[stopdog]

And vice versa.

I was at a religious ceremony for someone this week, and the clergy person who was speaking to the ceremony recipient and said "I am your [clergyperson type] and so blah blah blah." And it struck me as creepy. I have never thought of a clergy person as mine in any sense other than they might be the clergy person hired or assigned to a place and I go to that place (I am an Atheist but was raised by people who followed a religion). I rarely refer to any professional as "my X."
Which is also how I see the therapists. And it sort of creeps me out when they refer to themselves as being "your therapist" - I usually remind them I am not all that possessive of them and see multiple ones. It is usually used in a sense of it mattering somehow (one has even said "tell Y your therapist said X" - she only made that mistake with me once).
And of course it comes up here that people refer to the therapist as theirs. And I don't know if people use the phrase as simply a shorthand to mean the therapist they see. Or if the possessive carries weight. I am not even sure if I am conveying what I am trying to ask.

[Leah123]

I always considered it just a form of shorthand: the therapist that I see is clunkier. I believe that's a commonplace usage- everyone I can think of does the same for all types of providers and institutions- my doctor, my dentist, my teacher, my hairdresser, my church, my school, my office, etc.

[stopdog]

Ah. I rarely do it for any non-close person. My partner, my sibling, my friend. All the others are usually not my X.
But the way the therapist has used it at me and the way the clergy person used it, sounded like they thought there was some weight attached.

The possessive doesn't hold emotional value for me in this context. I use it as shorthand. It's usually easier than saying, the therapist I see. I do the same for insurance company, credit union, mechanic.

[kororain]

I refer to mine as "The Lady" when she comes up in conversation.

[archipelago]

I think I understand because of the clergy example, which would also make me feel weirded out. I have had a Zen master as a teacher and referred to her as "my teacher," which is partly the traditional way, but also marks off a certain type of relationship which is very private and personal.

I guess that is how people may view therapists. Of course no therapist is "theirs" because that therapist has private, personal relationships with all clients. Perhaps people just use it because it is difficult to word it otherwise?

At times when I refer to the person I see, I use the possessive for a particular reason that may not come across. I mean it to mark him off as different. He is an exception in most terms, for better or worse. So it means that he is this way but that that may be atypical so I don't want it to be generalized.

[stopdog]

The one once wrote me, after injuring herself and needing to cancel appointments, something about "your therapist is a klutz" which I though was an extremely odd way of putting it - instead of "I am a klutz"

[rainbow8]

When I, and most people, in my opinion, use the term "my", they don't mean it in any sense other than "the person who is in that capacity", as "my T", "my lawyer", "my doctor", "my contractor", "my friend", "my grandson", "my accountant". It's just the way most people talk and is not possessive in the way you are suggesting.

Originally Posted by stopdog

The one once wrote me, after injuring herself and needing to cancel appointments, something about "your therapist is a klutz" which I though was an extremely odd way of putting it - instead of "I am a klutz"

Okay, yeah. That would bother me.

[vonmoxie]

There's someone on here and I can't think of who it is, that refers to their therapist as "Madame T." I rather like that moniker, since it can refer to many different outlooks on the relationship, and therefore means nothing in particular.

stopdog--did you think she was trying to get you on board with the possessive lingo? Or just likes talking about herself in the third person..

[stopdog]

Originally Posted by archipelago

I think I understand because of the clergy example, which would also make me feel weirded out. I have had a Zen master as a teacher and referred to her as "my teacher," which is partly the traditional way, but also marks off a certain type of relationship which is very private and personal.

This is how I read it when others use "my therapist."

Like somehow the position carries weight.

[precaryous]

"My therapist" does have emotional value for me now that I have formed a sort of attachment with her. I understand that everyone might not feel this way. Before the attachment I still might have referred to her as "my therapist" or "my psychologist."

"My pastor" has emotional value to me- when I am speaking of my pastor. However, if an unfamiliar clergy said, "I am your "clergy person," I ignore it.

[unaluna]

The clergyman sounds like a salesman trying to retain a customer by personalizing the transaction, which seems disingenuous (ie fake) to me because we would get attached to priests and nuns and other personnel at church and then be told it was pretty much too bad for us when they got transferred. So wtf.

As for the t being a klutz, i would say she was taking poetic license writing about herself in the third person, probably to entertain herself as she ploughed through the stack of tedious and unending correspondence required by the incident.

[UnderRugSwept]

It's just like my dentist or my dr...for me it doesn't really mean anything else other than it's the easiest way of referring to them.

[stopdog]

Originally Posted by hankster

The clergyman sounds like a salesman trying to retain a customer by personalizing the transaction, which seems disingenuous (ie fake) to me because we would get attached to priests and nuns and other personnel at church and then be told it was pretty much too bad for us when they got transferred. So wtf.

As for the t being a klutz, i would say she was taking poetic license writing about herself in the third person, probably to entertain herself as she ploughed through the stack of tedious and unending correspondence required by the incident.

No that was not the way the clergyperson was acting or sounding in person. It was like they were personally involved somehow.
And the second was just one example out of a whole host of others I could have used.

I don't think I have conveyed what I mean.
For me, using my therapist would not convey the correct meaning. And it concerns me even more to have the therapist use "my" at me. They are someone I consult. I am not their anything.

[unaluna]

Originally Posted by stopdog

No that was not the way the clergyperson was acting or sounding in person. It was like they were personally involved somehow.
And the second was just one example out of a whole host of others I could have used.

I don't think I have conveyed what I mean.

I think its having a particular meaning for you just now, given the circumstances. When the family was knocking at MY door last week, i told t more than once, "thats MY effing door." I dont usually love my door that much.

[UnderRugSwept]

I think a lot of clergymen (and women) probably do feel personally involved. I have been around a lot of churchgoing people who refer to church they attend as "my church" and the pastor as "my pastor." I think it's about a sense of belonging/community, and they like to feel as if they have a clergy man or woman as a leader. They find these things comforting somehow.
I am not saying the whole thing isn't totally creepy to me, because it is.

It definitely doesn't denote possession for me when I say that. What it does denote is the fact that I always see this particular T; hence, I'd say "my dentist" because I always see the same one, but not "my dermatologist" because the three times I've been to see a dermatologist I've seen different people. I might talk about "my students", and "my high-school English teacher" in exactly the same way, but I don't own any of these people. I even say "my husband", and I certainly don't own him!

Swedish works in the same way, except that the alternative to a construction with a possessive is even clumsier, so the element of ownership implicit in the "my" is even weaker.

I think it is very unfortunate that basic English grammars always say "Possessives show ownership", even though in the majority of cases, possessives simply indicate an assymetric relationship that has nothing to do with actual ownership.

[Restin]

Before I got into the Transference relationship, it was "the therapist". After that it was 'My therapist".

[AustenFan]

Stopdog, don't you think your students and your clients refer to YOU as their professor/lawyer?? I certainly would! "I have a meeting with my professor this afternoon to go over the test." "I have an appointment with my lawyer this morning." Why would anyone say "I have a meeting with a professor at the school to go over a test." Or "I have an appointment with a lawyer." I mean, why would anyone see just ANY teacher or lawyer? They see their OWN teacher or lawyer (once established...if shopping around for a lawyer they may say they are merely seeing A lawyer as opposed to THEIR lawyer).

And you ARE people's lawyer and teacher. It doesn't mean they own you and it doesn't mean anything special. But these people have paid tuition or legal fees and therefore you 'belong' to them in a professional capacity. You aren't held captive and you could be replaced, but unless you bail on them you ARE their teacher or lawyer. And unless you quit therapy with your two Ts they ARE *your* therapists, as well as other people's therapists. You have HIRED them to be YOUR therapist. You can each quit on each other, there is no legal obligation, although on the therapist's end there is a bit of a moral obligation.

I realize the clergy reference carried stronger meaning, but you said you don't refer to ANYONE as 'my' except close friends and family. I think most people do refer to the people they hire as 'theirs' and refer to them as 'my hair dresser' or 'my plumber'.

When referring to the therapist I see... I say my T as it flows easier...

But I do refer to my pastor as "my" pastor. Sometimes it's just because it's easier then saying the pastor at my church.... But with some of my pastors, I have had a special relationship with...and like a T it's different..it's not a mutual friendship..it's like a Zen Master thing." And so if either of those 2 pastors were doing my funeral or something...it wouldn't be creepy to say they were my pastor.... But I have had others where I just sit in the pew and hear preach and I have no "relationship"with and so that would feel creepy for me cause I would be thinking you don't even know me. (Thinking from beyond...lol)

Nope, no possessiveness or emotionality tied into my use of "my therapist." I use it simply because saying or writing, "the person I see for therapy." or "the psychologist I see" is just too cumbersome. The only time I think the use of "my" is possessive or tied to emotion is when I refer to close friends and family. I don't think I'd be bothered by a clergy or doctor ect. saying, "your minister" or "your doctor" because I guess I'd view it as they were using the same way I do.

[stopdog]

I do not find it cumbersome and I believe use of the therapist to be more accurate for me. It actually would not occur to me to use my in referring to the woman.
Also - in the examples of the clergy and the therapist in speaking to me - it was not being used as a casual reference. The possessive was being used specifically for a reason.

[Rapunzel]

The possessive form doesn't mean that one person owns another, but it does imply that there is a relationship between the two people. It doesn't say anything about what type of relationship it is. Professional relationships are relationships, and for most people a relationship with a therapist does get close and personal. That is how therapy works best.

For example, there are a lot of banks. My bank is the bank that I have a relationship or an account with. There are a lot of people who are friends. If I refer to someone as my friend, then I feel that we have a connection. Lots of people are fathers. There is only one who is my father, as I only have that relationship with one person. I know a lot of therapists. I am a therapist. My therapist would be the one that I have a therapeutic relationship with as opposed to the collegial relationship that I have with many therapists. There are a lot of churches. My church is the one that I belong to - I certainly don't own it, and I'm not the founder of it or anything particularly important - just a member.

A lot of people do have a close working relationship with religious leaders too. My bishop does have some specific authority and stewardship over me because I am a member of his congregation. I'm not sure if he remembers my name at this point - it is a new congregation and although I feel like I know him because I see and hear him in a lot of meetings, I haven't had a lot of one on one interactions with him yet. He is still my bishop because that relationship exists.

I don't find this creepy at all. It is just a way of specifying that there is a connection or relationship. If you find it creepy, maybe you have some issues with connection or relationships, and that might be something to explore a bit further.

[stopdog]

I never said it meant ownership and certainly not literal ownership. Just a sense of possessiveness that implies a closer relationship than I find accurate for me when dealing with a stranger, which is what a therapist is to me.
I am not concerned about how I relate to others. I am pretty much fine with how I do it.