Yunis يونس

opinion pieces amongst other things

[i-suggest-therapy]

An in depth breakdown of the suggestrogen saga.

Tw for pedophilia, transphobia, csa discussions.

suggestrogen/isuggestforcefem was a popular tumblr account that recently deactivated after facing major pushback from posts she made regarding pedophilia.

There are now multiple popular blogs claiming this was a harrassment campaing, pedojacketing, stalking, etc. Interestingly enough, the people defending her very rarely show what she actually said. So here i aim to compile everything that happened and provide context. If you have heard that this was rooted in transphobia, i encourage you to read this in its entirety and judge for yourself.

Many people are saying her words were misconstrued. According to these people: what she said was this:

"Pedophiles are not ontologically evil, and there is a difference between pedophilia and child abuse."

If this was all of it, while im sure it would have caused discourse because it is a controversial thing to say, I don't think it would have caused this much pushback. But if you actually read what she said, you'll know this wasn't all that happened and it is leaving out huge amounts of context in an effort to make her look better.

1. Previously problematic behavior.

Before this current debacle, isff had already been called out for displaying transphobia towards trans men. Here are some examples of this sort of behavior.

I don't particularly participate in transandrophobia discourse but I find it incredibly disingenous to pretend trans men dont face specific issues. Are trans women affected by forced birth as a means of detransition? Are they affected by claims of being "broken women who cant think for themselves and are being manipulated"? No! This isn't to say there are no issues with the transmasc community or that trans men never benefit from transmisogyny. But one thing is to say that, and another is to consistently villanize trans men, to treat them like they are just as privileged as cis men and face NO struggles of their own. Like the only struggle that matters is that of white trans women.

This is the first example of isff displaying black and white thinking. There can be no nuance regarding trans men and their role in transmisogyny. It's either "trans men are oppressed by trans women" or "trans men are oppressing trans women." There is no room in her head for a potentially nuanced opinion. We will continue to see this as we go forward with her takes on pedophilia.

2. The pedophilia saga.

A few days ago, ISFF posted this:

These are not her own words, she is posting on behalf of a friend. But she does agree with the points made and defends them:

Many people seem to think what she is saying is perfectly reasonable, and while I think many of them are just blatantly malicious, I also think many are just gullible, so I will attempt to break down all her points in good faith.

1. Pedophilia is attraction not action, therefore, calling pedophiles child abusers is unfair unless they actually have abused anyone: This is the only true thing this whole thing says, and even then, it is very disingenous. If a pedophile has not acted on their urges, then they are by definition, not an abuser. HOWEVER, they are more likely to become an abuser due to the persistent nature of the desires. In the same way a person with homicidal urges is more likely to murder someone with time, a pedophile is also more likely to act on their desires if they don't learn to deal with said urges adequately. So technically true, but leaving out the context that yes, these urges do evolve and then lead to actions, to me reads as manipulative. A pedophile is not going to be harmless if they don't do the work to manage their disorder. It's active work, which is why promoting this passive view on pedophilia is extremely dangerous, because it makes people think their urges will be fine on their own instead of actively working on them.

2. Pedophilia is similar to having a noncon kink. If having a noncon kink is okay and not going to lead to rape, then how is pedophilia any different?: False equivalency, kinks and pedophilia are different psychological experiences. Dark kinks are usually not literal. Very often it is the brain creating subconscious symbolism in the realm of fantasy that doesn't reflect their views on reality. So a person with a noncon kink is different than someone with rape urges, which is what a pedophile is.

3. If people who experience attraction to adults are not going to force that attraction on every person they're attracted to, why do we expect the same for pedophiles?: Second false equivalency, ordinary sexual attraction is also a different psychological experience to pedophilia. A gay person is not going to rape every men he meets, but they will still act out their desires in consensual spaces. Plus, unless the person has an unhealthy view on sex, the idea of rape would be distressing enough that it would discourage the person from forcing their attraction. At their core, these desires are rooted in the attraction towards consensual activities, so even in a situation where you find yourself attracted to someone who may not reciprocate, because rape is not in line with your desires, the attraction won't lead to abuse easily (unless as stated, the person does have unhealthy views on sex).

But pedophiles inherently have a disordered view on sex. It is a disorder where you are consistently attracted to people who cannot consent to you, so there isn't this disconnect between their desires and the act of rape. The desire is rape. Additionally, while a gay person can eventually find a consensual partner, pedophiles can't! No, i don't expect gay men to force themselves on every men they meet, but I do realize they'll be inclined to explore their sexuality consensually. A pedophile will probably also feel inclined to explore their sexuality, but there is no consensual alternative.

4. Pedophiles are a marginalized group comparable to queer people: Are they? The people who benefit from the social structures that promote CSA because it aligns with their wants are marginalized? Sure, the topic of pedophilia is taboo, but it is also structurally reinforced, so it evidently isn't the same thing. Now, some people will argue that it is child abusers who benefit, not pedophiles. But a pedophile is just one kind of person who wishes to abuse children. Sure, they aren't the only ones. But they are a demographich that benefits because their desires align with the structures in place. Wanting to rape children for power vs wanting to rape children for sexual attraction isn't that different, both are desires that if acted on cause harm, and the healthy thing to do is to encourage these people to seek help and coping mechanisms instead of telling them "well, it's just like being gay!"

3. Consequences vs call out culture.

Before anyone says this is harrassment. If a popular blog came out defending nazism or terf ideology, wouldn't you all be outraged? You would! And you would understand the push back as not harrassment, but retaliation. So why is it that when it comes to pedophilia you all suddenly turn a blind eye? Suddenly we should just block and move on. Why is this the one topic you want people to stay quiet about?

People say it's because she's trans and... really? The point of trans feminism is to treat trans women as human beings, and I don't think infantilizing trans women as people who do no wrong ever is treating them like humans. Some trans women are bad people, not because of their gender, but because human beings are capable of harm.

It is important however to not pretend this is representative of transfeminism. Terfs will take advantage of this and push the narrative this is an example of trans women being predatory. It is an exaple of a trans woman being predatory. A niche tumblr blog is not representative of an incredibly diverse demographic.

The people accusing those criticizing her of transphobia are ironically pushing this rethoric. By saying criticizing one trans woman is somehow criticizingball trans women, you portray trans women as some kind of monolith. Even though suggestrogen's beliefs are not at all accepted by the trans community at large (and no, your terminally online tumblr mutuals arent the representatives of what most trans women think).

4. What this says about site wide culture:

This really has shown some of the major pitfalls of tumblr culture. Many people will fall for bigoted ideals if presented to them under supposedly progressive language. Many people here treat trans womanhood as a sort of sainthood status where trans women are no longer people, but entities incapable of harm. Many people are attempting to normalize predatory behavior under the guise of kink. Many blogs have been pushing for this for a long time now, and this is just the first person who finally came out and said it without filters. This was the result of a myriad of bad ideologies the site has been fostering finally coming together all at once.

suggestrogen was not harrassed, she was rightfully pushed back against for promoting an ideology that endangers others.

[yunis-speaks]

Off the bat, I will not be addressing claims of transphobia in this post as this is already going to be a lengthy post without it — and so that discussion is beyond the scope of this post.

As someone who works in the mental health sector and is currently completing a graduate degree in psychology, I believe I am qualified to weigh in on this conversation and would like to specifically address the points raised about Pedophilic Disorder in this post.

However first, I need to address the analogy between homicidal ideation and pedophilia. To start with: around 71% of women and 91% of men experience homicidal ideation at least once in their lifetime. We know persistent homicidal ideation (/urges) is more prevalent amongst clinical populations, and in those clinical populations they are the most prevalent for people with Schizophrenia. However, we also know that of those convicted of homicide only 0.09% of men and 0.01% of women were diagnosed with Schizophrenia, and that the general prevalence of mental disorders amongst homicide offenders is 14% (this is an average calculated from studies from around the globe reporting the prevalence of mental disorders in homicide offenders up to the 90s, excluding Sweden due to the tendency of Swedish Psychiatrists to declare mental deviancy contingent on the committing of homicide which greatly inflates their statistics). So no, homicidal urges, or persistent homicidal ideation, does not make a person more likely to commit homicide.

Homicide is, furthermore, a systematic issue given that marginalized people are disproportionately victims of homicide (axes of marginalization and violence, homicide victimization of Indigenous people in North America, homicide victimization of Black women in the United States).

Child sexual abuse is similarly a systematic issue. The report I am pulling from provides a snapshot of child sexual abuse offending amongst Australian men with a sample of 1,945 Australian men. In it, 15.1% of Australian men report sexual attraction to children. Separately, 9.4% of Australian men report having sexually offended against children (these statistics include online offending), of the 9.4% of child sexual offenders those who experienced sexual attraction towards children did not offend significantly more than those who did not experience sexual attraction towards children. In other terms, men experiencing sexual attraction towards children offended equally (4.9%) to those who did not experience sexual attraction towards children (4.7%). So no, being attracted to children and/or having Pedophilic Disorder does not make a person more likely to sexually offend against children.

Moreover, there has been considerable effort in the mental health sphere aimed at de-stigmatizing pedophilia. Particularly as a significant part of the therapeutic interventions aimed at treating pedophilic disorder center around undoing the stigma and shame as part of the treatment. It's why Acceptance and Commitment Therapy is widely used. This is a necessary step in fostering a healthy and constructive relationship with sexuality. Amongst those with pedophilic disorder who go on to sexually abuse children (keeping in mind the previous statistics of equal likelihood amongst people attracted to children vs those who are not to sexually abuse children), stigma has been identified as a significant risk factor for offending.

This is already very long-winded so I won't address this in depth, but the exploration of one's sexuality and sexual desire does not necessitate the participation of another person, and there are ways to have gratifying sexual experiences with Pedophilic Disorder without having sex with (i.e. sexually abusing) children.

TLDR: Violence, sexual or otherwise, is systematic and has way more to do with power and power imbalance, than attraction, urge, ideation or fantasy. Implying a causal relationship between Pedophilic Disorder or Homicidal Ideation/Urges with criminal offending is false, and in the case of the former explicitly harmful to treatment.

[strawhatsufi]

"Racialised" is much better than PoC but I've been leaning a lot on the concept of racial markedness. Because that allows us to make statements like "the name Jamal is racially marked in USA". Rather than saying something like "Jamal is a PoC name", a nonsense statement, saying it's racially marked in USA allows us to contrast with societies like Albania or the Arab countries where the name Jamal is ordinary, thus unmarked.

[strawhatsufi]

It's a concept I've kind of imported from linguistic analysis; saying a speech pattern is more or less marked does not really allow us to avoid the subject of who's doing the marking. A statement like "womens' speech is more marked in Lakota" necessitates that we understand that it's the Lakota who are marking womens' speech. A foreigner can't tell the difference and probably doesn't understand why it would thus be weird to see a man using speech patterns associated with women, in the same way an Albanian wouldn't understand why USA people would think Jamal is a Black name.

[strawhatsufi]

You! You get it. In my view, if someone is saying "racialised" or "racially marked" without acknowledgement of context, they are doing it in a way that is gramatically incorrect.

[gertold]

LMAOOO

[moons-of-firdaws]

I can't believe I have to clarify this. acute anxiety isn't PTSD. PTSD is a chronic condition which has sustained itself for 3 months or more, is associated with various levels of dysfunction and maladaptive schemas, and is clinically significant. Acute anxiety lasts for less than a month, is temporary, and associated with a specific situational stressor — i.e. if you've ever moved house and been stressed and anxious about the move because it's in another city, and you have to relocate jobs and register your kids to a different school, and move your furniture intercity or even interstate... congratulations, you've experienced acute anxiety. This is not a war casuality, this is the human condition, and a very common experience. It is not clinically significant anxiety. It is not a disorder.

[moons-of-firdaws]

I feel very equipped to address this especially because a) I practice psychology, b) I have experienced both PTSD and acute anxiety. In fact, I currently suffer from PTSD due to a near death experience, sustained physical assault and sexual assault. I have experienced acute anxiety several times in my life. I cannot emphasize how common of an experience it is, you change jobs? Acute anxiety. You graduate school and start applying to multiple universities? Acute anxiety. The latter of which happens to be my most salient experience with acute anxiety because I moved continents for university. It was particularly stressful because even after I received an offer (my application was accepted) my visa came out only a week before the semester's commencement so by that point I hadn't registered in any of my classes out of worry that I'd have to defer to the next semester — which means when I received my visa I had to scramble to book a flight and sort my luggage. I had to travel to another city because there wasn't an international airport in mine, then I had to travel for 27 hours because my university was located in another continent and very far from mine, then I had a one day layover before I could travel to my university's city, then I had to set up a bank account so I could use public transportation in that city in a different country in a different continent because I was freshly 18 and didn't have a drivers license... and this is on the further end of the subjective distress continuum of acute anxiety, because this is by no means a typical experience. Yes, there are many international students, especially when you consider globally ranked universities which make majority of their profits off international students and researchers, but it's by no means a typical experience because majority of people study university in the same country they reside, not many make that significant milestone while immigrating countries. But, it was still not a clinically significant experience. It is not a disorder. It does not require clinical expertise. Having experienced both this and PTSD I can tell you they are very different experiences with very, very, different levels of dysfunction and impact on quality of life.

If you're wondering why I'm addressing PTSD, a lot of the comments on this post talk about PTSD or conversely other anxiety disorders in a 'casualties aren't less valid just because it's a mental condition' tone, which while I agree with the sentiment, is not applicable to this specific scenario. Counting acute anxiety (temporary anxiety due to a situational life stressor, not a disorder, not clinically significant) as a casualty is not only inaccurate and misleading, but deliberate disinformation for the purposes of artificially inflating casuality numbers (under false pretenses) in an attempt to justify genocide, massacres and war crimes.

For people who want to be pedantic and say "but it says treated for—", you can seek counseling for non disordered and non clinically significant distress, a lot of people seek grief counselling (not prolonged grief disorder) this does not make grief a medical condition. And this is the most out there example that's associated with high levels of subjective distress. Otherwise many people seek counseling for things like: stress management, life transitions (e.g. marriage, divorce, parenthood, moving house, moving jobs....), work related issues (particularly SFBT aka situation focused brief therapy). Some governments even subsidize treatment, that is to say a single counselling session or multiple counselling sessions, if you get laid off a job. None of these are medical conditions, all of these are very natural and common human experiences that are a) transient, b) experienced at least once in a lifetime. Again: Not medical. Not clinical.

Which brings me back to my previous point, this is deliberate disinformation.

[yunis-speaks]

"Oh no the poor american war veteran has trauma from serving in iraq :(("

What were you doing in iraq? Oceans away from your home? Why were you on a land that's nowhere near yours, that's continents away? What were you doing there?

And why do these conversations never center iraqi trauma? What about the trauma of the iraqi soldier? Of the iraqi citizen? Why is it only the american soldier's mental health that matters?

What of the iraqi soldier forced away to bleed for a home he does not know if he can save? What of the citizens who's houses were bombed? What of the families that waited anxiously to hear from their loved ones on war front, who could not reach because communication lines were targeted? What of the soldier serving on the other side of this equation, bleeding out to save his family, only to receive news weeks later — delayed — that they are all dead, that his home may no longer exist?

What of the bloodlines completely wiped? What of the intergenerational trauma? What of the generation who grew up knowing nothing but war?

What about iraqi trauma? Iraqi pain.

Your american soldier fought knowing full well that his family is safe. That he would not come back to a city, a village, a home, that no longer exists. The iraqi soldier had no such luxuries.

Your american soldier did not fight to protect his home, or family, he fought as tool in furthering american imperialism. His country was not ravished by the war they waged, and he fought knowing they were safe. This was not a war on two fronts.

So, again, what about iraqi trauma?

[yunis-speaks]

Recently I've been thinking of the term "poc". Both in terms of it's application and usefulness. I think this is something that might get me a lot of heat — but I don't personally like it.

I can't deny it's usefulness as a tool, but it falls short in so many areas, that I think now we're in a time we can address.

To me, it's biggest pitfall is that it's too american-centric. "People of colour" subscribes to the same simplistic american notions of race that white supremacy imposed — it implies that the only races that exist are: white, black, brown and indigenous people are only considered if you're lucky.

Not to mention the big misconception it raises, in that racial-based oppression and marginalisation are solely based on skin color, rather than identifiable ethnic features. For example asians, specifically east asians who are pale, are still marginalised and oppressed on the basis of their race even if they're 'white-skinned' and not 'coloured' in the way the term implies. (The fact that this has been brought up as an argument to delegitimise the oppression faced by the east-asian community proves the dangers of such misconceptions born out of a misunderstanding of the term "poc" — however, it also raises questions of how the term "poc" enables that).

Which brings me to my next point. So, if white = european, and black = african, who are brown people? south asians? south-east asians? latine people? middle easterns? All of them? That's too broad, too vague, and too unclear. Ultimately "brown" as a racial-monkier serves no one, and causes more confusion than any problems it potentially solves.

Another point worth noting is that, we don't neatly fall into any of these boxes of "white, black, brown, (indigenous)" that "poc" implicates. A pale middle eastern person is not "brown", but they are still middle eastern with clearly middle eastern features and are marginalised by their race. Same with the erasure of some asian communities by the term. The way latine communities struggle with the term, too, offers some perspective into that.

Regardless — I've never seen the change from "coloured people" to "people of colour" as being particularly progressive.

I understand that it's partially because we do not want to call ourselves "non-white", but I still see the term as one that centres our oppressors, because here's the thing, "poc" also, in a way, implies that "white" is the default. There's white and then there's "coloured people".

In that same vein, I see it as defining ourselves by how our oppressors have defined and called us. More importantly, once more, it subscribers to a way too simplistic notion of race.

The question then becomes: what do we call ourselves? what would be a more suitable/appropriate term to replace "poc".

That, I don't know. I still think though, that it's a discussion worth having as a community. A way to 'redefine' ourselves in a way that won't alienate a huge chunk of us.

Personally, I prefer using "racially marginalised" as an 'identifier' if you will — a way in which we relate to each other, and an accurate term for our struggle as well as what we stand in solidarity for (against? because of?) It can comfortably serve as an umbrella term without attempting to box us and provide a more flexible framework to the nuances of our oppression — where it intersects and where it differs.

[yunis-speaks]

The Conversation Surrounding Narcissism and "Narcissistic Abuse"

I think the first question to ask ourselves here would be "what is narcissistic abuse?" What constitutes that specific type of abuse? In which the answer we usually get is: controlling behaviour, uneven power dynamics, blame shifting, guilting, gaslighting, rejection and degradation and occasionally some aspects of physical abuse. This is where we go, "but are those exclusive to 'narcissistic abuse'?" In which the answer is a simple no. So let's unpack that, why do we use the term "narcissistic abuse"? What does it imply?

The usage of the term narcissistic abuse has many reasons, but one of the most prominent and prevalent ones is 'othering'. If abuse is inherent to narcissists, then we can't possibly be abusers — and any 'toxic' traits we may have in regards to how we deal with relationships (say, being overly dismissive) can be ignored, because we're not narcissists and therefore not abusers and cannot hold what we label "narcissistic traits" that would be indicative to abuse.

Another is that by othering the narcissist, we can have specific 'traits' that can indicate that a person is a narcissist, and therefore an abuser, in which you now clearly identify the 'hidden evil person' in the crowd. Based on which, you can avoid the narcissist and any subsequent abuse. Here, we find some problematic implications that having gone through abuse is the victim's fault for failing to notice the 'evil scheming narcissist" first.

When narcissism is successfully alienated and othered, then intrinsically tied to abuse, abusers get described as narcissists and armchair-diagnosed with narcissism. Where certain victims of abuse will claim that their abuse is unique and special, and that the only people who could understand them is people who went through the same unique and special abuse (because their abusers were unique and special).

Ultimately, this serves to demonise narcissists and narcissism. There is nothing that is 'unique' or exclusive to "narcissistic abuse" which justifies the existence of the term beyond ableism. The traits ascribed to narcissistic abuse are simply what constitutes emotional abuse, and in much more rare cases complex/sophisticated abuse.

The term "narcissistic abuse" as such only ever dehumanises and demonises narcissists. It does not allowing them their humanity or complex experiences, instead shoving them into boxes where their existence is equated to abuse, and their disorder to being an abuser.

It only further stigmatises an already heavily stigmatised disorder, and cuts them off from societal, social, and professional support.

Narcissists are "abusers", "lost causes", they "cannot be treated". They are not human. They are sub-human. They are "sadistic" and "cruel" and "do not care for others." If all a narcissist does is bring suffering and 'be evil' — the world is better off without narcissists.

This is what a narcissist has to deal with day-to-day. From friends, family, mental health professionals. That they are lost causes and cannot be treated, that they are deep-down, inherently evil. Nevermind that all these opinions are informed by stereotypes and the stigma surrounding narcissism, and that none of that is true.

Nevermind the fact that narcissistic personality disorder forms as a result of abuse and associated trauma (in Ireland, it was once contemplated to change the categorical name from 'personality disorder' to 'complex trauma responses') or that narcissists are more suspectable to abuse.

Narcissism doesn't make an abuser. Abuse makes an abuser.

Then comes the question, "but wouldn't being a narcissist influence the abuse?" The short answer is yes. The long one is that mental illness influences how you perceive and interact with the world, it influences all things including 'abuse' were the mentally ill person an abuser. However, it does not make them an abuser. If a depressed parent abused their child, say as influenced by their depression, with no energy and little to no motivation to care for their child and high irritability should they ask for that care or any energy-inducing things (so in here, through neglect) we wouldn't call it "depressive abuse" or say they abused the child because they're depressed in a 1:1 connection between depression and abuse where all depressed people are abusive or 'more likely' to be abusive.

That simply wouldn't be true, and not to mention extremely ableist. And yet, we do that exact same thing with narcissism to alarming degrees where the word "narcissist" has become synonymous with "abuser".