snowymountains

The Oxford learners dictionary gives "rude in a way that causes somebody to feel upset or annoyed because it shows a lack of respect" https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/offensive_1 Which dictionary exactly did you pull your definition from ? Is it from a real dictionary, as in how people use the word, or your own definition?

As you're basing your whole argumentation on sex, then those born intersex are?...

Melania then is Marry Magdalene I presume? 😂 😂 😂

I don't know what to make of it politically tbh, eg anecdotally Goering might had been trans, and he was as far right as it gets. Perhaps because the right targets conservative Christians as voters, some from the right dogwhistle targeting these voters. And this btw is exactly about politicians manipulating voters by using their complexes, so that their complexes take over the ego-consciousness and switch off all analytical thinking.

One genuine question I have is really how many trans people use "pregnant people", or all that is slogans made by people trans or not who appointed their own selves as representatives. There's no trans representative election that I'm aware of. In practical terms and I speak out of my own anecdotal personal life experience on this, like anyone else, trans people want to feel accepted and not disrespected for the reason that they're trans. So maybe all the "pregnant people" type of stuff is because they don't feel respected exactly because of being trans, and if respect was a given, then none of the "pregnant people" lingo would had been there.

Let's not get into that discussion 😁

Most of that isn't even conscious. You can take a look at Jung's idea of "complex". In that view they're not part of the ego-consciousness, they actually take control of it. Or for a more modern approach Young's ( different spelling & different person to Jung ), automatic reactions & schemas.

We can know it, the techniques used for this job are structurally different and they're much more efficient at that. But in practical terms, eg observe your self when you interact with your environment, moments of anger, sadness, happiness are gold, you'll find out a lot that you haven't by sitting at the dojo, simply because the triggers were not there. So insight in "real life" will show you a lot more than insight at the dojo. The part which remains open though is what to do with all that once it's uncovered. Using a cognitive approach for some of that, like the two arrows our friend above mentioned is fine, but not for all and it's not the whole story. It also depends on one's goals, if we define "self improvement" as becoming free from all conditioning ( a bit of an exaggeration, completely free is simply impossible), then one needs to pick the tools for that job. Also I don't want to sound like preaching some arcane art, because I don't, but this may take decades of continuous work. It's also why eg therapists are ( at least should be ) in perma-therapy, and have tried (as clients themselves) all sorts of therapy. Because all sorts of triggers appear and unless they actively remove conditioning they can't be good at entering the client's frame of reference. That said, yes shikantaza is a very good practice, insight meditation is very a very good practice. It's just that they're good at what they can do.

Strong reactions, more often than not, do not occur because of cognitive processes. Not that this is any consolation for the strong reactions.

Yes it can, some, but not all. Also for the ones it brings to the surface, then there's no proper toolset on what to do with them.

The thing is that it opens space to some of the unconscious objects ( not all, there's a lot it won't ) but bringing them to consciousness is only one of the steps, and for the rest of the steps the approaches are very incomplete . Cognitive methods like the second arrow may be good in some cases, some people would even say in a lot of cases, in other cases not so much. Cognitive methods also do not solve everything and also they're not the right tool for all people. In the general case, meditation is something good, dokusan is good, Buddhist cognitive methods are good, reading the Stoics is also good for cognitive methods btw. But even within the scope of self-improvement (forget e.g. trauma) there is important stuff missing there. So it's about distinguishing if some practices are good practices and whether their scope and effectiveness is oversold. They are good practices, I'd even say for some people they're very good, but they also have a more limited scope than advertised.

Shikantaza can't go as deep, it cannot and will not touch automatic reactions nor go deep into the unconscious, it simply lacks the tools for accessing these, nevermind working on them. Only therapy can do that. Actually meditation practice is one of the most common means of avoidance for doing the deep work. Shikantaza is a very good practice, I do it myself, but it should not be advertised for doing things it can't.

The chart is for the public healthcare system though and can only be compared to waiting times in the public healthcare system, as the times may reflect overall waiting times for public healthcare in Netherlands. The 1 month waiting list I referred to was an approximate number for private practices btw, some will be fully booked, those that aren't typically will be able to offer some slots within a month. Multiple disorders are difficult because they need a therapist who has experience in all of them, and this is indeed difficult to find, especially if they are from different clusters. I can't know if the cases you have in mind do it for the buck, but if someone does not have experience in a disorder, the responsible thing to do is to refer to another professional who does. Doing otherwise will be harmful for the client.

It is true that a large percentage of shamans are speculated to have been trans. But there were no hormonal therapies available nor surgery at today's level in hunter gatherer societies though, so can't really compare. Back then people died from what antibiotics treat today. It's a different world.

Also to be clear, gender need not be different to sex due to trauma, and there clearly trauma therapy will have zero impact on gender.

This is different, if gender changed due to trauma, then healing the trauma may re-establish the original gender. The same applies to changes in sexuality due to to trauma. But this is trauma therapy, not gender nor sexuality therapy, as there are no such things. It's also not as straightforward as it sounds, eg therapy cannot completely heal trauma. This is one of the things that the team responsible for the decision needs to opine on, along with a few other factors, which is why it's important to have a well-structured process.

Waiting lists are approx a month in most places. If the wrong type of transference develops and is persistent, the therapist should refer the client to someone else, a good therapist will do this and actually always keep their eyes open for what type of transference is occurring. It's a misnomer to develop a complementary therapeutic relationship and a red flag, which is sufficient to change therapist. I don't want to go into details but sometimes the method itself can cause a complementary relationship eg CBT sometimes can make people feel they're in a complementary relationship, the therapist should be able to synthesise and in such cases apply different techniques. Anyhow this is off topic

It may occur that parents aren't doing what's best for their kids too, parents may have biases too. Parents though may also protect their children in other cases. Imo everyone should be involved, the parents, psys and of course the children themselves. Now, what is the best way to vet these views is the difficult question, eg should someone be able to veto? for now long would a veto be in effect? should there be a requirement for a unanimous decision or a majority vote? How do conditions such as depression affect the process? etc It's a very complicated topic that unfortunately has no easy answers and currently there's no policy that's a perfect fit for all cases.

Some degree of concentration is necessary before insight can work as intended and Samatha eg on breath is the way to progress on concentration. Saying the words leaves less room for the mind to scatter, it's a good practice when you start practicing Samatha. Later, you can also count eg out-breaths till 10, then back to 1. After some practice like that you can drop the counting entirely as the mind won't need verbal assistance to stay focused on the breath. In Theravada this is quantified, a pre-jhana samadhi is the minimum concentration level required before insight can lead to eg so-called stream entry. It doesn't mean that anyone who's reached that samadhi will reach stream entry when they practice insight, it is a necessary condition though. One may start practicing Insight before having reached that samadhi though and that samadhi is reachable fairly soon ( probably less than a year for someone who practices daily ), it's a pre-jhana state.

The two top factors for getting a biased diagnosis from all three in favour would be harassment from activists and political pressure, not indoctrination. With sufficient pressure and/or harassment a lot would cave. With three gatekeepers from different clinics it's more difficult though. But this mixing of politics and diagnosis is a societal problem, not one confined to the psy-sector. The exact same thing can happen to engineers evaluating if there's anything wrong with a passenger airplane model. Who could imagine what will happen eg to a whistleblower.. On the other hand look at what happened to that UK clinic, some professionals had a spine, some parents filled lawsuits and it was over. A lot of children paid a dear price till it came to an end though. Still a process is needed as there are people who genuinely need hormone therapy and surgery. While there is abuse of the process, the ones who need the process can't be the ones who pay the price for those who abuse the process. And at the end of the day you can't have 100 psychiatrists needed for a sign off. I don't have easy answers, these are no longer technical matters, they're really about how society chooses to work.

Shikantaza is, in my experience, shown early on, and with time additional instructions are passed on. Actually in the Theravada tradition, the main tool for so-called enlightenment, insight meditation, is somewhat close to the spirit of Shikantaza. By its definition a good technique to observe conscious processes and even some complexes. Two words of caution, it won't go as deep as unconscious processes and if you do open awareness practices only while sitting at the dojo, you won't see a lot of processes because a lot of triggers are simply not there while "just sitting" at a dojo, they're out there in real life during your everyday interactions with your environment.

Indeed, it's out of scope for talk therapy, and past efforts were a disaster. Not exactly, there should be checks and balances in these processes and given it's an irreversible process these checks and balances need to be strong. Eg why not have 3 psychiatrists opine, all from different clinics. Otherwise, with weak checks and balances how do you protect a teenager who might change their mind in just a year? But for someone who passes these checks and balances, then yes they should be able to go through hormonal therapies and surgery.

Ok we're getting down to how the sector is regulated which is off topic, so I'll keep it short. In some jurisdictions there's a set of laws for using a title such as psychologist, psychotherapist etc and a separate set of laws for providing these services ( even without advertising as such/using the title ). I can't know the law wherever you live nor the precedents nor if there's a legal gap. But in most countries the idea is that these persons should face consequences even if they call it prayer or whatevs. The parents may agree but if social services were aware, they might not had agreed. I can't know the law wherever you live but usually there are checks and balances, maybe an anonymous report to social services suffices to set the wheels in motion. As you were a child psychologist I'm sure that you know the law in your jurisdiction ( and probably know how to report this person ). In a context outside an institution, the therapist holds zero power, and actually they should not hold any power. Now there might be some implicit power if the wrong type of transference has developed between the therapist and the client. But ultimately all it takes is for the client to walk out the door. I had had a therapist who violated the code of ethics, I called them out and found another one. I didn't file a report because I didn't sense malevolence, but I did walk out. What you're describing is overinstitutionalisation, I don't doubt what you say and it sounds horrendous but it would violate rights if they do not harm their selves or others. I'd expect something like what you describe not to pass or stay forever, provided it's a democratic country with strong institutions and an independent justice system.

No sorry, there is such a thing as code of conduct and whoever violates it can lose their license and accreditation. If there's a therapist doing illegal therapies ( I'm assuming they're illegal where you live ), then they should be reported to their professional body and additionally a legal process should start. Nobody's exempt from the law. Abuses in either direction like eg in an infamous UK clinic ( in the opposite direction ) aren't left unchecked. Inside an institution it's different because civil rights have been effectively suspended. The most common reasons for entry in an institution still are these two conditions ( danger of self harm or harming others ).

This is not therapy, it's prescribed meds, it's different 🙂. Psychiatrists prescribe meds, not therapists nor psychologists. It's also about how a process should be described by law, not at any professional's discretion, the professional just opines, they don't define the process. In any case, imo there should input from a professional as part of a process. By more than one professional actually and from different clinics, to avoid biases from professionals, in either direction.