Results of Presentation & My Analysis

Return to main page

Some time has passed since my last update on this page. There hasn't been activity on Miki's Facebook to speak of since January 2024. I filed a second complaint with HUD regarding the apartment that I was in (but I've since moved). The managers of that apartment building wouldn't keep the online payment portal accurate to enable me to use it. (I'm a disabled person by federal law.) I tried everything I could including writing their main office. As was suggested by one of the HUD people, I even obtained a letter from a physician to request reasonable accommodation that stated that I needed to have equal access to technical amenities (i.e., the online payment portal), and I submitted the letter to the managers. They ignored it. They wouldn't remove their signs that threatened hundred dollar fines for trash bags left in trash chute room when the chute was full. (They can demand reimbursement for cleanup cost they incur but of course it would need to be proportionate and not be a direct result of management failing to properly maintain the trash service.) I got the manager to approve my thirty days notice and my reasons listed on it included the statement that the management is violating the lease by threatening the fine. I submitted the signed form to the state. Not one gov't agency employee that I've contacted considers it a problem that the managers violate the lease and feel comfortable with freely admitting it. A HUD employee responded to the complaint with a letter that stated that they were contacting Federal Protective Service to investigate me because of this website. A copy of the letter is below. (Use browser back button to exit image view.)

Text of the letter from HUD (above)

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUUD) administratively enforces the Fair Housing Act (the Act), 42 U.S.C. §3601, et seq., as amended. The Act prohibits discrimination in the sale, rental, and financing of dwellings, and in other housing- related transactions, because of race, color, religion, sex (including gender identity and sexual orientation), familial status, national origin, and disability. On February 5, 2024, our office received the above referenced inquiry you submitted online alleging housing discrimination.

It has come to my immediate attention that you may have engaged in cyberstalking activities related to a member of our staff. While the matter has been referred to Federal Protective Service for investigation, the safety of our employees is of the utmost importance to HUD and our office will take every reasonable precaution in these situations. Your inquiry has been closed and our office is terminating contact with you as of the date of this letter. This decision is final, and HUD will no longer respond to your correspondence or telephone calls about this matter.

You may consult with a private attorney to ascertain any other right of action you may have under federal, state or local laws. Notwithstanding this termination of contact, you have the right to pursue a civil action in an appropriate U.S. district court or state court no later than two (2) years after the occurrence or the termination of an alleged discriminatory housing practice.

I spoke with a young woman with the state who insisted that what happened to Miki has absolutely nothing to do with Deborah Manigault's impartiality and ability to do her work professionally. When I brought all of this up to a woman friend of mine she got indignant and said that I must not understand that Miki is most likely doing just fine. I avoided providing any sort of additional commentary here about Miki and her fate but realized that what she provided us by way of her contribution to social science is too important to overlook.

For a number of years now I've considered myself an advocate for marginalized & vulnerable people, psychologically trauma'd people who've experienced various physical abuse, victims of child abuse, etc., and I made it a point to participate in the mental/behavioral health community and learn from others (peers) as well as the educated professionals who are active in the psychiatry-critical circuit. There are those who refer to themselves as anti-psychiatry but I'm pragmatic and I know there is a distinction between psychology and psychiatry. That difference is an area of misinterpretation (confusion) among people in general. To be brief here, I would state that a reasonable difference is that psychiatry is for people that experience psychological aberration which the person cannot control that poses a physical danger for themselves and/or others. The physical danger part would be contestable since there would be degrees from almost non-existent to extreme, i.e., a depressed person who otherwise poses no threat to themselves or others (the person doesn't want to do anything at all) would still create a physical danger since lack of personal hygiene will create unsafe personal environmental conditions. Eventually other people would need to get involved and be physically subjected to the person's unsanitary domestic environment, etc. Of course it all becomes more complex but what is ignored, by culture's standards, is the person's circumstances in their social (& family) dynamic. Maybe my example depressed person is bombarded with ridicule and contempt by siblings, as an adult, and by extension it's understood that any younger generation in the family is to consider the depressed person as just weak (or whatever), any legitimate real-life reasons for the person's distress, like trauma, grief, etc. is deliberately dismissed. Validation of the person's experience would mean that family members are cruel people and that can't be accepted as true story type thing.

Since I do not have a complete formal education (college degree) in the associated subjects I limited my involvement by not venturing into some aspects of sociology, mainly the human sexuality controversy. I didn't want to be presumptuous by introducing some idea or example that could be gleaned from Miki's suffering. It's really quite obvious that she suffered. It's also obvious that (dare I say) the original goal never materialized for her. I assume that the doctors involved had a future timeline created for Miki to undergo whatever treatments that were (thought to be) necessary for her to complete her transformation. It appears as though she went through initial procedures and there might've been a "cross that bridge when we come to it" attitude as far as financing future medical work that wasn't realistic, or she decided that she didn't want to continue. Of course those two possibilities should have been foreseen by the physicians, and as for the latter it is critical that it is acknowledged that she was under the age of consent but was effectively entered into a legal contract that proved to be a detriment to her physical health.

I realized that what Miki offers us is a way to express and clarify some basic & ancient philosophy and apply the ideas to modern society.

First I'd like to establish my qualifications for continuing with this topic in regards to Miki's circumstances. My lack of college degree is an asset, I'd think, since I'm not merely going to regurgitate some intellectual's textbook description or definition, etc. I have to start from scratch and present an intelligible and acceptable thesis. Everyone inevitably knows some sociology, whether it be accurate or based on some skewed perception, bias, etc. As a person ages they inevitably gain more understanding of material circumstances that people face, their socioeconomic status and so on. People who become interested in true crime events and forensic science as an avocation are more aware of what all that entails, but of course there exists misinterpretation and misperception of people's behavior or reasons for actions undertaken. When there are "crimes" committed by minors there can be vehement reactions and comments from people in the general public that are outrageously calloused and mean. Modern medical science has established that a human's brain isn't fully matured until the age of twenty-five so adolescents can be capable of extreme violence when under duress. All too often it is only the result of their violence that is considered and events leading up to the action is ignored or dismissed. There is a projection (fundamental attribution error) of mature, adult knowledge and reasoning ability onto the minors that is not realistic. Charging and trying minors as adults for murder is an example of the cultural posit. I am convinced that the majority of people don't agree with the practice but are browbeaten and shamed into silence.

Now is a good place to introduce the rudimentary philosophy of Theory of Forms where (basically) there exists a perfect form of whatever idea, entity, etc. and then there is what we have in reality is an imitation of the associated perfect form. It is generalized assessment of a subject that is most often evoked by (relatively) uneducated people where the imitation (reality) form is what is available for people and most people understand that is all they can expect, so work with it as it exists - type thing. There was a time when women who were victims of domestic violence wouldn't be given any consideration for mitigating circumstances (self-defence argument) if they retaliated against their abuser and killed them. The perfect form is the idea that the woman had opportunity to escape an abusive relationship, and the woman's reality was that she was socioeconomically imprisoned. There were a few instances of filicide/suicide committed by mothers who's husbands were devoutly religious and effectively isolated (and scapegoated) their wife. It becomes clear that established laws regarding homicide are not always effective. No, we shouldn't do away with the laws but we can accept the need for government human (social) services and the departments would need to be taxpayer financed. That point is a main topic of contention, in various forms, among citizens in many regions (states & countries) internationally. The perfect form example is the argument that the majority of people don't need a social safety net, gov't welfare assistance, and other associated services so it isn't really fair that their taxes go to fund other people's basic needs. Of course my simple reply to that argument is that there's taxpayer funded deep space exploration that isn't going to be of any substantial benefit to anyone living today, or the future. Deep space travel is a futile pursuit. Colonizing another planet in our solar system is implausible. Much of the research is privately funded anymore, is the conservative argument, and it puts people to work, etc., etc., but my counter-point is that those "private funds" are of corporate origin and businesses are known to exploit human beings so the funding is always off of a poor person's back.

(There are also child tax credits and free public education for children so it's implied that people can't help to have children, or well, they have to, or all of that is really just part of setting up in an intimate relationship that garners cultural sympathy.) Corporations owned by wealthy shareholders got involved with education and there was a time when it was big business to bombard television & radio advertising with guaranteed high paying careers & just sign the dotted line, or what people of a higher caste would dub as predatory lending tactics, but there's double-standards & always the expectancy that people live up to some stereotype even if the paradigm is of a disadvantaged person overcoming their obstacles. (A deciding factor for me to join the military was when a friend was trying to lure me into intravenous drug use and he went on to commit an armed robbery. I worked skilled labor at higher pay but still couldn't afford a car and my own apartment so I was continuously caught up in other peoples' insanity.)

In this I realized that the best reasoning behind the argument that the social services is worthy of taxpayer funding is that there's gov't funded promotion of college education, which is fine, but the reasoning of higher education is to earn more money and less or no physical (manual or skilled) labor, less physical risk, cleaner work environments, etc. The reality is that there are people still doing the more physical work, and often are paid less or even exploited, but their circumstances were not entirely of their own making. The ideology that in this country anyone can become anything & be rich is based on anecdotal evidence and exaggeration. There even exists what I think of as flash-in-the-pan "success" stories where the person's full history (crooked dealings and downfall) is ignored. If the idea then becomes that it's obvious that minority, people of color do deserve equity programs and access to gov't social services (welfare) because of systematic oppression and reduced opportunity, but white people shouldn't qualify, then that is Theory of Forms (generalization) since there were white ethnic groups (i.e., Irish Catholics) that were also exploited. (There are also white people who's families are mostly non-racist but still physically abuse their own children and/or siblings, etc. and those victims are estranged from family support system and can exhibit behavioral quirks as a result of the trauma.) There is a myth that white people will always give other white people preferential treatment (over people of color) but that isn't true. (... And this bit didn't come from me, mind you, but from a short Black man that had a masters degree in social work & decades of experience in the field.) Racist white people will give other racist white people preferential treatment, but if they know/think that the other white person isn't like they are then they might even be tempted to torment (bully) them with the purpose of degrading them. The man I mentioned with the MSW understood that many of his white clients were in the category (demographic) of non-racist who were victimized, sometimes extremely so, for variety of reasons. (In the course of my therapy with a different counselor I talked about a job that I felt forced to quit because I was expected to scapegoat an indigenous man for ten thousand dollars worth of damage caused to a new construction condo by another white employee, a friend of a younger employee who was liked by the crew foreman. There were other instances, events in my life too, where there were violent assaults committed against me because I was alone.)

An ideology that a white person needs to be able to accept other white people's racism (there is a woman who was immensely influential for a time, representing a Republican posit but was being blatantly racist in her social media based free speech) is a case in point. Or Donald Trump's use of the (reserved) word, "lynching" by comparing judicial proceedings to brutal murder that was typically accompanied with the hypocrisy of pious Christianity. "How is he supposed to know that?" would be an obvious retort but Senator Holly Mitchell (of California) referred to the word with the statement: "It's been said that strong words should be reserved for strong concepts, and "lynching" has such a painful history for African Americans that the law should only use it for what it is – murder by mob.". She said that in 2015. See the subheading "State law" in the Wikipedia article: _Lynching_in_the_UnitedStates. My own sister will occasionaly use racial epithets and of course the idea is that I should reinforce her position that her language is acceptable. It becomes a point of attrition meant to desensitize me and of course get me to also so then I wouldn't deserve to have any values or principles of my own. I'd be discredited which justifies any estrangement.

I once heard a man who was in the skilled labor, construction business (owned a roofing company) say that he read an article that was about how there were people who'd migrate to the United States (in our contemporary era) and become millionaires in a relatively short time and he was impressed by their work ethic (basically) and determination. I pointed out to him that there are always the people, from every race or ethnicity, that will have no problem with taking advantage of other people in the pursuit of wealth. That could be part of an inner-group dynamic. People often have ulterior motives and if they have some financial means to assist others then they might also have implied conditions. People who have been abused, traumatized, may have such immense problems with people's lack of awareness and compassion that they can't get along with "regular" people who begin sympathizing with (defending) some person or entity that has historically harmed people in their goal to make a lot of money. I'll cover the point here that people will instinctively defend (or sympathize with) a person or entity that has the most power/wealth, initially, but may change that if they're self-aware and humble. It's been established that young people born into disadvantaged circumstances are often targeted for abuse from peers if they exhibit motivation to escape generational impoverishment. That really doesn't make sense for their overall demographic since there could be improvement for those peers' lives too, but it's jealousy, etc. and as young people they wouldn't have the maturity to understand that aspect. There's instant gratification to be had by bullying someone.

So there exists inner-group oppression, is what I've pointed out. It should be expected that people in an oppressed or exploited demographic (even regular working-class adults since there are people born into generational wealth that will never do any work for pay, somebody has to pick up the slack) ... but it is not uncommon for children of working class people to endure some abuse, to whatever degree, by parents, other family, friends, etc. so there can be lack of compassion for a person who shares that they were, let's say, spanked as a child. Many people will insist that they deserved every spanking that they received. (The Holy Bible even condones it, from what they say, except there's the point that shepards would carry a prodding type of stick/pole to help guide disorientated animals in their flock so maybe that's what the verse means.) I would often hear the old standby adecdote about a boy being told to go get a switch off the tree, like that was the worst thing imaginable, they'd take it back to their pops and he'd test it by hitting the table edge and it'd break. The boy would be sent out to get another and another test would fail. By the end of the third trip it'd be time to go fishing and their pops knew the best spots...

Anyway, I digress...

Initially, people will often side with or defend a person or entity in a position of power in event of being told of an abusive act by someone against someone they care about. It's a natural reaction since the world can't be all that chaotic and arbitrary. (There is feeling of powerlessness, which is also feeling of weakness, that the family member has to overcome themselves.) That concept is referred to as the "Just World" ideology and it becomes apparent in familial conflicts when there is a member who has suffered some kind of trauma but is met with disbelief or denial from family member(s) when reporting the event to them. There is the idea (either explicitly expressed or merely implied) of "what did you do (to deserve that)?", e.g., the child was hit by their teacher so the teacher must've had good reason (for example here) but then the family member might refuse to consider it in any other way. Maybe out of their own shame or embarrassment the family member will not be satisfied until the child (victim) validates that position and allows themselves scapegoated.

What is important here is that in cases of sexual assault that a person may have been a victim of (as an adult, for this example), the family member expresses that disbelief and denial but then would realize the nature of the trauma and feel ashamed of their reaction to the news. The family member then is overwhelmed by conflicting, confusing emotions and a quarrel will ensue that creates an unresolved rift. If the victimized person depends on the family member then they may have no other choice but to forgive the denial and then that could even be taken as "evidence" that the report wasn't entirely factual. The victim is scapegoated. A person could've endured many acts of physical abuse (crimes) against them and instead of receiving family members' sympathy, they are despised and ignored. If the person grows into adulthood and never establishes their own family, and/or lifelong successful career, etc. then the family blames them and will talk about them like they're the most ungrateful people ever to walk the earth. It's just easier (more expedient), that way. Within families there will usually be others with various degrees of sympathy (emotional support) for the opposing sides of the conflict, but some families are so isolated that there would exist nothing but disdain for the victim family member. For a person to remain in such an environment would mean certain early death for them and nothing but misery until then. We use taxpayer money to fund gov't animal control departments that would capture a stray dog and take it to a pound, provide veterinary services, and put the dog up for adoption. A person that has been victimized by other people can receive help by social/human services (kind of entities) or private organizations but only if they can accept being considered as inferior to other citizens.

I'd like to associate another case here, and that is what happened to Jamel Myles. In both cases the person with the identity crisis was a child and the adults involved are completely oblivious to their responsibility. In both cases it's society that's to blame, from what popular consensus says. Anyone who speaks out about either case is risking a: fundamental attribution error regarding their interest or assessment. If a child is abused who has no father, then the mother is at fault for any abuse the child may endure at home if she is the only one there with him. Jamel's mother was not considered abusive but her son didn't put fake nails on himself. He probably insisted(?) but there was a physical action done to him that later caused him distress. As a child, he lacked the foresight and experience to understand that he would be ridiculed. Blaming the other students for not immediately accepting him was not realistic. Other children were scapegoated for his death. Parents will immediately sympathize with other parents and they'll all see children as their adversary. If a childless adult attempts to intervene and explain to the parents that they're in error, then parents in general will all turn on the lone voice and scapegoat the non-parent adult.

What becomes obvious with Miki's case is that a human female's sexuality is more complex than a male's and, whether it's accepted by women or not, human female breasts are both functional and sensual as part of her sexuality. I am sure that I am not the first person to ever point out that blatantly evident fact. If a woman's breast(s) are damaged in some way then it affects the woman emotionally. In any kind of physical injury or permanent damage there is the context of how it was incurred when considering how the woman will process her reality, whether or not she can accept it and find peace. It's obvious that Miki wouldn't be able to since they all blame her. The video linked to above of Miki addressing her maternal grandfather speaks volumes since at her age the man in her life that she had a problem with was her grandpa, she was that isolated.

The other point I'd like to make here (and I probably should expand on this aspect) is that there exists gender jealousy, men are jealous of women's sexuality and vice versa. If you think about that then it's obvious that the jealousy is inherent and biologically necessary for our species to survive. A mature adult, whether fully conscious of it or not, is able to curb their jealousy and be productive, contributing members of society. A mature adult's whole life is not all about their sexuality, but in the cases of transgender experimentaion the person's whole existance is centered around their sexuality, or more accurately, their lack of it, so there exists a preoccupation for them regarding a personal aspect of their lives that they are unable to resolve. They're really incapable of doing anything other than something directly related to their preoccupation, like "advocating" for their "demographic" which really only exists in theory. Equality or not, their mortality is exceptionally high. They can only accept themselves if others accept them, but that is not realistic. The vast majority of transgender people will not die of old age. It becomes blatantly obvious that if a child begins to express the desire for some physical alteration to their body to accommodate their sexuality goals then they need to be relocated to another environment (taken from their parents) even if that means that they'd be institutionalized ... of course the Theory of Forms tells us that is the worst thing ever, but I'd like to point out that with that cultural change there should be coinciding change in the mental health system. I don't mean "throwing money at the problem" but instead working out a way to take advantage of contemporary technology (while acknowledging that the use of technology is dehumanizing in its way) ... but we could utilize the advances in artificial intelligence to help distressed people occupy their time in a constructive fashion for their own peace of mind. Psychological help should concentrate on a person's acceptance of themselves and not be geared toward merely making them a productive citizen. It's a projection onto a person (again, Theory of Forms) that they will find peace and accept themselves if they concentrate on producing (something), making that their goal in life, while their perspective of themselves and their future enjoyment of life is nothing but hopelessness.

holypsych.org

(Screen captures included here in conformance with fair use .)

Return to main page