(April 12, 2016 at 11:01 am)LadyForCamus Wrote:

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

And this was my answer.

(April 12, 2016 at 12:12 pm)Drich Wrote:

(April 12, 2016 at 10:31 am)LadyForCamus Wrote: Focusing on the semantics of what is or isn't a mental illness is the wrong argument here, IMO.  

That's because for you it is a no win situation, but is the whole point of this thread. If GID fits a medical diagnosis of mental illness then why are the mentally Ill allowed to change the laws?

And all this time I thought it was the elected representatives changing the laws.

How many of them have a diagnosed mental illness I wonder? Depression? Anxiety? Other things not immediately visible? What are you doing to keep them from changing the law?

(April 12, 2016 at 12:12 pm)Drich Wrote:

(April 12, 2016 at 10:31 am)LadyForCamus Wrote: Focusing on the semantics of what is or isn't a mental illness is the wrong argument here, IMO.  

That's because for you it is a no win situation, but is the whole point of this thread. If GID fits a medical diagnosis of mental illness then why are the mentally Ill allowed to change the laws?

You should be careful what you wish for Dirch. Delusion and megalomania are both mental illnesses and you along with plenty of your Xtian brothers demonstrate both conditions.

Actually thinking about it, and with the consent of the transgender community perhaps we should take your advice and prevent the mentally ill from changing laws if it keeps deluded theists out of office.

It's a reasonable trade off doncha think? I'd vote for that.

(April 12, 2016 at 11:01 am)LadyForCamus Wrote:

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

Oh, my glob..

TREATMENT IS NOT A CONCERN IN THIS TOPIC!

I don't care how they under go treatment! Since I seem to be the ONLY one who has read Anything clinical on the subject Before I made my first comment/The OP I am well aware of how treatment is carried out in SOME Cases. And I also know how it is carried out in others. Again I worded my OP to over look treatment as it is a non issue. The issue here is the diagnosible disorder that transsexuals share.

Your hero Esq intentionally introduced the strawman of treatment so he could go and soap box off on how I didn't account for AB or C therefore my summary should be dismissed... Again, AB nor C has anything to do with the 123 points I was actually making.

(April 12, 2016 at 12:30 pm)Drich Wrote:

(April 12, 2016 at 11:01 am)LadyForCamus Wrote: 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?

Oh, my glob..

TREATMENT IS NOT A CONCERN IN THIS TOPIC!

I don't care how they under go treatment! Since I seem to be the ONLY one who has read Anything clinical on the subject Before I made my first comment/The OP I am well aware of how treatment is carried out in SOME Cases. And I also know how it is carried out in others. Again I worded my OP to over look treatment as it is a non issue. The issue here is the diagnosible disorder that transsexuals share.

Your hero Esq intentionally introduced the strawman of treatment so he could go and soap box off on how I didn't account for AB or C therefore my summary should be dismissed... Again, AB nor C has anything to do with the 123 points I was actually making.

Lol, oh my glob, yes it IS. You just said a few posts back that letting the transgendered use the bathroom of their choosing is "indulging their illness." You are commenting that allowing them to do this is making them "worse" rather then helping "treat" them. So, now you have to support your position on what constitutes treatment.

(April 12, 2016 at 9:57 am)Drich Wrote: It's called Gender Identity disorder or GID.

It's not a disorder.

Like I said, it's not about mental health it's about personal identity.

(April 11, 2016 at 7:42 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I still think it would be a good idea to have a small private bathroom.

I agree...for the businesses and institutions that can afford to do so on their own. The problem as I see it, is that eventually someone will start calling provision of private unisex bathrooms a civil right. Private bathrooms will be mandated by the state irregardless of the cost to taxpayers and private sector. The Americans with Disabilities Act serves as a historical precedent. This is not to wholly discount the benefits of ADA to the disabled. It improved the lives of many people. But the ADA was poorly implemented as a combination civil rights and over designed model code provisions. The two together were and still are a confused and inconsistent mess that places an additional and significant financial burden on the construction industry.

Does doctor Drich also insist that every deaf born child receive compulsory cochlear implants? Give birth to a dwarf or midget? No problem, human birth hormone is now mandatory! Suffer from excessive individualism? Just let drich drag your sorry ass to church every Sunday! Now there is a treatment for every abnormality.

(April 12, 2016 at 1:01 pm)Whateverist the White Wrote: Does doctor Drich also insist that every deaf born child receive compulsory cochlear implants? Give birth to a dwarf or midget? No problem, human birth hormone is now mandatory! Suffer from excessive individualism? Just let drich drag your sorry ass to church every Sunday! Now there is a treatment for every abnormality.

Lol, hallelujah, I'm CURED!

Perhaps the answer is for us all to stop having hang ups about our bodies and have a more European attitude. I went swimming at a pool in France, there was only one changing room and no booths. the French people just whipped their clothes off, while me and the future Mrs Plumb struggled to keep our English reserve with copious use of towels. Apparently she saw it as an ordeal but I think the French had the better attitude.