Is it bad that my trauma defines me? That’s the hegemonic narrative. You shouldn’t let your trauma/disability/disease/loss/tragedy define you. But why not? I get it’s not ideal to have it as your master identity, but if it’s a huge part of your life and impacts how your life’s turned out? Why not let it define you.
I think sometimes phrases like this invent non-problems.
because it's not actually clear what it's saying anyway.
what IS not being defined by trauma? is it living without limitation? is it seeming unaffected? is it not repeating your trauma onto others? is being able to enjoy aspects of life despite it? is it knowing that how it limits you interpersonally doesn't make you a bad person? is it something attainable or not?
it has different connotations and meanings to everyone. some very negative ("you should not be affected by life affecting thing. don't be sad."), others not.
how helpful is it to think about whether this kind of abstract concept of "being defined" applies to you or not, as someone with something that affects you holistically.
what really is the difference between something naturally changing/having an affect on you and it defining you ? If I lose a leg and my outlook on things changes and many aspects of me and how I live change/adapt to it, is that being defined or not? if it is, and that's a bad thing, then not being defined means not reacting to anything.
in my mind I'm just living my life (as a traumatised person), trying my best to manage and understand how the past impacts me. That's it really.
I don't like delving into / grieving too much who I could've been without it, because this is my life. this is how it is. I grieve that it happened, because it's all terrible, but I don't want to start thinking I have to strive to... achieve a life where it's as if it never happened. it's a big ask, and that's not the goal, it's helping the aspects of trauma that negatively impact me to heal so it's easier. Not to in effect rewrite history.
there's 101 things about me that are because of my history that aren't hurting me too. we are the sum of
all our experiences and I think the focus should be on what experiences and ideas we pass onto others/re-inflict on ourselves and which we don't. because we can't cherry pick anything, I cant just be me-sans-trauma; I process one thing and loads of stuff changes, I change. humans aren't static. you cant just lop off the bad stuff like an isolated node.
but then maybe it's about not being stuck or giving up? like you can still have things to live for and knowing things can change for the better.
I dont know, I think it's redundant, I think it's weird way of looking at/understanding trauma.
but maybe with the age of the internet and people making trauma their personality, then it is something to think about for some people? or for people who treat others how they were treated and need to realise that's a taught thing that can be changed, and is not immovable.
I get it’s not ideal to have it as your master identity
this kind of thing. my trauma informs my entire life and probably every aspect of me but I don't sum myself up as a as a rape victim (or a CSA survivor or whatever) first and foremost... if I approach life like that's the main aspect of me, it's fixed, in my mind, that I'll be *this* traumatised forever, and I'm not. different bits are gonna get better and worse and constantly are, so why put it on a pedestal and base my core identity off of the scale of my suffering? what am I gonna do when bits change unexpectedly? if I start feeling better in some way am I going to feel like Im losing myself? paradoxically it's already complicated and difficult without that, to feel better.
www.purposefullivingnyc.com
. 
