Seeing Is More Than Believing

How People Misinterpret the Meaning of Gender

The executive order, which Trump signed after promising in his inauguration speech that it would be U.S. policy “that there are only two genders,” also ordered trans women into male prisons and a halt in the issuance of passports with an “X” gender marker, sparking fear in trans people across the country about their legal status. 

While the administration claims the move is a return to “biological facts,” experts say it ignores both biological and historical reality — that humans have never fit into just two sexes or two genders.

“The terminology could be new, people’s awareness could be new, but the idea or the practice of changing gender is hardly new. It is observed in every time period in U.S. history,” said Jules Gill-Peterson, an associate professor of history at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore.

“Gender” refers to how someone identifies and represents themselves in society.

When asked about Trump’s executive orders, Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre said he was “only aware of two” genders, adding that he believes the government should let people “make their own personal decisions.”

The regression we’re seeing now is “staggering,” they said. 

“That kind of psychological burden of being told that what you are is impossible – it’s hard to overstate, really.”

People often misinterpret the meaning of things at earlier stages of psychological development because they lack the life experiences to be fully aware of the depth of understanding of things and thus they don’t perceive them properly. In other words, they have a very narrow view of the world (aka worldview) and are considered ignorant due to this lack of awareness.

At the same time, even when a person achieves a somewhat mature stage of development in their life, they can often regress back to an earlier level of consciousness due to the fear they may be experiencing from conflict or uncertainty in the world around them. A perfect example of this is what occur in both America and Germany prior to World War II.

This articles highlights this as it shows how most people often misinterpret what gender means.

What’s remarkable from the article is Canadian Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre inadvertently highlighting his own lack of awareness due to his beliefs and then showing how he is misinterpreting the meaning of gender as “society deciding the gender of individuals” (i.e. “people make their own personal decisions” of what gender means societally for someone else) rather than “individuals choosing their own gender themselves, regardless of what society believes it should be.”

Responding Strategically vs Reacting Tactically

Both challenges stem from our growing inability to see beyond the immediate, to understand complex patterns, and to think strategically rather than just react tactically.

Steve Caplan
How to revive strategic thinking in an age of digital outrage

But here’s the irony — and the opportunity. The very human capacity for strategic thinking that we’re in danger of losing is exactly what we need to address these challenges. Real strategy — the kind that comes from experience, insight, and understanding human dynamics — is what separates successful crisis response from digital chaos, and effective governance from populist reaction.

What we need now isn’t just better plays within the old rulebook — or wild throws hoping for miracle catches. The game itself has fundamentally changed, and with it, our need for a different kind of strategic thinking.

The strategic thinking I learned in those early campaign days wasn’t just about careful advancement — it was about seeing the whole field, understanding the human dynamics at play, and recognizing patterns that others missed.

The philosophers who wrote amid the chaos of the mid-20th century weren’t just documenting their moment. They were providing frameworks for navigating fundamental change while preserving what matters most. Their insights remind us that strategic thinking isn’t just a set of tactical tools — it’s a fundamentally human capacity that becomes most crucial precisely when the old rules no longer apply.

Setting Intentions of Becoming vs Goals of Doing

This Year, Try Setting Intentions Instead of Goals
Goals are about what you want to do. Intentions are about who you want to be and why you chose your goals in the first place. The distinction goes deeper than meets the eye.
www.verticaldevelopment.education

As years went by, I stopped setting goals and started setting intentions instead. Who am I hoping to become versus what am I planning to do?

Alis Anagnostakis, PhD
This Year, Try Setting Intentions Instead of Goals

I have found playing with intentions (versus goals) to be quite a powerful developmental exercise. It freed me up to become more attuned to the role synchronicity plays in life. I’m less concerned with rigid steps and plans of action and more open to stepping in a direction generally aligned with my intentions while welcoming opportunities when they arise.

Privileging intentions over goals has also helped keep me honest, as it’s always forcing me to ask myself: Why is this important to me? Why do I want this? What do I stand to lose if I fail to achieve this? How is this aligned with my deepest values? Who am I becoming as I make this decision?

I’ve heard Richard Barrett speak before of setting intentions versus goals and how goals actually limit your potentiality, whereas intentions leave us open to opportunities we may not have planned for, letting unexpected synchronicities play a part in our lives.

What Alis is talking about above aligns with this.

This seems to be more important now in my life as I play with shifting between a self-authoring mind to a self-transforming mind.