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.
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.
I prescribe a mixture of LSD, Novocaine, and Arsenic.
Left by manwith7talents on July 28th, 2010