Gender

[Mister Agenda]

It's hard to understand experientially if you're not trans. But someone like Elliott would say that they have this very strong feeling that they're more aligned with the men within their societies than they are with the women, physiologically, psychologically, and societally. They experience themselves as men, and not just claim to be men. So why be disrespectful with regards to their own experiences and insist they can't be counted as men?

Because they aren't men. You can't even identify one single non-biological characteristic that makes one male. If I tell you I see pink elephants should you respect me and agree?

If you told me you see pink elephants I would respect you enough not to tell you that you're lying about what you see.

[FrustratedFool]

Out of curiosity, do we have non-cis people here? I'm non-cis, though don't identify as trans, as am curious about this issue from through that lens.

[Mister Agenda]

Personally I subscribe to a self-id model of gender.

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. 

We wouldn't take it as persuasive, but I don't think many of us would argue that it's not their experience. We're not going to try to force someone to pretend there's no God because we're so sure there isn't. Not trying to force a different reality than the one they perceive on someone is just following the don't be a dick commandment. That's without getting into nuances of intersex, hormones, and possibly actual brain structure.

I don't have to personally believe a person's self description is precisely correct in order to honor it. You might notice most of the atheists here support freedom of religion, for instance.

[Belacqua]

We wouldn't take it as persuasive, but I don't think many of us would argue that it's not their experience. We're not going to try to force someone to pretend there's no God because we're so sure there isn't. Not trying to force a different reality than the one they perceive on someone is just following the don't be a dick commandment. That's without getting into nuances of intersex, hormones, and possibly actual brain structure.

I don't have to personally believe a person's self description is precisely correct in order to honor it. You might notice most of the atheists here support freedom of religion, for instance.

Yes, of course, I'm completely fine with people's self description. If they want to declare they were mis-assigned at birth, and do reassignment surgery, or whatever makes them happier and more comfortable with themselves, that's none of my business. 

The decision to see all this as a good thing is ideological, not scientific. It is in keeping with modern liberal values of individualism, self-determination, all those good things. 

So it's an issue where the ideology is determinative, not the science.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

We wouldn't take it as persuasive, but I don't think many of us would argue that it's not their experience. We're not going to try to force someone to pretend there's no God because we're so sure there isn't. Not trying to force a different reality than the one they perceive on someone is just following the don't be a dick commandment. That's without getting into nuances of intersex, hormones, and possibly actual brain structure.

I don't have to personally believe a person's self description is precisely correct in order to honor it. You might notice most of the atheists here support freedom of religion, for instance.

Yes, of course, I'm completely fine with people's self description. If they want to declare they were mis-assigned at birth, and do reassignment surgery, or whatever makes them happier and more comfortable with themselves, that's none of my business. 

The decision to see all this as a good thing is ideological, not scientific. It is in keeping with modern liberal values of individualism, self-determination, all those good things. 

So it's an issue where the ideology is determinative, not the science.

Pointless question: How do you KNOW it’s not scientific?

Boru

[arewethereyet]

Yes, of course, I'm completely fine with people's self description. If they want to declare they were mis-assigned at birth, and do reassignment surgery, or whatever makes them happier and more comfortable with themselves, that's none of my business. 

The decision to see all this as a good thing is ideological, not scientific. It is in keeping with modern liberal values of individualism, self-determination, all those good things. 

So it's an issue where the ideology is determinative, not the science.

Pointless question: How do you KNOW it’s not scientific?

Boru

I'm sure there's a book to be quoted/noted.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Pointless question: How do you KNOW it’s not scientific?

Boru

I'm sure there's a book to be quoted/noted.

Something from Dante, probably.

Boru

[Belacqua]

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.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

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.

(Bold mine)

You certainly seem to be, you horrible cunt.

Boru

[arewethereyet]

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.

You speak for atheists all the time.