"Thanks for the latest Informed Dissent. Really made me want to cry.
You won't see so many articles form parents who don't affirm, because very few of us are willing to let our names be published. Because we value the relationship with our children too much so need to keep that private. Because we hope that our children will come home, will reconnect. And we can't risk doing harm.
The affirming parents don't have to worry about that. Any article from a non-affirming parent will be anonymous - at least it should be. That's why this is a private message to you. I could not even post this as a comment.
Because anonymous comments aren't possible on Substack."
The admiration for "trans" people's supposedly unique insight into the concept of the soul was one of the most remarkable parts of the New Yorker article. How can they get this close to understanding that this is a postmodernist religious cult but then not really see it for what it is?
Once again, Lauren hits the bullseye: The piece for the New Yorker by that father of a young man in the clutches of "trans" merely serves as a "fairytale for himself." He pretties up his account of his own son's self-immolation by waxing lyrical about the beautiful colors in the flames. That seems to me to be the action of a father who is living in a state of blinding pain and -- yes -- deep denial.
I waited through the whole episode to hear someone mention that James Marcus omitted Nat's mother from the piece. "...the collapse of my marriage when Nat was five," is as much as we hear (a passively constructed sentence). Lauren interpreted this to mean that Marcus raised Nat as a single dad. I interpreted it to mean Marcus had his son on weekends, or half-time, at best. Marcus makes it clear he gave Nat editorial power over the piece, and surely Marcus's girlfriend, Nina, approved her own appearances as well. The glaring absence of the mom's voice is haunting--it makes me wonder how she's feeling.
Marcus wrote another piece for the New Yorker back in 2019 about his relationship with his son, pre-transition, and it somewhat obliquely touches on what happened with Nat’s mother: she was severely mentally ill, abandoned the boy when he was 5, was institutionalized for a time, hasn’t been consistently present in his life since. Unclear what her diagnosis was, or how it may have affected Nat’s formation of his identity, or if his transition is partially a manifestation of inherited mental illness from his mother’s side of the family.
I get the impression that Mr Marcus has always been somewhat of a passive, codependent enabler, and this reluctance to model assertiveness, healthy boundaries, and structure may have unintentionally left his son susceptible to be swept up by the TQ+ cult. Archived New Yorker piece from 2019: https://archive.ph/gKMwZ
Thank you for pointing out that 2019 essay--"oblique" is right! My read of it is that Nat's mom was largely unavailable to Nat between ages 5 and 7. Marcus says, "...the process of separation had taken almost two years....our son, Nat, spent much of that time with me, and I was not skilled at helping a seven-year-old weather a series of separations from his mother." This is what leads to the Divorced-Dad Hail Mary: a trip to Disneyland. At the end of the piece he mentions his ex-wife's trajectory: she married, divorced, "ministered to opioid-addicted veterans in rural New England," and ended up in Montana. Yet, it is to her that Nat came out as bisexual at 15. So I don't think we can conclude that she hasn't consistently been present in her son's life: it's possible those two years were the only time she wasn't able to care for him, and in fact she may have had custody when she moved to New England. Both of Marcus's pieces are slippery and unclear, masquerading as dreamy--I see now why Cori was so insistent that Marcus is an unreliable narrator. Also, it's disturbing to me that Marcus mines his family's struggles to sell flowery pieces to The New Yorker.
It's difficult to criticise any parent's reaction to news their adult child wants to reject being a son, take drugs, castrate themselves, present in what many describe as a fetish, the world suddenly becomes flat, many people haven't noticed and some celebrate. Sons that are perfect and beautiful tell you their entire childhood has been a lie, they were born wrong and sad, you didn't notice and there is only one way to resolve it. As a parent you cannot win and you are not prepared, the message is too incomprehensible to deal with, sons that you know to be intelligent, kind and gentle are now indulging in what, to many, is homophobic and misogynistic behaviour. That parent sees his son, I don't see mine, I chose to disagree and that's the punishment, we are both devastated, who can say which parent has taken the better path? If writing is what he does and it helps him, so be it, I can only wish he had a different point of view.
It is a hostage situation, trying to stop a child from harming himself, with the kid dead set on it. As much of this involves rebellion, any parent who pushes back also risks their kid trying to show they are "really trans" even more, with even more interventions, risks their kid cutting them off, entirely. Maybe forever.
The father likely wants to keep his son in his life.
P.S. I am thinking of Gordon Guyatt strenuously denying to Jesse Singal and to Mia Hughes that he was in any way intimidated into betraying his life's work and his principles for fear of being cancelled by a bunch of TRAs, when it became clear to him that he could expect no defense from his colleagues or the institutions. So, this father is maybe denying his own repeated surrenders to the son who he allowed to cross boundaries all along, due to the guilt he might have felt for being disappointed to have an effeminate son which he compensated for by not ever saying "No!" that child ever, so the kid never felt the security of boundaries and could never mature into a man capable of disciplining himself. Both men suspect they've failed in some profound way, which must be profoundly emasculating. The temptation for both of these men to deny, deny, deny how weak they've been, how they fell short of their duties, must be overpowering.
Oh, and reality is often ALSO not kind or compassionate . . . it just IS . . . Don't shoot the messenger. Indeed, "messenger" is the role that many of the "jerks" on the Gender Critical "side" are having to play because of all these tragic figures like this father who are studiously ignoring all traces of that reality located right under their own noses.
Dad likes being part of the elitist progressive bubble. He's not looking for an exit. It's a dystopian world view where trans is an option. And we're all going down into the slow motion cess pool. A world in decline. And he's blowing bubbles into the abyss.
Working class body-awareness isn't quite as rosy as this discussion implies. The working class side of my family includes many people who are worn out, sick or disabled by 50 or 60. Their jobs are physically demanding and often dangerous and leave little time for self-care. They raise children partly because they love to but partly because when they start to wear out - earlier than richer people - they need reliable younger people in their lives.
As Masha, Gessen spent years reporting from Russia when it was falling back into dictatorship. I wonder whether she just got so burned out from staring into the abyss that she fled reality the first way that offered itself. If so, I have some sympathy.
18:00 When Lauren described the boundaries being pushed outside his normal comfort zone, but to hold onto any connection.. wow.. teary for all of us parents.. Allowance and accepting and a forcing the parents to be on this insane path..regardless of the knowing that it shouldn't be happening...to hold onto what is lost or feared.. ugh..
I wonder if, in the case of adults, becoming trans isn't just the latest (particularly gruesome) way of disappearing up your own ass? Whatever happened to gaining respect because you could *do* something well?
Maybe. I think M Gessen has a strong need to be the one who knows everything about Russia, the USA, Trump, trans life, etc. The most special person in the room, maybe even the world. X marks the spot!
Dad was possibly too aloof to his effeminate son during his growing-up years. Lots of dads are, unfortunately. Now his son is being inappropriate with his dad. Totally agree what you three were saying here, especially Cori saying that liberals don't question this stuff; but on the other hand, traditional/conservatives might shame the same son for not being "man enough" (like Elon Musk did with his now-trans son). I agree too with what W. Yang said (I think), that this is tragic, one more tragedy in this trans mess, which is so obviously something of a backlash against gains in LGB rights and acceptance. Also wondered, could his son be bisexual, not necessarily gay? Anyway, thanks for tackling the issues in yet another trans-apologetic article in the mainstream press.
I have to pause watching to address something Jamie said with which I am in profound disagreement. It was along the lines of...none of the PITT parents (or the working class more generally) could write such a "beautiful" essay, containing, as it does, such cleverly crafted resonance with Ovidian, Kafkaesque, etc., themes...
Dear daughter Jamie, whom I appreciate very much, that is utter rubbish. Unfortunately, you yourself have been influenced by almost cartoonish visions of the "working" and "upper middle" classes, no doubt underscored by various social-media caricatures. The working class is teeming with immensely talented writers, many of whom are deeply acquainted with the Western canon--the very likes of which it is trendy to disdain in professional middle-class circles anyway. The fact that some guy grabs a titular word from both Ovid and Kafka says nothing about his grasp of either--not even that he's read them. His entree into the New Yorker is entirely dependent on the fact that he *does* weave acceptance/affirmation (surrender) into his tale, *despite* how much it pains him.
That this surrender is class-based is undeniable, but it isn't a result of being in such a bubble that he has no access to science, or reality. I promise, he can stroll over to 56th Street any time and find folks deeply versed in both literature and reality, science and...yes, even how to make a few bucks.
"Thanks for the latest Informed Dissent. Really made me want to cry.
You won't see so many articles form parents who don't affirm, because very few of us are willing to let our names be published. Because we value the relationship with our children too much so need to keep that private. Because we hope that our children will come home, will reconnect. And we can't risk doing harm.
The affirming parents don't have to worry about that. Any article from a non-affirming parent will be anonymous - at least it should be. That's why this is a private message to you. I could not even post this as a comment.
Because anonymous comments aren't possible on Substack."
The admiration for "trans" people's supposedly unique insight into the concept of the soul was one of the most remarkable parts of the New Yorker article. How can they get this close to understanding that this is a postmodernist religious cult but then not really see it for what it is?
Once again, Lauren hits the bullseye: The piece for the New Yorker by that father of a young man in the clutches of "trans" merely serves as a "fairytale for himself." He pretties up his account of his own son's self-immolation by waxing lyrical about the beautiful colors in the flames. That seems to me to be the action of a father who is living in a state of blinding pain and -- yes -- deep denial.
I waited through the whole episode to hear someone mention that James Marcus omitted Nat's mother from the piece. "...the collapse of my marriage when Nat was five," is as much as we hear (a passively constructed sentence). Lauren interpreted this to mean that Marcus raised Nat as a single dad. I interpreted it to mean Marcus had his son on weekends, or half-time, at best. Marcus makes it clear he gave Nat editorial power over the piece, and surely Marcus's girlfriend, Nina, approved her own appearances as well. The glaring absence of the mom's voice is haunting--it makes me wonder how she's feeling.
Good coverage. You're amazing ✨
Marcus wrote another piece for the New Yorker back in 2019 about his relationship with his son, pre-transition, and it somewhat obliquely touches on what happened with Nat’s mother: she was severely mentally ill, abandoned the boy when he was 5, was institutionalized for a time, hasn’t been consistently present in his life since. Unclear what her diagnosis was, or how it may have affected Nat’s formation of his identity, or if his transition is partially a manifestation of inherited mental illness from his mother’s side of the family.
I get the impression that Mr Marcus has always been somewhat of a passive, codependent enabler, and this reluctance to model assertiveness, healthy boundaries, and structure may have unintentionally left his son susceptible to be swept up by the TQ+ cult. Archived New Yorker piece from 2019: https://archive.ph/gKMwZ
Thank you for pointing out that 2019 essay--"oblique" is right! My read of it is that Nat's mom was largely unavailable to Nat between ages 5 and 7. Marcus says, "...the process of separation had taken almost two years....our son, Nat, spent much of that time with me, and I was not skilled at helping a seven-year-old weather a series of separations from his mother." This is what leads to the Divorced-Dad Hail Mary: a trip to Disneyland. At the end of the piece he mentions his ex-wife's trajectory: she married, divorced, "ministered to opioid-addicted veterans in rural New England," and ended up in Montana. Yet, it is to her that Nat came out as bisexual at 15. So I don't think we can conclude that she hasn't consistently been present in her son's life: it's possible those two years were the only time she wasn't able to care for him, and in fact she may have had custody when she moved to New England. Both of Marcus's pieces are slippery and unclear, masquerading as dreamy--I see now why Cori was so insistent that Marcus is an unreliable narrator. Also, it's disturbing to me that Marcus mines his family's struggles to sell flowery pieces to The New Yorker.
Oh—good catch on Nat coming out to her as bisexual at 15 and that, yeah, we have an unreliable narrator who seems to conceal as much as he reveals.
Amen!
This is such a good point.
It's difficult to criticise any parent's reaction to news their adult child wants to reject being a son, take drugs, castrate themselves, present in what many describe as a fetish, the world suddenly becomes flat, many people haven't noticed and some celebrate. Sons that are perfect and beautiful tell you their entire childhood has been a lie, they were born wrong and sad, you didn't notice and there is only one way to resolve it. As a parent you cannot win and you are not prepared, the message is too incomprehensible to deal with, sons that you know to be intelligent, kind and gentle are now indulging in what, to many, is homophobic and misogynistic behaviour. That parent sees his son, I don't see mine, I chose to disagree and that's the punishment, we are both devastated, who can say which parent has taken the better path? If writing is what he does and it helps him, so be it, I can only wish he had a different point of view.
The poor father. My opinion is that it is completely forced. Lauren nailed it.
https://www.pittparents.com/p/the-abyss
It is a hostage situation, trying to stop a child from harming himself, with the kid dead set on it. As much of this involves rebellion, any parent who pushes back also risks their kid trying to show they are "really trans" even more, with even more interventions, risks their kid cutting them off, entirely. Maybe forever.
The father likely wants to keep his son in his life.
P.S. I am thinking of Gordon Guyatt strenuously denying to Jesse Singal and to Mia Hughes that he was in any way intimidated into betraying his life's work and his principles for fear of being cancelled by a bunch of TRAs, when it became clear to him that he could expect no defense from his colleagues or the institutions. So, this father is maybe denying his own repeated surrenders to the son who he allowed to cross boundaries all along, due to the guilt he might have felt for being disappointed to have an effeminate son which he compensated for by not ever saying "No!" that child ever, so the kid never felt the security of boundaries and could never mature into a man capable of disciplining himself. Both men suspect they've failed in some profound way, which must be profoundly emasculating. The temptation for both of these men to deny, deny, deny how weak they've been, how they fell short of their duties, must be overpowering.
Oh, and reality is often ALSO not kind or compassionate . . . it just IS . . . Don't shoot the messenger. Indeed, "messenger" is the role that many of the "jerks" on the Gender Critical "side" are having to play because of all these tragic figures like this father who are studiously ignoring all traces of that reality located right under their own noses.
Dad likes being part of the elitist progressive bubble. He's not looking for an exit. It's a dystopian world view where trans is an option. And we're all going down into the slow motion cess pool. A world in decline. And he's blowing bubbles into the abyss.
I was afraid, when Sarah and Sancho departed, that there would be a big cat shaped hole in Informed Dissent. How wrong I was!
Working class body-awareness isn't quite as rosy as this discussion implies. The working class side of my family includes many people who are worn out, sick or disabled by 50 or 60. Their jobs are physically demanding and often dangerous and leave little time for self-care. They raise children partly because they love to but partly because when they start to wear out - earlier than richer people - they need reliable younger people in their lives.
M Gessen and Chase Strangio. Two ridiculous creatures.
As Masha, Gessen spent years reporting from Russia when it was falling back into dictatorship. I wonder whether she just got so burned out from staring into the abyss that she fled reality the first way that offered itself. If so, I have some sympathy.
18:00 When Lauren described the boundaries being pushed outside his normal comfort zone, but to hold onto any connection.. wow.. teary for all of us parents.. Allowance and accepting and a forcing the parents to be on this insane path..regardless of the knowing that it shouldn't be happening...to hold onto what is lost or feared.. ugh..
Btw, M Gessen's most recent article in the NYT: The Ruling About Passports isn't about ID. It's about Social Control.
Very entertaining. A study in self absorption.
I wonder if, in the case of adults, becoming trans isn't just the latest (particularly gruesome) way of disappearing up your own ass? Whatever happened to gaining respect because you could *do* something well?
Maybe. I think M Gessen has a strong need to be the one who knows everything about Russia, the USA, Trump, trans life, etc. The most special person in the room, maybe even the world. X marks the spot!
Dad was possibly too aloof to his effeminate son during his growing-up years. Lots of dads are, unfortunately. Now his son is being inappropriate with his dad. Totally agree what you three were saying here, especially Cori saying that liberals don't question this stuff; but on the other hand, traditional/conservatives might shame the same son for not being "man enough" (like Elon Musk did with his now-trans son). I agree too with what W. Yang said (I think), that this is tragic, one more tragedy in this trans mess, which is so obviously something of a backlash against gains in LGB rights and acceptance. Also wondered, could his son be bisexual, not necessarily gay? Anyway, thanks for tackling the issues in yet another trans-apologetic article in the mainstream press.
P.S. It was funny to watch Cori and his cat sparring (though sorry about the biting) -- worked as a good icebreaker in a very serious discussion.
I have to pause watching to address something Jamie said with which I am in profound disagreement. It was along the lines of...none of the PITT parents (or the working class more generally) could write such a "beautiful" essay, containing, as it does, such cleverly crafted resonance with Ovidian, Kafkaesque, etc., themes...
Dear daughter Jamie, whom I appreciate very much, that is utter rubbish. Unfortunately, you yourself have been influenced by almost cartoonish visions of the "working" and "upper middle" classes, no doubt underscored by various social-media caricatures. The working class is teeming with immensely talented writers, many of whom are deeply acquainted with the Western canon--the very likes of which it is trendy to disdain in professional middle-class circles anyway. The fact that some guy grabs a titular word from both Ovid and Kafka says nothing about his grasp of either--not even that he's read them. His entree into the New Yorker is entirely dependent on the fact that he *does* weave acceptance/affirmation (surrender) into his tale, *despite* how much it pains him.
That this surrender is class-based is undeniable, but it isn't a result of being in such a bubble that he has no access to science, or reality. I promise, he can stroll over to 56th Street any time and find folks deeply versed in both literature and reality, science and...yes, even how to make a few bucks.