Thread split from what gender are you internally: Is transgenderism/gender dysphoria a mental illnes

[ProxyAmenRa]

You are either male (XY) or female (XX). Everything else is a mental illness. This does not mean that you can't be a feminine male or a masculine female.

 

[Cherry Cola]

Re: What Gender Are You Internally?

Yeah just like homosexuality is pathological, ie because your interpretation of science is idealistic. Our biological origins interpreted in a prescriptive and not merely descriptive sense, the 2 common sexes traditionally manifested being the right ones and the other ones wrong. Because all that defies order in favour of empathy must be branded. Never mind that there's nothing scientific about calling transgenderism mental illness (whether or not something is branded as pathological or not doesn't depends on how it is viewed in its cultural context when it comes to mental phenomena) and its just a really shity way of enforcing and giving creedence to evil shity behavior towards vulnerable people for something they can't help, what important is that the relativists, the liberals and the feminists take a punch.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

Re: What Gender Are You Internally?

Just because they are mentally ill doesn't mean they should be treated poorly. At the same time I don't think people should be celebrating mental illness as a lifestyle. The main reason being is that mental illness leads to a poorer quality life which in turn results in additional mental illnesses. They people need help from qualified mental health professionals whom don't facilitate the mental illness.

 

[Cherry Cola]

Re: What Gender Are You Internally?

Just because they are mentally ill doesn't mean they should be treated poorly. At the same time I don't think people should be celebrating mental illness as a lifestyle. The main reason being is that mental illness leads to a poorer quality life which in turn results in additional mental illnesses. They people need help from qualified mental health professionals whom don't facilitate the mental illness.

I know but calling transgenderism mental illness will lead to just that irregardless. Moreover where is the data purporting that it can be cured, that quality of life may be improved through therapy turning trans people cis? Afaik it doesn't quite work like that.

 

[Jennywocky]

Re: What Gender Are You Internally?

You are either male (XY) or female (XX). Everything else is a mental illness. This does not mean that you can't be a feminine male or a masculine female.

Leave the doctoring to doctors.

 

[Vrecknidj]

Re: What Gender Are You Internally?

You are either male (XY) or female (XX). Everything else is a mental illness.

I'm surprised by this. There are quite a few other alternatives present in the vast array of human beings.

At the very least...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3314712/

and

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20014367

and

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20014371

 

[Cherry Cola]

Re: What Gender Are You Internally?

I didn't bother pointing that out because there's a counterargument.
Those are abnormalities and not actual sexes because they are uncommon and the people of such supposed sexes are either unable to or inefficient at reproducing the way people of real sexes are. If those abnormalities are to be considered actual sexes then the meaning of the word sex is changed and diluted just to serve the whims of feminism. The same happens when transgendered people are considered genuine members of the opposite sex.

Basically it comes down whether or not we should have a somewhat oversimplified yet clear definition of sex ie male/female or a more humanitarian and nuanced one which is less clear cut.
I think the better route is to use a humanitarian one, since words are pretty fucking powerful and do affect the way people interpret reality. I don't really see why it's so important that sex=male/female only.

 

[TBerg]

Re: What Gender Are You Internally?

I could argue that sex changes are attempts by the Left to cure people of cisnormativity, but that would be too silly.

 

[onesteptwostep]

Re: What Gender Are You Internally?

There's this quote that I like:

"What's so masculine or feminine about a mountain or a tree? They have characteristics, both masculine or feminine which allot for their respective beauties" (or was something akin to that)

A tree has a sturdy and upright trunk, though its branches wave in quiet serenity. A mountain is somewhat the same.

But yes, sexual identity is another matter though, we should be careful not to muddle them up. Gender orientation doesn't always dictate sexual orientation.

 

[Fukyo]

Re: What Gender Are You Internally?

You are either male (XY) or female (XX).

Actually, that's biologically untrue.

http://www.nature.com/news/sex-redefined-1.16943

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_chromosome_disorders (some of these are more common than you'd think)

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

Re: What Gender Are You Internally?

Leave the doctoring to doctors.

I am a doctor.

I know but calling transgenderism mental illness will lead to just that irregardless. Moreover where is the data purporting that it can be cured, that quality of life may be improved through therapy turning trans people cis? Afaik it doesn't quite work like that.

Many mental illnesses can't be cured such as borderline personality disorder.

Actually, that's biologically untrue.

http://www.nature.com/news/sex-redefined-1.16943

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_chromosome_disorders (some of these are more common than you'd think)

I am aware that there are genetic abnormalities out there.

 

[Fukyo]

Re: What Gender Are You Internally?

I am aware that there are genetic abnormalities out there.

I doubt you read the links.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

Re: What Gender Are You Internally?

I doubt you read the links.

You should doubt your doubts.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

Re: What Gender Are You Internally?

So, good, so you treat gender dysphoric patients?
Where do you practice?

I don't treat people with mental illnesses.

 

[Jennywocky]

Re: What Gender Are You Internally?

I don't treat people with mental illnesses.

Oh, I see, so you're not a relevant doctor.
So let the relevant doctors do the doctoring, eh?

(BTW it's not considered a "mental illness" by the professionals anyway, at this stage of study and understanding. But of course you wouldn't know that, as it's not your area of specialty.)

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

Re: What Gender Are You Internally?

Oh, I see, so you're not a relevant doctor.
So let the relevant doctors do the doctoring, eh?

You asked if I am a doctor. Well, yes, I am a doctor.

(BTW it's not considered a "mental illness" by the professionals anyway, at this stage of study and understanding. But of course you wouldn't know that, as it's not your area of specialty.)

This is probably due to an overreach of political correctness.

 

[Lapis Lazuli]

Re: What Gender Are You Internally?

The problem with the Cartesian paradigm:

Is this woman a cat because, maybe, she feels like a cat, or at the very least wants to look like a cat?

[BIMG]http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_YKYinnCIcVw/S-pdnE2DxDI/AAAAAAAAFOY/Jj62Hu6T49Y/s1600/CatWomanPlasticSurgery.jpg[/BIMG]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jocelyn_Wildenstein

 

[Jennywocky]

Re: What Gender Are You Internally?

The problem with the Cartesian paradigm:

Is this woman a cat because, maybe, she feels like a cat, or at the very least wants to look like a cat?

[BIMG]http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_YKYinnCIcVw/S-pdnE2DxDI/AAAAAAAAFOY/Jj62Hu6T49Y/s1600/CatWomanPlasticSurgery.jpg[/BIMG]

There's no biological mechanism for a human being to genetically become (partially or wholly) a cat.

However, biological sex and gender traits can be generated biologically just by changing body chemistry at key points in development. (In other words, much of the variation is just a type of "intersex" effect, some overt, some more covert but still biologically rooted...)

So cat-woman isn't really a valid comparison. We have biological mechanisms in place that can result in a human being of either sex karotype to appear at various places along a spectrum gender-wise.

 

[Lapis Lazuli]

Re: What Gender Are You Internally?

How do I know what a man feels like, when I only know what I feel like and biologically I am a man?

 

[Jennywocky]

Re: What Gender Are You Internally?

How do I know what a man feels like, when I only know what I feel like and biologically I am a man?

What's that have to do whatsoever with my comment? We can observe physical changes, and body/brain priming happens through hormones in any species, include with gender.

(Besides, every cisgen typically has a routinely ingrained gender identity that they automatically assume conforms to their bio gender. To be honest, no one knows what anyone else "feels like" -- they just know what they "feel like" -- but that doesn't automatically make it invalid.)

 

[Lapis Lazuli]

Re: What Gender Are You Internally?

I wouldn’t invalidate the feelings of anyone with this sort of outlook, and by the same token, I wouldn’t validate it either. Its status is problematic, but that is not enough from keeping people from talking about it as if it were so obvious.

Ever hear of the Trojan Horse: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartesian_theater

 

[Cherry Cola]

Re: What Gender Are You Internally?

Stop fucking disgressing constantly, if you start something finish it rather than use it to show-off your intellectual prowess to people who won't be impressed anyway


There's nothing cool about the fact that you can find some sort of connection between two subjects which isn't apparent to other people, even though you try to make it so by casually jumping from one to the other. Too flashy and shallow, explain instead.

 

[Sinny91]

Re: What Gender Are You Internally?

Stop fucking going off on tangents constantly, if you start something finish it rather than use it to show-off your intellectual prowess to people who won't be impressed anyway

I think you're barking up the forum

 

[Cherry Cola]

Re: What Gender Are You Internally?

Yeah I am

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

Re: What Gender Are You Internally?

I wouldn’t invalidate the feelings of anyone with this sort of outlook, and by the same token, I wouldn’t validate it either. Its status is problematic, but that is not enough from keeping people from talking about it as if it were so obvious.

Ever hear of the Trojan Horse: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartesian_theater

Is it another derail in the making? *ponders*

The fact that experiences are partly subjective and cannot be proven to be identical, doesn't stop people from deriving useful data from discussions of these. Stating the obvious over and over doesn't do any good here.

It's long been shown that you can average (find a median of) human perceptions of well being or their judgments and you will have a meaningful information about the majority of them.

 

[Lapis Lazuli]

Re: What Gender Are You Internally?

Stop fucking disgressing constantly, if you start something finish it rather than use it to show-off your intellectual prowess to people who won't be impressed anyway


There's nothing cool about the fact that you can find some sort of connection between two subjects which isn't apparent to other people, even though you try to make it so by casually jumping from one to the other. Too flashy and shallow, explain instead.

If I wanted to impress you Cherry, I would derive your consent with rhetoric rather than point out a problem.

 

[Cherry Cola]

Re: What Gender Are You Internally?

If I wanted to impress you Cherry, I would derive your consent with rhetoric rather than point out a problem.

Youre not looking to impress anyone in particular, but that you're looking to impress is obvious. You want people to see the full range and splendor of your thoughts, otherwise you wouldn't continually go off on tangents rather than actually discuss with people. It's like "look did you know about this? Had you thought about that guys?" and then when that gets challenged "ah but have you ever thought about *something barely related*". You change subjects because you display them as trinkets.

Its a one way exchange under the pretense of reciprocality.

Like how you made a stupid analogy between transsexualism and catwoman in a way that really ridicules the former. Then when that got torn apart you dont admit to your faults but instead make a disgression veiled as a counterargument and then on it goes.

When you say cartesian paradigm what do you mean and how does it connect to the cat lady?

 

[Brontosaurie]

Re: What Gender Are You Internally?

that connection is more like obvious to the point of redundancy

Cartesian: subjective
Determining sex/species by identity: subjective

maybe the question was rhetorical

anyway it didn't get torn apart. and the ridicule presupposes one finds the cat woman ridiculous. Why would you do that? Got her species mixed up, like transsexuals got their own sex mixed up. Everyone has shit mixed up.

 

[Cherry Cola]

Re: What Gender Are You Internally?

that connection is more like obvious to the point of redundancy

Cartesian: subjective
Determining sex/species by identity: subjective

maybe the question was rhetorical

anyway it didn't get torn apart. and the ridicule presupposes one finds the cat woman ridiculous. Why would you do that? Got her species mixed up, like transsexuals got their own sex mixed up. Everyone has shit mixed up.

Nuance please. And no the ridicule does not presuppose that. This has already been answered too.

 

[Lapis Lazuli]

Re: What Gender Are You Internally?

Um, I made a remark about the Cartesian Theatre problem in another thread before this one got started. So, I don’t think you have the right idea.

But, when I see on T.V., and it is rare for me to look at, Bruce Jenner saying he is the “new normal,” as Caitlyn, and commentary by the programming that comes from a “Mental Health” expert all in the same segment, I get mad because I see the lie being perpetuated. If you have gender issues, ok. But don’t expect people to believe it’s normal. Acceptable and normal mean two different things. I accept the narrative, I deny the lie being perpetuated.

I have made references to the deconstruction of public forms of identity in other threads because this is a reality. It’s been a game civilization has been playing for well over 2400 years, it’s just now coming to the surface. Who would I want to impress? Oh, look at me, I see the boogie man? No, it’s more like wake up people. A lot of you are lemmings being lead to the cliff.

Like how you made a stupid analogy between transsexualism and catwoman in a way that really ridicules the former. Then when that got torn apart you dont admit to your faults but instead make a disgression veiled as a counterargument and then on it goes.

When you say cartesian paradigm what do you mean and how does it connect to the cat lady?

Doesn’t this contradict itself?

I don’t think I will go into this much, and as far as reciprocity goes, I see who gets away with being rude and who doesn’t. I know what your reciprocity means.

 

[Brontosaurie]

Re: What Gender Are You Internally?

Nuance please. And no the ridicule does not presuppose that. This has already been answered too.

what nuance, yes it absolutely does, no

 

[Cherry Cola]

Re: What Gender Are You Internally?

There are other ways of being rude than explicitly, the other ways can be just as pervasive if not more since they can go unnoticed.

Like it or not people have a need to be normal and belong. They shouldn't but they do and there's no changing. As silly as it is for homosexual couples to want to be wed in the churches and with the rituals of a tradition which has shunned and as silly as it is for transgendered people to want to be a part of the bigot-riddled sphere of normality it is not a matter of choice. As of now basic human emotional needs can't be adjusted, what is considered normal can and does change however. Acceptable won't cut it. It would in a world where acceptable also means what its supposed to, but as it is when you say that transgenderism or whatever is not normal but acceptable the message you're sending is not a very nice one. It works here because this is a forum packed with introverted intuitives, but out in the world its another matter.

I don't think it's fair to take out your issues with the stupid way in which humans work on a specific subset of people who are highly vulnerable. Their needs are a lot more important than your need for normal to mean precisely what it should mean in a logical sense. It's the same as with the two sexes vs a multitude case. It's just that a slight violation of an abstract framework isn't that much of a violation in the context.

Bronto: yeah its the same thing in the sense that shit has been mixed up, its not the same thing when the reasons for the mixup are considered, ergo its only the same thing in the most obvious and redundant sense

You dont need to ridicule the cat lady and similar people to know that theyve got issues of a different nature and magnitude. The relevant bit is that the cat lady IS ridiculous in the Eyes of most people. And most people dont know enough about trans people to tell that an analogy between the two only works at a shallow level.

 

[Brontosaurie]

Re: What Gender Are You Internally?

of course getting your species wrong is of bigger magnitude than getting your sex wrong.

but it's the same thing in the only relevant sense. should subjective identity decide facts about persons? i'm all for treating transsexuals as their preferred gender with pronouns and whatnot. that's not what this is about. it's about what sex they actually are. people deserve civility and respect, but no one can expect everyone else to conform to the truth claims which emanate from their peculiarity. it does not follow from Jenny's observation that human sexes are more similar than humans and cats, that there is a moral obligation to partake in a person's sexual confusion/delusion. there is no core argument.

trans people will not get emancipated by pointing out some obscure tricksy way in which they are actually also cis people (i.e. deriving sex from gender identity), undermining the whole concept of trans and further contributing to the cis norm. not to mention muddying (not nuancing; will i need to explain this?) the biological concept of sex.

what is a "shallow level"? arguably, the difference between transsexuals and cat lady exist at the shallow level of magnitude/distance while the similarity is at the deep level of conceptual essence.

actually i think you're just throwing buzzwords around trying to be good however, morality is about what you do, not what you say.

 

[Ex-User (11125)]

Re: What Gender Are You Internally?

But, when I see on T.V., and it is rare for me to look at, Bruce Jenner saying he is the “new normal,” as Caitlyn, and commentary by the programming that comes from a “Mental Health” expert all in the same segment, I get mad because I see the lie being perpetuated. If you have gender issues, ok. But don’t expect people to believe it’s normal. Acceptable and normal mean two different things. I accept the narrative, I deny the lie being perpetuated.

What I find puzzling about you calling for this kind of distinction is…why should it be made at all?

Clearly, gender dysphoria would not be a cause of pathological illness in and of itself, it is the the denunciation by the transvestite’s culture that would. A person can have trouble identifying with their biological gender but be psychologically healthy. So what is the point of labeling it as abnormal or an illness? What kind of scientific significance would ensue as a result of this label? It seems to me like this is just an inconsequential issue of terminology and nothing more.

So…since this entire issue does not insinuate any real significance on psychological research, then why go with it? Why not abstain from using labels that might hurt and alienate others?

 

[Brontosaurie]

Re: What Gender Are You Internally?

What I find puzzling about you calling for this kind of distinction is…why should it be made at all?

Clearly, gender dysphoria would not be a cause of pathological illness in and of itself, it is the the denunciation by the transvestite’s culture that would. A person can have trouble identifying with their biological gender but be psychologically healthy. So what is the point of labeling it as abnormal or an illness? What kind of scientific significance would ensue as a result of this label? It seems to me like this is just an inconsequential issue of terminology and nothing more.

So…since this entire issue does not insinuate any real significance on psychological research, then why go with it? Why not abstain from using labels that might hurt and alienate others?

truth isn't that important to you right?

it should be.

you're talking about corporate and business significance, not scientific.

 

[Cherry Cola]

Re: What Gender Are You Internally?

Many mental illnesses can't be cured such as borderline personality disorder.

I didn't suggest that whether or not it is to be considered a mental illness depends on whether or not it can be cured.

In any case there is already treatment which has been proven effective. But by all means keep on pretending that doesn't count since it doesn't go along with your worldview.

 

[Cherry Cola]

Re: What Gender Are You Internally?

truth isn't that important to you right?

it should be.

you're talking about corporate and business significance, not scientific.

why are y'all such chickens when it comes to this? explain why transgenderism has to be considered a mental illness and there has to be two sexes in a way that doesn't just appeal to order? science and its two-sex model wouldn't come under threat if we introduced more sexes, nor psychology's labels aren't rendered any more arbitrary by the fact that transgenderism isn't defined as a mental illness

basically explain what is at stake in a sensible way rather than just appeal to order

words aren't truth, you're chasing a phantom wanting them to be

 

[Brontosaurie]

Re: What Gender Are You Internally?

I didn't suggest that whether or not it is to be considered a mental illness depends on whether or not it can be cured.

In any case there is already treatment which has been proven effective. But by all means keep on pretending that doesn't count since it doesn't go along with your worldview.

so transsexualism isn't a mental illness but a body illness? the mind is prior to the body?

can you see the cartesian now?

 

[Cherry Cola]

Re: What Gender Are You Internally?

I can see it but not its relevance maybe I'm missing something.

Im personally fine with viewing it as a mental illness when you don't consider context and effect. Like Proxy says, it has a bunch of negative consequences and effects, hence illness, logically there doesn't need to be anything devaluating about it. But psychology doesn't define stuff like that, so to call it mental illness would be to single it out in an unfair way, and calling it mental illness is a horrible idea since what it does is provide bigots with a (in their mind) scientific basis for being dicks, and to regular people it would mean its something scary and degenerated which needs to be avoided. It might also force some feminists to have a more nuanced understanding of the phenomenon but the more likely reaction is that they will be less nuanced and more retard in response.

It seems to me the 2 sex+mental illness arguments thus far only work when one imagines an ideal world where people are less biased and more knowledgeable than they actually are. Pearls for swine or something.

 

[Brontosaurie]

Re: What Gender Are You Internally?

It seems to me the 2 sex+mental illness arguments thus far only work when one imagines an ideal world where people are less biased and more knowledgeable than they actually are. Pearls for swine or something.

how can your position or arguments be anything other than an appeal to status quo then?

how could you possibly know exactly what manipulative slanted lie is required to propagate truth efficiently in the minds of all these super-biased and stupid people? why not just try and tell the truth itself to the best of ones abilities?

there are a lot of cases where one is imagining an ideal. it's standard fare cognition. you have to be more specific about what doesn't "work" about this particular instance. otherwise as stated you're arguing for not taking a stand for anything at all because the majority of stupid conservative minds don't get it anyway.

 

[Brontosaurie]

Re: What Gender Are You Internally?

why are y'all such chickens when it comes to this? explain why transgenderism has to be considered a mental illness and there has to be two sexes in a way that doesn't just appeal to order? science and its two-sex model wouldn't come under threat if we introduced more sexes, nor psychology's labels aren't rendered any more arbitrary by the fact that transgenderism isn't defined as a mental illness

basically explain what is at stake in a sensible way rather than just appeal to order

words aren't truth, you're chasing a phantom wanting them to be

chickens? this?

i have explained. if you are interested i refer back to this very discussion. what is "appeal to order"? do you have a neat essay somewhere which proves that "order" (aka in this case consistently explicitly defined terms which make sense) is to be considered a mirage?

"science and its two-sex model wouldn't come under threat if we introduced more sexes" that's solipsist vacuum-sealed ignorance of structure, denying that what people think affects what people think, seeing science as some separate agency or something. if people think wrong, wrong is being thought. right now many people (at least in sweden, probably in the PC circle-jerk segments of the whole world) don't really know what the very simple concept of sex really means, precisely because of the confusion of terms brought about by LGBT activism's desperate attempts at emancipation through feigned conformity.

words aren't truth, that you got right. that's why transsexuals don't become "normal" just because you say so and people aren't equal just because you say so.

what about "gender dysphoria" isn't that a mental illness or close enough?

 

[redbaron]

Re: What Gender Are You Internally?

I don't really see transgenderism as a mental illness because the distress and functional issues stem more from the fact that society just isn't equipped to understand the issue than any real issue with being transgender itself.

Obviously that applies to most mental illnesses to some extent, but things like ADHD or aspergers for example, are objectively measurable as illness (by the criteria we give them). You can't not have ADHD or aspergers and they invariably affect for better or worse, mental interaction with the world.

Gender's not really the same because the problem doesn't exist in a mental capacity but a social one. Feeling like a different gender doesn't impair your judgment and is ultimately of little consequence, unless some external factor makes it so.

 

[Hadoblado]

Re: What Gender Are You Internally?

OMFG CC and Bronto are throwing down!

*falls off chair scrabblereaching for popcorn*

@Zerkalo
Yeah significance has a very specific meaning in science/statistics, first year uni is all about getting your hide beat with red marker for using it in a more general sense.

I think I side with CC on this Bronto. If the categorisation is arbitrary then why facilitate bigotry?
People need support and acceptance in becoming what they want to be, and they're less likely to find it if their intended outcome is chalked up to delusion. I might be mistaken but aren't the negative effects of this 'illness' entirely contextual? Meaning that changing the context (whether by social change or operation) makes it no longer meet the criteria for illness?

 

[Cherry Cola]

Re: What Gender Are You Internally?

I don't really see transgenderism as a mental illness because the distress and functional issues stem more from the fact that society just isn't equipped to understand the issue than any real issue with being transgender itself.

Obviously that applies to most mental illnesses to some extent, but things like ADHD or aspergers for example, are objectively measurable as illness (by the criteria we give them). You can't not have ADHD or aspergers and they invariably affect for better or worse, mental interaction with the world.

Gender's not really the same because the problem doesn't exist in a mental capacity but a social one. Feeling like a different gender doesn't impair your judgment and is ultimately of little consequence, unless some external factor makes it so.

not to downplay society, but a huge amount of distress comes from not feeling like one belongs in ones body which hasn't really got anything to do with society in itself :O

this is a tangent and an unnecessary one but regarding adhd theres the hunter gatherer theory and increased prevalance of adhd found in some nomadic people

 

[Brontosaurie]

Re: What Gender Are You Internally?

I don't really see transgenderism as a mental illness because the distress and functional issues stem more from the fact that society just isn't equipped to understand the issue than any real issue with being transgender itself.

Obviously that applies to most mental illnesses to some extent, but things like ADHD or aspergers for example, are objectively measurable as illness (by the criteria we give them). You can't not have ADHD or aspergers and they invariably affect for better or worse, mental interaction with the world.

Gender's not really the same because the problem doesn't exist in a mental capacity but a social one. Feeling like a different gender doesn't impair your judgment and is ultimately of little consequence, unless some external factor makes it so.

correct, except reversed.

gender dysphoria is a mental illness a priori within the organism: the organism's mentality is maladapted to its sex. the mind somehow on some level interprets the sex of the body as the other one. ADHD on the other hand can't really be defined as a mental illness in this internal sense. it must be defined in some part relative to societal expectations. not necessarily, but currently as far as i'm aware.

 

[Ex-User (11125)]

Re: What Gender Are You Internally?

truth isn't that important to you right?

it should be.

You think your truth is important because people can no longer express sex in precise terms?(I'm referring to your comment on sweden) tbh I don't really see why you think this is negative...

you're talking about corporate and business significance, not scientific.

How so?

 

[Brontosaurie]

Re: What Gender Are You Internally?

OMFG CC and Bronto are throwing down!

*falls off chair scrabblereaching for popcorn*

@Zerkalo
Yeah significance has a very specific meaning in science/statistics, first year uni is all about getting your hide beat with red marker for using it in a more general sense.

I think I side with CC on this Bronto. If the categorisation is arbitrary then why facilitate bigotry?
People need support and acceptance in becoming what they want to be, and they're less likely to find it if their intended outcome is chalked up to delusion. I might be mistaken but aren't the negative effects of this 'illness' entirely contextual? Meaning that changing the context (whether by social change or operation) makes it no longer meet the criteria for illness?

that's a big "if". how is sex an arbitrary categorization? i concede that it's not a categorization which directly kills people or something, but that doesn't mean it's arbitrary. categorizations seldom directly kill people. what isn't arbitrary then?

i'd be VERY surprised if all transsexuals are entirely satisfied with SRS in its current state. VERY.

beyond the judgmental power-politics dimension of psychiatry, transsexuality is and will remain a mental illness. i don't cater to that dimension. i don't know why you people think you should be doing that.

 

[Cherry Cola]

Re: What Gender Are You Internally?

how can your position or arguments be anything other than an appeal to status quo then?

how could you possibly know exactly what manipulative slanted lie is required to propagate truth efficiently in the minds of all these super-biased and stupid people? why not just try and tell the truth itself to the best of ones abilities?

there are a lot of cases where one is imagining an ideal. it's standard fare cognition. you have to be more specific about what doesn't "work" about this particular instance. otherwise as stated you're arguing for not taking a stand for anything at all because the majority of stupid conservative minds don't get it anyway.

What? Everything that doesn't rest upon an imaginary future ideal state isn't thus rendered a pure appeal to status quo. Bitch please.

I can't know what exactly is required, but it doesn't take a genius to get that words carry value and mental illness carries a very negative one. You're going down the sceptic route now. Telltale sign of running out of arguments.

Im arguing that people have to learn to accept transgendered people which they have not and that calling transgendered people mentally ill will be highly counterproductive in that regard.

 

[Ex-User (11125)]

Re: What Gender Are You Internally?

I think redbaron's post sums it up rather nicely. And I agree with cherrycola...to tell a psychologically healthy transvestite that they're mentally ill is unnecessary and would have nothing but negative effects on the transgender community

 

[Cherry Cola]

Re: What Gender Are You Internally?

chickens? this?

i have explained. if you are interested i refer back to this very discussion. what is "appeal to order"? do you have a neat essay somewhere which proves that "order" (aka in this case consistently explicitly defined terms which make sense) is to be considered a mirage?

"science and its two-sex model wouldn't come under threat if we introduced more sexes" that's solipsist vacuum-sealed ignorance of structure, denying that what people think affects what people think, seeing science as some separate agency or something. if people think wrong, wrong is being thought. right now many people (at least in sweden, probably in the PC circle-jerk segments of the whole world) don't really know what the very simple concept of sex really means, precisely because of the confusion of terms brought about by LGBT activism's desperate attempts at emancipation through feigned conformity.

words aren't truth, that you got right. that's why transsexuals don't become "normal" just because you say so and people aren't equal just because you say so.

what about "gender dysphoria" isn't that a mental illness or close enough?

eh, they still understand that there are primarily two sexes, how these function, reproduction etc; ergo all the important stuff

what is the problem? maybe this is unnecessary to add, but i am genuinely interested in hearing your thoughts on this, I'm not sure I'm in the right (unlike calling transgenderism mental illness which I feel certain is a very bad idea) when it comes to saying there are more than two sexes is something that should be done, it could be that I'm being naive and shortsighted about the consequences