|
Keep discussion objective and civil.
Blindly spewing uninformed non-sense will lead to moderation action. |
On December 04 2012 13:21 Alay wrote:Then you have direct laws banning transsexuals from having changes on markers regarding birth certificates/license. Further, a lot of marriage laws (mostly based on anti-gay marriage laws, while still defining the trans individual as their birth assigned-sex. This is one of the reasons my boyfriend and I still cannot get married in the state of Ohio)
The massive irony behind their bigotry is that this allows homosexual transsexuals to marry but not heterosexual ones.
|
On December 04 2012 13:23 Arghmyliver wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2012 12:26 MountainDewJunkie wrote:
Well, believing you should have been born another gender or paying large sums of money on surgery and pills to mutate your body into something it's not to make you happy seems mentally unhealthy to me.
Preparing for wave of angry straw liberals. Haven't there been studies that show the sexually dimorphic brain structures of transgender individuals more closely resemble that of their preferred sex rather than their birth sex? I don't think its so much about "making themselves happy" in the conventional sense (i.e. "I want to get rich so I can be happy" or "Getting a new shirt (or new genetalia) would make me happy") but rather a basic incongruence in their self-identification. Dunno just my thoughts. Your comment seems rather callous I guess.
You're correct in that assessment.
On December 04 2012 13:27 dcemuser wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2012 13:21 Alay wrote:Then you have direct laws banning transsexuals from having changes on markers regarding birth certificates/license. Further, a lot of marriage laws (mostly based on anti-gay marriage laws, while still defining the trans individual as their birth assigned-sex. This is one of the reasons my boyfriend and I still cannot get married in the state of Ohio) The massive irony behind their bigotry is that this allows homosexual transsexuals to marry but not heterosexual ones.
You'd think so, but they usually ban those too on an "appears gay" clause.
So yeah, in some cases (Ohio, as far as I'm aware, still being one) trans people can't get married. Period.
|
On December 04 2012 13:22 corpuscle wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2012 13:16 deth2munkies wrote:On December 04 2012 12:21 Birdie wrote:
If I understand it correctly, the APA is re-classifying it not because they no longer think it is a disorder, but rather to prevent prejudice. But I don't think it is particularly going to change anything much. It seems rather political rather than scientifically grounded, as they haven't presented any proof or clear reasoning as to the change other than a desire to help the mental health of transgenders by changing the name. Pretty much, I mean it's the same thing with homosexuality, by the strict definition it IS a disorder, but political correctness demands it not be. And for the record, mental disorders are just anything deviating from the majority, they aren't inherently debilitating or bad, they're just perceived that way by ignorant assholes. I think they have to have a negative effect, too, otherwise anyone who's above average intelligence would have a mental disorder. Yes, but we don't consider people who are infertile disabled. It doesn't limit your ability to be a parent, it just means you can't get someone pregnant or get pregnant. I know it's a somewhat arbitrary distinction, but I would argue that it's fair: not being able to have a "natural" child isn't really a huge deal in modern society.
So, losing an arm because you wanted to is a big deal to society, but losing the ability to reproduce because you wanted to isn't? I'm not getting that at all.
|
In a way, it makes sense for a transgendered person to not be classified as having a mental disorder.
You could either look at it as the brain not fitting the body, in which case it is a disorder, or you can look at it as the body not fitting the brain, in which case its the body which has the "disorder".
I suppose, since ultimately there's nothing wrong with the brain other than that it identifies as a different gender, disorder may be too strong of a term to apply in this situation. Although it does cause great psychological distress to see yourself in the wrong type of body, in a sense that's a normal, healthy reaction for a female brain to have if it were in a male body (or vice versa).
And it makes more sense to say the brain has the priority over the body (because its more important), so if you could go either way, saying that the brain is in the right is the sensible way to go.
So I guess this is a good decision. Good topic to think about, for a moment there I thought disorder had no real meaning. But now that I think about it, I'm glad that the change is actually justified, and that transgendered people genuinely can be seen to not have a mental disorder, rather than just eliminating the classification due to social/political pressures.
|
On December 04 2012 13:25 Mandini wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2012 13:22 jdseemoreglass wrote:On December 04 2012 13:19 Waxangel wrote:
LIGHT THE KWARK SIGNAL
yay more bans ^_^ lol I was just thinking that. Heaven forbid we have an honest discussion without enforcement of the truth according to Kwark.  That discussion has run its course, lets not have it again.
The discussion hasn't run its course until the policy is changed.
On December 04 2012 13:25 packrat386 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2012 13:19 Waxangel wrote:
LIGHT THE KWARK SIGNAL
yay more bans ^_^ I may be out of place in saying this given that I'm somewhat new, but you might want to go easy on the bans. While there is likely going to be a lot of trolling, there are many people that are simply misinformed about these kind of things. If they get banned for saying something they believe to just be true, they could get frustrated and stay even more entrenched in their views.
You are new, so I will clue you in. People aren't allowed to be misinformed here, or as it is called, "willfully ignorant."
|
On December 04 2012 13:25 packrat386 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2012 13:19 Waxangel wrote:
LIGHT THE KWARK SIGNAL
yay more bans ^_^ I may be out of place in saying this given that I'm somewhat new, but you might want to go easy on the bans. While there is likely going to be a lot of trolling, there are many people that are simply misinformed about these kind of things. If they get banned for saying something they believe to just be true, they could get frustrated and stay even more entrenched in their views.
Oh, don't worry. They really only ban the bigoted d-bags. Threads like this are partly why I changed my mind on this issue.
|
On December 04 2012 13:29 DigiGnar wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2012 13:22 corpuscle wrote:On December 04 2012 13:16 deth2munkies wrote:On December 04 2012 12:21 Birdie wrote:
If I understand it correctly, the APA is re-classifying it not because they no longer think it is a disorder, but rather to prevent prejudice. But I don't think it is particularly going to change anything much. It seems rather political rather than scientifically grounded, as they haven't presented any proof or clear reasoning as to the change other than a desire to help the mental health of transgenders by changing the name. Pretty much, I mean it's the same thing with homosexuality, by the strict definition it IS a disorder, but political correctness demands it not be. And for the record, mental disorders are just anything deviating from the majority, they aren't inherently debilitating or bad, they're just perceived that way by ignorant assholes. I think they have to have a negative effect, too, otherwise anyone who's above average intelligence would have a mental disorder. Wouldn't getting a sex-change be disabling in terms of reproduction? Yes, but we don't consider people who are infertile disabled. It doesn't limit your ability to be a parent, it just means you can't get someone pregnant or get pregnant. I know it's a somewhat arbitrary distinction, but I would argue that it's fair: not being able to have a "natural" child isn't really a huge deal in modern society. So, losing an arm because you wanted to is a big deal to society, but losing the ability to reproduce because you wanted to isn't? I'm not getting that at all.
Losing the ability to produce is simply a side effect of a treatment for massive depression, and it could possibly save your life. Most transgendered individuals don't go into surgery with the express purpose of losing the ability to reproduce, in fact many of them are hard pressed to choose that option (many freeze sperm or eggs beforehand), but in the end it can be the right choice for that individual. If you had Metastasizing cancer and you cut off your arm because it is going to cause you harm then you are not suffering from a disorder.
|
On December 04 2012 13:37 andrewlt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2012 13:25 packrat386 wrote:On December 04 2012 13:19 Waxangel wrote:
LIGHT THE KWARK SIGNAL
yay more bans ^_^ I may be out of place in saying this given that I'm somewhat new, but you might want to go easy on the bans. While there is likely going to be a lot of trolling, there are many people that are simply misinformed about these kind of things. If they get banned for saying something they believe to just be true, they could get frustrated and stay even more entrenched in their views. Oh, don't worry. They really only ban the bigoted d-bags. Threads like this are partly why I changed my mind on this issue.
Thats good to know. The only reason I can claim to know anything about this is because at one time I turned to the internet for information, and I'm glad that some people put up with my (probably offensive at the time) beliefs in order to explain it to me.
|
On December 04 2012 13:40 packrat386 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2012 13:29 DigiGnar wrote:On December 04 2012 13:22 corpuscle wrote:On December 04 2012 13:16 deth2munkies wrote:On December 04 2012 12:21 Birdie wrote:
If I understand it correctly, the APA is re-classifying it not because they no longer think it is a disorder, but rather to prevent prejudice. But I don't think it is particularly going to change anything much. It seems rather political rather than scientifically grounded, as they haven't presented any proof or clear reasoning as to the change other than a desire to help the mental health of transgenders by changing the name. Pretty much, I mean it's the same thing with homosexuality, by the strict definition it IS a disorder, but political correctness demands it not be. And for the record, mental disorders are just anything deviating from the majority, they aren't inherently debilitating or bad, they're just perceived that way by ignorant assholes. I think they have to have a negative effect, too, otherwise anyone who's above average intelligence would have a mental disorder. Wouldn't getting a sex-change be disabling in terms of reproduction? Yes, but we don't consider people who are infertile disabled. It doesn't limit your ability to be a parent, it just means you can't get someone pregnant or get pregnant. I know it's a somewhat arbitrary distinction, but I would argue that it's fair: not being able to have a "natural" child isn't really a huge deal in modern society. So, losing an arm because you wanted to is a big deal to society, but losing the ability to reproduce because you wanted to isn't? I'm not getting that at all. Losing the ability to produce is simply a side effect of a treatment for massive depression, and it could possibly save your life. Most transgendered individuals don't go into surgery with the express purpose of losing the ability to reproduce, in fact many of them are hard pressed to choose that option (many freeze sperm or eggs beforehand), but in the end it can be the right choice for that individual. If you had Metastasizing cancer and you cut off your arm because it is going to cause you harm then you are not suffering from a disorder.
Losing the ability to pick up a cup with both arms is simply a side effect of a treatment for massive depression, and could possibly save your life.
See what I did there?
|
On December 04 2012 13:44 DigiGnar wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2012 13:40 packrat386 wrote:On December 04 2012 13:29 DigiGnar wrote:On December 04 2012 13:22 corpuscle wrote:On December 04 2012 13:16 deth2munkies wrote:On December 04 2012 12:21 Birdie wrote:
If I understand it correctly, the APA is re-classifying it not because they no longer think it is a disorder, but rather to prevent prejudice. But I don't think it is particularly going to change anything much. It seems rather political rather than scientifically grounded, as they haven't presented any proof or clear reasoning as to the change other than a desire to help the mental health of transgenders by changing the name. Pretty much, I mean it's the same thing with homosexuality, by the strict definition it IS a disorder, but political correctness demands it not be. And for the record, mental disorders are just anything deviating from the majority, they aren't inherently debilitating or bad, they're just perceived that way by ignorant assholes. I think they have to have a negative effect, too, otherwise anyone who's above average intelligence would have a mental disorder. Wouldn't getting a sex-change be disabling in terms of reproduction? Yes, but we don't consider people who are infertile disabled. It doesn't limit your ability to be a parent, it just means you can't get someone pregnant or get pregnant. I know it's a somewhat arbitrary distinction, but I would argue that it's fair: not being able to have a "natural" child isn't really a huge deal in modern society. So, losing an arm because you wanted to is a big deal to society, but losing the ability to reproduce because you wanted to isn't? I'm not getting that at all. Losing the ability to produce is simply a side effect of a treatment for massive depression, and it could possibly save your life. Most transgendered individuals don't go into surgery with the express purpose of losing the ability to reproduce, in fact many of them are hard pressed to choose that option (many freeze sperm or eggs beforehand), but in the end it can be the right choice for that individual. If you had Metastasizing cancer and you cut off your arm because it is going to cause you harm then you are not suffering from a disorder. Losing the ability to pick up a cup with both arms is simply a side effect of a treatment for massive depression, and could possibly save your life. See what I did there?
At this point I think you're just being willfully obtuse. 
|
On December 04 2012 13:44 DigiGnar wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2012 13:40 packrat386 wrote:On December 04 2012 13:29 DigiGnar wrote:On December 04 2012 13:22 corpuscle wrote:On December 04 2012 13:16 deth2munkies wrote:On December 04 2012 12:21 Birdie wrote:
If I understand it correctly, the APA is re-classifying it not because they no longer think it is a disorder, but rather to prevent prejudice. But I don't think it is particularly going to change anything much. It seems rather political rather than scientifically grounded, as they haven't presented any proof or clear reasoning as to the change other than a desire to help the mental health of transgenders by changing the name. Pretty much, I mean it's the same thing with homosexuality, by the strict definition it IS a disorder, but political correctness demands it not be. And for the record, mental disorders are just anything deviating from the majority, they aren't inherently debilitating or bad, they're just perceived that way by ignorant assholes. I think they have to have a negative effect, too, otherwise anyone who's above average intelligence would have a mental disorder. Wouldn't getting a sex-change be disabling in terms of reproduction? Yes, but we don't consider people who are infertile disabled. It doesn't limit your ability to be a parent, it just means you can't get someone pregnant or get pregnant. I know it's a somewhat arbitrary distinction, but I would argue that it's fair: not being able to have a "natural" child isn't really a huge deal in modern society. So, losing an arm because you wanted to is a big deal to society, but losing the ability to reproduce because you wanted to isn't? I'm not getting that at all. Losing the ability to produce is simply a side effect of a treatment for massive depression, and it could possibly save your life. Most transgendered individuals don't go into surgery with the express purpose of losing the ability to reproduce, in fact many of them are hard pressed to choose that option (many freeze sperm or eggs beforehand), but in the end it can be the right choice for that individual. If you had Metastasizing cancer and you cut off your arm because it is going to cause you harm then you are not suffering from a disorder. Losing the ability to pick up a cup with both arms is simply a side effect of a treatment for massive depression, and could possibly save your life. See what I did there?
You switched some words around, but it still seems like a viable reason to cut off both arms, if that were the case...
What exactly is the point you were trying to make?
|
I'm trying to say that wanting your arms off and wanting to have your dick inverted are both treatment options for massive depression.
|
On December 04 2012 13:44 DigiGnar wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2012 13:40 packrat386 wrote:On December 04 2012 13:29 DigiGnar wrote:On December 04 2012 13:22 corpuscle wrote:On December 04 2012 13:16 deth2munkies wrote:On December 04 2012 12:21 Birdie wrote:
If I understand it correctly, the APA is re-classifying it not because they no longer think it is a disorder, but rather to prevent prejudice. But I don't think it is particularly going to change anything much. It seems rather political rather than scientifically grounded, as they haven't presented any proof or clear reasoning as to the change other than a desire to help the mental health of transgenders by changing the name. Pretty much, I mean it's the same thing with homosexuality, by the strict definition it IS a disorder, but political correctness demands it not be. And for the record, mental disorders are just anything deviating from the majority, they aren't inherently debilitating or bad, they're just perceived that way by ignorant assholes. I think they have to have a negative effect, too, otherwise anyone who's above average intelligence would have a mental disorder. Wouldn't getting a sex-change be disabling in terms of reproduction? Yes, but we don't consider people who are infertile disabled. It doesn't limit your ability to be a parent, it just means you can't get someone pregnant or get pregnant. I know it's a somewhat arbitrary distinction, but I would argue that it's fair: not being able to have a "natural" child isn't really a huge deal in modern society. So, losing an arm because you wanted to is a big deal to society, but losing the ability to reproduce because you wanted to isn't? I'm not getting that at all. Losing the ability to produce is simply a side effect of a treatment for massive depression, and it could possibly save your life. Most transgendered individuals don't go into surgery with the express purpose of losing the ability to reproduce, in fact many of them are hard pressed to choose that option (many freeze sperm or eggs beforehand), but in the end it can be the right choice for that individual. If you had Metastasizing cancer and you cut off your arm because it is going to cause you harm then you are not suffering from a disorder. Losing the ability to pick up a cup with both arms is simply a side effect of a treatment for massive depression, and could possibly save your life. See what I did there?
I don't know of a treatment for depression that would involve removing your arm, but that was sort of my point above. If you want to cut off your arm because the alternative is worse, then that is not a disorder. In the case of gender dysphoria, the problem is that transgendered people feel extremely uncomfortable with their bodies, and there are various treatments (of which surgery is only one I might add) to remedy that. What this change does is recognize that the gender identity of the individual does NOT represent a disorder.
To clarify if you are a transwoman (born with a Y chromosome, but identify as a woman) then the disorder is the depression etc. that comes from the incongruence between your gender identity and your body. And similarly, the fact that your gender identity is different from your biological sex is NOT a disorder.
|
On December 04 2012 13:46 corpuscle wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2012 13:44 DigiGnar wrote:On December 04 2012 13:40 packrat386 wrote:On December 04 2012 13:29 DigiGnar wrote:On December 04 2012 13:22 corpuscle wrote:On December 04 2012 13:16 deth2munkies wrote:On December 04 2012 12:21 Birdie wrote:
If I understand it correctly, the APA is re-classifying it not because they no longer think it is a disorder, but rather to prevent prejudice. But I don't think it is particularly going to change anything much. It seems rather political rather than scientifically grounded, as they haven't presented any proof or clear reasoning as to the change other than a desire to help the mental health of transgenders by changing the name. Pretty much, I mean it's the same thing with homosexuality, by the strict definition it IS a disorder, but political correctness demands it not be. And for the record, mental disorders are just anything deviating from the majority, they aren't inherently debilitating or bad, they're just perceived that way by ignorant assholes. I think they have to have a negative effect, too, otherwise anyone who's above average intelligence would have a mental disorder. Wouldn't getting a sex-change be disabling in terms of reproduction? Yes, but we don't consider people who are infertile disabled. It doesn't limit your ability to be a parent, it just means you can't get someone pregnant or get pregnant. I know it's a somewhat arbitrary distinction, but I would argue that it's fair: not being able to have a "natural" child isn't really a huge deal in modern society. So, losing an arm because you wanted to is a big deal to society, but losing the ability to reproduce because you wanted to isn't? I'm not getting that at all. Losing the ability to produce is simply a side effect of a treatment for massive depression, and it could possibly save your life. Most transgendered individuals don't go into surgery with the express purpose of losing the ability to reproduce, in fact many of them are hard pressed to choose that option (many freeze sperm or eggs beforehand), but in the end it can be the right choice for that individual. If you had Metastasizing cancer and you cut off your arm because it is going to cause you harm then you are not suffering from a disorder. Losing the ability to pick up a cup with both arms is simply a side effect of a treatment for massive depression, and could possibly save your life. See what I did there? At this point I think you're just being willfully obtuse.
I know a lot of people are responding to this persons post as if he or she is simply trolling, but I don't think thats all that productive. If s/he is trolling then those comments only tend to encourage them. If s/he isn't trolling then it's important to try explain these issues clearly.
|
DSM-V slated for March 2013, hopefully they keep their shit together long enough to release it this time around.
I'm in a Psy.D. program right now so this is relevant for me...
|
Stop giving these freaks a leg to stand on.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On December 04 2012 14:00 Dozle wrote:
Stop giving these freaks a leg to stand on.
Oh god, here we go... 
|
On December 04 2012 13:59 packrat386 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2012 13:46 corpuscle wrote:On December 04 2012 13:44 DigiGnar wrote:On December 04 2012 13:40 packrat386 wrote:On December 04 2012 13:29 DigiGnar wrote:On December 04 2012 13:22 corpuscle wrote:On December 04 2012 13:16 deth2munkies wrote:On December 04 2012 12:21 Birdie wrote:
If I understand it correctly, the APA is re-classifying it not because they no longer think it is a disorder, but rather to prevent prejudice. But I don't think it is particularly going to change anything much. It seems rather political rather than scientifically grounded, as they haven't presented any proof or clear reasoning as to the change other than a desire to help the mental health of transgenders by changing the name. Pretty much, I mean it's the same thing with homosexuality, by the strict definition it IS a disorder, but political correctness demands it not be. And for the record, mental disorders are just anything deviating from the majority, they aren't inherently debilitating or bad, they're just perceived that way by ignorant assholes. I think they have to have a negative effect, too, otherwise anyone who's above average intelligence would have a mental disorder. Wouldn't getting a sex-change be disabling in terms of reproduction? Yes, but we don't consider people who are infertile disabled. It doesn't limit your ability to be a parent, it just means you can't get someone pregnant or get pregnant. I know it's a somewhat arbitrary distinction, but I would argue that it's fair: not being able to have a "natural" child isn't really a huge deal in modern society. So, losing an arm because you wanted to is a big deal to society, but losing the ability to reproduce because you wanted to isn't? I'm not getting that at all. Losing the ability to produce is simply a side effect of a treatment for massive depression, and it could possibly save your life. Most transgendered individuals don't go into surgery with the express purpose of losing the ability to reproduce, in fact many of them are hard pressed to choose that option (many freeze sperm or eggs beforehand), but in the end it can be the right choice for that individual. If you had Metastasizing cancer and you cut off your arm because it is going to cause you harm then you are not suffering from a disorder. Losing the ability to pick up a cup with both arms is simply a side effect of a treatment for massive depression, and could possibly save your life. See what I did there? At this point I think you're just being willfully obtuse. I know a lot of people are responding to this persons post as if he or she is simply trolling, but I don't think thats all that productive. If s/he is trolling then those comments only tend to encourage them. If s/he isn't trolling then it's important to try explain these issues clearly.
I was trying to reply to him like he wasn't trolling and was genuinely confused, but I gave up after that, I think he's just being a tool.
To be on topic, does anyone with more expertise in the field know what effect this would have on insurance companies and such? I know that in most places, reassignment surgery isn't covered, but it seems like the APA is recommending that GRS be covered.
|
While I'm sympathetic to the gains made for equality, I am simply not sure that the grounds for this maneuver - which has led to those gains - are truthful. Though, I have to say - I am additionally discouraged to even discuss the matter, as I can see that at least one moderator is already going trigger happy on people who 'dare' to give voice to such thinking. Some equality in while some equality stays out.
|
Sorta old news in a sense but yeah it's definitely not a mental disorder. Your mind is perfectly fine as a transgender. It's the body that isn't fine. Transgenders are not hindered mentally nor are they wrong. They are whatever gender they identify themselves with, I mean I sure as hell don't look at my body and go "That's me", I look at my personality and my interests. I look at what I identify myself with. I'm lucky in the sense that my mind matches my body. Trans aren't lucky, and aren't mentally disabled.
After all the body isn't who you are, it's the mind that determines it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
