(November 21, 2024 at 7:33 am)Belacqua Wrote:No human method can be infallible of course, and the reliability of branches of science vary of course, but this does not mean that they are entirely subjective. Thus science's insistence on keeping an open mind, and that all facts must remain tentative in the light of new evidence, and its ability to admit of an error, and rethink their position in the light of new evidence, is in fact one the methods greatest strengths.(November 21, 2024 at 7:20 am)Paleophyte Wrote: Actually, it already has. According to the current version of the DSM-5 "It is important to note that gender nonconformity is not in itself a mental disorder." The disorder that commonly arises in gender dysphoria is a result of the stress produced when a person's experienced gender doesn't match with societal and cultural expectations. Or in simpler terms, society is the problem and we're sorry that you need a therapist to deal with it.
That's good to know. I'm glad that the professionals are coming around.
Psychiatry is notoriously subjective in its diagnoses. The fact that something can be a disorder one year and not one the next is a little troubling.
I know a psychiatrist in the US who works in a big hospital. One of her duties is to interview patients who are seeking gender reassignment surgery. Her job is NOT to determine what gender the person really is, but simply to say if the person is in a sufficiently rational and calm state of mind to make a big decision. After all, there are manic-depressives who can decide things in a manic phase which they wouldn't decide at other times. During the manic state it's dangerous for them to have access to a credit card, much less major surgery.
She tells me that in a very small number of cases she has recommended that the person not be approved for the surgery yet. She has recommended a longer waiting period and further counseling. But she says that in every such case the patient has simply gone to a different psychiatrist and gotten the answer they want. So apparently even professional opinions of this type are not cut-and-dried, but include a large subjective element.
Knowing something was wrong or incorrect, still advances knowledge. Clinging to unfalsifiable or demonstrably incorrect doctrine and dogma has the opposite effect.
Lets remember your claim was that all we had was the subjective opinion of the patient, this clearly is not the case. This is also a complex issue, as we are not just dealing with objective facts, but subjective moral judgments.
