I have apparently been writing one question from several different directions, and I did not notice because the work does not look related until it is all sitting in one place. A piece about self-awareness grew out of my irritation with people who can explain a trauma response down to the developmental wound, nervous-system activation, attachment pattern, and family history, then do the exact same damaging thing with a more sophisticated vocabulary attached to it. A piece about social media started with a number on a screen and became an argument about everything that number cannot tell us. The thought experiment about killing an innocent baby turned into a much larger problem involving clean hands, distributed responsibility, and the way entire cultures reduce organized harm to one terrible man so everybody standing behind him can look comparatively innocent. Even the horror review wandered away from whether a movie was technically good and into what it means for a story to portray trauma with enormous care while treating a nearly all-White world as neutral reality. These are not interchangeable subjects, and I am not interested in stretching them until every disagreement, social problem, coping mechanism, and casting decision becomes evidence of one universal theory. That would be convenient, but it would also be nonsense. What keeps repeating is not the answer. It is the question I seem unable to leave alone: what are we allowing the visible part of a problem to prove, and what does that proof excuse us from having to examine underneath it? I understand why we do it. A visible sign is cooperative. It sits still long enough to be counted, named, punished, removed, or displayed in a diversity report.
I have watched queer communities spend years arguing for the basic right to exist without being treated like a public threat, a diagnostic problem, or somebody else's moral emergency. We have had to explain, repeatedly and with far more patience than the subject deserves, that identity is not predation, that consensual relationships between adults are not a danger to children, and that queer youth do not become less real because an adult is uncomfortable with the language they use for themselves. So I understand why people become defensive when anyone starts drawing lines around who belongs beneath the queer umbrella. Those lines have historically been drawn by people who wanted most of us erased.
That history does not require us to abandon discernment. In fact, it should make us better at it. Queer liberation is rooted in bodily autonomy, self-determination, mutual recognition, and the right to move through the world without another person claiming ownership over your body or your development. An adult sexualizing a minor requires the opposite arrangement. It depends on an adult treating developmental vulnerability as access, confusing attention with consent, and assigning their own desire more authority than a child's safety. Calling that desire an identity does not change the structure underneath it. It only gives entitlement a more politically convenient outfit. 
I know entirely too many people who are certain they would have stopped history’s worst men, although the imagined intervention usually happens after the man is already recognizable enough to hate and before stopping him requires anything morally complicated. Everyone wants to believe they would have resisted the dictator, exposed the colonizer, refused the order, hidden the family, challenged the propaganda, or somehow become the one person in the room whose moral clarity survived the exact social pressure that compromised almost everyone else. It is a comforting version of ourselves, mostly because hindsight hands us the consequences before asking what we would have done. We know which speeches became policy, which prejudices became law, which administrative decisions eventually led to camps, severed families, emptied villages, stolen land, forced labor, and bodies counted in numbers too large for the human mind to hold properly. But suppose history does not give you the adult. Suppose it gives you a baby, entirely innocent, incapable of understanding the future attached to him, and tells you with absolute certainty that this child will become one of those men. Not possibly. Not because he has a difficult temperament, questionable genetics, an abusive father, a collection of childhood wounds, or whatever developmental explanation people might use to make destiny sound scientific.
I do not understand when self-awareness became a hall pass, but somewhere between everybody discovering their attachment style and “protecting my peace” becoming the socially acceptable way to abandon any conversation that might require accountability, we started treating the ability to explain a pattern like proof that we had changed it. We can name the trigger, identify the wound, explain what our nervous systems are doing, trace the whole thing back through generations of people who were also surviving on repression, denial, and whatever coping mechanism happened to be legal and available at the time; then the wound gets touched and we do the exact same shit. We disappear, control, punish, lash out, overexplain, withhold, accuse, or say something specifically designed to make another person carry what we cannot tolerate feeling in ourselves, and afterward we offer a disturbingly accurate explanation as though accuracy somehow makes the damage less real. I say this as someone who has spent nearly two decades in behavioral health and an unreasonable amount of time dissecting my own reactions, because I can explain myself. I can explain myself into the ground. I can tell you why conflict makes my body respond before my conscious mind has finished processing the first sentence, why certain silences feel dangerous, why my instinct is sometimes to get ahead of rejection before rejection gets ahead of me; none of that automatically means I respond well when it happens. It means I know what I am looking at, which is important, because language can be the first thing that separates a survival response from the belief that we are simply defective, dramatic, needy, lazy, cold, irrational, or whatever else someone called us when our pain inconvenienced them. But there is a point where understanding becomes another place to hide.
Somewhere along the way, screen time became the explanation for nearly everything adults find concerning about young people. The missing homework, the irritability, the inability to transition, the sleep problems, the argument that happened when the phone was taken away, all of it gets folded into whatever number appears on the weekly report as though the device has produced a diagnosis instead of a rough estimate of how long the screen was active. In my experience, once that number enters the conversation, the actual behavior tends to disappear behind it. We stop asking what the young person is doing online, what they are getting from it, what happens when they try to stop, or whether the screen is causing the problem, intensifying it, or simply providing the most visible place for an existing problem to go. I understand why people cling to the number. Numbers feel objective, and families who are already overwhelmed want something concrete enough to restrict, monitor, and blame. The problem is that whatever is easiest to measure is not automatically what explains the behavior. Sometimes it is simply the part we can see without having to understand the rest.
Puberty Blockers, Recorded Distress, and the Politics of Pretending Not to Know
The demand for more evidence would be easier to take seriously if new evidence ever changed the argument. Instead, every study on gender-affirming care is dropped into the same exhausting cycle: the sample is too small, the follow-up is too short, the people studied are too specific, the results are self-reported, the researchers are biased, or the entire medical field has somehow been tricked into participating in a coordinated attack on children. Then a nationwide study using the insurance records of 231,783 young people comes along, and suddenly the problem is that insurance records cannot tell us enough about the people behind them. That criticism is not entirely wrong, but the pattern is difficult to ignore. No evidence is ever quite good enough when the conclusion interferes with what people have already chosen to believe. The study, published in JAMA Network Open on July 17, 2026, found that transgender youth had much higher recorded rates of mood disorders and suicidal thoughts and behaviours than cisgender youth, while puberty-blocker treatment was associated with lower adjusted odds of both among transgender youth. That does not mean puberty blockers are a miracle, nor does it answer every question surrounding their long-term use, but it does complicate the popular claim that this care is obviously creating the mental-health crisis surrounding transgender children.
We grow up hearing that gender is “just how things are.” Many people still assume masculinity and femininity follow naturally from biology. That assumption holds only when gender is observed at the surface level. When we look closer—across history, across cultures, across experiences—the neat divide begins to blur. What appears to be an innate truth reveals itself as a social script written and re‑written to fit particular times and power structures. Contemporary research distinguishes sex (biological traits) from gender (social and structural expectations) and emphasizes that their influence on human behaviour and health must be investigated empirically rather than assumed[1]. Recognizing gender as constructed does not trivialize it; it makes its construction visible and therefore contestable.
There is a point where “mismanagement” stops being a useful word.
At a certain point, you are no longer looking at a country that simply got a few things wrong. You are looking at a system that has become so attached to its own cruelty, so committed to its own bad logic, that it keeps choosing the version that hurts people most and then acting like this is just the weather. It is not weather. It is architecture. Extraction is not a glitch in the American experiment; it is the original blueprint. I need people to stop pretending otherwise. Because even if you strip all the morality out of it—even if you look at this in the coldest capitalist terms possible—the whole thing still does not make sense. That is the part that should embarrass everybody in charge. Not just that it is cruel, but that it is stupid. It is structurally stupid. It is the kind of stupid that should have been ruled out by basic survival instinct ten years ago, and yet here we are, still being told to clap for it. A society cannot treat human beings like expendable fuel and then act baffled when the engine starts failing. You cannot demand endless output from people you deliberately starve of healthcare, education, rest, and security, and then blame those people for not producing miracles on command. That is not governance. That is an abusive relationship with a national anthem. 
I don’t understand, and I don’t think I’m meant to. There is a specific kind of exhaustion that comes with trying to make sense of a world designed to keep its gears turning at the expense of your own sanity. We are conditioned to accept the grinding noise of systemic failure as background hum, taught to look past the chains on our own perception so we can keep playing our parts in the simulation. I’ve reached a point where I can no longer ignore the friction between the humanity I know exists and the cold, mechanical reality we are forced to inhabit.
In the house where I grew up, “diversity” wasn’t a celebrated buzzword or some noble ideal to be embraced; it was treated like a dirty word, something suspect, something inconvenient, something that threatened the illusion of order my family so desperately wanted to preserve. It was a threat to a very specific, very rigid status quo, one that demanded a performance I could not, and would not, give. On a daily basis, I was interrogated about why I couldn’t just be “normal,” a question that carries its own kind of quiet violence because it is never really a question at all. It is an accusation dressed up as concern. It is a demand that you shrink yourself until you become manageable. I was shamed and derided every single time I reached for any semblance of authenticity, every time I let some honest part of myself surface in a room that had no interest in honesty unless it was convenient. It’s a strange thing to realize that your own family views your intrinsic self—the way your brain actually processes the world, the way you move through it, the way you survive it—as a personal affront to their comfort. In that environment, my neurodivergence was never understood as a different way of being. It was treated like a defect of character, a moral failure, a deliberate refusal to comply with a system that was never built to accommodate me in the first place.
|
Sheena MonsterThey/Them/Theirs 
Naming the things that society works hardest to ignore, to reclaim the humanity stripped by systemic deception.
FeaturesCategories
All
Book Drive
The Page Turner
Show Your Support |
RSS Feed