Quote:I can't speak for most atheists. 

I do know that clinical depression is something that can be tested and diagnosed. 

There was a group of doctors at my local prefectural hospital who did fMRI studies on severely depressed patients. They found significant and quantifiable differences in brain activity in severely depressed patients vs. undepressed people. (I am certainly not a doctor, but I did all their translation work for them, both when they read and when they wrote research papers, so for about 5 years there I read hundreds of such papers.) 

Some of the doctors were experienced diagnosticians, so if a new patient walked into the hospital and said "I am clinically depressed," the doctor wouldn't accept this self-diagnosis at face value. People may self-diagnose with things they've read about in the newspaper when their real trouble is something else. So after extensive interviews, the doctor might end with the conclusion that the self-report was not accurate, that in fact the patient had a different difficulty. It's sad to think that even in Japan, where health care is affordable, full evaluations are difficult to do. Someone might self-diagnose as clinically depressed when in fact they just live in a horrible family who bullies them. 

But there are a number of emotional and mental issues which fall in a sadly gray area, where objective testing is difficult or impossible. No one is saying that these should not be taken seriously.

You speak for no one 

Of course Bel sees none of this as he has an ignore list so extensive that he just hangs out where he can hear himself. He's a gentle little snowflake.

Lek,
About 75 years ago, there were some researchers who published two books, that pretty much began the now well established academic field of Human Sexuality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinsey_Rep...20Saunders.
Sexual orientation is not a choice. The entire mechanisms at work are not entirely known yet. If sexuality is a moral matter, (a choice) tell us about what sort of men you fantasized about before you made "the choice".

Some significant percent of human babies are born as "intersex" and have various combinations of men's and women's sexual characteristics.
Most parents are deeply shocked and embarrassed, and mostly don't talk about it.
If you're really going to be a pastor, you better get up to snuff, as you will no doubt have to face this blatant failure of "Intelligent Design".
The Pediatric Genetic clinics around the world are about as backed up (booked months ahead), as any get.

Why don't you try to get a recommendation from a psychology practitioner,
expert in sexual dysphoria and educate yourself on these children God created, just the way they are ?

(August 10, 2023 at 5:30 pm)Belacqua Wrote: I think it's fascinating that the rule of empirical objectivity has exceptions. Obviously, if someone here said, "I am sure that God is all around me because it is self-evident to my experience as a human," none of the regular posters here would take that as the least bit persuasive as evidence. But "I am sure I am not the same gender I was assigned at birth because it is self-evident to my experience as a human" is something we now accept without question. 

I doubt you really find that "fascinating". 
Claims about these examples and "empirical objectivity" are incorrect.  
The problem is also the Fallacy of the False Analogy. 
One is a claim about an EXTERNAL being for which there is no evidence, (a subjective view), a condition the believer never sought help to be cured of,
the other is also possibly a subjective view, that the person speaking, who has been through many years of counselling and OBJECTIVE BEHAVIORS consistent with their condition, diagnosed by experts in the field, who took a risk. There also IS objective evidence that the brains of some transgenders are different.

"The available research indicates that the brain structure of androphilic trans women with early-onset gender dysphoria is closer to that of cisgender women than that of cisgender men.[2] It also reports that gynephilic trans women differ from both cisgender female and male controls in non-dimorphic brain areas. "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_...in%20areas.

Belief in the gods entails no risks. There is not even a faint similarity here. The "regret" rate for those who sought sexual reassignment surgery is very low.

People come and go to one faith and another, drop if for years, convert late in life and pay nothing to the Religion doctors (except to Psychiatrists who they get help from from all the abuse they suffer from religion).

Are you sure you really want to be comparing religious faith with someone who in your implication, is lying to himself/herself, his/her physicians, lying to his/her family disrupting their lives for years ?

(August 10, 2023 at 6:25 pm)Belacqua Wrote:

(August 10, 2023 at 10:59 am)Angrboda Wrote: Do you think that most atheists dismiss the notion of clinical depression?

I can't speak for most atheists. 

I do know that clinical depression is something that can be tested and diagnosed. 

There was a group of doctors at my local prefectural hospital who did fMRI studies on severely depressed patients. They found significant and quantifiable differences in brain activity in severely depressed patients vs. undepressed people. (I am certainly not a doctor, but I did all their translation work for them, both when they read and when they wrote research papers, so for about 5 years there I read hundreds of such papers.) 

Some of the doctors were experienced diagnosticians, so if a new patient walked into the hospital and said "I am clinically depressed," the doctor wouldn't accept this self-diagnosis at face value. People may self-diagnose with things they've read about in the newspaper when their real trouble is something else. So after extensive interviews, the doctor might end with the conclusion that the self-report was not accurate, that in fact the patient had a different difficulty. It's sad to think that even in Japan, where health care is affordable, full evaluations are difficult to do. Someone might self-diagnose as clinically depressed when in fact they just live in a horrible family who bullies them. 

But there are a number of emotional and mental issues which fall in a sadly gray area, where objective testing is difficult or impossible. No one is saying that these should not be taken seriously.

Do you have a citation? It's been my understanding that no test is diagnostic for clinical depression and that as a result, self-reporting is the primary tool.

If you know otherwise then I'd like to read about it. In the meantime, I'd like to suggest the two are quite possibly very similar. Most tests for clinical depression are inconclusive and the factors which give rise to both gender and clinical depression are likely more practically inaccessible than inaccessible in principle. There's evidence that there are objective markers for gender and while we don't currently have the ability to determine gender scientifically, that doesn't mean that it isn't objective; that would be an appeal to ignorance.

(August 10, 2023 at 8:04 pm)Angrboda Wrote: It's been my understanding that no test is diagnostic for clinical depression and that as a result, self-reporting is the primary tool.

As far as I know there's no definitive test. Most diagnosing takes place through interviews, as I said. 

The fMRI differences are detected in patients who have already been diagnosed, but in practice this is far more than self-reported feelings. Severe cases exhibit certain kinds of behavior which can be observed independent of self-reporting. 

The kind of severe withdrawal and anhedonia one sees don't seem like choices that one would make. They do allow experienced diagnosticians to say that a person self-reporting as severely depressed does not show the indications of depression, and the doctors should consider treatment accordingly. It would be bad to misdiagnose something and give it the wrong treatment. 

Quote:There's evidence that there are objective markers for gender and while we don't currently have the ability to determine gender scientifically, that doesn't mean that it isn't objective; that would be an appeal to ignorance.

It will be interesting to see what gets discovered in the future. I remember when they started mapping the genome a lot of people were talking about a "gay gene," and of course things turned out to be not so simple. 

Maybe there will be objective tests which will allow doctors in the future to tell self-reporting individuals "no you're wrong." I wonder what people who are confident in their self-report will do when the objective test tells them that their gender identification is incorrect. Will we continue to support their choices? Or will we tell them that they will not be allowed to transition based on these tests?

(August 10, 2023 at 5:30 pm)Belacqua Wrote: I think it's fascinating that the rule of empirical objectivity has exceptions. Obviously, if someone here said, "I am sure that God is all around me because it is self-evident to my experience as a human," none of the regular posters here would take that as the least bit persuasive as evidence. But "I am sure I am not the same gender I was assigned at birth because it is self-evident to my experience as a human" is something we now accept without question. 

Sigh. Some things can be proven by feelings, like hunger, hate, or even sex, but others obviously can not. You obviously would not trust a doctor who would tell you that you need an emergency operation because he feels that you have a tumor on your brain after you complained that you have a headache.

Why is a test required? What would it be testing for?

If I want, sincerely, to be included amongst the social group 'women' and have society treat me as 'woman', then isn't that enough for interpersonal relations (institutional interactions may he more complex)?

I think I'd try and respect anyone's sincere self-ID, and I'd like people to respect mine.

(August 11, 2023 at 2:28 am)FrustratedFool Wrote: Why is a test required?  What would it be testing for?

If I want, sincerely, to be included amongst the social group 'women' and have society treat me as 'woman', then isn't that enough for interpersonal relations (institutional interactions may he more complex)?  

I think I'd try and respect anyone's sincere self-ID, and I'd like people to respect mine.

If that's what you want, and that's how you want to live, I think you should do it. I don't think anybody should have the right to forbid it. 

I think it's great that there are all kinds of people in the world, and we have different outlooks on things and respectfully debate everything under the sun. 

The only reason to have a test would be if someone wanted empirical, objective, repeatable evidence. That is, something more scientific than an individual's desire to live and be seen a certain way. Science doesn't work according to what people want or how they believe themselves to be. You know what they say, "The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it."

I think a person should live as they want and as they believe is best, but that's not science.

(August 11, 2023 at 2:59 am)Belacqua Wrote:

(August 11, 2023 at 2:28 am)FrustratedFool Wrote: Why is a test required?  What would it be testing for?

If I want, sincerely, to be included amongst the social group 'women' and have society treat me as 'woman', then isn't that enough for interpersonal relations (institutional interactions may he more complex)?  

I think I'd try and respect anyone's sincere self-ID, and I'd like people to respect mine.

If that's what you want, and that's how you want to live, I think you should do it. I don't think anybody should have the right to forbid it. 

I think it's great that there are all kinds of people in the world, and we have different outlooks on things and respectfully debate everything under the sun. 

The only reason to have a test would be if someone wanted empirical, objective, repeatable evidence. That is, something more scientific than an individual's desire to live and be seen a certain way. Science doesn't work according to what people want or how they believe themselves to be. You know what they say, "The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it."

I think a person should live as they want and as they believe is best, but that's not science.

(Bold mine)

This is truly funny, considering the number of people on this site you refuse to converse with.

Boru