. Mike cites religion as the basis of his claim that humanity is inherently evil, but investigation into his family of origin may reveal bad parenting as the real cause.]

Session 15: “Professors and Pharisees”
Dr. Mike claims that university professors are the modern day equivalent of the Pharisees that Jesus denounced. Subject seems to believe that this proves that his colleagues are going to hell. He apparently fails to realize that the Pharisees were a religious sect, and that university professors are not expected to model observant Jewish practices to their students.

So, there you have the data. Please use it to diagnose Subject, speculate about the issues that have contributed to his pathology, and suggest a treatment plan for him. Or, just make fun of him . . .in the name of therapy, of course.

27 Responses to “Dr. A: a Case Study”

I prescribe a mixture of LSD, Novocaine, and Arsenic.

Immediate and involuntary commitment seems the only rational therapeutic course, but I had the orderlies take an informal poll of patients in the Violent Ward, and most of them stopped banging their heads bloody against the wall, or eating their boogers, long enough to observe that introducing Dr. A into the community would almost certainly lower the level of the discourse.

Subject uses what he feels is humor to express his opinion on abortions and feminists.

Can we turn this into a macro? It succinctly summarizes about 90% of Dr. A’s output.

Well, as one of the truly great college professors I had used to say: “Beware of persons who have only read one book.”

shouldn’t that be “Perfesser Dr Mike A., PhD?”

I feel Dr. A’s fellow tarheel, criminologist Dr. Barnard Fife, said it best at the conclusion to the investigation into the Bass Affair:

“He’s a nut!”

No, nuts can be decent people. There may be a nutty aspect to Dr. A that exacerbates his negative characteristics (ie, his characteristics), but mostly he’s just a thoroughly unpleasant individual.

Can we get “general jerkiness” into the next revision of the DSM?

Dr. Mike has two brain cells — and they’re not speaking to each other.

Transgender or Transgendered?

“In the past, I have offended some transgendered persons by asking these two questions: 1) Does the act of removing a man’s penis make him into a woman? 2) If your answer to #1 is “yes,” does re-attaching it to his forehead make him a unicorn?”

No, silly, it makes him a penicorn.

Kewl! I get to be a rightwing copy-and-paste troll!

*AHEM*

Based on her his word usage and the frequency of the letter “e” in her his writings, my professional diagnosis for “Dr. A” is advanced schizophrenia, paranoid delusions of grandeur and post-traumatic stress disorder from having been raped by her his father, uncle, and the ice cream truck driver…altho that last one is rumoured to have been consensual.

Further, her his use of “punctuation” cries out for the diagnosis of Munchausen’s Syndrome, with a side diagnosis of nymphomania with corpses.

Given subject’s penchant to advocate for others to do unpleasant things to people and groups he doesn’t like without actually doing much of anything himself but fantasize about said unpleasant things, it might be more accurate to diagnose instead Munchausen’s Syndrome by Proxy (exacerbated by the necrophilic nymphomania, obviously).

Putting “Dr. Mike” in this clinical light makes me feel like Ben Kinsley looking at Leo DiCaprio; I take off my glasses, pinch my nose, shake my head, and the patient is irrevocably damaged.

Except in Shutter Island there was the possibility of the patient’s knowledge, remorse and resignation.

As always with Dr. Mike, there’s more projection going on in his columns than the local Loew’s Multiplex. I diagnose Projectile Oral Vomitting Syndrome, which I just made up and will probably be in the next DSM handbook.

Of course, one of the reasons “Dr. A.” might be so angry is that he can’t change the brain he was born with…

a pair of reasonably-matched testicles

He is very, very needy isn’t he?

I may be a jerk, but at least my freaking testicles match!

Aside from the fact that he’s a phenomenal fuckweasel, the thing that stands out most for me about Dr Mike is how much of his full-bore rage is focused on the already stigmatized and marginalized. Atheists, American Muslims, women (especially women who have abortions), non-Christians, non-whites, homosexuals and bisexuals, immigrants, the mentally ill, the poor, children, and the transgendered.

This last one really gets me, as it’s the equivalent of shooting fish in a barrel. Given how difficult life for the transgendered must be in our highly binary society, and given that virtually everyone feels they’re safe to torment, it takes a colossally hateful bully to not only gleefully add to their burden but to then assert that they’re somehow protected or privileged above him.

You really do end up wondering who it is he hates so very much, that all he can do about it is to transfer his apparently endless fountain of hate and rage onto society’s outcasts and designated victims.

I’m not, myself, opposed to hatred as an emotion, but I don’t even hate people who have fucked up my life with the sheer intensity that Dr Mike aims at those whose only sin is to have come peripherally to his awareness.

Someone really should get the man into therapy before he turns into a puddle of bile.

Also, too:

In the past, I have offended some transgendered persons by asking these two questions: 1) Does the act of removing a man’s penis make him into a woman? 2) If your answer to #1 is “yes,” does re-attaching it to his forehead make him a unicorn?

“Conversations I Have Never Had The Courage To Have, Volume 23987.”

I sincerely doubt that transgendered persons go anywhere near Dr Mike, and even if they have, this is clearly delusional. In the real world, he’d never have gotten to question two, because transpeople absolutely would not answer yes to question one.

No, cutting a man’s penis off does not make one a woman, and anyone who asks that of a transperson is begging for an outraged lecture on what actually *does* make a person with a penis a woman. (Hint: it’s mental and emotional and personhood, not genital.) In fact, there exist transpeople who were born intersexed, and whose gender was randomly chosen for them at birth, who feel that having their penis cut off absolutely did *not* make them women, and are trans precisely because they don’t feel themselves to be women.

The question itself demonstrates that you are a hugely ignorant shitsack, and you would not ask it again after the first reaction you ever get from an actual transperson.

Not that anyone’s surprised Dr Mike doesn’t know what he’s talking about while rabidly frothing at people who he perceives as safe targets.

D. says -

…the thing that stands out most for me about Dr Mike is how much of his full-bore rage is focused on the already stigmatized and marginalized. Atheists, American Muslims, women (especially women who have abortions), non-Christians, non-whites, homosexuals and bisexuals, immigrants, the mentally ill, the poor, children, and the transgendered.

Don’t forget kittens. Remember his diatribe about animal rights last year?
Which actually makes it all clearer to me, anyway; he’s not only full of bile, but a coward. He picks on people/groups/ideas that he thinks can’t hit back. At the same time, in a convenient double-play, he cements, in his own mind, his unassailable birthright membership in the Eternal Legion of Power And Rightly So, i.e, whitemaleChristianAmericanetcetc. people.
He is one highly insecure fella. I just hope he stays cowardly.

I have offended some transgendered persons by asking these two questions: 1) Does the act of removing a man’s penis make him into a woman? 2) If your answer to #1 is “yes,” does re-attaching it to his forehead make him a unicorn?

You’d think the answer to this would be obvious, especially to one of America’s leading dickheads.

“Someone really should get the man into therapy before he turns into a puddle of bile.”

Too late.

Dr. Mike claims that university professors are the modern day equivalent of the Pharisees that Jesus denounced.

Perhaps his therapist can explore with him why he is so angry about being excluded from being made a tenured member of a group denounced by Jesus.

Talk about fun with Google-bot:

Just clicked on Perfesser Dr. Mike A, PhD’s latest Town Hall spewing and the side ad was for ‘ladyboykisses.com’. The truth comes out (so to speak).

“Someone really should get the man into therapy before he turns into a puddle of bile” … actually, before he shoots up his ex-wife’s place of employment and her co-workers !

As someone with significant experience with transgenders, both in my personal life and in my professional life, I must agree with D.’s observation that these truly are the low persons on the totem pole of power and privilege. Which, of course, is what makes them a perfect target for a coward like Dr. Mike.

Thanks to Li’l Innocent for reminding us that he even hates kittens. This is clearly a borderline (at least) sociopath who writes this crap. I also am particularly fond of the little bit of karma Weird Dave came across.

Finally, not that Dr. Mike gives a rat’s ass, but the medical term for transgender is gender dysphasia or gender identity disorder. I have no doubt that if he knew this, he would be sure to emphasize the “dys” and “dis” parts.

My long-distance, Bill Frist diagnosis for Dr. Mike is “one fucked-up slimeball”.

Take pity on him. His re-assignment surgery was botched, leaving him with Ann Coulter’s Adams apple.

“…does re-attaching it to his forehead make him a unicorn?”

Wow. The Brother’s Grim would slowly back away from Dr. A’s own persona Magic Forest, a Bosch-like vision of a land where Straight White Men are endlessly tortured by women, gays, transgendered, and really creepy unicorns.

They guy is gay and terrified of himself.

I don’t think he’s gay. I think he’s a misogynist. The sort of person who would be better off gay because of the reams of hostility he emits towards the people his dick is trying to fuck.

What is up with “transgendered” vs “transgender”? It was “transgendered” 10 years ago. In fact, “transgender” is being flagged by my browser as a spelling error. I saw “GLBT” spelled out that way recently and thought it was a typo! WTFBBQ. The “grammatical” argument for dropping the “ed” is completely bogus. “Transgender politics” makes complete sense to me as a phrase, but it was always “transgendered person” in the past. So now it’s change again. Gee, and I was just using the term “trans” for myself.

And yes, something DID happened to “make” you transgenderED, just as something “happened” to make the cisgendered that way. IT’S CALLED FETAL DEVELOPMENT. No offense intended to HuffPo woos who believe they emerged fully-formed from the skull of Atrios.

Something to say?