And if you pay attention long enough, you begin to see the pattern: nothing we’re facing is merely political. Every crisis tearing at the West is archetypal. It is mythological in origin and psychological in mechanism. We are not arguing about policy — we are wrestling with gods.

There is an ancient force sitting at the center of our institutions now. It speaks with soft language and sentimental eyes. It wraps every argument in the language of compassion, safety, kindness, inclusion, vulnerability, and care. It claims to protect, to uplift, to heal.

But beneath that softness lives something primitive and wounded. Something that has lost its grounding. Something that once nurtured — and now controls.

What we are facing is the rise of the Maternalist Operating System: the Devouring Mother rising to the helm of a culture where the Father archetype has gone silent. She has not only stepped in — she has taken over. She governs the schools, influences the courts, shapes the medical codes, dictates the language, and defines the emotional landscape of the public square.

And the Father — symbolically, spiritually, and culturally — has disappeared from the room.

Subscribe now

The Great Inversion of Care

Healthy mother-energy is the lifeblood of any human world. It nurtures, protects, gathers, soothes, and holds the vulnerable with tenderness. It is the first archetype every child knows: nourishment, warmth, comfort.

But the feminine, like the masculine, has a shadow. When the feminine becomes wounded, unmoored, ungrounded, and unbalanced by the masculine, her gifts turn inward and consume themselves.

• Care mutates into control.

• Empathy mutates into coercion.

• Inclusion mutates into boundary-erasure.

• Compassion mutates into emotional totalitarianism.

• Safety mutates into a weapon.

This is what happens when the feminine is asked to perform without the masculine present to balance, hold, and define the edges. The natural urge to protect becomes a pathological refusal to allow discomfort, pain, consequence, or reality.

And this is precisely what we now see in the West.

The hurt feminine has taken charge — not through nurturance, but through emotional domination.

She governs through shame. She governs through moralizing. She governs through the soft iron of guilt, fragility, and sentiment.

Her messages are unmistakable:

• “You’re harming children.”

• “Your disagreement is violence.”

• “Your truth is dangerous.”

• “Your boundaries are hateful.”

• “Your biology is oppressive.”

This is not empathy. This is not care. This is not the feminine in her fullness.

This is archetypal possession.

The Devouring Mother no longer cooks in the kitchen or teaches in the home — she is now drafting legislation, reshaping science, redesigning language, and dictating what children must believe about themselves.

The Rise of the Feminized Moral Order

Wander into any modern institution — a school, a hospital, a university, a therapy clinic, a corporate HR office — and you will feel the same energy humming through the air.

• Fragility disguised as compassion.

• Feelings elevated above facts.

• Sensitivity mistaken for moral authority.

• Children elevated to the status of prophets.

• Boundaries reinterpreted as violence.

These institutions are not “run by women.” They are operated by the feminine archetype, specifically the feminine in her wounded, unanchored, unprotected state.

Because when the masculine collapses — culturally, spiritually, symbolically — the feminine expands without limit. And without limit, she becomes catastrophic.

The result is what we see now:

A culture that mothered itself into fragility, medicated itself into dependency, and affirmed itself into delusion.

This is not progress. This is not enlightenment. This is regression disguised as kindness and care.

And at its roots, we have seen the movements across the globe, ‘empowering women,’ but what happened was we masculinized them, and feminized the men to achieve this. And when both sexes are pulled out of their natural polarities, the cultural ecosystem destabilizes: without the grounded masculine to anchor, and without the receptive feminine to soften, the entire society begins drifting into confusion, conflict, and inversion.

You can see this playing out in the bewildering rise of queer theory; but its mechanics only reveal themselves when you study the architects — their histories, their ruptures, their longing, and the wounds that shaped their vision of the world.

When the Father Archetype Vanishes

A culture without the father does not become freer — it becomes lost. The Father archetype is not a man — it is a principle: the principle of structure, boundary, hierarchy, discernment, discipline, initiation, protection, and truth.

It is the part of a culture that says:

• This is real.

• This is false.

• This is allowed.

• This is not allowed.

• This is who you are.

• This is who you can become — but only through challenge.

Without the father, a culture loses its accountability, its standards, its hierarchy, its initiation, its resilience, its courage, its truth-telling, and the necessary ability to withstand discomfort. Into that void rushes the shadow feminine.

She does not guide — she suffocates.
She does not raise — she protects from growth.
She does not heal — she labels.
She does not teach — she indulges.
She does not open hearts — she manipulates them.

A mother without the father becomes not a nurturer, but a tyrant.

Gender Ideology as the Devouring Mother’s Magick

If you want to see the Devouring Mother in her clearest modern expression, look to gender ideology.

The patterns are unmistakable:

Language becomes the breast. Identity becomes the child. And the child’s discomfort becomes law.

• The child “knows.”

• The adult submits.

• The father becomes irrelevant, often erased.

• The mother is unquestionable.

• And the state takes custody of the soul.

This is not politics. This is a maternal religion in its manic phase.

Look at the spells cast daily:

• “Let the child lead.”

• “Affirmation is care.”

• “Inquiry is violence.”

• “Parents are dangerous.”

• “Biology is oppressive.”

• “Boundaries are bigotry.”

These are not arguments. These are enchantments. Spells. The Devouring Mother consumes her children by convincing them that anything painful — anything disorienting, anything uncomfortable — must be removed. Even if the removal destroys them and their becoming.

Share

The Sons of the Hurt Feminine

Look closely at the men who become the most zealous evangelists for this new moral order. You will see a pattern that transcends politics.

They include:

• trans-identified biological males

• gay male legislators

• progressive male activists

• male academics in gender departments

• male therapists trained in affirmation-only models

But their gender is irrelevant. What binds them is the absence of the Father within.

These are men who never received true masculine initiation, were raised by exhausted or overpowering mothers, lacked strong paternal guidance, learned to merge instead of lead, learned to appease instead of confront, and learned to dissolve instead of define.

These men do not reject masculinity — they never inherited it fully. They were not fathered into strength. They were mothered into softness.

And now, when faced with the cultural mother’s pain, they do what wounded sons do best:

They protect the mother’s wound by attacking the father’s presence.

The feminine in shadow rules through emotional intimidation — and these men serve as her priesthood.

The Weaponization of Empathy

Most people underestimate the violence of the feminine shadow. Masculine brutality is overt: force, punishment, domination. But feminine brutality is covert: shame, exile, emotional blackmail, moral pressure, social annihilation.

The modern activist lexicon is drenched in this energy:

• “If you don’t affirm me, you’re killing me.”

• “If you don’t validate me, you’re unsafe.”

• “If you don’t agree with me, you’re hateful.”

• “If you don’t comply, you’re an abuser.”

These are not communication patterns. These are emotional weapons. The Devouring Mother wins not by argument, but by exhausting the world into surrender. She overwhelms. She smothers. She shames. She consumes. She raises not adults, but dependents.

The Infantilization of an Entire Generation

Children now dictate the terms of medicine. Teenagers dictate the terms of science. Emotional fragility dictates the limits of speech. “Lived experience” replaces objective reality.

This is the feminine archetype unrestrained. A culture terrified of children suffering becomes a culture determined to eliminate suffering altogether — even when suffering is the doorway to growth. It removes struggle, discipline, consequence, boundaries, rites of passage and confrontation with truth. Instead, it replaces them with affirmation, validation, accommodation, softness, avoidance and “emotional safety.”

This is not love. This is enmeshment masquerading as care.

And an enmeshed child becomes a dependent adult — fragile, malleable, easily captured, easily coerced, and perpetually searching for external validation. A child who never separates becomes an adult who never stands. And these adult children continuously run towards institutions, organizations, and slogans to provide a compass for what they have abdicated due to the lack of the archetypal masculine presence.

This is not compassion. This is a collapse.

The Devouring Mother Devours Herself

When the mother archetype becomes uncontained, she ultimately consumes not only her children but her own essence. The culture begins to devour its future — its vitality, its sovereignty, its capacity for truth. Its innocence.

We see it everywhere:

• Endless diagnoses to avoid confronting emotion.

• Endless accommodations to prevent resilience.

• Endless medical interventions to sidestep inner work.

• Endless affirmations to avoid necessary boundaries.

• Endless therapeutic language to sanitize reality.

This is not healing the collective. This is a death ritual performed in slow motion over decades.

A culture that refuses to confront pain becomes a culture that cannot grow. A culture that cannot grow becomes a culture that cannot survive.

The Return of the Father

This entire mother-soaked paradigm shatters the moment the Father archetype returns — not the tyrant, not the bully, not the authoritarian, but the Integrated Father: grounded, discerning, embodied, protective, boundary-setting, truth-speaking, emotionally present and spiritually anchored.

The Father who says:

“Enough. Here is the line. This is what’s real. This is what’s needed. And I will protect you while you grow.”

The Devouring Mother fears this Father — not because he harms her, but because his presence interrupts her possession. And in the female, the ‘father’ is feared, because she perhaps has a history of wounding that dictates her perception of him. He reintroduces the structure, order, and containment she desperately needs but cannot create or fully articulate herself. Because, on an archetypal level, she is not meant to — it is not her domain, not her mode of knowing, not her instinctive architecture. is not supposed to. She cannot. She is not designed biologically to understand it.

The masculine does not silence the feminine. It frees her from her own shadow. And the rise in ROGD in girls is not merely a clinical phenomenon but a symbolic rejection of the wounded feminine itself, an unconscious attempt to escape the Mother’s shadow and call the Father back into the cultural field. just that: a desperate attempt to signal the father’s need to return, and a symptom of the intoxication of the feminine archetype.

Standing Firm as the Father

This is the role that men are now being called into — not to dominate, not to retreat, but to anchor. To stand with clarity in a world drowning in emotional fog. To speak truth without apology. To protect children from ideological capture. To guard the boundaries the culture abandoned.

The world is starving for fathers.

For men who can say:

• “No.”

• “Enough.”

• “This is reality.”

• “This is the path forward.”

The Devouring Mother loosens only when the Father returns. And when he returns — truly returns — the spell breaks, the culture breathes, and the children grow. The Devouring Mother can relax into a state of divine feminine. But before that can happen, the mother archetype has to look at her own shadow and acknowledge the potential for pain and destruction when left unchecked. The work is not merely for men as the father archetype to overpower and contain and take up the responsibility for all of this; the work lies very much in each sex acknowledging respect for the archetypal force that either carries, and the acknowledgement that both are vital, necessary, and have the responsibility to accountably govern themselves and their impact.

This is the work. This is the initiation. This is the reckoning.

And it begins with men willing to step back into the archetype the world tried to erase, and the acknowledgment by women of the shadow their archetype can cast when left unbalanced. When the Father returns — and the world remembers itself.

Take heart,

Jason

If this piece shifted something in you, widened your lens, or helped you name what you’ve been sensing, you’re welcome to buy me a coffee so I can keep writing and speaking into this work.

Buy me a Coffee

Subscribe now

Now imagine seating these individuals around one table: the pioneers, the critics, the clinicians, the researchers, the surgeon, and the attorney. Each carries decades of experience. Each is rooted in history. Each offering the clarity that only long practice—and the humility earned through error—can provide.

Picture Dr. Paul McHugh, Dr. Susan Bradley, Dr. Ray Blanchard, Dr. Kenneth Zucker, Dr. Quintin Van Meter, Dr. Stephen Levine, Dr. Patrick Lappert, and Assistant Attorney General, Glenna Goldis, gathered in one room. No screaming activists. No PR departments. No branding. No slogans. Just seven elders in honest dialogue about what happened, what was never intended, what went wrong, and what now must be done.

In a culture intoxicated by youth and allergic to introspection, these elders represent something we have forgotten how to honour: memory. They are not ideologues. They are not culture warriors. They are the last witnesses to the birth, rise, and corruption of gender medicine.

A culture that ostracizes its wisdom is doomed to repeat its failures. So take heart—because their testimony lights the way out.

“This is going to be as scandalous and ridiculed as the witch trials or eugenics or lobotomy eventually.”
— Dr. Paul McHugh, 2025

Subscribe now

The Question at the Centre of the Storm

Dr. Paul McHugh, former psychiatrist-in-chief at Johns Hopkins, opens with the sentence that should have stopped this entire movement in its tracks:

“Should their psychological idea take precedence over the physical fact when they diverge? It’s as simple as that.”

Every single one of the elders at this table answers no—but each brings a different understanding of why.

McHugh brings historical memory: he watched the first gender clinic rise and fall. He shut it down when the evidence failed.

Bradley brings developmental insight: she witnessed children resolve dysphoria spontaneously when given time, support, and space to grow.

Zucker brings long-term outcome data: 80–90% of children desisted when not socially or medically transitioned.

Blanchard brings typology clarity: gender dysphoria is not one thing but multiple pathways with identifiable origins.

Levine brings adult psychiatric outcomes: surgery satisfies but does not heal; suicidality remains unchanged.

Van Meter brings endocrine precision: puberty blockers were repurposed from a specific medical condition into an ideological tool.

Lappert brings the scalpel: gender surgeries create dependency, not liberation.

Goldis brings the legal forecast: lawsuits are coming, discovery will be damning, and medical institutions will not survive what is coming.

What unites them is not ideology, but shared recognition that the psychological idea—”I was born in the wrong body”—was elevated into dogma without evidence, without caution, and without regard for the long-term consequences.

My reflection: In truth, what these elders are naming is a rupture in our cultural spine. We traded discernment for deference, complexity for simplification, and human development for ideological certainty. When elders across disciplines converge on the same warning, we are no longer dealing with a debate—we are dealing with testimony. And testimony requires us to listen not with defensiveness, but with moral courage.

The Origin Story Was Never What We Were Told

Modern activists insist that gender affirmation is an ancient, noble, well-established practice. But the elders tell a different story.

The earliest gender clinics were small, cautious, adult-oriented, and grounded in psychiatry—not ideology. They focused on alleviating suffering, not affirming identities. McHugh puts it succinctly: “We didn’t think we were making women. We thought we were helping them live.”

Bradley and Zucker, running the world’s first pediatric gender clinics, both emphasize that the vast majority of children resolved their dysphoria naturally by late adolescence when allowed to progress through puberty. Puberty, then, is the cure to dysphoria.

Blanchard describes how adult cases often followed patterns of sexual development, fantasy, shame, or misdirected meaning-making—not innate identity.

Levine recalls how adult patients often idealized transition only to discover that their internal pain remained.

Van Meter notes that endocrine societies originally dismissed the idea of using blockers for healthy children.

Lappert confirms that surgeries were originally framed as extraordinary exceptions, not standardized treatments.

This is the forgotten beginning: gender medicine was built on caution, humility, and psychological inquiry and exploration. What it became is something else entirely.

My reflection: What stands out to me is how easily a field rooted in cautious exploration morphed into dogma. The humility that defined these early clinicians—the willingness to question, to observe, to admit uncertainty—has vanished. In its place we now have manufactured certainty, social engineering, imposed at scale. And the cost of that shift is paid not by institutions, but by children and families.

When Hope Collided With Evidence

Every elder at the table witnessed the same disillusionment: long-term outcomes did not align with the promises. Patients remained depressed. Suicide rates did not fall. Psychological functioning did not improve. Relationships did not stabilize. The individual remained in pain.

• Bradley reflects: “It was a story children told to make sense of distress.”

• Zucker notes that co-morbidities—autism, trauma, anxiety—drove most child presentations.

• Levine reports that even post-surgical adults often struggled with persistent dysphoria, loneliness, and untreated trauma. Something that is echoed by every desister or detransitioner who courageously opens up.

• Blanchard observed that adult male transitions often followed predictable patterns unrelated to identity.

• Van Meter notes that suppressing puberty permanently alters brain and body development, with unknown downstream effects.

• And Lappert describes the surgical aftermath: complications, revisions, chronic infections, and irreversible infertility.

The data did not support the interventions. Psychiatry pulled back. But other forces intervened and pushed forward.

My reflection: If anything reveals institutional failure, it is this moment—when evidence contradicted expectations, and instead of pausing, the system accelerated. A healthy discipline slows down in the face of uncertainty. A captured one speeds up. Here, the children became the proving ground for adult insecurity and professional pride.

When Caution Collapsed and Profit Took Over

McHugh recounts the turning point: after psychiatry halted gender surgery at Johns Hopkins due to poor outcomes, other departments reintroduced the procedures purely for financial reasons.

“Hopkins started doing it again not because the psychiatry department changed its mind but because the plastic surgeons saw that this was a very profitable business.” [McHugh]

Lappert’s testimony confirms that surgeons saw transition not as reconstruction but as cosmetic removal of healthy organs disguised as medical necessity. An elective surgery.

Van Meter reveals how endocrine guidelines were rewritten under activist pressure.

Levine describes how WPATH shifted from scientific inquiry to ideological enforcement.

Goldis shows the legal receipts: hospitals ignored evidence to chase revenue.

This is the part the public never hears—the part that transforms a medical debate into a moral one.

My reflection: Money and ideology did not just influence the field—they replaced its foundation. Once revenue streams and activist pressures set the agenda, the clinicians who once held the line were pushed aside. This is not an evolution of care; it is an erosion of integrity, ethics and moral values.

The John Money Catastrophe and the Birth of a Myth

The pediatric endocrinologist recounts the real story behind one of the field’s most influential figures, John Money. A scientifically unambiguous boy—XY chromosomes, functioning testes, normal hormonal response—was socially transitioned because Money declared him a girl.

The clinicians found him later “dressed in pink with an eyelet bonnet.” His name was David Reimer.

This was not science. This was an ideology imposed on a child’s body. A child who did not, and could not, give consent.

“John was a very gifted person… but he was sex-crazy. The guy just lost his marbles over it.” [McHugh]

McHugh ended the program “very soon after that,” but Money’s ideas lived on: gender identity as internal truth, sex as social storytelling, and medical intervention as moral duty. Money’s theory was “so bad it had to be imposed by force.”

Every elder at the table traces today’s crisis back to this moment in history. A moment whose importance is denied by current-day activism. Buried. Forgotten.

My reflection: The fact that this incident is omitted from mainstream narratives tells us everything we need to know about the ideological filters shaping public discourse. When a catastrophic failure becomes the cornerstone of a movement, the entire structure that grows from it is doomed.

The Paediatric Expansion: The Most Dangerous Shift

Each of the witnesses describes the expansion of gender medicine to children as the most reckless development in the field’s history.

• Bradley: “Puberty blockers are not reversible in psychological effect.”

• Zucker: “Blockers lock in persistence.”

• Van Meter: “These are massively powerful drugs used for the wrong indication.”

• Levine: “Affirmation forecloses developmental exploration.”

• Blanchard: “Adolescent girl clusters resemble anorexia contagion.”

• Lappert: “Children on blockers arrive at surgery with compromised tissues.”

• Goldis: “We are entering the lawsuit generation.”

Together, they paint a picture of a system that medicalizes developmental distress instead of resolving it.

“Puberty blockers are not reversible in their psychological effect. Once you start, you can’t change much after that.” [Bradley]

“Modern gender clinics are practicing conversion therapy on homosexual children—only this time it’s the gay outcome they’re trying to prevent.” [Zucker]

My reflection: What is most striking is the unanimity across disciplines: children were never meant to be placed on this conveyor belt. Every elder names this expansion as the moment the field became unethical. The young became the raw material for an adult belief system. This inversion of care is a cultural betrayal.

The Surgical Reality: What the Scalpel Cannot Heal

Lappert’s descriptions dismantle the fantasy presented by activists:

• Vaginoplasty often leads to strictures and revision surgeries.

• Phalloplasty has complication rates that would shut down any other procedure.

• Loss of sexual function is common.

• Lifelong wound care is normal.

• Incontinence and chronic pain are routine.

• Many patients regret the decision once the psychological high fades.

Meanwhile, Levine sees the same pattern on the psychiatric side: surgery does not resolve the underlying wounds.

Bradley sees traumatized adolescents clinging to gender identity as an escape from pain.

Zucker sees autism driving many transitions.

Van Meter sees a generation of children whose natural development was chemically erased.

The surgical reality exposes the psychological myth.

“I have never seen a case where surgery resolved the underlying psychiatric issues. Satisfaction, yes. Healing, no.” [Levine]

My reflection: Surgery was framed as salvation, but what these elders describe is something closer to sacrifice. Bodies are offered up in the hope that the psyche will finally feel at home. But the psyche cannot be sutured, rearranged, or anesthetized into wholeness. When we cut the body to fix the soul, we violate both.

Cultural Contagion and Institutional Capture

Every elder identifies the same cultural forces:

• Rapid social contagion among adolescent girls.

• Activist capture of medical associations.

• Schools socially transition children without parents, and no off-ramps are provided or supported.

• Clinics removing assessment and replacing it with affirmation.

• A narrative enforced with moral intimidation.

McHugh calls it an “overvalued idea.”

Bradley calls it “iatrogenic.”

Zucker says “evidence was replaced by ideology.”

Blanchard says “clinicians refuse to name the mechanisms.”

Levine calls it “a psychiatric craze.”

Van Meter says “biology was rewritten for politics.”

Goldis calls it “institutional failure on a historic scale.”

“Tavistock suppressed the data because the results were catastrophic… the pipeline was 98 %. That is not medicine—that is ideology enforced by omission.”
“Discovery is going to be brutal. The emails, the internal memos, the profit projections—none of it will survive sunlight.” [Goldis]

This is institutional capture—not medicine.

My reflection: The speed of this contagion reveals how spiritually malnourished our culture has become. When a generation cannot tolerate the tension of becoming, insecurity, doubt, and uncertainty, it grasps for identities that promise certainty. Institutions, afraid to appear cruel, surrendered discernment. This is how cultures crumble—through a thousand small abdications of responsibility.

The Hidden Casualties: The Children Beneath the Narrative

Every witness provides a piece of the true story of child gender dysphoria:

• Trauma masquerading as identity.

• Autism misinterpreted as gender nonconformity.

• Internalized homophobia driving transition among gay youth.

• Peer contagion accelerating among adolescent girls.

• Dissociation turned into gender narratives.

• Depression and anxiety rebranded as identity crises.

Bradley: “Children use gender to explain their pain.”

Zucker: “Most youth have multiple co-morbidities. Gender is not primary.”

Levine: “Transition does not resolve the underlying wound.”

Van Meter: “Blockers rewrite the body permanently.”

Lappert: “Surgery cannot heal what is psychological.”

None of these children needed medical verification.

“This is going to be as scandalous and ridiculed as the witch trials or eugenics or lobotomy eventually.”
— Dr. Paul McHugh, 2025

My reflection: This is the tragedy hiding beneath the diagnostic language: these children were not broken—they were overwhelmed. They did not need affirmation; they needed anchoring. Time. Presence. They did not need medicalization; they needed meaning. When a society cannot hold its children through their pain, it hands them to the scalpel.

What Was Never Said, But Always Meant

What these elders did not state outright—but what their pauses, hesitations, careful wording, and decades of clinical restraint make unmistakably clear—is that none of this was an accident. The field did not simply drift; it was steered. The guardrails were not forgotten; they were dismantled. The children were not misdiagnosed; they were reinterpreted to fit an ideology that needed them. And behind every clinical caution lies an unspoken truth: this was never about identity—it was about unmet human needs, unresolved pain, and a culture that lost the capacity to hold its young without turning them into proofs of concept.

Listening closely to their language—the softened qualifiers, the professional euphemisms, the way they gesture toward causes without naming them directly—you can hear what they cannot say outright: that institutions abandoned children because adults were too fragile, too frightened, too politically cornered to do the hard work of discernment and healing their own wounding. That clinicians became bystanders to their own profession’s undoing. That medicine outsourced the work of the soul to the knife. That the real crisis is not gender, but a civilization that no longer remembers how to initiate its young into adulthood, how to metabolize suffering, how to tell the difference between a symptom and a self.

So let me say plainly what they implied: This was never a medical evolution. It was a cultural collapse—one that asked children to carry wounds that belonged to adults, and to bear consequences that will outlive all of us.

And yet, even in this collapse, the presence of these elders—these last witnesses—reminds us that we are not beyond repair. Their testimony is not merely a critique; it is a compass. It points us back to what was forgotten: embodiment, development, boundaries, patience, truth, reality. The things that protect children. The things that make us human.

If we have the courage to listen—really listen—then this is not the end of the story. It is the moment we choose to begin again.

Take heart,

Jason

Buy me a coffee

Subscribe now

A 19‑year‑old I recently listened to online said, “I’m autistic, I’m trans, I’m disabled, and I would kill myself if I had access to assisted dying.” Testosterone obtained on the street now runs through her veins because medical professionals delayed. She believes she was “born male,” but also admits she wishes she didn’t have to transition at all. Her story is heartbreaking—and emblematic of something much larger. It is the story of a generation boxed into labels, robbed of frameworks that could help them see their pain in context, and pressured to medicalize their confusion and suffering, rather than expand their understanding.

The refrain we hear everywhere is: We need more awareness. We need more education. But what usually follows is more of the same. More lessons on affirmation. More slogans about identity. More repetition of the very ideas that narrowed their world in the first place. What we don’t hear is: we need broader awareness, deeper education, exposure beyond the system itself. Without breadth, “more” simply becomes indoctrination by another name.

Subscribe now

Starved of Context

These kids aren’t just suffering from “gender dysphoria,” or more accurately, “gender ideation.” They’re suffering from a starvation of context. We give them a label to explain their pain away, then shield them from any broader information that might deepen their understanding. Instead of exposing them to psychology, myth, legend, trauma theory, Eastern philosophy, or even a nuanced history of sex differences, we hand them a single word—“trans”—and say, This is all there is. Now you pick.

“Gender is the idea of male and female.” — 19‑year‑old trans‑identified female

Even in that one sentence, you can hear the poverty of depth. Gender reduced to an “idea” floating untethered from biology, myth, or social history. You can “idea” yourself into another sex’s experience, but you cannot biologically become it.

When asked why not simply express herself however she wished, she said:

“Because that’s not me.”

This is the circular trap: the sense that unless the label is embodied through medicine, self‑expression is invalid. Without context, the label becomes a lifeboat. But it is a lifeboat that drifts without anchor or map. And when you question it, the aggression that surfaces often reveals the raw pain underneath—pain that no injection or surgery can fully silence.

What They’re Not Taught

• Psychology: No one explains how trauma shapes the nervous system, how shame becomes an internalized voice, or how autism can create fixations that feel like identity. Without this knowledge, pain is misread as proof of being “born wrong.” Kids are not taught that a sense of self can be fragmented, that unprocessed trauma can become the lens through which they interpret everything. Instead, they are offered a shortcut: if you feel out of place, maybe you’re trans.

  The young person said:

“I had to get testosterone illegally because I was going to kill myself.”

• Here the underlying trauma and desperation are reinterpreted as gender truth, rather than seen as signals of pain needing care.

• Myth and Archetype: They don’t learn that every culture carried stories of transformation, exile, and rebirth—not as medical prescriptions but as initiations of the soul. Gilgamesh’s grief, Persephone’s descent, Iron John’s call into the forest—these are archetypes of becoming, not diagnoses. Without myth, their longing is interpreted only as pathology.

  When she said:

“I tried to be a woman, I tried to be feminine, but it wasn’t me,”

• she was describing an archetypal struggle. In myth, this is the search for self beyond masks. Without the archetypal lens, it is read only as proof of being “trans.”

• Eastern Philosophy: Concepts like impermanence, non‑attachment, and the fluid self could give them language for change and uncertainty. In Buddhism, the self is seen as transient; in Taoism, opposites flow into each other. Such frameworks remind us that not knowing who we are is not a crisis but a natural state.

  Instead, she said:

“I’ve always known I’m a man.”

• This absolutism is precisely what Eastern traditions would loosen. They would say: the self you know today will change tomorrow. Identity is not fixed; it is lived into.

• History of Sex and Gender: They aren’t taught that pink was once for boys, that heels were once for men, or that human expression has always been broader than stereotypes. Instead, the message is: if you don’t fit the current mould, you must be the opposite sex. Without history, stereotypes look eternal and unbreakable.

• Development and Difference: We do not teach them that every human is different, that individuality is the norm, not the exception. We don’t explore emotional enmeshment or the stages of childhood development.

  She said:

“My brain’s pretty much fully developed.”

• Yet neuroscience shows the brain continues to develop into the mid‑twenties. Without developmental awareness, she mistakes temporary certainty for permanence.

This narrowing of knowledge forces them into a corner where transition looks like the only door out. They cling to one explanation because no one ever gave them ten others. A young mind that could have been stretched wide by philosophy, story, and critical thought is instead compressed into a slogan.

Fixation Mistaken for Identity

Many of these kids disclose autism, sexual abuse, severe trauma, or abandonment. They’re sponges for ideas because no one has given them ground. In the absence of initiation, story, and integrated frameworks, they’re left with slogans and TikTok talking points. We’re mistaking fixation for identity. We’re mistaking desperation for consent.

“I don’t think 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17‑year‑olds should necessarily be able to make that decision.”

Even here, she intuits the truth: kids lack the maturity to choose. And yet she claims, in the same breath, that she herself knows who she is absolutely. That tension is the adolescent mind in action—grasping for certainty while confessing uncertainty.

The tragedy is that adolescence is supposed to be a time of experimentation, questioning, and even suffering. It’s how we develop depth and discernment. You don’t “know who you are” at 13, or 15, or even 19. Some of us not even at 40. Identity emerges through lived experience, exposure, and the slow metabolizing of pain—not through instant labels or cross‑sex hormones.

Fixation is a symptom of a nervous system in pain. A child who cannot hold nuance will cling to absolutes. Autism, trauma, and adolescence all increase that tendency. The brain searches for one solid answer, one box to rest inside, one word to explain away the ache. But that word becomes a trap. A single‑story identity that collapses all complexity into a binary choice: transition or die.

What They Actually Need

What these kids need isn’t “more education” in the narrow sense. They need a broader education: trauma‑informed psychology, nervous system regulation, the myths and archetypes that give shape to human experience, the history of masculinity and femininity beyond pink and blue, and the wisdom traditions that have always guided people through liminal states.

“Masculinity is toxic.”

This sweeping claim echoes the cultural script she grew up hearing. Without counter‑narratives, she assumes masculinity itself is poison rather than a force that can be noble, protective, and creative when embodied well. She has inherited disdain, not discernment.

They need philosophy that tells them suffering is not proof of being broken. They need mentors who can explain that pain is part of becoming. They need frameworks that remind them that uncertainty is not pathology.

Without that, they’re left believing that sterilizing their bodies or altering their hormones is the only path to authenticity. The truth is that authenticity does not come from the pharmacy. It comes from wrestling with ourselves, from asking better questions, from living long enough to see how our desires shift. To rob a child of that process is to rob them of the chance to become someone real.

Our job as adults is not to co‑sign a child’s pain‑born identity, nor to shame them for it. It’s to give them time, space, and frameworks broad enough to hold their confusion. To sit with them in the storm and tell them storms pass. To show them that their suffering is not proof they’re “wrong” but an initiation into knowing themselves. This is the role of elders: not to fix the child, but to hold the threshold with them.

Threshold, Not Diagnosis

Adolescence is not a diagnosis. It’s a threshold. A crossing into a landscape of uncertainty where every feeling feels final, every choice feels permanent, and every heartbreak feels fatal. But thresholds are not illnesses. They are invitations.

And thresholds require elders—not labels. Elders who can say: I have been through the fire too. Elders who can remind them that despair can give way to depth, that identity is not chosen at fifteen but forged across decades, that pain does not mean you are broken but that you are being asked to grow. Without that, we leave them alone with labels—and alone with labels, they will believe there is nothing else.

Take heart,

Jason

Buy me a Coffee

Subscribe now

Lately, we’re teaching something else. We’re training children (and the adults who teach them) to scan the room for harm and punish first, ask later. We call it care. We call it safety. It often looks like neither. It’s control, dressed up in compassion.

The truth is simple: awareness is innate. Suspicion is learned. And suspicion is being taught.

Subscribe now

The teacher reads a story about a farmer. A boy blurts out a clumsy question about the picture—he’s five, his mouth outruns his mind. Yesterday, this was a moment for coaching: “Try that again, kinder.” Today it becomes an incident. A form is opened. The boy learns that curiosity is dangerous and silence is safe.

Across the room, a girl raises her hand to question the premise of a lesson. Yesterday, that was called critical thinking. Today, it’s “denial,” and she’s routed to training. She learns that disagreement isn’t a muscle to strengthen but a risk to manage.

Multiply those moments by hundreds and you get a school where children rehearse compliance instead of citizenship.

A quick word on DEI (so we’re clear)

When I say DEI here, I don’t mean basic decency, equal protection under the law, or teaching kids not to be cruel. I’m talking about the dominant anti‑oppression, identity‑first strain of DEI that sorts children into categories, sacralizes the language of harm and safety, and imports corporate training reflexes into classrooms.

I’m not against inclusion. I’m against indoctrination—programs that prime suspicion, reward accusation, and mistake public ritual for repair. If your “DEI” builds skills—listening, mediation, due process, disagreement without exile—I’m with you. If it builds taxonomies and guilt quotas, I’m not.

In this article, DEI is shorthand for that identity‑centric, punitive frame now moving through schools and institutions. If that’s not your program, wonderful. But where this frame rules, the outcomes below tend to follow: more reports, more punishments, colder rooms—and children who learn to distrust their own eyes.

We used to teach kids how to live with difference—how to hold their shape and still be kind; how to argue an idea without exiling a person; how to say, “I might be wrong,” and mean it. Now, in the name of anti‑oppression, we’re giving them a lens that pre‑loads malice into ordinary friction. A clumsy question becomes an incident. An awkward moment becomes a microaggression. Disagreement becomes harm.

If you’ve followed my work, you know I’m not theorizing from a safe distance. I’ve watched institutions dissolve debate into dogma. I’ve watched “inclusion” become a loyalty test that excludes the one difference that matters most in a free society: diversity of thought. I’ve seen grown adults tiptoe around plain truth, terrified that the wrong adjective will trigger an investigation. That is not inclusion; it is ideological probation.

A new multi‑study report crossed my desk and put numbers to what many of us have felt. Participants read short, recognizable anti‑oppression excerpts—Kendi/DiAngelo on race, ISPU materials on Islamophobia, Equality Labs on caste—or a neutral control. Then they judged scenarios stripped of any evidence of bias. Again and again, exposure to the frames increased hostile attribution and inflated the appetite for punishment. People were more likely to see discrimination in neutral stories, to demand suspensions and trainings, to call for apologies. Even warmth toward the out‑group didn’t budge. Suspicion rose; affection didn’t. That is awareness curdling into animosity.

I don’t need a randomized trial to know what that does to a classroom. I can see it on a playground.

How language turns a classroom into a tribunal

Language is a steering wheel. When we sacralize certain words—harm, power, safety, microaggression—we tilt perception before facts arrive. Ambiguity gets resolved toward guilt. Social status accrues to the first person to discover injury. Policy follows perception: new reporting portals, mandatory trainings, public rituals of apology. The loop tightens and becomes self‑legitimating: the more harm we train people to find, the more policy we need to manage all the harm we’ve found. Soon you’re not protecting children—you’re protecting the system that protects itself.

That feedback loop explains why “awareness” programs so often conclude that we need…more awareness programs. It is a moral subscription model. And the cost is paid by children learning to mistrust one another and to mistrust their own eyes.

What development actually asks of us

Children already notice difference. The developmental task is not to teach difference; it is to teach composure, charity, and repair in the presence of difference. The work looks ordinary and unglamorous: turn‑taking, truthful apology, proportionate consequences, reintegration instead of exile. It is far easier to stage a public ritual than to shepherd two kids through a real reconciliation. But rituals teach spectatorship; reconciliation teaches relationship.

I want my son—and your kids—to master hard, unfashionable skills:

• To argue cleanly and protect people ferociously while he does it.

• To tolerate ambiguity, because most of life is ambiguous.

• To refuse collective panic: “We don’t have evidence, so we don’t have a verdict.”

• To say, “I might be wrong,” and still stand upright inside his values.

In our house, it sounds like simple sentences:

People aren’t the same. That’s good. If you’re curious, ask kindly. If you’re asked, answer kindly.

Awkward isn’t evil. Fix it. Try again.

We argue ideas and protect people. If you roll your eyes, you owe a redo.

Evidence first. Verdict later. Always.

In a school, it looks like adults who can host conflict without humiliation, policies that protect viewpoint diversity on purpose, and a bias toward repair over retribution. When someone blunders, the path is apology → amends → reintegration—not public spectacle.

The authoritarian tell

There’s a reason punishment surges when suspicion is taught. Authoritarianism—of any stripe—feeds on ambiguous wrongs and theatrical remedies. If the highest social good is the performance of care, then the fastest route to status is to find harm and demand penance. It’s a short road from “be aware” to “be afraid,” and an even shorter one to “be silent.”

The study I mentioned tracked this too: the stronger a person’s authoritarian bent, the stronger their hunger to police and punish once they’d been primed by anti‑oppression frames. It’s not that people became kinder; they became more certain that others were guilty. Certainty without evidence is not justice. It is zealotry.

“But aren’t you minimizing bias?”

No. I’m minimizing accusation without evidence. Real prejudice exists. Bullying exists. Malice exists. I want children protected from it and perpetrators held to account—clearly, proportionately, with due process. The problem is a set of frames that pre‑load suspicion and reward retribution, converting ordinary friction into a moral emergency. When everything is a microaggression, nothing is coachable. When every bruise is proof of a hidden system, no one learns to apologize like a human.

If your DEI program cannot increase warmth while it reduces prejudice, it’s not teaching inclusion. It’s teaching suspicion. Measure both. If warmth doesn’t move, you didn’t build a bridge; you built a watchtower.

The one difference we keep forgetting

We celebrate visible differences while punishing the hardest difference of all: the person who thinks differently. An institution can hang all the right posters and still run on ideological monoculture. That is not inclusion; it’s conformity with softer branding. I want my child to graduate fluent in disagreement—to be able to sit with people he believes are wrong without humiliating them or himself.

This is what a healthy pluralism asks of adults: host conflict without theatrics, resist the narcotic of outrage, and model the kind of strength that does not require an enemy to feel real.

A different prescription

Try this in your classroom, staff room, or living room for thirty days:

• Replace “harm” with specifics. What happened? Who did what? What evidence do we have? What else could explain it?

• Replace “policy escalation” with repair. Who needs to say sorry? What does restitution look like? How do we reintegrate the person with dignity?

• Replace “training” with practice. Stage disagreements on purpose. Steelman the opposing view. Reward accuracy over applause.

• Replace “safety” as silence with safety as the confidence that you can speak, be challenged, and remain in the room.

You will know it’s working when the temperature drops, laughter returns, and students start correcting themselves before the adults do.

The line I won’t cross

I’m not handing my child’s conscience to a committee. Not a school board, not a ministry, not a movement that confuses compliance for compassion. I will model tolerance—the grown‑up version that holds fierce differences without exile—and I’ll teach him to do the same. Because if our antidote to prejudice is teaching kids to hunt for it, we’ll raise sharp detectives and poor neighbours. I want something better: citizens. Neighbors. Men and women with a spine and a heart.

That begins where it always has: with adults who refuse the slide from awareness to animosity—and who show children what to do with the space after noticing. Notice, breathe, choose. We get to decide whether the next act is curiosity, correction, or condemnation. That decision writes the future.

Take heart,

Jason

Subscribe now

Research referenced:

How DEI Pedagogy Produces the Hostile Attribution Bias

There is a reason the medical establishment loves euphemisms. “Gender-affirming care” sounds like compassion, like a warm hand on the shoulder of a child in distress. But strip away the language, and what remains is not care. It is the repackaging of castration, mutilation, humiliation, and domination into sanitized medical terminology. What we are told is therapy often mirrors, almost word-for-word, the practices of BDSM fetish and paraphilic disorders.

This is not hyperbole. It is fact. And once you see the parallels, you cannot unsee them. The problem is not merely one of medical overreach or bad policy. It is the very infiltration of a sexualized framework—fetish logics, paraphilic appetites, trauma reenactments—into the domain of childhood care. The mask is compassion. The machinery underneath is darker than most dare imagine.

Subscribe now

Fetish or Care?

What you will see below is not the whole picture, but one angle of it — a glimpse into the machinery that drives a much larger and more pervasive cultural phenomenon. By setting side-by-side the descriptions of certain fetish practices and the euphemisms of medicalized “care,” the uncanny resemblance emerges. This table is not a complete map; it is a lens. There are other dimensions — legal, economic, ideological — that all intersect here. But for now, this comparison offers a way of seeing how easily harm is cloaked in the language of healing.

Puberty Blockers = Chemical Castration

The pamphlets call them a “pause button on puberty.” Lupron, triptorelin, and other GnRH agonists. In practice? They are chemical castration agents. Historically used on prostate cancer patients and sex offenders. They shrink gonads, halt sexual development, weaken bones, sterilize.

Now read a definition from kink culture: orgasm denial and chastity play. A dominant controls another’s sexual development, keeping them permanently “on hold,” denying the natural progression of pleasure. The goal is not health, but control.

Sound familiar?

The psychology beneath this matters. Freud wrote of repression, of the ways human beings sublimate drives into distorted forms. Puberty is not a disease to be halted but the natural unfolding of sexuality and identity. To freeze it is to hold a child’s developing psyche in suspension, to deny them the very process by which they learn autonomy. In psychoanalytic terms, it is the re-enactment of the “castrating parent”—the one who withholds development, who controls the emergence of desire. In practical terms, it is the State stepping into the parental role, not to protect, but to restrain.

When puberty is medicalized into a pathology, the message to the child is clear: your body is dangerous. That seed of shame is the perfect soil for fetish formation later in life.

Cross-Sex Hormones = Forced Feminization / Masculinization

The clinician says: “Hormone therapy helps adolescents align their body with their identity.”

In BDSM, the practice is called forced feminization (or sissification). A male submissive is made to dress, act, and even chemically mimic a female body for the erotic satisfaction of the scenario. The parallel is unmistakable: altering a body’s hormones not for health, but to forcibly script it into another role.

From a sexological perspective, the question must be asked: is this really about identity, or about acting out an eroticized fantasy at scale? Ray Blanchard’s controversial concept of autogynephilia suggested that for some men, the pursuit of feminization was not an expression of gender identity but a sexual arousal pattern—becoming the object of one’s own desire. Whether one accepts Blanchard or not, the fact remains that feminization and masculinization carry heavy erotic and symbolic charge. To hand this charge to minors is reckless.

Freud would have called this a transference of desire. The adult’s projection of meaning—of what femininity or masculinity should look like—becomes mapped onto the child. The child becomes a vessel for adult fantasies of transformation. The experiment is irreversible.

“Top Surgery” = Amputation Fetish

In the clinic: “Chest masculinization surgery” for teenage girls. Bilateral mastectomy. Amputation of healthy breasts.

In paraphilia literature: apotemnophilia, the fetishistic desire to amputate healthy limbs or tissue. “Nullification” fetishists eroticize a smooth, neuter torso.

The same act. The same removal of healthy body parts. Only one is dressed up as “affirmation.”

Psychologically, amputation fetishes are understood as trauma reenactments or attempts at mastery over helplessness. A child cut open in the name of care is not achieving mastery. They are being made into the fetish object of others’ ideological appetites.

One cannot ignore the deeper archetypal meaning: the breast is not simply tissue, it is the primal organ of nurture, the symbol of motherhood and fertility. To amputate it in adolescence is to sever the girl from the archetype of the mother, to erase her potential for feeding and sustaining life. In Jungian terms, this is a violent exile of the feminine principle.

“Bottom Surgery” = Castration and Nullification

Hospitals call it vaginoplasty or phalloplasty. In reality: penectomy, orchiectomy, vulvectomy, tissue grafting. Genital mutilation.

In fetish communities, the terms are nullo and emasculation play. Men eroticize castration. Some seek underground surgeons to remove penis and testicles for arousal or identity as “modern eunuchs.”

Medicine laundered the language, but not the act. What would be condemned as mutilation in Africa or South Asia (female genital cutting) is celebrated when performed on Western teenagers in the name of gender.

Freud’s notion of “castration anxiety” becomes inverted here: instead of a fear of loss, the culture sanctifies the loss as liberation. But this is not liberation; it is ritualized sacrifice, a fetishization of mutilation cloaked in white coats and surgical masks. From a cultural-anthropological lens, these surgeries resemble initiation rites of old—but inverted, stripped of transcendence, and given to children without their informed consent.

The Eunuch Archive and WPATH SOC-8

Perhaps the darkest window into the underbelly of “gender medicine” came with the publication of WPATH’s Standards of Care, Version 8. For the first time, a chapter was devoted to “eunuchs” — individuals seeking surgical or chemical castration not as part of gender transition, but as an identity in its own right. The language of the chapter is clinical, pathologized, and sanitized, yet its origins are anything but.

When the draft of SOC-8 was uploaded for review, its references included a direct link to the Eunuch Archive — a fetish forum housing over 10,000 stories of genital mutilation, castration fantasies, and graphic depictions of boys and men being surgically neutered. More than 4,000 of these stories explicitly referenced minors. What began as a fetish community, openly trafficking in sadistic and sexualized content, was suddenly elevated into the highest levels of clinical guidance for doctors, therapists, and surgeons.

This is not speculation. It is documented fact. The line between pornography and policy was erased. A forum once relegated to the margins of the internet became the hidden foundation for international medical guidelines. The inclusion of “eunuch identity” in WPATH SOC-8 normalized the very desires that fetish communities have long nurtured: the mutilation of male bodies, the erasure of sexual function, and the transformation of castration into a lifestyle.

From a psychological perspective, this is staggering. The eunuch fetish has always been understood in sexology as a paraphilia: a compulsive sexual fixation on castration, often linked to shame, humiliation, and trauma reenactment. To place it inside the category of legitimate “care” is to collapse the distinction between pathology and medicine. Freud would have seen here the raw return of castration anxiety — not as a fear to be worked through, but as a social project to be enacted. Jung would have read in it a cultural shadow: the exile of potency, fertility, and generativity, rebranded as identity.

And children are not shielded from this. Once the principle is established that castration is a legitimate therapeutic pathway, there is no meaningful barrier to applying it downstream to minors — particularly when the same document already lowered and removed age restrictions for other surgeries. The grotesque fetish of neutering men is now woven into the fabric of pediatric protocols.

“Social Transition” = Humiliation Play

Teachers call it “supportive.” A child is renamed, given new pronouns, a new costume, a new reality.

In domination play, it is humiliation: forcing someone to answer to another name, erasing their identity, dressing them in clothes that do not fit. It is a psychological breaking down of the self until the subject complies.

Children do not consent to this. They comply because the adults around them collude in the script.

Here we see the beginnings of phobia indoctrination: if you do not affirm, you are a bigot. If you do not comply, you are hateful. The fear of being labelled “transphobic” is wielded as a whip, ensuring silence and compliance. It is not only children who are humiliated. Parents are made to bend to the script, terrified of being cast as villains in their own child’s story.

Freud described the “superego” as the internalized voice of cultural authority. In this case, the superego does not whisper but shouts: comply, or you are evil. The result is mass compliance through fear.

Binding, Packing, and Tucking = Bondage and Genital Control

Compression garments that restrict breathing. Tucking genitals painfully back. Packing prosthetics to create a false bulge.

In BDSM? Bondage, chastity devices, genital concealment. The erotic charge is control: what you are allowed to show, what you must hide, how tightly you can breathe.

Here, it is handed to a child as “care.”

Psychologically, these practices rehearse the body for shame. They teach a child to view their natural form as grotesque, to bind it, hide it, distort it. In developmental terms, this interrupts the critical process of integrating body image into identity. What is internalized instead is dissociation: my body is not me, my body must be hidden. This is fertile ground for the growth of fetishism and self-harm.

Therapy = Indoctrination

Counsellors now practice “affirmative therapy.” No exploration. No alternative outcomes. Only one path, reinforced session after session.

In fetish? Erotic hypnosis. Role conditioning. The subject is told, over and over, “This is who you are.” Resistance is worn down until compliance becomes arousal.

When therapists collude in this, it is grooming under a professional license.

Psychoanalysis teaches that true healing requires uncovering unconscious conflicts, not reinforcing them. Affirmation-only therapy short-circuits exploration. It shuts down the possibility of asking why. Why does this child feel alienated from their sex? Why are they distressed? By foreclosing those questions, affirmative therapy ensures the wound festers unexamined—and the wound itself becomes eroticized over time.

The Foundations of Fetishism

Fetishism does not spring fully formed from nowhere. The psychoanalytic tradition teaches that fetish objects arise from disavowed wounds and traumas. Freud speculated that the fetish was a substitute: a token or stand-in that resolves unbearable anxiety. For example, the fetishized shoe or garment displaces the child’s terror of the absent mother or the threat of castration.

Modern sexology frames fetishism as a kind of trauma reenactment: the compulsion to eroticize what once harmed, to turn shame into excitement. A boy humiliated may grow into a man aroused by humiliation. A girl punished for her body may eroticize punishment to reclaim power. Fetishism is not freedom but a cycle, an attempt to resolve trauma by replaying it until it feels good.

In Freud’s model, this repetition compulsion was not healing but binding. The psyche returns to the site of the wound again and again, as if hoping that this time the outcome will change. In fetish, the outcome never changes. The humiliation or the mutilation is repeated, eroticized, and finally normalized. What began as trauma ends as arousal.

When medicine reproduces these same patterns—humiliation, castration, binding, forced roleplay—in the lives of children, it is not resolving trauma. It is manufacturing it. It is planting the very seeds of fetish and dissociation that will haunt the child for life.

Phobia Indoctrination

No system of control can survive without fear. Today, fear is weaponized through accusations of phobia. “Transphobic,” “homophobic,” “bigoted”—labels that silence dissent. These phobias are not true diagnoses but cultural weapons. The child who resists medicalization is told they are suicidal. The parent who resists affirmation is told they are abusive. The clinician who questions the model is accused of hate.

This is indoctrination by phobia. A phobia not in the patient, but in the culture: the terror of being excluded, cancelled, punished. By coding resistance as fear and hate, the machinery ensures compliance. It is not therapy. It is coercion.

Jung warned that what is repressed by the collective returns as shadow. Today, the shadow is truth: we know on some level that children are being harmed, but fear has silenced us. Phobia indoctrination is the mechanism by which society blinds itself.

The Psychological Core

What happens when a child is told his or her body is wrong? When puberty itself is treated as disease? When healthy flesh is cut away? When their voice, their name, their self is erased?

The result is not healing. It is the manufacturing of shame. And shame, unhealed, becomes fuel for fetish.

The boy humiliated becomes a man who eroticizes humiliation. The girl bound becomes a woman who cannot breathe without remembering. The child cut apart becomes the adult who eroticizes their own mutilation. Trauma becomes fetish. Fetish becomes identity. And identity is then sanctioned as medicine.

From a civilizational perspective, this is not merely individual harm but collective ritual. We are teaching children to despise their flesh, to sever themselves from embodiment, to live as avatars of ideology. The body becomes the battleground, the currency of compliance. And in time, the wounds become eroticized, passed down as patterns of shame and compulsion.

Are Children Truly Informed?

This brings us to the most damning question: what are we really telling children? If a child is told that “puberty blockers” are medicine, when in truth they are the chemical cousin of castration drugs, is that informed consent? If they are promised “top surgery” for comfort, when in truth it is irreversible amputation, have they been cared for or deceived?

If the underlying reality is that each euphemism masks what in any other context would be labelled fetishistic practice, what are we doing to the minds of children? Are we actually treating distress—or disguising its symptoms under layers of medical theatre, only for those symptoms to erupt later in life as deeper trauma, compulsions, and disorders? Are we relieving pain, or sexualizing it, encoding it, institutionalizing it?

We must ask ourselves: are we caring for children, or are we promulgating and legalizing fetishism through the institutions of law, psychiatry, and medicine? Doctors and therapists, sworn to protect, are enlisted in the service of abuse. Legislators codify the practices. Courts enforce compliance. Parents are coerced into affirmation. The entire edifice of authority bends toward protecting the machinery, not the child.

The underbelly of society is being exposed. The grotesque is no longer underground. The sexually deviant has been naturalized, normalized, medicalized. What once lurked in forums and pornography archives is now written into hospital protocols. Abuse has been legalized, sanitized, even subsidized.

And so the question to beg is not whether this is care, but whether it is fetish and abuse—fetish enacted upon the most vulnerable, under the watchful eye of adults who should know better.

Care as Camouflage

We must face this: gender medicine has euthanized the language of abuse. “Affirmation” conceals domination. “Top surgery” conceals amputation. “Blockers” conceal castration.

If these were not clothed in medical terminology, they would be instantly recognizable as paraphilic practices and sexual abuse.

The mask is compassion. The machinery underneath is mutilation, control, and the eroticization of children’s suffering.

This is the inversion: what once hid in BDSM forums and fetish archives has been imported into clinics and classrooms, scrubbed with euphemisms, and sold as therapy. The shadow has become the system. And children are the ones paying the price.

Take heart,

Jason

Subscribe now

And yet, here in Canada, and in British Columbia, the accelerator remains pressed to the floor.

Subscribe now

The Numbers We’re Not Supposed to See

Between 2018 and 2023, at least 300 minors in Canada (outside Quebec) underwent double mastectomies—healthy breast removal surgeries—at ages as young as 14⁴. That is roughly one child every six days. Thousands more were placed on puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones, though national data is obscured by design. British Columbia, home to one of the country’s busiest youth gender clinics, likely accounts for a significant share of these interventions.

Surgeries for minors are not rare. They are routine. And unlike in Europe, where the evidence is being re-examined and procedures limited, B.C. continues to align itself with the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH)—an organization whose leaked internal documents reveal knowledge of harm and lack of evidence, but a continued push for medicalization anyway⁵.

The Money Trail

In B.C., gender-affirming care is not only permitted—it is incentivized. All treatments are fully funded under the provincial health plan⁶. In 2018, B.C. became the first western province to expand surgical access in-province, training new surgeons and investing resources to meet growing demand⁷. The system rewards affirmation. Clinics and outpatient surgical centres that are contracted to deliver publicly funded care can schedule full days of chest surgeries without question, often with long waitlists of youth lined up for their turn.

Inside the Operating Room: What a B.C. Anesthesiologist Reported

Recently, an anesthesiologist working with a Vancouver-area private surgical centre described the following:

• Throughput: the centre can perform up to ten double mastectomies in a single day, including on patients as young as 14⁸.

• Payment differential: for breast removal due to cancer, the clinic is paid roughly $400; for the same operation performed for gender reasons, the clinic is paid roughly $1,400 by government⁸.

• Workforce ethics: some nurses refuse to participate in these pediatric gender cases, but the surgeries proceed regardless.

These are firsthand allegations relayed by a clinician to an outside interlocutor. If accurate, they suggest an industrialized model of pediatric chest surgery driven not only by ideology and access policy, but by reimbursement structures that pay more to remove healthy breasts than to treat cancer. They also reveal conscience-based resistance inside the operating room—a sign that the public-facing consensus in B.C. is not mirrored by every professional behind the scenes.

This report aligns with what we already see at the policy level: B.C.’s MSP-funded pathway treats chest construction as medically necessary⁹, and procedures are routinely scheduled at outpatient surgical centres as day surgeries under general anesthesia. In practice, this creates capacity and financial incentives that make affirmation the path of least resistance, regardless of long-term consequences.

Niceness as Policy

But why does B.C. cling so hard to this model when others have paused? The answer lies not only in policy, but in culture.

Canada is the land of nice. A nation that prides itself on tolerance, politeness, and deference. Here, affirmation is equated with kindness; skepticism with cruelty. The fear of being seen as intolerant silences open debate. In a recent Angus Reid survey, 58% of Canadians said they support banning campus speakers who challenge gender or race orthodoxies ¹⁰. In other words: better to silence than to risk offense. This tendency does not remain confined to the academy. It filters into hospitals, clinics, and classrooms, where professionals and parents alike are pressured to affirm first and question later—or not at all.

This ethos of niceness—meant to protect—has become its own form of violence. Because niceness, when it overrides truth, costs children their bodies. Behind the smile of tolerance lurks a shadow of complicity: professionals who know something is wrong but feel too constrained to speak; parents who sense harm but dare not confront the cultural tide; journalists who worry more about careers than facts. Niceness has become anesthesia, dulling society to the cost of its compliance.

Media Silence, Professional Fear

Internationally, headlines about Tavistock’s closure and Sweden’s U-turn made waves. In Canada, they barely registered¹¹. Journalists privately admit that trans issues are the “third rail” of Canadian reporting. To touch it critically is to risk career and reputation.

The case of Dr. Gordon Guyatt—the Canadian physician who coined “evidence-based medicine”—is telling. After publishing analyses of puberty blockers and hormones, he found himself under fire from both activists and critics¹². Colleagues were too frightened to sign their names to a simple contextual letter. Amy Hamm has argued that Guyatt himself has since caved to activist pressure¹³. Whether or not one agrees, the episode shows what happens in a climate where professionals cannot speak freely: science bends under fear, and research is eclipsed by reputation management.

Even Canada’s top leadership is not immune to this climate of silence. Reports have circulated that one of Prime Minister Mark Carney’s daughters attended the Tavistock clinic in the UK before it was shut down. When asked directly, Carney refused to comment—a silence that, in a moment demanding transparency, speaks volumes¹⁴. The very fact that such a question cannot be openly addressed by the nation’s leader illustrates how politically radioactive and suppressed the issue has become.

This culture of silence filters down in visible ways. Nurses in B.C. have been disciplined for questioning gender ideology online¹⁵. Parents who resist are gagged by court orders, even threatened with jail if they dare to refer to their daughters as “she”¹⁶. Teachers and counsellors are told to hide children’s social transitions from families. In this climate, is it any wonder that the public rarely hears about the international course correction, or that so few whistleblowers emerge from within the system itself?

Law as Weapon

Then there is the legal scaffolding. Under B.C.’s Infants Act, minors of any age can consent to their own medical treatment if a clinician deems them capable¹⁷. In practice, this has meant 13- and 14-year-olds being started on testosterone or puberty blockers against the wishes of a parent. Courts have upheld these rights, sidelining mothers and fathers as mere bystanders to irreversible medicalization¹⁸.

On top of this, Canada’s sweeping 2021 conversion therapy ban has blurred the line between protection and coercion. The vague language effectively criminalizes exploratory therapy that might lead a child to desist, leaving “affirmation” as the only legally safe option for clinicians¹⁹. Any doctor or therapist who dares to ask too many questions risks disciplinary hearings, human-rights complaints, or criminal sanctions. This has created a chilling effect across the professions: even those who sense the risks of affirmation-only models keep their doubts private.

What Niceness Is Costing Us

Niceness feels good. It reassures. It paints dissenters as cruel so the rest of us can feel virtuous. But the cost of niceness is now measured in scars across the chests of teenage girls, in sterile wombs, in confused young men whose bodies will never function as they once did. The psychological toll is still largely unmeasured: regret, grief, alienation from one’s own body, compounded by the silence of a society that demanded affirmation at all costs.

The great irony is this: in our effort to be nice, we have abandoned care. In our fear of offending, we have forfeited safeguarding. In our obsession with affirmation, we have surrendered truth. The rest of the world is waking up. Clinics are being shuttered, guidelines rewritten, evidence reevaluated. The question is whether British Columbia—whether Canada—will have the courage to do the same, or whether we will continue anesthetizing ourselves with politeness while our children bear the scars.

Take heart,

Jason

Subscribe now

Footnotes

1. Cass Review, UK NHS (2023).

2. Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare (2022 guidance).

3. Legislative Tracker, U.S. Gender Medicine Restrictions (2024).

4. CIHI/Let Kids Be, “How Many Kids are Medically and Surgically Transitioning?” (2024).

5. WPATH Files, Internal Communications (2023 leak).

6. BC Ministry of Health, MSP coverage guidelines (2018).

7. BC Gov News Release, “B.C. brings gender-affirming surgery closer to home” (Nov. 2018).

8. Allegation reported by Vancouver-area anesthesiologist (2025, Billboard Chris post).

9. Trans Care BC, Gender Surgery Program guidelines.

10. Angus Reid Institute, “Canada and the Culture Wars” (2023).

11. The Hub, “The third rail of Canadian journalism” (2025).

12. National Post, Michael Higgins, “Naive Canadian doctor embroiled in trans controversy” (Aug. 2025).

13. National Post, Amy Hamm, “Father of evidence-based medicine turns his back on science” (Aug. 2025).

14. Reports on Mark Carney’s refusal to comment (2024–2025).

15. BCCNM disciplinary decision, Amy Hamm case (2025).

16. BC Court of Appeal, case regarding parental gag order (2019).

17. BC Infants Act, RSBC 1996.

18. BC Supreme Court, A.B. v. C.D. & E.F. (2019).

19. Bill C-4, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (conversion therapy ban, 2021).

In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) removed homosexuality from the DSM-II, no longer classifying it as a mental disorder. This decision is widely celebrated as a milestone in the liberation of gay and lesbian individuals. But according to Dr. Charles Socarides, clinical professor of psychiatry and one of the APA members who opposed the removal, the vote was not based on scientific discovery but political pressure. He argued that empathy for a marginalized population had overtaken clinical integrity. In his 1992 article, "Sexual Politics and Scientific Logic," Socarides predicted that this decision would lead to the collapse of reason within the mental health field and the suppression of dissenting therapeutic approaches (Socarides, 1992).

To fully grasp the breadth of Socarides’ foresight, here are several warnings he articulated in that same publication:

• The reclassification would silence professionals who held dissenting views, threatening careers and reputations.

• It would lead to the politicization of psychiatry, where therapeutic judgments would be made on ideological grounds rather than clinical evidence.

• The shift would pave the way for broader cultural censorship, including in education, research, and parenting.

• Scientific inquiry into the origins of sexual behaviour would become stigmatized, if not forbidden altogether.

• Institutions tasked with neutrality and truth-seeking would become vehicles for cultural orthodoxy.

These were not theoretical concerns—they were strategic forecasts of how ideological capture within clinical institutions could ripple into broader society. Each point serves as a mirror to what is now unfolding in gender medicine, censorship of inquiry, and coercive therapeutic standards.

Socarides described the vote as a capitulation to an ideological force rather than a scientific revelation. In many ways, the process behind the decision foreshadowed a broader cultural pattern: the hijacking of institutions by activist consensus. His warnings—then considered alarmist—today seem prophetic. By reframing homosexuality as an immutable identity rather than a psycho-emotional phenomenon, the APA closed off a field of inquiry that had, until then, remained open for exploration within the therapeutic context. This shift became the first institutional declaration that certain human experiences are no longer permitted to be explored through a psychological lens.

Subscribe now

The Case for Client-Led Therapy: Nicholas Cummings' Warning

Dr. Nicholas Cummings, past president of the APA and Chief of Mental Health for Kaiser Permanente from 1959 to 1979, personally oversaw treatment for thousands of same-sex attracted individuals. In a 2013 USA Today editorial, Cummings wrote:

"Of the roughly 18,000 gay and lesbian patients whom we treated over 25 years through Kaiser, I believe that most had satisfactory outcomes. The majority were able to attain a happier and more stable homosexual lifestyle. Of the patients I oversaw who sought to change their orientation, hundreds were successful."
(Cummings, USA Today, July 30, 2013)

Cummings emphasized that ethical therapy respects client autonomy and begins with the client’s stated goals. He advocated for a pluralistic approach to psychotherapy, grounded in respect for individual agency. However, as activist influence grew within clinical governance, new ethical norms emerged that increasingly dismissed or outright banned any attempts to support clients in reducing unwanted same-sex attraction. Cummings believed that this trend violated not just therapeutic neutrality, but the moral duty to allow patients to define their own treatment goals.

He criticized the shift within the APA and broader professional communities as being politically driven, rather than based on longitudinal outcome studies or clinical observation. Cummings and others saw the rise of therapy bans not as protections, but as a dangerous narrowing of client options. He warned that without a course correction, the field of mental health would become an arm of ideological enforcement, rather than a refuge for individual healing.

Reparative Therapy Misunderstood: What It Actually Was

Joseph Nicolosi, Ph.D., founder of Reparative Therapy®, spent over thirty years working with men who sought to explore and reduce their same-sex attractions. His clinical model proposed that homosexuality, in many cases, was a symptom—a symbolic reenactment of unresolved trauma, particularly around masculine identity, emotional detachment, and early relational wounds. His practice emphasized safety, consent, and inquiry. He was clear that change was neither guaranteed nor imposed. The focus was on understanding, not erasure.

In his article "The Traumatic Foundation of Male Homosexuality" (Crisis Magazine, 2017), Nicolosi wrote:

"Homosexual behaviour is a symptomatic attempt to 'repair' the original wound that left the boy alienated from the innate masculinity that he has failed to claim."

He explored how same-sex eroticism often masked deeper longings for acceptance, male affirmation, and emotional completion. For some clients, these drives had become eroticized through unresolved childhood experiences—including abuse, enmeshment, or rejection. In the therapeutic process, as these memories were surfaced and integrated, the erotic charge often diminished.

Yet rather than engaging with this clinical framework, activists rebranded all such therapy as inherently coercive and abusive. Terms like "conversion therapy" were applied as catch-all smears to a wide range of modalities, many of which bore no resemblance to the aversion-based horror stories often cited in media that frequently went unquestioned. As a result, Reparative Therapy was legislated out of existence in many jurisdictions, with little regard for the diversity of client experience or therapeutic nuance, or client needs.

The Shift Toward Affirmation-Only Models

After the formal and rhetorical elimination of reparative approaches, the field shifted almost entirely to affirmation-based models. In this paradigm, any inquiry into the origins of same-sex attraction—or later, gender dysphoria—is seen as suspect, if not outright bigoted. Adolescents questioning their sexual orientation or gender identity are encouraged to affirm these feelings as inherent truths. The new therapeutic posture is one of affirmation, not exploration.

While affirmation may feel supportive in the short-term, many clinicians and researchers have raised concerns about the long-term consequences of foreclosing inquiry. The rise in adolescent gender dysphoria, for instance, is often treated as a fixed identity rather than a potential expression of underlying distress. Family dynamics, childhood trauma, sexual abuse, and social contagion are often overlooked in favour of immediate validation.

Recent years have seen a slow return of skepticism. In 2023, whistleblowers from pediatric gender clinics in Missouri, Texas, and California came forward, alleging systemic malpractice: hasty diagnoses, lack of oversight, and the use of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones with minimal psychological assessment. The Department of Health and Human Services, the FBI, and the Federal Trade Commission have all launched investigations into medical fraud, deceptive marketing practices, and potential violations of informed consent protocols. Institutions once untouchable are now under scrutiny.

Echoes in the Gender Wars: The Same Playbook, Repeated

The parallels between the suppression of reparative therapy and today’s battles over gender medicine are impossible to ignore. The same ideological mechanisms used to silence inquiry into homosexuality have now been reactivated in the realm of gender identity. Clinicians who question the origins of a child’s gender distress—or who suggest that a young person might benefit from psychodynamic exploration before medical intervention—are accused of transphobia and threatened with professional exile.

As with homosexuality in the 1970s, identity has become sacred, immutable, and beyond question. Inquiry itself is now treated as violence. Much like the activists who lobbied the APA in 1973, today's gender ideologues have mobilized political institutions, media, and professional bodies to enforce a singular narrative: gender identity is innate, self-declared, and must be affirmed at all costs. Any deviation from this line is framed as abuse.

Dr. Lisa Littman’s work on rapid-onset gender dysphoria, which suggested social contagion as a contributing factor, was swiftly deplatformed and attacked—not on scientific grounds, but ideological ones. Clinicians who apply a cautious, exploratory approach are increasingly labelled as practicing “conversion therapy,” despite offering nothing coercive. Once again, the term is being wielded as a political weapon, not a clinical descriptor.

As investigations into WPATH, pediatric clinics, and pharmaceutical interests continue, we must ask: are we repeating the same thing, just under a new banner? Is a new generation of vulnerable youth being shepherded into fixed identities as a way to avoid deeper psychological work? Are clinicians being silenced for asking necessary questions? These are not rhetorical provocations—they are urgent inquiries that history compels us to ask.

What History Warns Us: The Repetition of Suppression

The banishment of reparative therapies and the imposition of affirmation-only models reflect a larger pattern: the political colonization of the psyche. Once it became unacceptable to explore the psychological roots of homosexuality, it was only a matter of time before the same prohibition extended to gender. Today, clinicians face professional censure or license revocation for asking the wrong questions. This is not scientific progress—it is the systematic suppression of inquiry.

Dr. David Pickup, LMFT, who has testified before numerous state legislatures, emphasized the cruelty of these bans:

"To deny a child therapy because it might alter their sexual feelings is not protection—it is a new form of abuse." (Nicolosi & Nicolosi, Client Choice Under Attack)

Pickup points to a moral inversion in the therapeutic world. Whereas the duty of care once included helping clients understand the origins of their suffering, the new ethical consensus forbids that line of questioning entirely. The client’s narrative must conform to the cultural script—divergence is reclassified as harm.

Mental Health Outcomes: When Affirmation Isn’t Enough

Despite unprecedented levels of cultural acceptance, legal protections, and widespread affirmation, the gay male community continues to experience disproportionately high rates of psychological distress. Research cited by Dr. Joseph Nicolosi in The Traumatic Foundation of Male Homosexuality highlights deeply concerning statistics:

• Mood disorders are nearly three times more common in gay men compared to heterosexual men.

• Panic disorder is over four times more prevalent.

• Obsessive-compulsive disorder is more than seven times more likely.

• Substance dependence (nicotine, alcohol, other drugs) ranges from three to five times higher.

• Deliberate self-harm and suicidality are over two to ten times more prevalent.

• Promiscuity and sexual compulsivity remain high, with studies like The Male Couple (McWhirter & Mattison, 1984) reporting that not a single gay couple studied maintained sexual exclusivity for more than five years.

These outcomes suggest that affirmation alone may not resolve the deeper psychic wounds carried by many individuals. In suppressing the opportunity for therapeutic exploration of trauma, unmet attachment needs, and shame-based arousal, the mental health system may be affirming symptoms—not healing their origins.

Not a Call for the Past—But for Psychological Freedom

This article does not advocate for a return to coercion, shame, or religious-based reprogramming where those practices were applied in the past. Rather, it advocates for therapeutic freedom: the right of every client to explore their history, their identity, and their pain with honesty and depth. Psychological integrity demands the space to ask, “Where did this come from?” without being punished for the question.

As Nicolosi once remarked:

"Looking at it in the light of day takes the 'leprosy' out of it."

There is wisdom in that. When the psyche is allowed to illuminate its own patterns, healing becomes possible. But when ideology dictates which parts of ourselves may be examined, therapy becomes theater—a performance of safety, rather than a path toward wholeness.

It is time to return to first principles. The therapeutic space must be reclaimed from political orthodoxy and restored to its rightful purpose: truth-seeking in service of healing. If we fail to do this, we risk repeating the very traumas we claim to be trying to heal—only this time, they are state-sanctioned, irreversible, and harm our children.

Take heart,

Jason

I'm conducting a confidential, spiritually grounded survey exploring identity through the lens of unique energetics rather than conventional psychology. Each submission helps expand a growing sample aimed at uncovering deeper patterns beneath gender-related distress. If you identify as trans, are questioning your identity, or know someone who is, your participation would be deeply valued.

Take the Survey

Subscribe now

Buy me a Coffee

Sources:

• Socarides, C. (1992). Sexual Politics and Scientific Logic: The Issue of Homosexuality.

• Cummings, N. (2013). USA Today, July 30.

• Nicolosi, J. (2017). The Traumatic Foundation of Male Homosexuality. Crisis Magazine.

• Nicolosi, J., & Nicolosi, L. A. Client Choice Under Attack. Interview by Linda Ames Nicolosi.

• Littman, L. (2018). Parent reports of adolescents and young adults perceived to show signs of a rapid onset of gender dysphoria. PLOS ONE.

• WPATH, HHS, and FBI investigations (2023–2024 public records).

In the modern world, gender has become a surrogate for self. But gender is not the self. It is not even stable. It is a construct—a set of social signifiers designed to describe patterns of behaviour loosely correlated to one’s biological sex. What was once a linguistic tool to describe masculine or feminine grammatical categories has now become a cornerstone of identity politics, a stand-in for essence, soul, and destiny.

In recent decades, gender has been reified—transformed from descriptive language into prescriptive identity. It’s no longer how someone expresses themselves, but who they are. And not just in passing, but as a totalizing framework through which meaning, power, and worth are filtered. This is not evolution. This is the psychological equivalent of mistaking the clothes for the body, the mask for the face, the avatar for the soul. It is collapse—not of the individual per se, but of our collective capacity to hold nuance, to tolerate ambiguity, and to allow identity to unfold over time.

We have confused what is socially fluid with what is spiritually foundational. And in doing so, we have tethered ourselves to a concept that is more reactive than reflective—more about cultural trend than core truth.

Subscribe now

Freud: The Fixation in the Lower Realms

Sigmund Freud understood that human beings pass through stages of psychosexual development—oral, anal, phallic, latency, and genital. Each stage represents a psychological challenge that must be integrated in order for the individual to mature. If the psyche becomes fixated—stuck at any of these developmental tasks—it leads to neurosis, compulsive behavior, and identity confusion.

The modern obsession with gender identity and sexual expression is a fixation at the phallic stage. This is the phase where identity becomes centered on the genitals, on desire, on the tension between pleasure and shame. Identity becomes tied not to character or soul, but to what turns us on, how we want to be seen, and how others affirm our self-perception. This is not maturity. This is regression—a return to the realm where libido becomes the organizing principle of the self.

This is where the lower chakra system dominates: root (survival), sacral (pleasure), and solar plexus (will, control, external validation). This is a developmental stage that has its place—but when mistaken for the destination, it becomes a trap. We are not meant to live from the sacral alone. And yet, that is exactly what identity politics encourages: a perpetual performance of self rooted in pleasure, pain, power, and projection.

Where is the heart (compassion, integration)? Where is the throat (truth, voice)? Where is the crown (union, purpose, divinity)? These higher centers of human development are bypassed. The soul, in this schema, is dismembered—fragmented into parts that perform instead of parts that integrate.

Jung: Archetype Fixation and the False Self

Carl Jung warned us of the danger of over-identifying with a part of the psyche. In his framework, identity is not invented—it is revealed through the long and often painful process of individuation. The Self is the totality of our being—conscious and unconscious, light and shadow, masculine and feminine, ego and soul. But when the ego grabs hold of an archetype—say, the androgynous, the rebel, the orphan, or the trickster—and calls it the whole self, the individual becomes fixated. Not in a supernatural sense, but in a psychological one: they are no longer in dialogue with the full psyche.

Today, we see a culture fixated. Not by demons, but by dismembered archetypes. A person’s entire identity is collapsed into a fragment: “I am queer.” “I am trans.” “I am non-binary.” These may be important aspects of someone’s experience, but when they become the total identity, they act as a container too small for the soul. As Jung said, “The more compulsive the identification, the more likely it’s a defense against a greater unknown within.” In other words: what we cling to most ferociously may be exactly what we need to question.

The problem isn’t that people seek meaning through identity. It’s that identity becomes a fixed narrative, defended with religious zeal, used to signal virtue or demand allegiance. The sacred space of psychological development is overtaken by social performance.

The Chakra System: Arrested Ascent

From a spiritual framework, we can view this as a failure of ascent. Human development, when left unimpeded, moves upward—from root to crown. We begin with the basics of safety, survival, and belonging. We explore pleasure and desire. We develop autonomy and ego strength. Then we move through the heart—where we learn love, forgiveness, and emotional intelligence—before rising into truth, vision, and transcendence.

But what happens when the process is interrupted? When society rewards individuals for remaining in the lower chakras, when it affirms and incentivizes the performance of identity tied to sex, pleasure, and personal affirmation?

We get cultural stagnation. A collective loop. People circling the same wounds, repeating the same scripts, never moving beyond their initial self-definition. This is not just a spiritual crisis—it is a developmental one. True growth requires moving through the sacral, not staying there. It requires facing grief, integrating shadow, forgiving betrayal, owning projection, and reaching beyond the self into something transpersonal.

The current gender discourse claims to be about liberation. But in many ways, it is a bypass—a socially endorsed mechanism for avoiding the deeper work of identity integration. It is easier to change your name than to grieve your childhood. Easier to alter your body than to face your parents. Easier to demand affirmation than to cultivate internal coherence.

Identity Is Not a Flag

The soul is not your pronoun. Your essence cannot be captured by a DSM code, a political slogan, or a social media banner. Identity is not self-chosen in the egoic sense—it is self-discovered through descent, disruption, and devotion.

The LGBTQ movement originally fought for visibility, safety, and the right to exist. And many of those battles were noble and necessary. But now, much of that movement has hardened into a new orthodoxy, where questioning identity claims is heresy, and complexity is flattened into slogans.

Jung wrote, "The privilege of a lifetime is to become who you truly are." Not who you’re told you are. Not who you declare yourself to be to gain approval. But who you uncover, slowly, painfully, with integrity.

You are not your gender. You are not even your name. You are something deeper—something ancient, archetypal, and uniquely yours. And it cannot be affirmed by others, because it was never truly lost to begin with. It only needed to be remembered.

Take heart,

Jason

Buy me a Coffee

I'm conducting a confidential, spiritually grounded survey exploring identity through the lens of unique energetics rather than conventional psychology. Each submission helps expand a growing sample aimed at uncovering deeper patterns beneath gender-related distress. If you identify as trans, are questioning your identity, or know someone who is, your participation would be deeply valued.

Take the Survey

Subscribe now

But in Canada? Nothing.

No national review. No policy shift. No reckoning with the mounting evidence.
Just silence.

Or worse—celebration. Under the banner of Compassion—yet we promote Medical Assistance in Dying, for kids. Where others acknowledge uncertainty, Canada preaches certainty. Where other nations grapple with complexity, Canada doubles down on dogma. Pediatric hospitals, school boards, and national professional associations continue to enforce the WPATH model—a model increasingly questioned on the world stage. Canadian clinicians still refer distressed and vulnerable children for puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and even irreversible surgeries, sometimes after only cursory assessments. The governing assumption is that affirmation is the only path. That it must be swift. And that questioning it is dangerous.

And one has to ask:

Why is Canada immune to scrutiny?

Subscribe now

A Culture of Repetition, Not Reflection

Perhaps it is because Canada has done this before.

This country has a long and troubling history of violating children under the cover of righteousness. From assimilation to psychiatry to medical experimentation, Canadian institutions have harmed young people—not by accident, but as a matter of policy. And in most cases, they were applauded for it.

• In the residential school system, more than 150,000 Indigenous children were taken from their families, stripped of their language and culture, and subjected to starvation, forced labour, physical abuse, sexual violence, and death. Government records acknowledged shocking mortality rates, and the graves of thousands of children are only now being uncovered.

• In the nutrition experiments of the 1940s and 50s, Indigenous children in residential schools were used as test subjects. Essential nutrients were withheld. Dental care was denied. Malnourished children were monitored like lab animals. No consent was given. No dignity preserved.

• In Quebec's psychiatric institutions, the so-called Duplessis Orphans—healthy children born to unwed mothers—were falsely diagnosed as mentally ill and confined so that the government could collect federal subsidies. These children were beaten, lobotomized, subjected to electroshock therapy, and sexually abused.

• In the Sixties Scoop, tens of thousands of Indigenous children were removed from their families and placed in white homes, losing not only their communities but their identities.

• Children with disabilities were warehoused in institutions like the Huronia Regional Centre, where they were routinely neglected, restrained, beaten, and abused. These facilities operated for over a century before lawsuits brought the truth into daylight.

These were not isolated incidents. These were state-sanctioned. Church-supported. Publicly ignored. Only decades later did the nation find its voice—and even then, only after victims came forward in numbers too great to ignore.

What binds all of these atrocities is not just the scale of suffering, but the pattern of silencing dissent. Whistleblowers were dismissed. Survivors were disbelieved. Professionals who questioned the prevailing wisdom were punished. And time and again, the children bore the cost.

Now, in 2025, another form of institutional harm is unfolding. This time, it is framed as progress. As compassion. As inclusion. But the underlying structure is painfully familiar.

Silenced Voices: Canadian Doctors Speak Out

In May 2025, a group of physicians took a courageous step. They issued a public letter through the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, warning that gender-affirming care for minors in Canada has outpaced the evidence, and that its risks are being systematically downplayed.

Their message was unambiguous:

"So-called 'gender-affirming care' has proven risks and harms, but unproven benefits. It is not life-saving. It is permanently life-altering."

They pointed to the decisive moves made by European nations, which, after reviewing their own data, chose caution over ideology. They challenged the illusion of expert consensus in Canada. And they named what many in the medical field already know: most doctors are afraid to speak.

Some who have spoken out have been professionally exiled:

• Dr. Kenneth Zucker, one of the world’s foremost experts on childhood gender dysphoria, ran a clinic that prioritized long-term psychological exploration. In 2015, he was fired after activists accused him of conversion therapy. The media amplified the smear. Years later, he won a wrongful dismissal case and a public apology—but the damage was done. His firing served as a warning to others.

• Aaron Kimberley, a transgender clinician and mental health professional in B.C., was effectively forced out of his role after questioning the speed and certainty with which gender-distressed youth were being medicalized. His views, rooted in clinical experience and critical thinking, were deemed too dangerous for public discussion.

• Dr. Joey Bonifacio, once a leader in pediatric care at SickKids, left his position to pursue a more balanced, psychotherapeutic approach to gender dysphoria. When he went public with his concerns, he too faced backlash and reputational risk.

• Other physicians, including psychiatrists, pediatricians, and family doctors, now report self-censoring. Some fear investigations from regulatory colleges. Others worry about losing hospital privileges or professional insurance. Even those with decades of experience are afraid to say what their clinical judgement tells them: this is going too far.

None of these accounts are speculative. They are matters of public record. And yet, the dominant narrative in Canada continues unchanged. Media outlets pretend dissent doesn’t exist. National medical associations parrot affirm-only talking points. Government ministries remain unmoved.

Meanwhile, detransitioners multiply. Their stories—once dismissed as statistical anomalies—are becoming harder to ignore. Young adults, some still in their teens, speak out about being fast-tracked through hormones and surgery. They describe pain, regret, infertility, and the silence they encountered when they tried to speak up.

But in Canada, the cultural reflex is not to reflect. It is to repress.

Not "We" Anymore

I immigrated to Canada for a reason: to raise my children in a country that claimed to prioritize their safety, dignity, and well-being. Where I came from, that could not be counted on. I chose this country believing it would be different. I wanted to rest in the assurance that when my children are not in my care, they would be safe in the hands of trusted institutions.

But now I realize they are not. Not at all.

I am a citizen of this country. I live in its institutions. I am subject to its laws. But I cannot in good conscience include myself in the collective "we" that allows this to continue.

I have watched our institutions betray children before. I have seen the apologies issued decades too late. And I will not be complicit by silence.

There is a kind of collective moral anesthesia that takes root in a culture accustomed to harm. It numbs the impulse to act. It teaches the public to defer to the experts, even when the experts are wrong. It gaslights dissenters. And it tells children to trust systems that are not worthy of their trust.

I do not say this as an outsider. I say this as someone who entered with hope, and now stands in grief. I have seen the patterns, and I am no longer willing to pretend this is new.

The Pattern Is Familiar

When children are harmed in Canada, it is rarely through malice. It is through belief. Belief in systems. Belief in professionals. Belief in narratives that cannot be questioned.

Today, that belief is called "affirmation." But the structure is the same:

• Evidence is overridden by ideology.

• Professionals are punished for caution.

• Children are redefined as agents of their own medicalization.

• And the public—once again—looks away.

It will not be long before the lawsuits come.
Before class actions are filed.
Before medical colleges quietly revise their standards.
Before our national broadcasters run documentaries that ask, "How did we get it so wrong?"

And just like before, when the dust settles and the harm is undeniable, Canada will offer an apology. It will sound sincere. It will come with a settlement. It may even come with tears.

But it will not undo what has been done.

And it will not bring back what has been lost.

Take Heart,

Jason

Subscribe now

Sources / References:

• Canadian Gender Report, "The Myth of Expert Consensus is Finally Being Challenged in Canada" (2025): https://genderreport.ca/expert-consensus-finally-challenged-in-canada/

• Macdonald-Laurier Institute, Open Letter from Canadian Physicians: https://www.macdonaldlaurier.ca/

• CBC, "CAMH apologizes to psychologist Kenneth Zucker" (2017): https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/camh-apology-zucker-1.4040585

• Aaron Kimberley, interviews and writing at Gender Dysphoria Alliance: https://genderdysphoriaalliance.com

• Cass Review (UK): https://cass.independent-review.uk

• Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare: https://www.socialstyrelsen.se

“There are few other areas of healthcare where professionals are so afraid to openly discuss their views... where name-calling echoes the worst bullying behaviour.”
— Dr. Hilary Cass, Cass Review, 2024[1]

Once upon a time, we rightly condemned the practice of conversion therapy—those shame-soaked efforts to turn gay kids straight, often through psychological manipulation, religious guilt, or worse. We recognized it as a cultural and psychological violence against the soul of a child. We named it. We rejected it. We called it unethical, archaic, and abusive.

We said: Never again.

But “never again” is happening again—only this time, it wears rainbow flags and calls itself "affirmation."

This is the new conversion therapy: not from gay to straight, but from gay to trans. It is more insidious, more institutionalized, and more celebrated than its predecessors.

We are witnessing a profound betrayal—not only of medical ethics, but of the very children we claim to protect. Behind the slogans of progress, inclusion, and diversity lies a machine of medicalization that reinterprets gender nonconformity as pathology and treats deviation from gender stereotypes with sterilization.

Subscribe now

The Erasure of Same-Sex Attraction in the Name of Progress

A newly released report by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (May 2025), co-authored anonymously by a team of interdisciplinary experts, found that the evidence supporting medical interventions for gender-dysphoric minors is "remarkably weak." The report was the first federal review to systematically examine the empirical foundations of pediatric gender medicine in the United States. One of the central findings aligns with what prior longitudinal studies have already shown:

"Gender dysphoric children are overwhelmingly likely to grow up to be gay or lesbian if left untreated."
— HHS Pediatric Gender Dysphoria Review, 2025[2]

This echoes a pivotal Dutch study, often cited as the foundation of the pediatric gender transition model, which tracked 70 adolescents with childhood-onset gender dysphoria:

"Only one adolescent in the entire cohort was exclusively heterosexual in adulthood."
— de Vries et al., 2011; de Vries et al., 2014[3]

These children are not "in the wrong body." They are gender-nonconforming youth—often effeminate boys or masculine girls—who, left alone, would grow into gay adults. But our cultural discomfort with that difference persists, even if our language for it has changed.

Instead, many are now being fast-tracked into puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgeries that result in:

• Irreversible sterilization

• Lifelong sexual dysfunction

• Loss of natural puberty and developmental identity

• Increased dependency on pharmaceutical interventions

And their same-sex attraction?
Erased—under the guise of acceptance.

In what world is this liberation?

A Ritual Cloaked in Care

What makes this more dangerous than the religious conversion therapies of old is that this one is celebrated, moralized, and institutionalized.

It is not being carried out in backrooms by fringe therapists. It is being enforced in hospitals, schools, and legal systems. It is taught as doctrine to educators. It is protected by legislation. It is promoted by national medical associations. But beneath the surface, it performs the same task: the erasure of inconvenient identities through state-sanctioned conformity.

"The progressive embrace of this regressive practice is one of the great ironies of the modern age."
— Alex Byrne, MIT Philosopher and co-author, HHS Report, 2025[2]

This isn’t liberation. It’s ideology in a lab coat. And it follows an ancient pattern: when a society cannot tolerate ambiguity, it will choose mutilation over mystery, control over curiosity.

And for the child, it becomes a sacred wound misinterpreted as a defect to be cut out.

The Language of Dehumanization

Brené Brown has described how dehumanization always precedes systemic cruelty. It begins not with actions, but with language. The new conversion therapy depends on euphemism, abstraction, and redefinition.

• Girls become “AFAB individuals”

• Boys become “assigned male at birth”

• Gender-nonconforming children become “trans youth”

• Parents become “unaffirming”

• Doctors who dissent become “bigots”

This is not just semantics. This is a cultural severance from embodied reality. Words no longer describe; they prescribe. They compel compliance. And they make it nearly impossible for parents, teachers, or therapists to speak the plain truth without being accused of hate.

As the Cass Review noted:

"Professionals are afraid to openly discuss their views... This has contributed to the collapse of medical safeguarding."
— Cass Review, April 2024, UK NHS[1]

Language is being used not to clarify, but to obscure. Euphemisms like “gender-affirming surgery” conceal the reality of healthy breast removal in teenage girls. Critics are painted as extremists. Dissent is framed as abuse. And all who question this medical pipeline are accused of endangering lives.

This is not discourse. This is dogma.

Why This Is Conversion Therapy

As noted in the HHS report, the conflation of exploratory psychotherapy with conversion therapy is a deliberate rhetorical maneuver, not a clinical one. While “conversion therapy” originally referred to efforts aimed at changing a person’s sexual orientation, many activists now deploy the term to condemn any therapeutic exploration that does not affirm a child’s claimed gender identity. The report warns that such framing is “a problematic and potentially harmful rhetorical device” that mischaracterizes ethical psychotherapy as inherently coercive[2]. In truth, exploratory therapy—as practiced in the original Dutch protocol and defended by numerous mental health professionals—is agenda-free, respects autonomy, and seeks to help a child understand the roots of their distress, rather than override it with ideological interventions. To label this as conversion therapy is to flatten complexity, shut down inquiry, and intimidate clinicians into silence.

If psychotherapy stops asking probing questions, is it still psychotherapy?
No. At that point, it has ceased to be a therapeutic discipline and has instead become an ideological safeguard. The very essence of psychotherapy is inquiry—curiosity without an agenda. It is not meant to validate a pre-existing narrative, but to help the individual uncover what that narrative even is. When therapists are no longer permitted to wonder aloud, to reflect back contradictions, or to pause a process that may have roots in trauma or projection, then we are no longer engaged in therapy. We are engaging in performance. In indoctrination.

This shift—from a process of exploration to one of affirmation—is not neutral. It is a structural violation of psychotherapy's foundational ethic: to meet the patient where they are, not where the culture insists they should be. A therapy that cannot say no, cannot ask why, and cannot hold not yet, is not therapy. It is complicity in the erasure of soul.

The original sin of conversion therapy was not merely its methods—but its belief: that being gay was wrong, broken, or unworthy.

That same belief now re-emerges, dressed in the robes of progress.

"The child who once said, 'I feel different,' was told: 'Don’t be gay.'
Now they’re told: 'Maybe you’re trans.'"

We haven’t evolved beyond our discomfort with homosexuality. We’ve just redirected it. What once was seen as sin is now treated as a developmental error. Only now, instead of casting out the gay child, we offer them a scalpel and a new name.

But the erasure remains. The trauma remains. The silence remains.

This isn’t affirmation. It’s annihilation.

And its most devastating effect is that it convinces the child that this destruction is their own choice.

The Call to Dissent

To speak the truth today is to risk everything. To stand in the way of this movement is to be branded a villain, a bigot, a danger to children.

Alex Byrne was compared to a Nazi by fellow philosophers for co-authoring the HHS report. Hilary Cass was vilified for simply recommending evidence-based caution. Doctors have been fired. Therapists have been doxed. Parents have lost custody.

But this must stop.
We cannot sterilize children to make adults feel righteous.
We cannot pathologize pain and call it compassion.
And we cannot let politics play god with a child’s body.

There is another way. Not affirmation, but initiation.
Not surgery, but soul work.
Not compliance, but curiosity.
Not ideology, but integration.

Children do not need new names or medical interventions. They need space to grow. They need stories that can hold their complexity. They need adults who can stand in the fire of ambiguity without needing to fix it.

Let the world call that what it will.
The child’s spirit knows the difference.

To therapists, doctors, educators: this is your moment to remember why you began. Not to conform to fashion, but to care for truth. Not to enforce dogma, but to accompany the soul through fire.

Take heart,

Jason

Buy me a Coffee

I'm conducting a confidential, spiritually grounded survey exploring identity through the lens of unique energetics rather than conventional psychology. Each submission helps expand a growing sample aimed at uncovering deeper patterns beneath gender-related distress. If you identify as trans, are questioning your identity, or know someone who is, your participation would be deeply valued.

Take the Survey

Subscribe now

References

[1] Cass, H. (2024). Cass Review: Independent Review of Gender Identity Services for Children and Young People – Final Report. NHS England.
[2] U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (2025). Treatment for Pediatric Gender Dysphoria: Review of Evidence and Best Practices. Section 14.5.2.1.
[3] de Vries, A. L. C., Steensma, T. D., Doreleijers, T. A. H., & Cohen-Kettenis, P. T. (2011). Puberty suppression in adolescents with gender identity disorder: A prospective follow-up study. Journal of Sexual Medicine, 8(8), 2276–2283. Follow-up: de Vries et al. (2014).

Something essential has gone missing in the corridors of modern healthcare: the soul. Nowhere is this more visible than in the latest standards of care regarding transgender and gender diverse youth. Behind the polished language of inclusivity, empowerment, and affirmation lies a machine—cold, ideological, and frighteningly self-assured.

This piece is not an argument against humanity, dignity, or self-expression. It is a dissent against how original frameworks of care have been surgically warped into outcome-driven dogma, repackaged as progressive science. It is a plea to slow down, to listen, and to feel into what has been lost in the race to affirm at all costs.

What began as a compassionate turn—creating safety for gender nonconforming individuals—has mutated into a totalitarian insistence: that all expressions of gender distress, at any age, must be affirmed without question. That anything less is abuse. That to doubt is to do harm. This is not the evolution of understanding; it is the narrowing of it.

Subscribe now

The Warping of Original Work: From Exploration to Prescription

The early work in gender care was exploratory. Clinicians were careful, slow, and curious. They understood that identity is a complex, developmental process, especially in children. They recognized the entanglements of trauma, neurodivergence, familial dysfunction, and social contagion. They knew that what appears as gender dysphoria can sometimes be a placeholder for something deeper.

These early pioneers were not in a rush. Their responsibility was to hold space—not to project outcomes. They knew that for many young people, gender questioning was a necessary portal through which other psychological and existential truths could emerge. There was no assumption that discomfort with one’s body automatically pointed to a lifetime of medical transition.

But that nuance has been eroded. In the latest WPATH Standards of Care, what was once an open-ended question has become a preordained answer. Affirmation is not one path among many; it is the only path. Medical intervention has moved from last resort to first reflex. The clinician has been repositioned—not as a guide, but as a facilitator of a predetermined journey.

No one dares to ask, anymore, what we might be missing beneath the diagnosis. Because to ask is to be accused of cruelty. Or worse, transphobia. The result? Entire psychological histories left unexamined. Developmental trauma dismissed. The deep soul work—ignored.

And the cost of that? The silencing of doubt, the erasure of caution, the medicalization of childhood.

The Disappearing Middle: When Skepticism Becomes Heresy

We are told that to question is to hate. That to pause is to harm. That to suggest a child might be confused is to erase them. This absolutism is not science. It is doctrine.

The effect is chilling. Reasonable clinicians are silent. Concerned parents are vilified. Nuanced researchers are ignored. And the children? They are swept into a current they cannot possibly understand, let alone consent to.

WPATH's own document reveals this tension. Read closely and you will find quiet admissions: lack of long-term data, developmental unknowns, ethical grey zones. But these concerns are footnoted, not foregrounded. They are acknowledged to satisfy the ghost of rigour while the policy machinery moves full speed ahead.

What happens in a culture when the middle ground collapses? When discernment becomes danger? We lose the ability to think. We lose the courage to feel. And we enter the realm of moral panic, where questioning consensus becomes a threat to the very identity of the collective.

And so the standards of care become less about care and more about enforcement. Less about human dignity and more about ideological purity. Professionals are no longer asked to listen. They are asked to agree. Compliance becomes compassion. And silence becomes survival.

The Burden of Irreversibility: What We Cannot Undo

To intervene medically in the life of a child is to assume the weight of irreversibility. Puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, surgeries—these are not neutral acts. They rewire the body, suppress fertility, fracture identity, and sometimes embed regret.

And yet, the language surrounding these interventions has been sanitized. Blockers are “pause buttons.” Hormones are “gender-affirming.” Surgery is “life-saving.” These euphemisms anesthetize the public. They obscure the lived realities of those who come to regret their transition, whose deeper issues were never truly addressed, whose bodies now carry the cost of cultural haste.

In clinical terms, this is known as iatrogenesis: harm caused by the healer. And yet, the system refuses to name it. Even when the evidence accumulates. Even when stories pour in from those who followed every step, believed every promise, and now feel betrayed by the very institutions that once claimed to see them.

Detransitioners are the inconvenient truth. Their stories disrupt the tidy narrative. And so they are sidelined, erased, or dismissed as statistical anomalies. But anomalies do not organize online. They do not form networks of support. They do not write memoirs, give testimony, or beg that we “slow down.”

They exist because something has gone deeply wrong. And they speak not only for themselves—but for all the children who may follow.

The Return to Soul: What Healing Actually Demands

Real healing is not about affirmation. It is about truth. It is about holding space for the full complexity of the human condition—the confusion, the pain, the longing, the trauma. It is about guiding someone through their suffering, not helping them bypass it.

This demands time. Patience. Depth. It demands practitioners who can hold uncertainty, families willing to face discomfort, and institutions brave enough to admit what they do not know.

To truly support a gender-questioning child is to be willing to sit in the storm without needing to resolve it. To listen without assuming. To ask questions without fearing what might emerge.

It is not affirmation that heals. It is the slow, sacred work of integration. Helping someone piece together the fragments of themselves. Making room for grief. For joy. For contradiction. For change.

Affirmation may feel loving in the short term. But when it becomes a mandate, it risks becoming a betrayal—of the very complexity it claims to honour.

A New Kind of Courage

To dissent today takes courage. Not the courage to speak against people—but to speak for them, when the systems claiming to help them have lost their way.

The WPATH document, in its current form, is not a neutral map. It is a highway without exits. It is a narrative too afraid to ask real questions. It reflects a world more interested in outcomes than origins, more loyal to ideology than to soul.

But this can change. It must. The children deserve better. So do the parents. So do the practitioners who went into this work to serve, not to conform.

Let us recover the art of listening. Of wondering. Of staying with the question a little longer. Let us remember what medicine once meant—to heal, not to rush; to support, not to direct; to honour, not to overwrite.

Because affirmation without inquiry is not care.
It is abandonment dressed as compassion.
It is haste dressed as certainty.
It is ideology wearing the mask of healing.

And our children are paying the price.

Take Heart,

Jason

Buy me a coffee

Subscribe now

Puberty is not a pathology. It is a human right.

Let that land. Let it cut through the fog.

Because we are now living in an era where interrupting puberty is not only normalized, it is institutionalized. Where the body’s sacred transition from child to adult is pathologized under the language of “affirmation.” Where adult discomfort with gender non-conformity leads to the chemical freezing of youth in developmental stasis. This is not science. It is social engineering.

Let me say it plainly: this is not compassion. It is eugenics in a progressive mask.

Subscribe now

The Anatomy of Becoming: Why Puberty Matters

Puberty is a biological initiation. It is not a mistake to be corrected. It is not a disease to be treated. It is the body's encoded invitation into adult embodiment—into the full spectrum of sexual maturity, emotional complexity, and psychological differentiation. It is one of the most profound natural processes we undergo, comparable in significance to birth and death.

The process is orchestrated through the hypothalamic-pituitary-gonadal (HPG) axis. This delicate feedback loop triggers a cascade of hormonal signals: releasing gonadotropins, activating sex steroid hormones, awakening dormant physical and neurological pathways that have been waiting for the cue to bloom. Interrupting this process not only alters the body’s trajectory, but distorts the entire psychosexual architecture of the person.

This is not theoretical. The suppression of puberty results in measurable deficits in bone mineral density, sexual function, fertility potential, and emotional development. It short-circuits natural exploratory behavior and halts the neurodevelopmental maturation that helps adolescents form a coherent identity.

To interfere with this process, particularly in children who are emotionally dysregulated or neurodivergent, is not progressive. It is a spiritual mutilation of the human journey.

Puberty Blockers: The Sterile Knife of Silence

We are told they are reversible. We are told they are safe. We are told they are lifesaving.

We are told lies.

GnRH agonists such as Lupron were never designed for use in healthy children. They were developed to treat prostate cancer and precocious puberty—not to indefinitely suspend normal adolescence. Administering these drugs halts bone growth, sexual organ maturation, and creates neurological changes we are only beginning to understand. No long-term safety data exists. No large-scale randomized trials have been completed.

The Cass Review, conducted in the UK, found that the gender clinic model rushed children into medical interventions without proper psychological support or oversight. The findings were so alarming that the Tavistock Clinic was forced to shut down, and a new holistic model was instituted. The Cass Review has since become the international gold standard in re-evaluating gender-related care for youth.

Across Europe, nations are retreating from this reckless model. In Finland, Sweden, and Norway, medical transition for minors is now limited or forbidden outside of research protocols. Why? Because the risks are profound, and the benefits are unsubstantiated. And yet in Canada and the United States, we have doubled down. It is codified into our legal frameworks. And now we find ourselves fighting—not for luxury, but for the most basic right of all: to grow up.

This is not medical care. This is chemical conversion therapy by another name.

The Psychological Hijack

Children do not come to gender distress in a vacuum. Their identity is shaped in interaction with a world that is fractured, chaotic, and increasingly hostile to real embodiment. They are the symptomatic expression of the world that they find themselves in. In an era of digital disconnection, fractured attachment, overdiagnosis, and cultural alienation, is it any wonder that so many children feel dissociated from their bodies?

Rather than address the root causes—trauma, anxiety, sensory integration issues, neurodivergence, social contagion, autism—we reach for the quick fix. We offer medicalized answers to existential pain. But this pathologizes the healthy discomfort of becoming. And the worst part is that there are medical professionals who swear by this intervention. Professionals trained in the nuances of psychological development—and yet, they betray their own ethics in silence. They avoid dissent and fail to uphold the very oath that brought them into their field: Do No Harm.

To be a teenager is to feel confused. To feel out of place. To struggle with belonging. That is not gender dysphoria—that is being human.

We have outsourced the role of elder to clinicians with prescription pads. We have replaced sacred rites of passage with pharmaceutical checkpoints. We have abandoned mentorship in favour of medicalization. And the medical professional can do that in 90 minutes or less—super convenient in a world built for speed.

This is not affirmation. It is abdication.

Consent Without Capacity is Not Consent

A child cannot legally drive. Cannot vote. Cannot drink. Cannot consent to sex. Cannot consent to camp or a field trip. But somehow, we are to believe they can consent to sterilization and irreversible medical procedures (such as hormone replacement and double mastectomies)?

The human brain’s executive function—its ability to assess long-term consequences, integrate emotional nuance, and delay gratification—does not fully mature until approximately age 25. This is not conjecture. This is settled neuroscience.

To claim an emotionally distressed 10-year-old has the clarity and foresight to waive their reproductive future is not liberation. It is legal sleight of hand. And it is a form of systemic abuse. No child can meaningfully consent to what they cannot meaningfully comprehend.

We have taken the language of empowerment and turned it into a weapon of compliance.

Who Benefits From Blocking Puberty?

If you want to understand any policy, follow the money.

Pharmaceutical companies now profit handsomely from lifelong customers who begin with puberty blockers, move to cross-sex hormones, and eventually undergo one or more surgeries. These interventions require continuous follow-up, management of side effects, and further prescriptions. It is a perfect customer loop.

Clinics that offer these services are incentivized by activist groups, grant programs, and insurance billing codes that reward quick diagnostic labels. Activist therapists are shielded from scrutiny under the guise of civil rights. And politicians win votes for parroting slogans they barely understand.

This is not a healthcare model. It is an industrial pipeline. One that begins with identity confusion and ends with chemical dependency and disfigurement.

Ask yourself: who profits when the body is treated like a problem?

Puberty as Initiation, Not Interruption

Every culture that has endured across generations understood the importance of marking puberty as a sacred transition. It was not something to delay or medicalize—it was something to witness, honour, and survive.

Through rites of passage, through communal storytelling, through symbolic trials, adolescents were shown that the chaos within had a meaning. That there was something on the other side. That disorientation was not a disease, but a doorway.

We have none of this now. Instead of elders, we have influencers. Instead of storytelling, we have slogans. Instead of initiation, we have inhibition.

Puberty is messy, yes. But that mess holds wisdom. That chaos contains the seeds of becoming. The body is not an enemy. It is a temple under renovation. To block that process is to gut the cathedral.

What Are We So Afraid Of?

We are afraid of discomfort. We are afraid of delay. We are afraid of waiting. We are afraid that if a child expresses distress and we do not intervene immediately, we will be blamed.

But what happens when intervention becomes the harm? When our need to act becomes the very thing that fractures the soul?

Puberty is the crucible through which human wholeness is forged. To interrupt it is to rob the individual of the opportunity to meet themselves. To earn their skin. To forge identity through friction rather than fabrication.

This is what we are erasing: the sacred dissonance of development. And the wisdom it offers.

The Right to Grow Into Ourselves

Every child has the right to feel strange in their skin. Every child has the right to cry, to rage, to be uncertain. Every child has the right to make it through the storm without being told their storm is a disease.

We do not need to fix children. We need to stop breaking them in the name of fixing them.

Puberty is not a mistake. It is the body’s way of inviting the soul into form.

To interfere with that is to interfere with life itself.

Puberty is a Human Right. Period.

Not a treatment plan. Not a liability risk. Not a political inconvenience.

A right.

Let the dissent rupture the silence.

Take heart,

Jason

Buy Me a Coffee

Subscribe now

“Transhausen by Proxy” is a controversial term coined to describe cases where a caregiver, most often a parent, appears to steer a child toward a transgender identity not for the child’s benefit, but to fulfill the caregiver’s own emotional or psychological needs. This concept challenges dominant cultural narratives that frame all parental affirmation as inherently loving and therapeutic. While affirming parenting can indeed be life-saving for some gender-diverse youth, the possibility that, in rare cases, a parent might be projecting their unresolved trauma or needs onto a child warrants serious consideration. And if this possibility remains unexplored due to political fear or professional risk, it may leave vulnerable children at the mercy of adult agendas—however unconscious or well-intended they may be.

Subscribe now

Understanding Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy

Factitious Disorder Imposed on Another is a psychiatric condition in which a caregiver deliberately fabricates, exaggerates, or induces health problems in someone under their care—typically a child—to gain attention, sympathy, or a sense of control. Classic MSP cases involve unnecessary doctor visits, medical tests, or even induced illnesses. The motivation is not financial gain but psychological gratification. The caregiver often presents as a selfless, devoted parent, while orchestrating scenarios that compromise the child’s well-being.

What distinguishes MSP from general neglect or abuse is the calculated, often elaborate nature of the deception. The parent appears hyper-vigilant, overly involved, and emotionally enmeshed with the child. Medical professionals are frequently misled, and the child may internalize the belief that something is fundamentally wrong with them. Over time, this can result in lasting psychological harm—children may develop anxiety, self-doubt, and mistrust toward their own bodily perceptions and experiences. In some cases, they may grow into adults who continue to question the authenticity of their symptoms or identities.

The Gender Identity Parallel

“Transhausen by Proxy” is not an officially recognized diagnosis, but it has gained traction among clinicians, researchers, and critics concerned about the possibility of psychological transference in families navigating gender identity. In this framework, the child’s gender dysphoria is not necessarily innate or persistent, but may be shaped—or even constructed—by the parent.

The proposed mechanism is analogous to MSP: the child assumes a role (in this case, as a transgender individual), which meets the emotional needs of the caregiver. This may include public affirmation, social media validation, community status, or a sense of meaning derived from being the parent of a “special” or “brave” child. While the outward language is framed around inclusion, advocacy, and protection, the inward dynamic may be one of dependency, fusion, and emotional projection. The child’s gender identity, rather than being explored openly over time, may become a rigid narrative that the parent controls, reinforces, and validates for their own unconscious reasons.

This concept becomes especially concerning when the child is young, has inconsistent expressions of gender dysphoria, or seems to adopt a transgender identity primarily in response to parental enthusiasm or pressure. In these cases, it is not the child’s voice that leads the process, but the parent’s narrative.

Psychological Dynamics Behind the Behavior

1. Borderline Personality Traits and Enmeshment

A well-known 1991 study found that over 50% of mothers of boys diagnosed with Gender Identity Disorder (now termed gender dysphoria) met criteria for Borderline Personality Disorder or major depression. These mothers demonstrated highly enmeshed relationships with their sons and often discouraged autonomy.

Borderline traits can include fear of abandonment, unstable self-image, and intense emotional volatility. In this context, a mother may unconsciously encourage her child to adopt a transgender identity because it preserves emotional closeness or keeps the child dependent. When the child becomes “different,” “vulnerable,” or “special,” the parent’s own internal voids are filled with the perceived purpose of advocacy or care.

This is not a malicious act—it is, in fact, an attempt by the parent to heal themselves by merging identities with their child. However, such dynamics blur emotional boundaries, undermine individuation, and risk turning the child into an extension of the parent's unresolved wounds. The child becomes the proxy, the vessel, the stage on which the parent performs their own healing, at the cost of the child’s developmental freedom.

2. Narcissistic Personality Traits and Attention-Seeking

Parents with narcissistic tendencies may seek attention and validation through their children’s identities. Social media provides fertile ground for such dynamics, rewarding parents who showcase their support for their transgender children. The child becomes a vehicle through which the parent constructs a self-image of virtue, enlightenment, or martyrdom.

This parent may share every milestone, create “awareness campaigns,” write memoirs, or build online followings. None of these acts are inherently wrong—many parents share their journeys to build community. The concern arises when the child’s identity becomes a tool for the parent’s self-promotion, and when the parent resists any outcome that challenges the central narrative. If the child desists, expresses doubt, or changes their mind, the parent may react with disappointment, anger, or rejection—because it is not just the child’s identity at stake, but the parent’s identity as well.

In families where multiple children identify as transgender, some clinicians question whether this pattern might reflect the influence of parental needs rather than purely child-driven identity development. The odds of three or four siblings independently experiencing gender dysphoria are statistically improbable without some shared external influence.

3. Trauma Reenactment and Projection

Unresolved trauma in a parent can lead to psychological projection onto the child. A mother who experienced gender-based victimization, or who struggled with her own identity, may project those wounds onto her daughter and unconsciously promote a transmasculine path as a form of symbolic resolution.

Similarly, a father who experienced emotional repression or rigid gender expectations may overcorrect by embracing a non-conforming identity in his child, not necessarily because it reflects the child’s inner truth, but because it relieves his own psychological tension. In both cases, the parent is parenting through their trauma rather than from a place of presence and discernment. The child becomes the stage for the parent’s unhealed drama.

This reenactment may look like fierce advocacy, protective over-identification, or idealization of the child’s minority status. In reality, it’s a recursive loop: the parent unconsciously uses the child to re-live and redeem their own narrative.

4. Ideological Conviction and Social Incentives

In some progressive communities, affirming a child’s trans identity is seen as a political act—a stance against traditional norms. Parents immersed in ideological environments may interpret common childhood behaviors (e.g., a boy liking dolls or dressing up) as signs of transgender identity. In such cases, affirmation may arise not from listening to the child, but from a belief system that elevates certain identities as more authentic, oppressed, or enlightened.

This ideological framing can shape both parental and institutional responses. Schools, therapists, and peer groups may reinforce the affirmation model without investigating underlying family dynamics. The parent may then receive public praise, moral validation, and institutional support—all of which create strong secondary gains that make it harder to course-correct if concerns arise.

What begins as ideology becomes psychology. The belief becomes a need. And the child becomes the evidence of a worldview the parent is unwilling to question.

Red Flags and Clinical Observations

Though empirical studies are limited, clinicians and whistleblowers have reported anecdotal patterns that raise concern:

• Children whose stated gender identity shifts based on parental presence

• Parents who initiate or escalate the transition process more than the child

• Parents with a history of psychological disorders or trauma

• Cases where multiple children in a family identify as transgender or nonbinary

• Intense parental social media engagement around the child’s transition

• Parental over-identification with the child’s identity (e.g., using “we” language: “We came out as trans last year.”)

These factors do not constitute proof of MSP-like dynamics, but they suggest the need for careful psychological assessment—particularly before initiating irreversible medical interventions. Affirmative care must not become automatic care. Informed consent requires informed context.

Legal and Ethical Implications

In high-conflict custody battles, some parents have alleged that the other parent is inducing gender dysphoria in the child for attention or control. Courts have been placed in the difficult position of determining whether affirmation is in the best interest of the child or an expression of psychological pathology.

At the same time, accusations of “Transhausen by Proxy” can be weaponized against loving parents genuinely trying to support their child. The challenge for legal systems and mental health professionals is to develop criteria that can discern between sincere affirmation and projection-driven influence.

This requires multi-disciplinary evaluations, transparency in clinical documentation, and cultural humility. It also requires protection of dissenting opinions within psychology and medicine. If clinicians fear professional retaliation for expressing concern about parental dynamics, then the system becomes complicit in suppressing clinical judgment in favor of ideological conformity.

The ethics of pediatric transition hinge not just on medical safety, but on psychological integrity. That includes scrutinizing why a child identifies as transgender and who is benefiting from that identity.

Proceeding with Caution and Compassion

“Transhausen by Proxy” is a charged and sensitive concept. It should not be wielded as a blunt instrument to discredit all affirming parents, nor should it be ignored when clinical patterns suggest psychological overreach. Like classic MSP, the harm in these cases does not always come from malice but from unresolved pain, unexamined needs, and emotional blindness.

Mental health professionals must approach each family system individually, with a full appreciation of psychological complexity, social context, and the child's consistent voice over time. Ultimately, the goal is not to police identity, but to protect children—from coercion, from premature medicalization, and from becoming the unconscious mirror of an adult’s unresolved wounds.

If our society is truly committed to supporting trans youth, then we must also be willing to ask difficult questions about influence, projection, and unconscious motivation. Silence does not equal compassion. Complicity is not care. And moral certainty is not a substitute for clinical rigor.

The stakes are too high for silence. This conversation must continue—with nuance, courage, and above all, a commitment to the well-being of children.

Take heart,

Jason

Subscribe now

Children were told to use their "inside voices"—outside. Told to sit still when their limbs screamed for motion. To stay silent when their souls burned to howl and laugh and weep together. Urged to "calm down" again and again, not out of genuine safety but out of performative harmony. It was a subtle severing, a dismembering of their natural state.

The air hung heavy with correction. Not in the form of cruelty, but in the guise of adult composure. Not "be quiet," but "be calm." Not "stop that," but "let’s show respect." All of it wrapped in velvet gloves, while underneath—compliance was the only true lesson.

Subscribe now

Emotional Conformity Masquerading as Kindness
Each time a child followed their inner impulse—to run, to sing, to jump, to wake with joy—they were softly redirected. Every expression of instinct was gently disciplined:

• Rise early with delight? No, sleep in. You must match the group's rhythm.

• Want to run free and explore? No, stay close. Your autonomy is a risk.

• Giddy with conversation? No, calm yourself. Your joy disrupts others.

This wasn’t about structure or safety. Yes, structure is needed—but not at the expense of a child's soul. The cost of compliance was far greater than the risk of chaos. This was a tutorial in internal abandonment. This was the erosion of trust between body and spirit. A curriculum of self-doubt taught in whispers.

The word most echoed wasn’t "quiet." It was "calm." But what they meant, unmistakably, was: "Conform."

The Overreach of Educational Authority
The teacher, like many, was not ill-intentioned. In fact, she exuded the warmth of someone who deeply cared. But this is the paradox: you can be kind and still overreach. You can love children and still silence their vitality.

What was happening was the institutionalization of the feminine shadow—the over-mothering, boundaryless kindness that blunts truth and numbs fire. It was not nurturing—it was numbing. It disproportionately affected the boys, whose wildness has already been labeled a problem by the system, and the fiery girls, who learn early that their intensity is dangerous.

Because when only the soft, the delicate, the pleasing are permitted, we teach children that their power is a threat. Their voice, an inconvenience. Their energy, a liability. We teach them to be sweet at the cost of being sovereign. We teach them to discern through the mind, and exile their felt sense.

The Roots of Emotional Trauma in Childhood Systems
I sat with a few of the kids during downtime. Away from the teacher, their truths came out. They felt frustrated, stifled, confused. One said, "I wanted to yell when the sun came up, but she told me to be calm." She stood there like an admiral in the darkness, ensuring that I don't make a sound, less I disturb the other kids, yet they were ignoring their own needs. Another admitted, "I don’t like being told to stay still. It makes me feel weird inside." "I feel ashamed of being made to separate from the group because my behaviour was bad". Honesty started to come forward.

Yet none of them voiced these things when the teacher was around. They smiled. They obeyed. Because authority was not earned—it was designated. She held the power of inclusion or exile. And every child knew that to be “too much” was to risk separation. To lose belonging.

And this is the wound that festers into adulthood: when we learn that our body’s language is inappropriate, our energy unwanted, our truth inconvenient—we abandon it. Not because we want to, but because we are shown we must.

From Childhood Indoctrination to Adult Submission
And so we grow up—polite, compliant, fragmented. We become adults who say "I’m fine" while we’re dying inside. We nod in meetings while our stomach twists in protest. We nod through policies, procedures, relationships that deaden us.

The training works. From childhood onward, we are shaped into creatures who mistrust our sensations, second-guess our instincts, and await permission to exist fully. We were praised for being "easy," "good," "cooperative." But inside, we learned: don’t be too loud. Don’t take up space. Don’t make waves. Don’t share your truth—it will be politely, surgically reshaped into something digestible. Something the teacher can recognize and control. Your wildness must become curriculum to be allowed.

And later, when we’re told to be authentic, vulnerable, sovereign—we don’t even know what that means. Because the seed of our disembodiment was planted so early, we mistake it for who we are.

School as a System of Energetic Suppression
Look at the arc: school, college, job, mortgage, retirement, death. A linear life confined by cubicles and expectations. A domestication of the wild spirit. And for those who do not know, in Pscyhological Contract theory, we create psychological contracts everywhere in our life, with everything. Contracts that are governed by expectations. Implicit, or explicit.

Anthropologically, humans were not designed to sit in rows under fluorescent lights, absorbing data, regurgitating and parroting facts, and earning approval through quiet compliance. We were meant to move, to hunt, to play, to build, to weep, to dance, to howl. And there is no gold star for that.

Instead, we are given praise for sitting still and punished—through subtle exile—for being alive. Our systems do not cultivate soul. They cultivate submission. They don’t teach truth. They teach performance. And they do it early, while the child is still tender enough to yield.

Programming comes through softness
This programming does not always come through harshness. It comes through softness. A soothing tone. A well-meaning redirection. A calm voice that teaches a child to betray the fire in their belly.

This is how systems of control endure—through our belief that they are benevolent. Through our confusion between comfort and safety, between obedience and goodness.

But our children are not confused. Their bodies remember. Their souls remember. The crawling skin, the lump in the throat, the energy with no place to go—that is truth trying to speak.

The fight for freedom doesn’t begin with protests or politics. It begins with how we honour the wild soul of the child. It begins when we say no to the velvet chokehold of polite suppression. It begins when we, the grown ones, reclaim what we gave up too soon.

Because the revolution will not be organized. It will be felt. And it will begin in the body.

Take heart. Not the kind of heart that sits silently. But the kind that howls in defence of life.
Let us be the ones who refuse to raise domesticated children.
Let us be the ones who remember what freedom feels like—under the skin.

Take heart,

Jason

Buy me a Coffee

Subscribe now

This isn’t to say the mind is evil. It is a brilliant tool, capable of incredible innovation and insight. But it is just that—a tool. And like any tool, it becomes dangerous when it is confused for the craftsman. We’ve mistaken mental agility for moral clarity, and in doing so, created a society of highly functioning people who are deeply disconnected from what is right. Not legally right. Not ideologically right. But somatically, soulfully, right.

Subscribe now

Truth is Felt, Not Thought

The body does not operate from logic. It doesn’t need to. It feels—viscerally, instinctively, without filter or fabrication. It responds to life before the mind has a chance to name the response. It contracts in the presence of betrayal. It softens in the arms of safety. It clenches when something is off. And unlike the mind, it doesn’t lie to us. It can't. Its language is not one of abstraction or justification—it is a language of resonance. Of truth.

But we were taught to ignore it. Taught to distrust the animal within. We were told to override it for the sake of politeness, obedience, and success. Feelings were inconvenient. Intuition was irrational. And so we learned to shrink into our heads, silencing the primal wisdom of our bodies in order to survive within the systems that demanded our disembodiment. And over time, we forgot there was ever another way.

And the mind is where the soul goes when the sensations of the body become too much for us to handle. But the mind was never designed to house a soul—only to serve it.

And when we forget the language of the body, we become strangers to ourselves. We look outward for guidance, for approval, for safety. We make decisions based on consensus, not conscience. We weigh our worth in productivity and social currency. And when something feels off, instead of going inward, we go shopping. Or scrolling. Or numbing. We lose the muscle of discernment—and mistake anxiety for ambition, trauma for drive, and dissociation for enlightenment. We cling to the beliefs of others and absolve ourselves from the shadow those beliefs create in our own lives.

The Age of Disembodiment

And so, we became sick. Not only physically—but emotionally, spiritually, psychically. The more we lived in our heads, the more fragmented we became. We chased purpose through the intellect and found only performance. We pursued happiness through acquisition and achievement and found only anxiety. And when that didn’t work, we went looking for the next thing. The next biohack. The next relationship. The next diet, car, partner, therapist, identity, psychedelic retreat, breathwork technique, or belief system. Anything that promised to make us feel again—without actually asking us to return to our bodies.

The body, meanwhile, kept score. It always does. Symptoms began to surface. Not just in the form of disease, but in the form of disorientation. Burnout. Numbness. Anxiety. Depression. Addiction. Not as personal pathologies, but as cries for reunion. Signals and symptoms of a life out of rhythm—disconnected not just from the deepest part of ourselves, but from the natural world around us. We mistook these symptoms and signals for defects, and sought to medicate, suppress, or bypass them—rather than see them as calls to come home.

What we forget is that the body does not just keep the score—it houses the soul and our truth.

What we call dysfunction is often nothing more than a body screaming to be listened to. The heart knows when something is false. The gut senses what is unspeakable. The skin feels what the lips are too afraid to say. And still, we ask the mind to interpret it all—filter it through logic, reduce it to language, sanitize it into something socially acceptable. But truth is not polite. Truth is primal. And it lives in the body.

The Cost of Civilization

It’s no surprise, then, that embodiment has become an expensive commodity in today’s culture. People now pay thousands to “come home” to themselves, to reconnect with something they never should have been disconnected from in the first place. There are coaches, facilitators, temples, spas, and entire industries devoted to selling us back the parts of ourselves that were stripped away in childhood, in school, in society. And still, many chase the state of embodiment like it’s another peak performance metric—missing the point entirely.

This disembodiment was no accident. It was the natural result of a world built on mind-dominance: schools that mimicked prisons, where curiosity was replaced by conformity; institutions that rewarded obedience over originality; entire systems designed not to cultivate sovereignty, but to produce compliant, productive citizens. The cost of belonging was always the same: betray your body. Suppress your truth. Fit in. And for a while, we believed it was worth the trade because the majority of the people around us did the same.

But at what cost? A culture that praises achievement but pathologizes sensitivity. That glorifies intellect while shaming intuition. That offers entertainment to numb us and pharmaceuticals to mute us. A culture where we are more familiar with screens than our own skin. More trusting of ideologies than of our own instincts. We’ve built a civilisation of minds—and lost touch with the soil of our humanity.

This has led us into a crisis not just of health or meaning, but of moral clarity. We no longer know what is sacred, what is true, what is worth protecting—because we have severed the thread that connects us to the unspoken realm of knowing. And in that void, narratives rush in. Political scripts. Psychological labels. Cultural doctrines. All of which claim to offer identity—but none of which can offer wholeness.

When Ideology Hijacks the Mind

And we did all of this because we were taught that this is what it means to grow up. To be successful. To be safe. But in that trade, something essential was lost. Without connection to the body, morality becomes a construct—vulnerable to hijack by ideologies, movements, and groupthink. Without a felt sense of truth, people will believe anything they’ve been trained to believe—no matter how grotesque or insane. A suicide bomber feels justified. A surgeon amputating healthy breasts from teenagers feels righteous. A parent affirming a child’s confusion instead of anchoring them in truth feels compassionate.

These are not anomalies. These are the consequences of what happens when ideology captures the mind and overrides the body. When abstract righteousness supersedes embodied knowing. When we follow scripts instead of instincts. When we mistake social compliance for moral maturity. Ideologies do not require truth. They require belief. And belief, in a disembodied culture, is easily manipulated.

The more disembodied we become, the more susceptible we are to manipulation. When the body is offline, the soul is homeless. And in that emptiness, fear takes root. We latch onto movements that promise clarity, safety, community—regardless of whether they honour truth. Because in a world that no longer makes sense, certainty sells. Even if it’s a lie.

Returning to Sovereignty

Right and wrong are not mental constructs. They are not determined by political parties or academic theories. They are known in the bones, in the breath, in the heart. They are felt when we are brave enough to slow down, to listen, to feel. And yet, in our obsession with intellectualism, we’ve outsourced morality to abstract systems. We’ve allowed ourselves to be ruled by logic, even when it violates the most basic truths of human life. We’ve privileged rationality over reality, turning away from the felt-sense that could have told us, long ago, that something is deeply, fundamentally wrong.

This is the quiet tragedy of modern humanity: not that we are unfeeling, but that we are feeling everything—and unable to make sense of it because we’ve been taught to trust the mind over the body. We've mistaken the map for the terrain. And so we suffer, not because we are broken, but because we are estranged from our own compass.

The only way back is through the body. Not the idealised body of fitness culture or spiritual bypassing—but the raw, grieving, trembling, truth-sensing body we’ve tried to avoid. The body that remembers what the mind forgets. The body that knows what the soul longs for. The body that aches not for performance, but for presence.

Buy me a Coffee

The Compass Within

The body knows. Always. But for many, that knowing has been buried beneath decades of conditioning, distraction, consumption, programming, manipulation, and noise. The return to truth is not about finding a better idea—it’s about unlearning. It’s about softening into what’s already there, beneath the NASA-level mental gymnastics, beneath the survival scripts, beneath the trauma responses that have been mistaken for personality. It’s about becoming reacquainted with our own aliveness.

The work is not in becoming something new, but in remembering what we are. It is not about being right. It is about becoming real. It is not about arguing ideology. It is about embodying integrity. And if we are to reclaim our sovereignty, we must dethrone the mind as master. We must return to the body—not as an inconvenience, not as a productivity tool, but as the living compass it was always meant to be. The compass that knows what no book, belief system, or algorithm can tell us: what is true for us.

Only then can we begin to rebuild a life that is not held together by ideology, but rooted in truth. Felt, lived, known. A life where our choices are not made from fear or programming, but from alignment. From resonance. From the wisdom that was always there—just waiting to be felt again.

Take heart,

Jason

Subscribe now

"Woke" has become a performance. A stage play of ideological conformity, choreographed by algorithms, dopamine hits, and moral posturing. It is a show, not a shift. It thrives on curated outrage, applause from the right crowd, and the perceived righteousness of external alignment. The danger is that it mimics awakening—using the language of the sacred while delivering the fruit of the synthetic.

"Awakened" is a process. A death. A remembering. It is forged in silence, not in applause. It arrives not as a banner, but as a burden—the burden of truth and grief that doesn’t ask to be liked, understood, or shared. It's not pretty. It emerges not through echo chambers but through inner collapse, crisis, and confrontation with one’s own unconscious. To be awakened is not to believe the right things—it is to shed belief altogether until only truth remains. Not a polarizing view of black & white thinking.

Subscribe now

The Sheep Factor

There’s a massive sheep factor at play in the cult of wokeness. It masquerades as critical thinking, but in practice, it’s often a fragile groupthink built on fear—fear of exile, fear of being seen as “other,” fear of being wrong. Most of all, fear of being alone. This fear is not new. It is the ancient wound of separation rebranded as progress. Something that is edged into the bones and muscles of every human being. Our neurobiological need to belong. To anything, even at the expense of another or ourselves at time.

People cling to ideology not because it makes sense, but because it offers a pre-packaged sense of belonging. It absolves them of the need to dig into the safety of their own intuition and nervous system, and perhaps stand alone. And in a world where the deepest hunger is for connection, ideology has become the new tribalism. Scripts replace soul. Slogans replace insight.

Take for instance the popular phrase, “Love is love.” It sounds universal. Unquestionable. But stripped of context, it can be used to bulldoze nuance—collapsing complex developmental, psychological, or even biological truths into a single, feel-good phrase. The truth? Love is not just love. Love has dimensions—boundaries, responsibilities, maturation, and consequences. Not all love is safe, or wise, or life-giving. Some “love” is trauma-bonding. Some “love” is projection. This is where slogans become shields—and shields become weapons.

Suddenly, nuance is a threat, and complexity becomes dangerous. Those who ask questions become villains, and silence becomes complicity.

But here’s the deeper issue: this form of safety is not stability—it is stagnation. Moral erosion. It’s a psychological sedative, numbing the pain of disconnection while perpetuating it. When you adopt a belief to feel safe, you abandon the part of you that could grow beyond it, and your intuition—your deeper truth.

Groupthink: The Disguised Predator

Psychologist Irving Janis coined the term groupthink to describe how the drive for consensus in groups can lead to irrational or dysfunctional decisions. Dissent is silenced. Complexity is crushed. Unanimity is an illusion. What masquerades as collective intelligence often devolves into collective avoidance—a refusal to face the contradictions that threaten the comfort of cohesion.

Solomon Asch’s experiments in the 1950s showed that people will deny their own eyes just to fit in with a group. Today, we’re seeing the same phenomenon—only now it’s turbocharged by social media, identity politics, and the existential dread of standing out in a hyper-surveilled culture.

What looks like moral clarity is often just psychological submission. People repeat the woke script not because they believe it—but because it secures their place in a social hierarchy built on performance and purity. It’s a ritual of safety, not a revelation of soul.

This is not liberation. It’s ideological addiction. And it breeds spiritual anemia—people who say all the right things, yet are hollow on the inside. Not because they lack virtue, but because they outsourced their truth.

Awakened Consciousness: Soul Over Script

To be awakened is to stand in an ocean of people and see differently. It’s not rebellion for rebellion’s sake—it’s devotion to truth. And truth is not comfortable. It is not social. It is not sentimental. It is a force that burns away falsehood, including the falsehood of belonging to the right club.

Awakened individuals are not identified by ideology. They’ve dropped the script entirely. They don’t parrot. They perceive. They don’t belong to camps. They belong to the mystery. They listen to the hum beneath words, the pulse beneath performance. They know that truth, when fully embodied, often isolates before it connects.

They are not trying to be accepted. They are committed to integrity—even when it costs them everything. Especially then. Integrity is not a social strategy—it is an existential necessity.

Awakened consciousness is not loud. It’s deep. It doesn’t try to convert. It invites. It doesn’t speak to dominate—it speaks to liberate. It is what remains when identity, ideology, and image all collapse.

And this is precisely why the awakened are dangerous to systems: they can’t be bribed with belonging. They won’t swap truth for applause. And they won’t kneel to groupthink in exchange for comfort. They see that the emperor has no clothes, and they say it—not to be right, but to be real.

Safety vs Sovereignty

Woke culture sells safety as salvation. It whispers that you will be safe if you comply, liked if you align, righteous if you repeat. But real transformation isn’t safe—it’s disruptive. It doesn’t coddle the psyche. It breaks illusions. It exposes lies. It confronts false identities.

Real growth requires real risk. The risk of losing friends. The risk of being misunderstood. The risk of standing alone. But it is only through standing alone that one learns to stand at all.

If we keep feeding this collective addiction to ideological safety, we’ll keep creating hollow men, women and children—externally compliant, internally fractured. Doped up on dopamine, disembodied from soul. And worse, we’ll mistake that hollowness for evolution because it looks clean, curated, and inclusive.

What we need is not more social signaling. We need sovereignty. Not the kind that dominates, but the kind that listens. The kind that acts without apology, but not without love.

We need men—and women—who are willing to think a thought their peers reject. Who can hold a tension without demanding resolution. Who can feel the sting of being disliked, and still not lie. Who can risk exile for the sake of their own becoming.

Building the Muscle of Discernment

Discernment isn’t sexy. It doesn’t get likes. But it’s the backbone of awakening. To move from woke to awakened, we must build this spiritual muscle. And muscle is only built through resistance:

Can you think a thought that your group doesn’t approve of? Can you hold two conflicting truths without collapsing into shame or certainty? Can you sit in the discomfort of not knowing without rushing to adopt an identity? Can you recognize when safety has become your new god—and see that truth might cost you everything?

Discernment is not a skill. It’s a fire. And the awakened are those who’ve walked through it. They’ve been burnt, emptied, and refined. They don’t speak because they’ve read—they speak because they’ve remembered.

Buy me a Coffee

Stop Playing Dead

“Woke” is often the performance of life. An elaborate costume stitched together by fear, ego, and the need to belong. It is the child of trauma and the orphan of discernment. It teaches people to survive—but not to live.

“Awakened” is the embodiment of life. Raw. Risky. Real. It is what happens when you choose truth over tribe, meaning over mimicry, soul over script, and sovereignty over safety.

To be truly alive is to risk. To not be liked. To be misunderstood. To be betrayed. And yet, to remain undefended in your truth. And never to self abandon.

Stop playing dead in the name of being seen. Stop trading your soul for a seat at the table. The table is rotten. Build your own.

The world doesn’t need more agreement. It needs more soul. It needs people who can pierce through illusion, hold paradox with grace, and live in allegiance to something deeper than approval. It needs people who remember what it means to be fully human.

Let the others signal. Let the others chant. Let the others play the role.

You—remember.

Take heart,

Jason

Subscribe now

Because “feeling like” is not the same as being. Identity is not biology. And biology is not identity.
One is a mental construct. The other is a physiological and existential foundation.

From the moment a boy is born—with XY chromosomes—his nervous system begins a distinct trajectory. He will be bathed in testosterone in utero, which sculpts his brain and body in measurable, irreversible ways. His amygdala is wired to assess threats differently. His limbic system responds to emotional stressors differently. His motor development, musculature, and orientation to the world are shaped by his biology. His sensory filters and energetic wiring are not social preferences—they are inherited blueprints. He is not wearing a costume called “boy”; he is inhabiting a male physiology that carries its own language and lore.

To say that one can “identify” as male or female is not a statement of being—it is a perceptual claim. It is an act of imagination, of placing oneself in what one believes the experience of the other might be. But this imagined experience is not rooted in biology, nor shaped by hormonal development. It is formed through culture, media, disembodiment, and psychological projection.

And often, this identification is not born from a deep connection with the opposite sex...
...but from a rejection of one’s own.

And here lies the mythopoetic crux:

Why would a child—still soft, still forming—choose to abandon their sexed embodiment?
What about their own biological reality feels so shameful, so unsupported, or so threatening that they would rather construct another identity than endure their own unfolding?

This is not freedom. This is not expansion. This is not evolution.
This is avoidance disguised as empowerment.
This is a spiritual exile, reinforced by institutional applause.
And when parents, teachers, and therapists affirm this rupture without question, they do not liberate the child—they collude in the child’s self-abandonment.

Subscribe now

The Mythopoetic Journey of Becoming

The mythopoetic men’s movement offered a soul map—not just for boys becoming men, but for all of us becoming ourselves:

Manhood is not a costume you wear. It is a crucible you enter.

A crucible of descent, death, confrontation, and resurrection.
A journey that begins with the severing from the Mother—not as betrayal, but as individuation. Robert Bly wrote of the Wild Man waiting in the forest, holding the key to the boy’s golden ball. But to retrieve it, the boy must leave the warmth of maternal approval and pass through the dark unknown.

Without this break, the boy remains tethered—feminized not by essence, but by dependence. He becomes gentle, confused, or passive—not by nature, but by a lack of encounter with the fierce masculine. He may even begin to feel alien within his own body.

This is why the role of the father—or male mentor—is critical. Without a guiding masculine presence, the boy wanders. He may become inflated, entitled, and addicted to power. Or he may collapse into self-doubt, indecision, and emotional chaos. A boy does not find his masculinity in theory or sentiment. He finds it in the reflective friction of other men. In challenge. In initiation. In being seen and called forward by someone who knows the path because he has walked it.

Many fathers worry they don’t know how to lead their sons. They carry doubt, shame, and wounds from their own fathers. But the truth is, the very willingness to show up—to be present, to model integrity, to admit mistakes, to love with strength—is itself a transmission. The rite doesn’t have to be perfect. It just has to be real.

Many young boys long for this guidance. Some never receive it. And we see the evidence of that in adult men who are uninitiated—unable to hold emotion, stand in truth, or claim responsibility. Women often see this too late, wishing their sons had been forged more completely. Wishing someone had guided them. Initiated them. Believed in them enough to let them struggle, fall, rise, and become.

And many mothers, though they love their sons deeply, are not equipped to lead them on this journey—because the male path is not theirs to walk. Not because they are inadequate, but because their biological unfolding is entirely different. From birth. Make no mistake.

The rites of passage for a boy are written into his bones. And it is other men—present, grounded, and devoted—who must help him read them.

Girls, too, must leave the shelter of the Father and find their way toward the Great Mother archetype—not the literal mother, but the sovereign feminine within. Without that movement, she may remain a daughter forever—externalizing her safety, overidentifying with masculine logic, or romanticizing her own fragmentation.

Those who “identify” away from their sex often carry a deeper myth: that something essential was never met, never mirrored, never initiated.
Their identification is not desire—it is escape.
Not authenticity—but adaptation.

The Misconception of Psychological Support

Modern therapeutic environments, for all their intention toward healing, are often unequipped to guide a boy—or a man—through the fires of true initiation. They may offer coping strategies, worksheets, and reflective listening, but they rarely allow for the full spectrum of masculine expression to emerge.

Grief, when it shows up in a boy or man, is often met with polite nods and gentle redirection. Rage—the primal language of unprocessed betrayal or injustice—is redirected into a journaling exercise. The room must remain quiet, the tone contained, and the walls thin enough that the next client isn’t disturbed. In this setting, his body becomes a danger. His voice becomes too loud. His pain becomes inappropriate. His healing becomes... sedated.

Psychology has, in many corners, become feminized—not in essence, but in structure. Linear. Controlled. Sterile. Detached from myth. Detached from the body. Detached from initiation. Detached from authentic, truth and expression. What the modern man receives in most counselling settings is not transformation, but management. Not rites, but routines. Not a challenge to grow, but a sedative to endure.

He is rarely asked: What are you carrying that no one has helped you bury?
He is rarely shown: Here is the threshold. You must step across it. And you are not alone.

In truth, many therapists have never been initiated themselves. They sit in chairs with credentials but no scars - just wounds. And so the man is seen through a diagnostic lens rather than a mythic one. He is encouraged to emote, but not to erupt. To talk, but not to roar. And yet, the Wild Man within him knows—he must roar before he can weep. He must break before he can bend.

The Questions That Must Be Asked

But we no longer ask questions. We affirm. We validate. We coddle. We institutionalize. We pathologize resistance.

And yet, real love asks:

• What does it mean to become a man, rather than feel like one?

• What parts of your biological inheritance have you been taught to hate or fear?

• Where did the elders go who could guide you through the storm of adolescence?

• What part of your sexual embodiment and awakening was never welcomed by your caregivers or culture?

• What initiation rites were replaced by digital affirmation, pills, or school-sanctioned redefinitions of self?

These are not political questions.
They are not medical questions.
They are archetypal. Soul-level. Deep.

And the fact that asking them is now considered harmful tells you everything you need to know about the ideology that now governs the conversation.

Buy me a Coffee

The Fire That Makes Us

This piece is a necessary companion to the one before it—"You Can’t Feel Like a Woman." Where that post gave voice to the rooted experience of women and girls, this one stands in defence of men and boys. Because men are not going silent in this cultural collapse—not anymore. To do so would be to embody the very pacified, emotionally numbed, directionless male archetype that is plaguing our communities, our families, and our psyches. We’ve mistaken more therapy and more softness as the answer, when in truth, what is missing is fire. Boundaries. Initiation. A mythic return to the masculine soul.

Though we may share fundamental human needs—for belonging, for love, for self-actualization, for agency and acceptance—how we go about fulfilling those needs is not the same. The way a man traverses the terrain of adversity, how he integrates hardship, and how he develops resilience in the face of chaos is starkly different than the path of a woman. Not due to socialization alone, but because of biology and birthright. The hormonal architecture, the neurological patterning, the ancestral inheritance etched into flesh—it all matters.

You can’t feel like a man. Because you cannot identify into biology.

No matter how vivid the imagination or sincere the desire, the lived experience of being male or female is rooted in the soma—in the body’s memory, reaction, cycles, and instinctual wisdom. These are not costumes to be tried on. They are blood rites. Cellular truths.

And any culture that tells children otherwise—that says their body is arbitrary and their identity is everything—is not liberating them. It is abandoning them.

"A man is not born. A man is made. And only the fire knows how."

But we have removed the fire.

We have replaced it with clinics. With diagnostics. With digital filters and bureaucratic pathways. With declarations that bypass the soul entirely.

We offer puberty blockers instead of rites of passage. Surgeries instead of symbolic deaths. We bypass suffering—and therefore, we bypass growth.

But initiation cannot be skipped. Not without cost.
No amount of social affirmation will heal the soul of a child who was never taught how to suffer nobly, love fully, and stand in their own skin.

We were born in the right bodies.
It is this world—and its loss of myth, meaning, and maturation—that is disfigured.

Until we recover the lost rites—until we restore the sacred path from boy to man, from girl to woman—our children will continue to abandon themselves in search of something that cannot be found in another identity.

It must be forged in the fire of their own becoming.

What is broken is not our embodiment—it is the culture that failed to offer us a way to become.

Take heart,

Jason

Subscribe now

“I feel like a woman.”

It sounds harmless—compassionate even. But it’s not. It’s the linguistic sleight of hand that attempts to elevate emotion over embodiment, imagination over incarnation. And it has consequences—especially for our children.

Because let’s be honest: you cannot feel like a woman if you were never biologically one. What you can feel are the ideas you’ve associated with womanhood—ideas you’ve absorbed, imagined, romanticised, or projected onto.

But ideas are not bodies. Ideas are not chromosomes.

Biology Is Not Bigotry

Every cell in your body—every strand of DNA—testifies to your sex. Chromosomes (XX or XY) are not accessories. They orchestrate everything: brain development, hormone release, immune system function, skeletal design, and reproductive capacity. These are not arbitrary features—they are the conditions of life.

No amount of hormone injections or surgeries will rewrite the code embedded in every cell. Biological sex is not assigned at birth—it is revealed. And it cannot be changed, only approximated.

To “identify” as something different doesn’t override biology—it overrides meaning.

But What About Gender?

Here’s where things get murkier. We’re told now that gender is separate from sex—that it’s a social construct, a fluid identity, a spectrum of feelings. But what’s never asked is:

Where do these feelings come from?

The truth is this: most of what we call gender dysphoria today isn’t rooted in some authentic inner compass—but in generational projection. In unresolved trauma. In a culture that has failed to hold nuance, contradiction, and pain.

As adults, we carry wounds around gendered expectations. Men feel crushed by stoicism, by emotional suppression, by fatherlessness. Women feel erased, infantilized, or brutalized by patriarchy and expectation. These are real wounds. But instead of metabolizing them—doing the soul work of healing—we’ve projected them onto our children.

Our own discomfort with rigid gender roles, rather than becoming fuel for inner healing, has become a mandate for our children’s bodies to change.

Children Are Becoming Canvases for Our Unresolved Pain

A girl who’s a tomboy is now told she’s really a boy. A sensitive boy who plays with dolls is diagnosed as “transgender” before he even knows what sex is. Why? Because we, as a society, have become too fragile to sit in the complexity of development.

We’ve abandoned symbolic thinking. We've replaced rites of passage with prescriptions. We've handed over the mirror of inner work to the scalpel of outer transformation.

This is not compassion. This is collusion.

We are medicating our children so we don’t have to confront our own wounds. And we are legalising this confusion—locking it into state policy—so we don’t have to feel the shame of our abandonment.

What We Call Support Is Sometimes Emotional Abdication

This is how ideology becomes abuse: when adults—too wounded or distracted to face themselves—project their inner confusion onto the bodies of their children, and call it love.

Gender roles should be questioned. They should evolve. But not by turning a child into a medical experiment because you couldn't stand your mother’s femininity or your father’s emotional absence. That is not evolution. That is projection with surgical consequences.

Our pain around what it meant to be “a man” or “a woman” in our families, our religions, or our societies was never meant to be corrected in our children’s flesh. It was meant to be brought to consciousness. To be faced. To be healed.

And now? We are making laws that demand children carry the cross their parents never learned to bear.

What’s Needed? A Return to Sovereignty—of Body and Soul

This isn’t about denying anyone’s suffering. It’s about telling the truth that no one else is willing to say:

You don’t get to use your child’s body to heal your past.

You don’t get to sidestep the inner work by sacrificing their future on the altar of your discomfort.

You don’t get to call it “affirmation” when what you’re really doing is outsourcing your unhealed story to someone too young to resist.

The path forward is not more legislation, more hormone clinics, or more labels. The path forward is grief. Inner work. Unflinching self-inquiry. A willingness to feel the wound before we rush to rewrite the script of our children’s lives.

Because no matter how hard you try…

You can’t feel like a woman.

But you can feel your pain.

And that’s where the real healing begins.

Take heart,

Jason

Buy me a Coffee

Subscribe now

Now, to name what is self-evident—a boy is a boy, a girl is a girl—is considered "harmful."
Now, to parent from a place of clarity and conscience is to risk being accused of abuse.

This is not just an American problem.
It’s not just a Canadian problem.
It is a global restructuring of the family by the State.
A redrawing of ancient lines.
A quiet rewriting of authority—who raises the child, who defines reality, who holds the final say.

We are witnessing a convergence of medical institutions, activist legal bodies, corporate NGOs, and education systems that have all abandoned their original mandates in service of a single ideology: that self-declared identity must override biology, parental rights, and psychological development.

And it has been done slowly, deliberately, and—until recently—quietly.

Subscribe now

The Rebranding of Abuse

Across western nations, child protection agencies have been infiltrated—not by radicals with signs, but by lobbyists with language.
The term "abuse" is being redefined—repurposed to serve an ideology rather than truth.

Where once it meant neglect, starvation, physical or sexual harm—it now includes:

• Refusing to use a child's self-declared pronouns

• Raising a child according to their biological sex

• Delaying medicalization for the sake of caution

• Asking questions

• Seeking therapy

• Standing firm in the storm of social pressure

This ideological creep now informs policy in school districts, hospital systems, family courts, foster care agencies, and judicial education seminars.

In effect, a parent's presence is no longer presumed to be protective. It must now be proven "affirming" according to shifting cultural norms. And that test is always graded by someone else.

Most parents don’t know it—until it’s too late.

The language is soft. The consequences are not.
What is framed as protection is often prelude to removal.
What is labelled as care becomes custody without consent.

What Happens When the State Replaces the Parent

In British Columbia, a father was jailed for refusing to call his daughter by a male name. He was prohibited by court order from referring to her by her birth name or female pronouns, and when he protested publicly—he was imprisoned. His crime? Speaking the truth. His motive? Love.

In California, a girl named Yaeli was removed from her home because her mother wouldn’t affirm her. She died by suicide in state care.
In Virginia, a girl named Sage was transitioned at school in secret, trafficked, and then returned to a state system that forced her into a male group home.

In Alberta, parents have been warned not to "interfere" with their child's social transition at school.
In Ontario, teachers are trained to hide name and pronoun changes from families.
In New York, parents have lost custody after refusing hormone referrals.

These are not isolated tragedies.
These are data points of a broken spell.

They reveal a deeper truth: when parents refuse to comply, the State intervenes—not to protect the child, but to protect the ideology.

This is not compassion. This is colonization—of the mind, of the family, of the soul.
This is not freedom. This is an empire of confusion with legal teeth.

It marks a return to the age of heresy trials, where truth is not determined by evidence, but by emotional conformity to dominant narratives.

The Machinery Behind the Mask

You cannot fight what you do not name.

Behind this redefinition of abuse is a coalition of unelected influence:

• International NGOs like WPATH and UN affiliates

• Lobbying networks like Gender Spectrum, GLSEN, and the Human Rights Campaign

• School boards and judicial colleges trained to "affirm"

• Medical systems incentivized by pharma-backed protocols

In Canada, organizations like SOGI 123 have embedded gender ideology into K–12 curriculums. Teachers are told to keep social transitions secret from parents. Counsellors are trained to see non-affirming parents as risk factors.

In the U.S., similar training materials instruct forensic investigators, teachers, and foster agencies to "believe the child"—and to treat parental resistance as cause for removal.

Universities, human rights commissions, and activist lawyers are helping encode this ideology into administrative law—policies that bypass democratic review but hold the power to punish.

This isn’t justice. It’s jurisdictional capture.
This isn’t safeguarding. It’s institutional grooming.

This is how a faith becomes law without a vote.
This is how a worldview becomes mandatory through policy, not persuasion.

The Great Inversion

This is the great inversion:
Where lies become kindness,
And truth becomes abuse.

Where a parent who protects biological reality is called harmful,
And a system that sterilizes children is called compassionate.

Where love without compliance is violence,
And affirmation without inquiry is care.

Where silence is praised as respect, and discernment is punished as bigotry.

We are not just witnessing policy shifts.
We are witnessing the spiritual capture of institutions.
We are watching biology become optional, and ideology become compulsory.

This is not progress. This is dogma with a scalpel.
This is not inclusion. This is indoctrination by decree.

It is a sacred inversion. A ritual of erasure disguised as affirmation.
The parent becomes the persecutor. The confused child becomes the oracle.
The body becomes a canvas for political redemption.

The Law Must Be Anchored in Reality

If the State can redefine abuse to mean "non-affirmation," then no child is safe—and no parent is sovereign.

What’s needed is not more compromise. What’s needed is clarity:

• Abuse must be clearly defined in law as the infliction of harm—not the refusal to lie.

• Policies that conceal gender transitions from parents must be dismantled.

• Social workers, therapists, and judges must be deprogrammed from ideological bias.

• Parents must be legally protected for raising their child according to biological sex.

• Families must be given the right to legal recourse when the system turns on them.

• Conscience protections must be granted to foster parents, educators, and clinicians.

• Affirmation-only policies must be challenged as psychological malpractice.

These protections should not be partisan.
They should be foundational.
Because the protection of children is not a progressive issue—it is a human one.

If we cannot legislate around a common reality, then the law becomes a mirror of madness.
And every mirror must eventually be broken.

The Soul of the Child

This is not about politics.
It is about the soul of the child.

The child who is confused, scared, exploring.
The child who needs containment, not compliance.
Who needs presence, not pronouns.

The child who doesn’t need to be affirmed.
The child who needs to be loved, guided, and told the truth.

If we cannot hold our children in truth—through the wild winds of identity, fantasy, and fear—then we have no business calling ourselves parents.

To lie to a child to gain their trust is not love.
It is betrayal.
To outsource their identity to ideology is not liberation.
It is abandonment.

The soul of a child is not clay to be shaped by slogans.
It is fire to be protected and a seed to be honoured.

And if we surrender that fire to institutions that do not know its name, we will lose more than our children—we will lose the very memory of what it means to be human.

A Final Word

If speaking the truth makes you dangerous,
If telling your child who they are makes you abusive,
If standing in clarity makes you a heretic—

Then so be it.

Let us be dangerous.
Let us be heretical.
Let us be free.

Let the lie come into the world, but not through us.

Not in our homes.
Not with our children.
Not on our watch.

Take heart,

Jason

Buy me a Coffee

Subscribe now

Yet, despite this, my sexual orientation is being used—without my consent—to promote political movements, ideologies, and corporate agendas that have nothing to do with me. The expectation is clear: If you are not fully on board with the packaged narrative of "LGBTQ2I+," you are a problem.

But here’s the truth: It’s not possible to be an “LGBTQ2I+ person.” That’s a marketing construct, not an identity. You can be gay, bisexual, trans, intersex—those are distinct, individual realities. But slapping an acronym over disparate groups and pretending they have the same needs, the same struggles, or the same desires is both disingenuous and deeply misleading.

If this movement truly stood for diversity and inclusion, how is it that everyone under its umbrella is expected to have exactly the same political, social, and cultural stance? How can people with fundamentally different experiences be pressured to conform to a single ideology?

This is not about unity. It is about control.

Subscribe now

The Illusion of Unity

At first glance, the LGBTQ2I+ umbrella appears to be about inclusivity. A banner under which people of different orientations and identities can find solidarity. But solidarity is not sameness, and the deeper one looks, the more obvious it becomes: This is not a movement designed to uplift individuals. It is a system designed to erase them.

This movement does not celebrate the diversity of thought. It demands uniformity. It does not allow for individuality. It enforces ideological alignment. You must think a certain way. Vote a certain way. Speak a certain way. Or you are an outsider—cast out from the very community that claims to support you.

The notion that sexuality must define the entirety of one’s experience is juvenile at best. That is where we first learn about it, but for too many, that is also where it stays. But sexuality is one of the most sacred and profoundly awakening experiences we can have as human beings. And yet, it has now been tainted and distorted—a shadow of what it was meant to be.

This is not empowerment. This is coercion.

The Trans Movement and the Illusion of Affirmation

What’s happening today under the LGBTQ2I+ banner is not just about advocacy. It is about a forced redefinition of truth—one that erases the lived experiences of many in favour of a single, ever-changing ideological framework.

Gender dysphoria is a real and complex experience, and those who suffer from it deserve compassion, respect, and the ability to make informed choices about their lives. But what is happening now is not about supporting trans individuals—it is about compelling the world to accept an ideology that overrides biological reality, undermines women’s rights, and, in many ways, erases same-sex attraction itself.

• Gay and lesbian identities are being rewritten to accommodate trans narratives. If a lesbian does not want to date a trans woman, she is labelled a bigot. If a gay man expresses attraction to biological males exclusively, he is shamed. The result? A movement that claims to support same-sex attraction is now actively dismantling it.

• Women who speak up about the loss of their spaces—sports, shelters, changing rooms—are vilified. Their safety concerns are dismissed, and their boundaries are erased.

• The medicalization of gender identity has led to an explosion of children and teens being placed on hormones and puberty blockers—many of whom would naturally grow out of their dysphoria. The irreversible damage being done in the name of “progress” will have generational consequences.

As a biological male—and I hate to have to use those terms because I have earned my right through decades of being such since birth—I also recognize the growing unease many of us feel in spaces that once had clear boundaries. This isn’t about exclusion—it’s about respect for the reality that men and women, regardless of identity, have long sought spaces of their own for safety, comfort, and personal well-being.

I do not shower in co-ed spaces naked, because I believe in the sanctity of our bodies. And I will not allow my daughter to attend spaces where this happens. Nor my sons.

We need to protect our children. They are the most psychologically vulnerable, the most malleable, and the most influenced by this ideology.

Many parents are being placed in an impossible position. It’s like standing at a checkout aisle, your child throwing a tantrum, and the cashier insisting that you must buy the candy—except in this case, the candy is irreversible medical intervention, and refusing to comply could mean being labelled as harmful, losing your credibility as a parent, or worse, your child.

One of our fundamental rights is to make decisions for our children until they are mature enough to make them for themselves. Yet, under the guise of 'affirmative care,' parents are being denied that right. Boundaries—the very structures that keep children safe, that allow them time to grow and understand themselves—are now seen as oppressive rather than protective. This is not empowerment. This is coercion masquerading as compassion.

The Spiritual Cost of Forced Identity

At its core, this is a spiritual issue. The more people are forced into ideological boxes, the further they are pulled from their inner truth. True sovereignty is not found in collective identity but in the deep, personal knowing of who you are beyond labels, beyond expectations, beyond groupthink.

The LGBTQ2I+ movement, in its current form, does not allow for spiritual sovereignty. It demands that individuals conform to an external script rather than listen to their own intuition. It operates like a religious orthodoxy, with rigid dogmas, sacred terminology, and the ever-present threat of excommunication for heretics.

Real freedom does not come from an acronym. It does not come from a movement that tells you who you must be, how you must think, and what you must accept without question. Real freedom is found in the ability to walk your own path—to explore your identity on your own terms, without coercion, without fear.

It’s Time to Walk Away

More and more people are realizing that this movement no longer serves them. That what once fought for freedom now enforces submission. That what once challenged dogma has now become dogma.

It is not just possible to walk away—it is necessary. Not from one’s identity, but from the illusion that it must be dictated by a movement that no longer represents truth.

I am not an LGBTQ2I+ person.

I am me. An individual.

And it is time to reclaim our individuality, our voices, and our spiritual sovereignty.

Take Heart,
Jason

Subscribe now