Transexuals

[LadyForCamus]

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.

http://youtu.be/i3o5SB1CfgU

[Crossless2.0]

He was clearly saying they aren't mentally competent.

nuupe. I'm asking if Mentally ill people should be allowed to set policy/Make laws.
in short
In your insane P/C world have are you so worried about what others think, that you would allow someone with a legit mental disorder make the rules for the rest of society?

Instead of repeating this page after page, why don't you substantiate this ridiculous claim that those with mental disorders make or dictate the rules for society, as opposed to -- oh, I don't know -- duly elected lawmakers? 

North Carolina and Mississippi have enacted legislation that I assume you approve of. There's been some blowback as a result of this legislation, and both states may suffer mild economic consequences as a result of their decisions -- something Indiana learned about last year when they tried to implement laws that much of society (including several major corporations, concerned about their PR images) deemed discriminatory and unacceptable. Indiana walked that shit back in a New York minute when they realized that they don't exist in a vacuum, that they weren't in step with current mores concerning the treatment of gay people, and that their decision had real consequences.

Your nattering about political correctness and the insanity of letting mentally ill people make the rules for everyone else is nothing more than a smokescreen for your personal disapproval of our society's evolving standards of acceptance for gay and transgender people. As for the business end of this issue, yes, states are free to enact legislation that does not run afoul of the federal Constitution and that state's constitution. What they're not free from is the disapproval of society. If they want to take the hit, fine. If not, then they might have to re-evaluate their stance, as Indiana did. But they can't have it both ways.

[LastPoet]

Instead of repeating this page after page, why don't you substantiate this ridiculous claim that those with mental disorders make or dictate the rules for society, as opposed to -- oh, I don't know -- duly elected lawmakers? 

What if Christianity is a mental disorder? Or any other religion? Mirror mirror on the wall

[Drich]

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 )

We shall see, we shall see.

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. 

Maybe you missed where I sourced that definition. It was from the mayo clinic.. Are you familiar with who they are?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayo_Clinic
So whether you find it difficult to arrange a cohesive argument against the definition they provided or not.. I will be sticking with what the Largest non profit medical research center in the world has to say on the topic, rather than what some douche on a forum thinks 'my definition should be, because it would make it easier for him to formulate a rebuttal.'

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

All you need is a primary source citation that refutes the mayo clinic defination.

Otherwise again we in this thread when speaking to me will be using this defination:
http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-condi...n-20033813

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).

And that's why we use clinical definations.

4. It is where you (Drich) choose to "set the bar" that is both arbitrary and highly demonstrative of your bias. 

Ahh.. No.
I did not set the bar, the bar is set with terms defined in the diagnosis of a Gender Identity Disorder case. Again I did not make up the term GID it is a term the medical community uses to classify the behaivors of those who are experiencing GID.

All I did was ask if the medical community says people of the Transsexual community can all be diagnosed with this disorder and it is indeed a mental illness then why are we making laws that enable this disorder?

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.

This is the dumbest thing anyone has ever said...
if you need me to explain how I will, otherwise I know your trying to come off as a 'smart guy' so to honor that effort I'm willing to let it go.

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. 

didn't read the case study examples I left did you?
They all centered around with what the individual wanted to do, yes some wanted a change of mental state while others wanted physical change while other's still simply struggled to 'sexually neutral life.' For those who wanted to learn to associate with their birth gender an effort is made to possibly find a hormonal, chemical or even a psychological imbalance and correct it. Which in the posted case studies did show a favorable success rate.

Bottom line sport the course of treatment is based on what the individual wants for themselves. Which AGAIN HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE OP.

Because no matter How they receive treatment or if they do not get treatment at all they will always struggle with GID on some level.

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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_asNhzXq72w
Sorry but no again.
http://www.mayoclinic.org/medical-profes...-dysphoria

To be short, most with GID never even seek treatment, so you speaking of a fraction of a minority of the 1% with GID, yet you wish to up hold the even smaller fraction who successfully get help under proper medical conditions as being the standard of the transexual community?

Plueeze, try that some place else.

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).

Seriously?!?!?

Between the two of us I'm the only one who has vetted and cited the information I have provided.

IDK maybe "rational thinking" means something totally different where you come from.. Because to me it means to base my thoughts on vetted facts, and sound definitions that are established in the field of study I am 'rationally thinking' about. Your thoughts seem to all come from deep down from feeling and foolish, but well meaning compassion and other 'wooo' nonsense that can be manipulated.

If you want to have a topical conversation try researching a little and post some proper source material to support your claims. otherwise know I will trivialize and sweep you under the rug in the same way you tried to discredit and trivialize my work.

[LadyForCamus]

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 )

We shall see, we shall see.

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. 

Maybe you missed where I sourced that definition. It was from the mayo clinic.. Are you familiar with who they are?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayo_Clinic
So whether you find it difficult to arrange a cohesive argument against the definition they provided or not.. I will be sticking with what the Largest non profit medical research center in the world has to say on the topic, rather than what some douche on a forum thinks 'my definition should be, because it would make it easier for him to formulate a rebuttal.'

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

All you need is a primary source citation that refutes the mayo clinic defination.

Otherwise again we in this thread when speaking to me will be using this defination:
http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-condi...n-20033813

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).

And that's why we use clinical definations.

4. It is where you (Drich) choose to "set the bar" that is both arbitrary and highly demonstrative of your bias. 

Ahh.. No.
I did not set the bar, the bar is set with terms defined in the diagnosis of a Gender Identity Disorder case. Again I did not make up the term GID it is a term the medical community uses to classify the behaivors of those who are experiencing GID.

All I did was ask if the medical community says people of the Transsexual community can all be diagnosed with this disorder and it is indeed a mental illness then why are we making laws that enable this disorder?

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.

This is the dumbest thing anyone has ever said...
if you need me to explain how I will, otherwise I know your trying to come off as a 'smart guy' so to honor that effort I'm willing to let it go.

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. 

didn't read the case study examples I left did you?
They all centered around with what the individual wanted to do, yes some wanted a change of mental state while others wanted physical change while other's still simply struggled to 'sexually neutral life.' For those who wanted to learn to associate with their birth gender an effort is made to possibly find a hormonal, chemical or even a psychological imbalance and correct it. Which in the posted case studies did show a favorable success rate.

Bottom line sport the course of treatment is based on what the individual wants for themselves. Which AGAIN HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE OP.

Because no matter How they receive treatment or if they do not get treatment at all they will always struggle with GID on some level.

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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_asNhzXq72w
Sorry but no again.
http://www.mayoclinic.org/medical-profes...-dysphoria

To be short, most with GID never even seek treatment, so you speaking of a fraction of a minority of the 1% with GID, yet you wish to up hold the even smaller fraction who successfully get help under proper medical conditions as being the standard of the transexual community?

Plueeze, try that some place else.

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).

Seriously?!?!?

Between the two of us I'm the only one who has vetted and cited the information I have provided.

IDK maybe "rational thinking" means something totally different where you come from.. Because to me it means to base my thoughts on vetted facts, and sound definitions that are established in the field of study I am 'rationally thinking' about. Your thoughts seem to all come from deep down from feeling and foolish, but well meaning compassion and other 'wooo' nonsense that can be manipulated.

If you want to have a topical conversation try researching a little and post some proper source material to support your claims. otherwise know I will trivialize and sweep you under the rug in the same way you tried to discredit and trivialize my work.

Lol, you don't even know what your own OP is about.

[TheRealJoeFish]

^ lol k.

[LastPoet]

LMAO, Mayo Clinic. Evie will be all over this

[LadyForCamus]

^ lol k.

Sorry, I meant Drich, not you JoeFish!

[Drich]

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?

So?

You do understand that you are a minority with in a minority, with in yet another minority? Meaning the first minority is that trans gendered people represent less than 1% of the total population. That is minority 1, Minority 2 is the fact that the Mayo Clinic cites the a fraction of the Transsexual community actually receives help. That is minority 2. Of those who do seek or receive help, a very small minority are stable. that is minority 3. Figuritivly speaking you and people like you are but a handful compared to the millions who suffer from GID and are not mentallly stable.

That said

Should the millions who are not 'mentally stable' dictate policy for those who are/ do not suffer a mental affliction? Or in your case of the thousands or maybe hundreds of people who have won their battle with GID in a position to dictate law to the 100's of millions even billions who do not suffer from this affliction in any way shape or form?

Don't be fooled by these other clowns who are trying to make this about your right to live your life. no. This discussion is about a minority of mentally ill people dictating living conditions to hundreds of million of people. And how that is supposed to make sense.

[Drich]

the only thing foolish is pretending the emperor has 'new cloths' that only the 'wise' can see when clearly he is not wearing anything at all!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emperor's_New_Clothes

Or in this case potentially allowing the mentally ill set the standards of society.

The current standard is that the law pretty much ignores them, so no one is really checking to make sure who belongs in what bathroom as long as they don't stand out as being in the 'wrong' bathroom. That's working really well, has never caused a problem, which is more than you can say for just about anything. You know what a real sign of mental illness is? Insisting on fixing things that aren't broken.

I guess that is the + to living with your head in the sand... If your head is in the sand you can never see anything 'broken.'