disorders that can cause dissociation include:

DID

OSDD

PTSD

depression

OCD

BPD

DPDR

anxiety

eating disorders

some people also experience dissociation due to chronic pain

being dissociated can feel like, but is not limited to:

feeling disconnected from the world

feeling "blurry", "buzzy", "foggy", or "out of it"

not feeling any emotions

not feeling any physical pain

not remembering whole periods of time

feeling like you're floating outside of your body

your brain constantly going in and out of focus

dissociation is generally broken down into two categories:

derealisation: the feeling that the world around you is unreal, foggy, or just out of reach

depersonalisation: the feeling of being outside of yourself, or of not feeling real

Empathy: the ability to feel what another person is feeling or to immediately recognise when somebody is feeling a certain way.

Compassion: wanting to support or help somebody.

It’s ironic to me that in order to be seen and treated as fully-formed human beings by others, we have to secretly have empathy. Empathetic people are so keen to psychoanalyse us and tell us that no, actually, we do have empathy, because we are good people, really! It’s just locked away because of trauma or illness! It’s still in there, we promise!

There’s the literal definition to consider, of course - spanking = striking a child with the intent to cause fear and/or pain. And that’s…. hitting….

But here’s the important part: If a child is old enough to understand the distinction between “spanking as a deserved punishment” and “unacceptable physical assault,” they’re old enough to respond to other methods of discipline, so you’re hitting them because you want to hit them. If they’re not old enough to understand that distinction, there’s no point in spanking them and you’re just hitting them because you want to hit them.

Kids aren’t great at understanding cause and effect, especially if it’s displaced over time. A child literally does not consciously understand that cause and effect is even a thing until they’re around 18 months old. Once they develop it, it’s still a pretty limited/immediate understanding until they’re much older. For example, they can understand that if they spit food out, the food isn’t in their mouth anymore, or that if they make grabby hands towards something, somebody will give it to them. But they don’t understand that, say, taking off their clothes will make them uncomfortably cold.

This is because children aren’t really capable of future planning until they’re older. A 2 year old might be able to plan his actions out a few steps in advance (eg, if I climb onto the chair, I can reach my sippy cup that’s on the table and then climb back down), but that’s about it. Kids can conceive of the idea of the future in a more distant sense once they’re about 3 (eg, “when I grow up” and “can I go to grandma’s house tomorrow?”), but the ability to consciously take or not take actions to affect future outcomes doesn’t really develop until they’re about 4 or 5. For example: A child’s ability to delay a small treat now in exchange for a larger treat later improves significantly between the ages of 3 and 5. And delayed gratification tests are testing a good thing vs. a better thing. A good thing vs. the absence of a bad thing later is very different. The first is more concrete and material - do I want one sticker now or two stickers later? The second is more abstract, and plenty of adults struggle with that kind of reasoning. (For example - do I want to go to a party now, or do I want to not have COVID later?)

And then there’s the issue of moral development. Kids don’t even start to understand the idea of “acceptable/unacceptable” behavior in any real sense until they’re about 18 months old. They don’t develop emotions like shame and guilt (which suggest an ability to reflect on their own behavior) until they’re about 3. And most kids don’t internalize any real kind of moral code until they’re about 4 or 5.  

So, at what age should a child be considered old enough to understand the purpose of a spanking and distinguish it from unacceptable physical assault? It depends on the kid, of course, but I’d say no younger than about 4. 

And guess what? All those things that make them able to understand the purpose of a spanking also make them able to understand things like time-out and losing privileges. You can explain things to a 4 year old. They have the ability to engage in logical and moral reasoning. Which means you have options for punishment beyond hitting them. Which means, if you choose to hit them, it’s about you, not the child. You’re either too lazy to discuss a child’s behavior with them, too lazy to enforce other kinds of consequences/use a continuum of consequences, or you’re spanking them for your own emotional catharsis - spanking out of anger, frustration, and vengeance, which changes the spanking from “punishment” to “abuse.” 

And all of this is kind of a moot point because spanking doesn’t even work. It really, actually doesn’t work. It does nothing to cause long-term changes in behavior. This research has been done over, and over, and over again. Spanking can cause immediate changes in behavior, but does nothing to cause long-term changes in behavior, promote moral and ethical development, or improve self-regulation skills. It actually has the opposite effect on self-regulation skills! Children who were spanked are also usually more aggressive, more defiant, commit more anti-social behaviors, and are more likely to develop mental health problems in adulthood. And I promise, whatever “gotcha” you think you have about these results has already been accounted for in the literature (eg, “but what if aggressive, defiant, anti-social kids just get spanked more!”).

Tl;Dr - Spanking is exactly the same thing as hitting your children, because it is completely ineffective as a disciplinary technique. And when it’s not a disciplinary technique, it’s just hitting.