Month: September 2023

Pew Research Center released the following findings this past week. I wish we could say we were surprised…

Americans have long been critical of politicians and skeptical of the federal government. But today, Americans’ views of politics and elected officials are unrelentingly negative, with little hope of improvement on the horizon.

Majorities say the political process is dominated by special interests, flooded with campaign cash and mired in partisan warfare. Elected officials are widely viewed as self-serving and ineffective.

A comprehensive new Pew Research Center study of the state of the nation’s politics finds no single focal point for the public’s dissatisfaction. There is widespread criticism of the three branches of government, both political parties, as well as political leaders and candidates for office.  

Notably, Americans’ unhappiness with politics comes at a time of historically high levels of voter turnout in national elections. The elections of 2018, 2020 and 2022 were three of the highest-turnout U.S. elections of their respective types in decades.

But voting in elections is very different from being satisfied with the state of politics – and the public is deeply dissatisfied.

For example… 

Just 4% of U.S. adults say the political system is working extremely or very well; another 23% say it is working somewhat well. About six-in-ten (63%) express not too much or no confidence at all in the future of the U.S. political system…

A growing share of the public dislikes both political parties. Nearly three-in-ten (28%) express unfavorable views of both parties, the highest share in three decades of polling. And a comparable share of adults (25%) do not feel well-represented by either party.

There’s more…

The survey also provides people several opportunities to describe in their own words their feelings about the political system and elected officials. When asked to sum up their feelings about politics in a word or phrase, very few (2%) use positive terms; 79% use negative or critical words, with “divisive” and “corrupt” coming up most frequently.

The stated strengths are interesting… that is, if they could state them…

We also asked people to identify the strengths of the political system, as well as its weaknesses. Among the positive responses, roughly one-in-ten point to the structures of U.S. government, including its system of checks and balances (12%), freedoms and democratic values (9%) and the opportunity to vote in elections (8%).

Yet it is telling that a majority of Americans are unable or unwilling to identify strong points of the nation’s political system. While about a third gave no answer, another 22% write “nothing” – meaning that in their view, the political system does not have any strengths.

So truth be told, we’re pretty unified…

These views and other negative sentiments are widely shared among older and younger Americans, White, Black, Hispanic and Asian adults, people who are highly engaged in politics and those who are less engaged. And in most cases, the partisan differences in these attitudes are relatively modest.

Let me say that again for emphasis: “the partisan differences in these attitudes are relatively modest.” We continue…

In an era defined by partisan polarization, the parties share little common ground politically. But they do share a deep unhappiness with the current state of politics.

We hear the unhappiness. We hear many, too, suggest that “democracy is on the ballot” or we need to “save democracy,” but yet, that’s typically a single party person suggesting their party is the only one that can do the saving.

My strong sense is that’s a fairly pompous, convenient perch. It also is entirely unaware of how the public increasingly feels about both parties.

Dare we say it… to the elect and more: Learn to work together. Learn to love all people.

Respectfully…

AR

So if automotive manufacturing workers are striking — and I’m not an automotive manufacturing worker — should I care?

Excellent question. Let’s get to that question shortly.

The United Auto Workers (UAW) has decreased in size over the years, now a union with more retirees (580,000) than active members (400,000), residing in the US, Canada and Puerto Rico. They went on strike well over a week ago. They are striking against the “Detroit Three,” which is comprised of GM, Ford and Stellantis (the latter of which is the Fiat-Chrysler merger). 

Taking zero sides, let’s acknowledge the dispute. Note the list of demands the union leader revealed several weeks ago. The following are included (accompanied by some added insight or information): 

◾ Eliminating wage tiers. (The Big Three employ a two-tiered wage structure in which those who joined the company in 2007 or earlier, are grandfathered in, earning a rough average of $33 per hour plus have defined benefit pensions; those hired thereafter are the lower tier, earning significantly less, ineligible for the pension, and less generous healthcare).  

◾ A 46% wage increase over the life of the contract —21% immediately and then a 5% additional raise each year of the four year contract. (Stellantis offered a 21% wage increase with 10% immediately; the union summarily rejected that offer, calling the number a “no-go.”)

◾ Restoring the cost-of-living allowance adjustments to counteract inflation. (These were discontinued in 2007 when GM and Chrysler were rapidly moving toward bankruptcy and a federal bailout; CNN Business said for GM alone, taxpayers were out more than $10 billion.)

◾ Defined benefit pension for all workers. (This, too, was eliminated for new hires when bankruptcy and bailouts were imminent. Now that bankruptcy is not imminent and the companies are making significant profit, the union wants pensions back. A great question to discern is what role — if any — the collective pensions played in the bankruptcy and bailouts.)

◾ The right to strike over plant closures. (According to the UAW website, “The Big Three have closed 65 plants over the last 20 years. That’s devastated our hometowns. We must have the right to defend our communities.” Another excellent economic question would be who gets to choose whether a plant closes.)

◾ A reduced work week and more paid time off. (The union wants a four-day, 32 hour workweek.)

◾ Limiting the use of temporary workers. (The union labels this as unfair treatment or potential abuse. Also a factor is that in said situation there would be no opportunity for increased union membership.)

◾ Increased benefits to current retirees. (The UAW wants back the guaranteed lifetime pension payments and retiree medical care they gave up during the 2008 automotive industry crisis, in addition to a significant increase to current retiree pensions. Note the current makeup of the union, with 59.2% of current members being retirees.)

So back to the aforementioned, excellent question — and a brief foray into the question of care…

An auto workers strike means fewer laborers. Fewer laborers means fewer cars. Fewer cars means a decreased national supply. Assuming comparable demand, a decreased supply means an increase in cost once current inventory leaves the lot. Note, too, if there’s any surge in panic purchases — meaning consumers believe there will soon be a shortage, so they rush en masse to the dealer — such would also drive up demand. Driving up demand on a limited supply will also prompt an increase, potentially instantaneously.

We don’t want that to happen.  We want the workers working. Hence, why not just pay the workers more? 

Indeed, another excellent question. Let’s be even more concise in our response… well, with one more question, if you will..

If the workers are paid substantially more — 46% — and work fewer hours — 32 — (and please, allow me to toss a bit of a softball question here) — what would you predict happens to the cost of a new car?

Exactly.

Not an easy solve. 

Respectfully…

AR

“We all have blind spots in our knowledge and opinions. The bad news is that they can leave us blind to our blindness, which gives us false confidence in our judgment and prevents us from rethinking. The good news is that with the right kind of confidence, we can learn to see ourselves more clearly and update our views. In driver’s training we were taught to identify our visual blind spots and eliminate them with the help of mirrors and sensors. In life, since our minds don’t come equipped with those tools, we need to learn to recognize our cognitive blind spots and revise our thinking accordingly.” ― Adam M. Grant in “Think Again: The Power of Knowing What You Don’t Know”

One of the challenges of current day culture is the ease we feel in identifying the blindspots of other people while simultaneously being comfortably oblivious of our own. 

A blindspot, put as simply as possible, is an area unable to be seen.

The inconvenient truth is that we all have them. Even though, yes, oft comfortably oblivious. 

I appreciated the written words last week by self-described progressive, Nicholas Kristof. Kristof is an influential columnist for The New York Times, a frequent CNN contributor, and a one-time, would-be, Oregon gubernatorial candidate. He typically articulates his opinions respectfully.

Last week Kristof wrote a column last about poverty and inequality — two issues he is notably passionate about. The column was entitled “The One Privilege Liberals Ignore.” Let us not fall prey to throwing stones in regard to who ignores what; let’s examine Kristof’s main point: “We can’t have a serious conversation about poverty and inequality without contemplating the breakdown of marriage and family.”

The breakdown is the blindspot.

“We are often reluctant to acknowledge one of the significant drivers of child poverty — the widespread breakdown of family — for fear that to do so would be patronizing or racist.”

Substantiating his point, Kristof continued: “It’s an issue largely for working-class Whites, Blacks and Hispanics, albeit most prevalent among African Americans. But just as you can’t have a serious conversation about poverty without discussing race, you also can’t engage unless you consider single-parent households… Families headed by single mothers are five times as likely to live in poverty as married-couple families. Children in single-mother homes are less likely to graduate from high school or earn a college degree. They are more likely to become single parents themselves, perpetuating the cycle.”

Citing the research of University of Maryland economist Melissa Kearney, Kristof averred, “Two-parent families are beneficial for children. Places that have more two-parent families have higher rates of upward mobility. Not talking about these facts is counterproductive.”

Friends, let there be no judgment for the ones who circumstances are different than the two-parent traditional household. None whatsoever. Some of my hardest-working, most diligent friends are single moms. Without a doubt, such person’s families can still thrive and survive. The data simply shows the clear benefit of the family staying in tact. My primary point today is that marriage and family matter. Significantly.

My secondary point is the acknowledgement of blindspot — how there are things we simply can’t see. Again, no need to pick on progressives; conservatives too comfortably take their routine turn. The blindspot cited by Kristof is the unwillingness to even acknowledge the impact the breakdown of family has on poverty and inequality. “Even today there is a deep discomfort in liberal circles about acknowledging these realities.” Kristof then references an upcoming report by the Institute for Family Studies noting that “only 30 percent of college-educated liberals agree” that children are better off having married parents.

We all have blindspots, friends… areas that we simply cannot see. Hence, perhaps the bigger question is: why?

What blinds us?

Our passion? Conviction? What is it?

And why do we ignore what’s true? How is it that we don’t even know we’re ignoring it?

Three years ago Kristof penned a different piece, albeit also about watching our blindspots. Near the end of his submission, he wrote this: “As a liberal, I mostly write about conservative blind spots. But on the left as well as the right, we can get so caught up in our narratives that we lose perspective; nobody has a monopoly on truth.”

That’s the challenge; is it not?

Our blindspots diminish the validity of our perspective. We then miss what may be true.

Respectfully…

AR

The most successful teams have the best playbook. The most successful teams stick to their playbook, as it gives them time to boost profit and maximize outcome. According to Accenture, the largest consulting firm in the world, “A playbook reflects a plan — an approach or strategy defining predetermined responses worked out ahead of time.” The “play,” so to speak, equates to a workflow shaped by cultural values prompting a consistent response. Note the consistent response from America’s foremost political “teams”:

• “This has the potential to be the beginning of a serious political problem and devastating legal one.”
• “The danger persists. The risk is real. Our democracy is at peril.”
• “It is a political revenge tour that lacks any factual or constitutional basis.”
• “The American people expect us to do the right thing for the right reasons. It should never be a political issue where you try to taint a political candidate.”
• “This is an assault on America.”
• “Today’s announcement is a pretty transparent attempt to distract people from the fact that Congress[persons] have done absolutely nothing to address the issues Americans care about.” 
• “This is the culmination of three years of [their] stated goal: to impeach and remove this president from office.” 
• “If we do not act now, we would be derelict in our duty. It is tragic that the president’s reckless actions make impeachment necessary. He gave us no choice.”
• “What a disgrace. Americans deserve better.”
• “But you know what they have done? They have cheapened the impeachment process.”

Note that the aforementioned collective, consistent response reflects equal numbers of statements from Team Biden and Team Trump, in response to being a target of impeachment.

Bear with me; take a deep breath. Withhold any preconditioned prompt to (semi-)respectfully pounce. Let us insert an immediate caveat. Today’s post is not an admonition nor abutment of either so-called team nor their questionable QB; today is an examination of the playbook, and why a watching world reacts the way we do. For as much as we may passionately like/dislike one or another (think Yankees/Red Sox, Army/Navy, or Ohio State/Michigan — go Bucks), there is no denying the existence of a playbook… and in this case, how eerily similar they are.   

In the current situation, the back of the book’s vocab section references the following: “weak,” “absurd,” “illegitimate,” “baseless,” “political theater,” a “hoax,” a “witch hunt,” “a joke,” “a pathetic political mission,” “a scam,” “plain old payback,” a “nakedly partisan investigation,” “facially and substantively flawed,” “unconstitutional,” “the fleeting politics of the moment,” and “pure political cowardice.” (Or from one non-actual-team member, even a “kerfuffle” — thank you, former British prime minister, Boris Johnson).

Without a doubt, as Harvard Law Professor Lawrence Lessig wrote 4 years ago, “Impeachment is a profoundly disruptive event”… “When Republicans impeached Andrew Johnson for obstructing Reconstruction in 1868, there was no broadcasting. There was no polling, at least not in the scientific sense of today. ‘Media’ in America meant newspapers, which were largely partisan, but whose effect on the public was hard for politicians to gauge. The trial of Johnson was thus conducted by a relatively small political elite that, because they focused on the crisis, at least understood the facts.

The impeachment of Richard Nixon a century later was critically different, in part, at least, because the technology of culture had become importantly different. Democracy had become what [Princeton professor] Markus Prior calls ‘broadcast democracy,’ with an astonishing 85 percent of Americans tuning into at least part of the impeachment hearings via the three major broadcast networks and PBS. And the public had become persistently polled, meaning that politicians in Washington knew what voters were thinking. As the Watergate hearings progressed, Americans weren’t just focused on the story: They were focused on the same story.”

That’s not the case in current day America. We’re not focused on the same story. Both parties — as evidenced above — believe the pursuit of impeachment of the other is politically motivated. Look at the identical playbooks.

It was recently said here — granted, a little in jest — that I think “the two primary established political parties currently take turns being totally whacked.” I actually believe each gets some things right. And wrong. But as evidenced by the immediate refutes, Teflon denials, and yes, eeriness of parallel playbooks, neither team is all healthy, good nor looking out for us all. It’s too partisan. Too divisive. Especially when they know we aren’t focused on the same story.

Impeachment of Biden and impeachment of Trump are not clear cut. I am not suggesting either did nothing wrong; I’m instead acknowledging the profound national disruption. And it is sadly true that neither of the accusing teams are beyond reproach. That’s scary. As one congressperson said (again with their party affiliation interchangeable),”We know how this partisan process will end… but what happens tomorrow?”

In other words, how will they react next? Who will justify the next potentially politically motivated action? And who will attempt to tell us that their actions are lawful and pure while the other is wholly not?

That’s the scary part. We can’t tell. And it’s right there in the playbook.

Respectfully…

AR

Two weeks ago 81-year old Sen. Mitch McConnell was asked at a press conference about running for reelection in 2026. He seemed to start to answer the question and then totally freezes, staring blankly, lips pursed, going suddenly silent for multiple, notably awkward seconds. An aide comes to his side to re-state the question. With a clear inability to respond intelligibly, he’s led from the scene. This is the second time in less than two months this has happened to the Senator. For the record, should he be elected to another term, he would be 84 at time of election and 90 at term’s end. 

90-year old Sen. Diane Feinstein continues to represent the people of California. She is the oldest sitting US senator and the longest-tenured female senator in history. Note that the Senator has said she will not be seeking reelection in 2024 at age 91. However, she has been treated for multiple significant health ailments in 2023, absent for many months, and this summer she mistakenly started reading a statement during a routine Senate vote and was quietly corrected by colleagues multiple times how she should actually vote. She has also ceded power of attorney to her daughter.

President Biden is only 80. He’s the first octogenarian in the Oval Office. He, too, seems to have had multiple moments of significant question or confusion. Granted, his team has given us a plethora of explanations as to the totally logical reasons why, comparable to McConnell’s spokespersons suggesting his freezing was due to dehydration and Feinstein’s team suggesting the transferring of POA was so she could more thoroughly focus on her congressional work.

Let me, no less, regardless of reason, respectfully stick up for them all. 

I think we’re making a mistake.

We’re making a mistake by focusing on age itself.

Allow me a rather entertaining example… the Rolling Stones are set to release a brand new original album next month — “Hackney Diamonds” — created by iconic band members Mick Jagger, Keith Richards, and Ronnie Wood. Jagger is 80. Richards, 79. and Wood, 76. It goes without saying that “moves like Jagger” still exist with significant agility and style.

In other words, it’s not about the age.

The problem is acuity.

Clearly, there is something off with each of the above. 

Let me be clear. I mean no disrespect. None whatsoever. But it takes zero anything-close-to-rocket-science to discern that the sharpness and keenness of thought is not there. I am not suggesting dementia; we’re too removed to know. I am also not suggesting that the persons have nothing to give nor are absent of value. I do question, however, if those mentioned above still have the qualities necessary to function in a way that significantly benefits those they are elected to serve.

That’s it. Who are they serving? Why do they stay?

And what does power have to do with it?

Great questions, no doubt. And questions I don’t believe we’re able to definitively answer absent increased proximity. Why do the McConnell’s, Feinsteins, and Biden’s, etc. of the world think we need them not just to stay in office, but at least in McConnell and Biden’s case, to actually run again?

CNN and The Wall Street Journal each chimed in with relevant polling data last week. 60% of registered voters believe Biden is not “mentally up for the job of president.” 73% believe he is “too old.” I would expect the results on McConnell and Feinstein to be similar.

This is not a partisan issue, friends. There are others who can run. There are others who can serve.

There are others for whom their acuity is not in question.

Respectfully…

AR

Maybe we should acknowledge what we actually do…

But first…

Let’s acknowledge our plethora of articulate guest writers… Well done!

What an insightful, diverse, eloquent group! While as said that the authors did not speak for me, as persons committed to respectful dialogue, I welcome their sharing. Agreement of perspective is unnecessary.

Let’s go there for a minute. 

Ever since our inception 15 years ago, The Intramuralist has been known as “a respectful dialogue of current events.” I continue, however, to observe our collective lack of understanding as to what exactly respectful dialogue is, as there are far too many times each of us justifies the slight or the silencing.

To be respectful means to hold in high regard — to be intentional in our humble consideration of one another. That means no slight. No thought that insult is ever an appropriate means of response.

A dialogue implies interaction — at least a two way flow in which all elements of a conversation take place — asking, informing, listening and thinking. That means no silencing. No thought that another doesn’t even deserve to be heard.

I get the temptation. There are times when we absolutely, vehemently disagree. We can’t believe another person could even think that way! And our passion can get so worked up, that we conclude the other person’s opinion is dangerous to even be held! We try to stop them. We try to obstruct their behavior, any sharing of their opinion.

I contend that the obstruction attempts are disrespectful and even more so, ineffective. Behavior modification will always be secondary to heart transformation. Get to know another. Walk a mile in their shoes. Ask questions. Work to understand. Understand why the different think and act the way they do.

The reason we do what we do at The Intramuralist is not to make everyone think like me. Oh, my… please no! I have so many places where my head isn’t on straight, I don’t even know it, and I have no desire to change my perspective at this time! … pickles should be outlawed… Pete Rose is my hero… and the two primary established political parties currently take turns being totally whacked!

I say all that not to say “think like me.” I say it acknowledging that each of us has places and perspectives in which we need to grow, and the slight or silencing doesn’t aid in prompting any of that growth.

The goal of respectful dialogue — honest and thoughtful conversation — is to better understand one another. The more we seek to understand, the more heart transformation can take place — potentially prompting increased wisdom in each of our perspectives.

That’s the beauty of our annual Guest Writers Series. While it provides time and space for intentional rest and reflection for this semi-humble blogger, it also gives us opportunity to practice what we preach. It is good to hear from diverse voices. It is good to learn from them, to have our own perspectives respectfully challenged. Regardless, yes, of agreement.

So that said, friends, we have things to talk about!

So much has happened in recent weeks… there were the awful flames that tore through Lahaina… continued conflict in Ukraine… a new COVID variant… the downgrading of the US’s bond credit rating from AAA to AA+… Burger King getting sued over the size of the Whopper… the first [sigh] 2024 Presidential debate… Twitter now identifying as a new letter of the alphabet… a bunch of seemingly too old of people feeling like they need to forever serve in elected office… Trump and Hunter still in the news… many wanting to turn the news off… not to mention the late summer cinematic hits of “Oppenheimer” and “Barbie.”

Oh, there’s so much to talk about!

So talk we will. 

We will ask, inform and listen, too.

For the record, we do so for a reason.

Respectfully… and so gleeful to be back!

AR

So we’ve come to the end of our annual Guest Writer Series, and our final post features a young man who asked to again join us and share his thoughts. It was he who came up with the topic, the title, and he asked me to interview him, recording his answers to the questions.

Meet my son, Josh, a 21 year old, articulate and talented young man…

Josh, how would you describe yourself?

“You know me. Isn’t’ it obvious? I’m chill, cool… I like being the life of the party. I like hip hop, fun stuff like parties… I like to play cards… sports — but no baseball, tennis or soccer. I like to play video games, especially GTA, WWE and 2K NBA 2023.”

Anything else our readers should know about you?

“Yeah. Some of you don’t know I have Down syndrome and what Downs means. It means when someone’s really special, they get diagnosed with having a specific gift that God has for them. Having Down syndrome, it can be hard sometimes. But I know my Father has good plans for me.

I don’t want to offend anyone. I’m sorry if I do. I care about your opinion. 

But the main thing here today is that it’s ok to have Downs. It’s ok to be different.”

What does it mean to you to be different?

“Being different is hard to know. It’s like twins; you can’t tell them apart. So you can’t always tell that you’re different. Some people can’t tell that people who have Downs are different.”

Do you feel different?

“Yeah.”

How?

“I just came with a special heart. I know God created me this way and He doesn’t make mistakes.”

Do you think the rest of the world understands that?

“No.”

What do you think we don’t always get?

“That God’s real and that He can bless the different.”

Do you feel blessed?

“Yes. I have great gifts, like being active, having a job with dogs — that’s been new for me. I have a great family. I care about my family. And I’ve got some really good friends (a shout out to Karen and Mark, Birthday Buddy, Steve and Barbara and my bros).”

Do you think each of us is blessed?

“Yes, although some things that happen to us are bad.”

What helps you when experience things that are bad?

“I listen to music. It calms me down. It cools down my vibe.”

What else?

“I talk to God. I listen to opinions from my homies as to how God can change things, change lives, and make things better.”

Have you ever talked to God about being different? If so, what did He say?

“He said ‘I know it’s hard to be different, Josh, but you can always come to me. You’re my child, and you are a special person — a special person who’s really a masterpiece.’

If anyone doesn’t feel like a masterpiece, they’re really missing out on how God feels about them.”

How does it feel to be a masterpiece?

[He immediately grins from ear to ear…] “It’s better than good. It’s even better than amazing.”

Thanks, Josh.

Respectfully…

AR for Josh

We’re almost to the end of our annual Guest Writer Series, yet today will take a different tack. It’s a serious topic. So instead of having today’s author share her story behind the strokes of the keyboard, we sat down and had a conversation. This is the heartfelt story of the mother of a transgender child.

Before we share her account, let me encourage you to listen closely. Please don’t hear this as any fodder or fuel; it’s not. This is not meant to weaponize any side of any political argument; it’s not a political argument nor societal debate. If there’s one thing I learned from my dear friend, Dee, it’s that this isn’t easy. For those who simplify the response and whittle down proposed parental wisdom to a mere “accept it” or “put your foot down,” they don’t really understand what it’s like; they don’t understand Dee’s story. Allow me to share more…

Oh, how I enjoy Dee. I asked her to begin by describing herself to our readers. She led with being an empath, compassionate, funny and an optimist. I love when a person knows they’re funny! Such is indeed true. I would add engaging, discerning, and genuine. Dee is a highly intelligent woman who cares deeply. It is an absolute joy to spend time with her.

She’s been married for near 25 years and had 2 daughters, 2 years apart. The whole family was close. They had a solid upbringing, active in school, sports and the community. Dee was especially close to her youngest, Jaymie.

Dee raved about her relationship with Jaymie. “We were kindred spirits!” And the glee and pride was immediately obvious. When asked to describe Jaymie, there was no shortage of words… Jaymie was also an empath — very sensitive. “She would cry over an ant getting hurt!… Teachers always said she was delightful — so happy… She loved Webkinz, playing house, and all sorts of animals. She was incredibly nurturing. Cuddly. Just a very sweet soul.”

Notice how the description is entirely in past tense. Such is key to Dee’s story.

At age 15, there was no announcement nor bold proclamation. No big social media reveal. In less than a matter of 3 months, Jaymie went from proudly donning bikinis and a more stereotypical feminine attire to a vividly more masculine appearance, dramatically cutting off her long locks of hair, and shifting demonstrably, dramatically emotionally. Detecting something was off with their kid as she was obviously rattled, Dee and her husband lovingly prodded their daughter in hopes of discerning what was wrong. In the midst of the moment, Jaymie shyly uttered that “I feel like I want to be a boy.”

To say Dee and her hub were shocked is an understatement. They didn’t even know what the word “transgender” meant.

They stayed present with their daughter — meaning they vowed to help her be healthy — whatever that looks like. They love their kid! But what happened immediately next is the foundation of the hard. This empathetic, sensitive, delightful, happy, cuddly kid immediately became not empathetic, not sensitive, not delightful nor happy nor cuddly in any kind of way. As Dee soberly articulates, “It’s as if she felt if she was going to be a man, she couldn’t be all those other things any more.” She couldn’t be who she actually had always been.

It’s a weird feeling. Here’s your kid. You love her so. You want what’s best for her. But all of a sudden this being that came out of your body years ago decides to change everything about themself. Note: it’s not just the physical; that they could deal with. For Jaymie, it’s the emotional, spiritual and relational, too. The one-time kindred spirits were extinguished in an instant. Simply existent no more.

“I don’t trust her any more.” We stayed on that angle for a while. The grief felt heavy. “We were so close…”

For 5 years now, Dee has been grieving the death of the relationship with her daughter. She has been mourning the loss of a child… a child who is still in front of her daily. Let me be very clear. The heart of Dee’s grief isn’t contained solely in her daughter’s desire for a change in gender. The heart of the grief is that the daughter no longer believes in the unique sweetness of the mother/daughter/offspring relationship. Jaymie — now Jay — felt that must change. Men don’t do that. Men don’t show emotion. They don’t have close relationships with their parents. Hence, Jay is distant. Jay is no longer emotionally invested in the family, even though Jay chooses to live at home.

It’s hard to hear Dee speak of doing life this way. Jay will always be welcome. But there is little to no relationship.

“I’m embarrassed… what do I say to those who ask, ‘How’s the family? How are your daughters? Or even how many kids do you have?” The simple questions aren’t so simple anymore. It makes a person think what we routinely ask of others, having no idea what their daily hard is like.

Not one for comparison, Dee does acknowledge she routinely wonders what those who know think of her. “I think people think I’m a bad parent. That we did something to cause this… I don’t want people’s pity either. You never want to be the parent in which people quietly say inside, ‘I’m glad I’m not her.’ You don’t know where people are coming from. You have no idea.” Such has prompted Dee to become notably more private, although thankfully, she has a small circle of friends with whom she can escape and be real with. “Don’t do this alone,” she says. “Don’t make it your whole life either.”

It’s notable that Dee has multiple picture frames up in her home, but the store-bought stock photo often remains inserted. She can’t put a photo of her family in it, as noting what she’s lost, she’s not sure she’ll ever feel good about this. She doesn’t recognize her family any more. “You have this constant internal monologue that your whole life has been a lie. It never goes away.” And then she thinks about the future. Will they ever be ok? Quietly, soberly, Dee adds, “How can you make sense of the future, when you don’t even know how you got here?”

Sitting with Dee was indeed insightful. My heart hurt for her. She deeply loves her family. Her life is sadder now. It’s hard.

For her, every day.

Respectfully…

AR for Dee