(April 14, 2016 at 6:32 am)Irrational Wrote: DSM-5 considers it a dysphoria, not disorder.

http://www.dsm5.org/documents/gender%20d...0sheet.pdf

Also, from that link:

Quote:It is important to note that gender nonconformity is not in itself a mental disorder. The critical element of gender dysphoria is the presence of clinically significant distress associated with the condition.

Not correct - what does DSM-5 stand for? Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition. By definition alone it exclusively lists diagnosable mental disorders.

(April 13, 2016 at 10:01 pm)Cecelia Wrote: For the naturalism argument: How would you even know if Animals can or cannot be trans?  Also even if it's not a characteristic other animals share, it doesn't mean that it's not natural.  And there are some animals that can change gender.

Evolution is all about variety, sea horses for example are the ones who give birth, and there are even other species of fish that do literally change gender. In humans we are learning more and more that the brain is the core of body regulation and as such is a range not an absolute.

A little personal story for me. I really feel like I would have made a better female, no, I am not talking about wanting to be one, but more along the lines that my genes fall more along the sensitive side and my brain was not as dominated by testosterone. But you also have females who like being females but are tomboys too. 

Our plumbing is only one attribute of our evolution, but is is a range and a range that is regulated by the brain and makes us just as diverse as it does in any other aspect of our species even outside birth gender. Our gender is not the script religions want to sell.

AND, just in case it hasn't already been posted here (sorry guys, 67 pages and I only have 15 minutes before the boss arrives) I ran into a GREAT article about why the fear that trans women rapists would have greater access is total bullshit.  It's not very long, it's an easy read, and it's succinct.  
http://www.rolereboot.org/culture-and-po...ansphobia/

"Proponents of these “bathroom bills” argue that they’re a safety measure to prevent trans women from harassing or assaulting cis women. Here’s why that’s absurd: There are already laws against harassing and assaulting people. And there are no documented cases I can find of a trans woman harassing or assaulting anybody in a public bathroom."

"This is all the more infuriating because women’s safety is a real issue, and is genuinely under attack from many sides. I can scarcely fathom the level of misogyny needed to assert that women need bathrooms segregated by birth-assigned sex, but not access to reproductive health services, not better sex education, not racial justice or economic justice."

"I am tired of people who don’t care about what’s best for women pretending they do only when it’s convenient, meaning only when it will allow them to discriminate against an even more oppressed group." 

I didn't know about the brain scans. That is interesting, and I think it makes a lot of sense.

Even if that wasn't the case, though, I can't think of any good reason to discriminate against trans people. Living not as your birth assigned gender hurts nobody. Being forced to live as a gender you don't identify with sounds, frankly, horrifying to me. Have none of these people ever had that dream where you suddenly have the wrong genitals and you lock yourself in the bathroom and panic, trying to figure out how to fix it? I can't even imagine living like that all day every day, and that doesn't even touch the social aspects.

The longer I am out of Christianity, the more I'm creeped out by its obsession with what everyone does with their genitals.

(April 14, 2016 at 8:07 am)Aractus Wrote:

(April 14, 2016 at 6:32 am)Irrational Wrote: DSM-5 considers it a dysphoria, not disorder.

http://www.dsm5.org/documents/gender%20d...0sheet.pdf

Also, from that link:

Not correct - what does DSM-5 stand for? Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition. By definition alone it exclusively lists diagnosable mental disorders.

The title provides a general idea about what it is about, but it doesn't mean every single condition it states in the book is considered a disorder. Perhaps for historical/traditional reasons that it's still called the DSM.

Anyway, I just checked the content of the relevant section in the DSM-5. It's called gender dysphoria, never does it consider it as a disorder. The term "gender identity disorder" is DSM-IV term, not DSM-5.

Also, they have this to say (typing it verbatim from the DSM-5 book):

Quote:Gender dysphoria refers to the distress that may accompany the incongruence between one's experienced or expressed gender and one's assigned gender. Although not all individuals will experience distress as a result of such incongruence, many are distressed if the desired physical interventions by means of hormones and/or surgery are not available. The current terms is more descriptive than the previous DSM-IV term gender identity disorder and focuses on dysphoria as the clinical problem, not identity per se.

So disorder or not, the issue as the DSM-5 sees it isn't with identifying with a certain gender anyway.

(April 13, 2016 at 1:00 pm)Mathilda Wrote:

(April 13, 2016 at 12:17 pm)Drich Wrote: 43-45 and page 49

That link does not show those pages either.

You're making all this up.

The available pages are:

3-12
15-18

Dont know what to tell you I can access those pages.

I also find the whole genitalia argument ridiculous because you can't necessarily tell who is trans just by looking at them. It's totally possible to be a very passable trans person, who nobody would be able to tell was born the gender they were born as, who still has their genitals. You've probably walked past so many transwomen who still have penii in your life and have been none-the-wiser. I think attitudes like this in particular discriminate against trans people who are early on in their transition or are struggling to pass.

(April 13, 2016 at 1:02 pm)BlackBird Wrote:

(April 13, 2016 at 12:51 pm)Drich Wrote: again now frame what I said in the context of the op.

Should a mentally Ill minority that = > 1% dictate policy (circumventing the due process laws normally go through) for the other 99% of the population?

Should anyone making a law circumventing due process? Of course not. But I'm not seeing any circumventing of due process.  If you are speaking of the economic pressure that is being put on legislators to rethink the bills they are passing, that is a) not pressure applied solely by transpeople, but by lots of people who think the law is terrible, b) perfectly legal and c) a time honored aspect of our government. Government officials are rather well known for following the money, and they are supposed to be listening to their constituents, after all.

No 'alot of people' (a whole state's worth) want those laws on the books for their state. But the LGBT community in other states puts pressure on the companies who are threatening to pull out of those state. That is circumventing due process.

(April 13, 2016 at 1:05 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: Drich is a known and confirmed liar.  In fact, we've all been duped here by allowing ourselves to get reeled into his vomitous nonsense yet again...I'm pretty sure he has a glorious orgasm every time he hits the "send" button on one of his heinous thread topics.

where has said confirmation taken place?
(citation please)

(April 14, 2016 at 10:25 am)Drich Wrote:

(April 13, 2016 at 1:02 pm)BlackBird Wrote: Should anyone making a law circumventing due process? Of course not. But I'm not seeing any circumventing of due process.  If you are speaking of the economic pressure that is being put on legislators to rethink the bills they are passing, that is a) not pressure applied solely by transpeople, but by lots of people who think the law is terrible, b) perfectly legal and c) a time honored aspect of our government. Government officials are rather well known for following the money, and they are supposed to be listening to their constituents, after all.

No 'alot of people' (a whole state's worth) want those laws on the books for their state. But the LGBT community in other states puts pressure on the companies who are threatening to pull out of those state. That is circumventing due process.

So how do you propose people should protest laws they are opposed to, if voting with their money is coercive? Choosing where you do or do not spend your money is a pretty basic right, and it seems strange to me that this is suddenly "circumventing due process" when Christians seem to so love the idea of boycotting.