(April 12, 2016 at 10:40 am)Drich Wrote:

(April 11, 2016 at 1:53 pm)Esquilax Wrote: You have a weirdly arbitrary idea of what mental illness is, that belies a rather fundamental lack of understanding of even the basic underpinnings of what you're seeking to discuss. And I don't mean transgenderism or body dysphoria, I mean psychological medicine.

If by weirdly arbitrary you mean a definition provided by the Mayo clinic, then yes I would be forced to agree.

Quote:See, when we treat a person for a mental condition, it is not the sole goal of the treatment that the condition vanishes completely: for a number of things that might not be possible, and for others the side effects of doing so might be prohibitively negative to the point that they outweigh the benefits. If someone had a mental illness, for example, that caused them great depression but also immense intelligence, the goal for treating that person would not be to reduce the depression and the intelligence, and devising a treatment regimen that allows him to retain that intelligence is not "allowing the patient to run the asylum," it's a simple recognition that some symptoms are neutral or positive to the overall wellbeing of the patient.

At what point in the OP did I EVER infer one needed to be or had to be 'cured?'

Again, you've over stepped in your assessment.

I simply asked a question one that you seem to be trying to red herring away with a strawman.

Quote:And that is the point of psychiatric medicine, Drich: management of the condition such that people can function in their lives. It never has been just complete, thoughtless eradication of every symptom, heedless of the overall health of the patient.

When did management ever include enabling?

Quote:It's here that we get to the arbitrary nature of your argument: so, gender dysphoria is a mental illness. Fine, okay, let's take that as the premise of your argument: why are you then assuming that allowing a transgender person to transition as much as they are comfortable with doesn't count as a treatment?

At what point in the OP did I ever say I was not comfortable with transexual progressing into anything?
I simply asked a question.

Quote:It alleviates the symptoms of gender dysphoria very effectively, with no cost, all things being equal (read: without bigots like you desperately trying to make life hard for others because all you have is hate and all you can do is pick and prod and reduce the happiness of everyone around you) to the health and safety of the transgender person, and in fact can enhance their overall happiness by allowing them to live as a more authentic version of themselves. It meets all the criteria of an effective treatment that requires no necessary medical intervention and allows the person to go on with their lives with a minimum of ongoing psychiatric care. There's a clear argument to be made there that it is, at the current time, the best possible treatment available, and yet you don't count it as a treatment at all... because you don't like it. As though your personal opinions are what dictate psychiatric care standards.  

Again treatment was never on the table for discussion. Just the identification of GID as a legit mental disorder, and if GID is a legit disorder then again why are the mentally ill setting policy for society?

Quote:And if you're tempted to respond that transgender people are more likely to be mentally ill or commit suicide, that they get assaulted and killed more frequently and so on, I would point out that all those are symptoms of bigotry against the transgender community exacerbating their life issues, not necessarily something inherent to transgenderism. That is, it's a product of letting the bigots run the asylum without justification, and in contravention to basic standards of care. Your fault, not theirs.

nuupe I don't care what transsexual will or will not do. This discussion is not about how they live their lives. I honestly do not care what people do to themselves or how they want to live so long as it does not infringe on those who want nothing to do with their brand of crazy.

So...then what is the point of your post exactly? You have no position at all? I'm now completely at a loss for what the hell you are even saying other then, "ew, yucky."

He was clearly saying they aren't mentally competent.

(April 11, 2016 at 2:04 pm)drfuzzy Wrote:

(April 11, 2016 at 10:51 am)Drich Wrote: Transsexuals suffer from a diagnosable affliction called Gender dysphoria or gender identity disorder. So then how is this not a mental illness if the word/term mental illness literally means:

Mental illness refers to a wide range of mental health conditions — disorders that affect your mood, thinking and behavior. Examples of mental illness include depression, anxiety disorders, schizophrenia, eating disorders and addictive behaviors.
(as per the Mayo clinic)

If this is a mental disorder, then why do we allow the patients to run the asylum? Why do we have mentally compromised people trying to set a national policy that allows them to indulge their disorder?

would we allow people afflicted with Munchhausen access to their kids? Or if you want to look at other people who just hurt themselves, would we allow people who want to cut themselves places they could do so?

Esquilax addressed the problems in your OP.  So, are you going to advocate for conversion therapy for trans people next, since you can't torture gays any more?  Fundamentalist churches ran the majority of the gay-conversion therapy camps.  They were worse than failures - gay teens who had been raised fundie and put through these programs killed themselves in droves.  And the leaders of these programs shrugged their shoulders, probably held a party because there were less queers in the world, claimed they were having great success and kept being murdering sons-of-bitches until all of the Psychiatric Organizations and the Government banned the practice.

Actually as you can see he did not. He redefined my position so he could get on his soap box and defend what he was comfortable with discussing.

Typical Esq move.

In the OP I reference current data, and a modern psychological stand on GID, so you can drop all the hate crap you want to assign to me. I am approaching this from a clinical stand point.

(April 11, 2016 at 2:21 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote:

(April 11, 2016 at 1:12 pm)The_Empress Wrote: Just when I thought Drich couldn't be a worse person, he ups the ante.

Disgusting.

Yep, and this is the guy who spouts moral superiority over all of us.  Paper-thin understanding of the issue, hate for what he doesn't understand, and zero ability to empathize.   What would Jesus do, Drich?

He would ask a question based on the group he was speaking to own understanding of a subject, and give you 'good people' enough slack to eventually hang yourselves then smack down some truth that not only stings, but makes sense.

Then allow you to live you life, and judge you on your own hypocrisy at the final judgement, for defending 'X' in one instance and persecuting 'x' in a different one.

(April 11, 2016 at 2:40 pm)Goosebump Wrote: This is an unrelated question but why is the T in LGBT? The first three make sense as they are all sexual orientations, but isn't T something entirely different? Why do they get lumped together? Doesn't make sense to me since somebody who is trans can be LGB or Hetero.

don't get caught thinking for yourself with this crowd that's the same as being a racist bigot.

The 'T' is their because it's not about equality it's about dictating from a position of superority. it's about creating a political movement that will generate support and power. The 't' is just another group of disenfranchised people 'soceity' has shunned, but the LGB's can tap for support.

To 'attack' or simply question the 't' is to attack or question the validity of all 4 (read what some of the "martyrs" have said so far)

That is all I've done here is ask 2 questions about a diagnosible psychological disorder, and a person's fitness to dictate terms for society when they are having trouble with their own lives.

(April 11, 2016 at 2:43 pm)LastPoet Wrote:

What would Drich expect?

You guys should set me up on payroll for these topics and all the 'pot' stirring/Thinking I make someone of you have to do.

(April 12, 2016 at 10:43 am)Drich Wrote:

(April 11, 2016 at 2:04 pm)drfuzzy Wrote: Esquilax addressed the problems in your OP.  So, are you going to advocate for conversion therapy for trans people next, since you can't torture gays any more?  Fundamentalist churches ran the majority of the gay-conversion therapy camps.  They were worse than failures - gay teens who had been raised fundie and put through these programs killed themselves in droves.  And the leaders of these programs shrugged their shoulders, probably held a party because there were less queers in the world, claimed they were having great success and kept being murdering sons-of-bitches until all of the Psychiatric Organizations and the Government banned the practice.

Actually as you can see he did not. He redefined my position so he could get on his soap box and defend what he was comfortable with discussing.

Typical Esq move.

In the OP I reference current data, and a modern psychological stand on GID, so you can drop all the hate crap you want to assign to me. I am approaching this from a clinical stand point.

No you aren't. Nor do you have the authority to do so. Treatment for all spectrum of disorders whether mental, physical, or a combination of both involves an individualized approach with both patient and physician involved in the decision making process.

Typically, clinicians will recommend the least invasive treatment options with a likelihood for success before exploring more invasive ones. Ex: Someone with cancer may opt for radiation therapy before a risky surgery. The MD will consider the patient's personal comfort level, and the patient will consider the clinical recommendations of their doctor. Likewise, someone with depression make opt for counseling before they explore therapeutic medication which often comes with unwanted side effects. Working Together, an individualized care plan for that patient is formed, and is subject to revision at anytime depending on how efficacious it is.

So, my question to you Drich, is: even if we "agree" that gender dysphoria IS an illness, why do you feel you have the credentials to make determinations on what the correct course of "treatment" should be for these people? If patient and physician decide that transitioning is the most appropriate treatment plan for that individual, and part of transition means living daily life as the sex you identify with (i.e. you get to use the toilet of the gender you identify with), why do you feel you have a case for objecting to that? Why do you feel you have a case for arguing that transition doesn't count as treatment?

(April 12, 2016 at 10:26 am)Drich Wrote: Seriously?

It's like I woke up in the twilight zone... Mental Illness is defined by the medical community. It is a series of behavioral disorder that affects cognitive thought. ('good' or bad makes no difference) It has absolutely nothing to do with personal assessment, but rather setting a bar of mental stability and documenting how and why those who can not reach said bar. Then setting in place a course of treatment to help those who cant reach that bar.

Mental illness is not a standard set forth or defined by personal assessment (what you or we think should be allowed.) It is a standard set forth by professionals who currently look at the underlining behaviors (not just what manifests itself on the surface/what you are judging) in order to make a determination if an individual will be a danger to THEM SELVES or others now or in the future if their given disorder is left unchecked.

This post is a good example of what is wrong with your argument; I'm going to go point-by-point just for my own organization (it helps me think rationally )

1. The definition of mental illness/disorder is slippery.  Your definition of "behavioral disorder that affects cognitive thought" is probably not a good one; first, it uses the term "disorder" recursively, second, it refers to "behavior", which I don't believe to be a component of all mental illness, and third, "affects cognitive thought" is far too broad.  That's literally everything. 

2. A better definition is "a series of abnormal psychological symptoms that causes distress or dysfunction."  Something like that.

3. You can "set the bar" of mental stability and help people reach that bar.  Absolutely; that's where the "abnormal" part of the definition comes in (for instance, crippling grief over the loss of a loved one is not "abnormal" and is thus not considered mental illness unless it extends far beyond the "normal" course of grief).

4. It is where you (Drich) choose to "set the bar" that is both arbitrary and highly demonstrative of your bias.  You are setting the bar at "comfortable with one's birth gender" (which isn't always well-defined).  A far more reasonable, therapeutic bar would be "comfortable with one's self."  The only reason one would choose to set the bar based on "birth gender", which is a single characteristic that is not always well-defined, instead of "one's self", which is synonymous with a person's holistic well-being, is because political or religious reasons color your thinking.

5. If a person is uncomfortable in their body - that is, suffers from gender dysphoria - you can either a) try to make them comfortable in their body by changing their mental state or b) try to make them comfortable in their body by changing their body. 

6. The first is something that needs to take place over a lifetime, would involve trying to change the person's sense of who they are; most importantly, there is no scientific evidence that demonstrates that it is possible; in fact, all evidence points at it being extremely harmful (perhaps you "reduce" gender dysphoria but add depression and anxiety and anger and greatly increase the likelihood of suicide).

7. The second is admittedly a complicated process that involves surgery and hormone therapy.  But it does not try to alter who the person believes they are (and there is no medical problem, only a social problem, with who the person believes they are) and leads to far better results.

8. Ultimately, someone who transitions only remains "mentally ill" if you characterize the illness as "discomfort with birth gender".  However, the transitioned person no longer has the same extent of problems with their body, and so the "disabling" and "distressing" criteria of mental illness greatly diminish; it only remains a mental illness if you substitute "violation of social norms" for "personal distress", which is a really dishonest/biased thing to do.  If the criteria is "does the person feel happy with themselves, that is, in their body", after the transition, the answer is "yes".  If you're really interested in aiding people with gender dysphoria, you would recognize that transitioning is the treatment.

To summarize, you're implicitly assuming social norms, and using violation of these norms to bootstrap a behavior into mental illness when it would be far better to ground the criteria for mental illness in the particular person's life rather than whatever social norms you feel like assuming.

*Note: please forgive me if I've used any offensive language or "cisplained" (as in, like mansplaining or all that).

Drich,

According to my therapist and mental health professional who actually earned a degree in this shit, I am mentally healthy.

And I am transgender.

Or would you claim to know MORE than a professional in the field? Or would you use that age-old "queers have taken over the subject of psychiatrics, so the opinion of a therapist is invalid" argument?

I encountered an individual many years ago with a medical condition affecting how the receptors in his then her body never recognized the normal levels of testosterone in the bloodstream following puberty.

With that kind of condition, the change to an entirely female body wasn't much of a hurdle. Sensitivity to estrogen was unaffected by the testosterone utilization issue, so, when the hormones started, an actual female puberty occurred. Found happiness with a 'vigorously' hetero medical professional and I've since been out of touch. I'm assuming the 'they lived happily ever after' scenario. He enjoyed making money, and she certainly enjoyed spending it, a perfect match.