Transgenders

[gnomon]

There is much to the history of the DSM, and to focus on only that small piece is to really miss the big picture. The fact is there are many mental health professionals that do not believe in using the label psychological disorder for many reasons, sometimes the debates are philosophical (such as it wouldn't be a disorder if everyone had it), and sometimes they revolve around the stigma attached to people who are diagnosed with a mental illness. There are even some psychological disorders that only occur in certain cultures. There is actually people who believe the DSM should be scrapped entirely because it often is political. There are actually many fights and arguments over many categories in it.

On a personal level I can relate to this. When I admitted myself into Ridgeview Hospital (the third highest ranked mental hospital at the time) I had a psych doctor who refused to diagnose me with anything until he knew me for at least six months. I was diagnosed with manic depression and I feel that he prescribed a necessary regimen based upon my diagnosis. What struck me was the number of individuals in that hospital who were given diagnoses based upon a cursory diagnoses.

For example one of my roommates live on more than twenty psychotropic medications merely because he punched a garage door and was immediately diagnosed as bipolar. After living with him for a few months and he went to a different psych who determined that his actions were nothing more than regular actions by an adolescent and removing him off all medications he saw an immediate improvement in his condition.

My own personal experience with the mental health community I do believe that scrapping the DSM is long overdue. Namely along the lines of addiction diagnoses which are based upon non-scientific principles.

 

[methylatedghosts]

Have you even contributed anything to this discussion beyond little "one liners"?

I suspect the answer to that would be the same as the following question to you:

Have you, at any point addressed any of the questions in this discussion in a clear, concise, and direct manner?

If you show me yours, I'll show you mine...

 

[-Peacemaker-]

I suspect the answer to that would be the same as the following question to you:

Have you, at any point addressed any of the questions in this discussion in a clear, concise, and direct manner?

If you show me yours, I'll show you mine...

The point is this: that the exhortations of people that don't actually contribute anything thoughtful don't carry alot of weight

 

[methylatedghosts]

The point is this: that the exhortations of people that don't actually contribute anything thoughtful don't carry alot of weight

See posts 12, 42, 47, 48, 66 in this thread.


Most of the time, others have responded to you, and I would merely be needlessly repeating them. So back to those questions you seem to be so adept at dodging around....

 

[-Peacemaker-]

I'm not unreasonble. I haven't connected my main points as well as I could've. The intention of tying transgenderism to homosexuality to the sexual revolution is to show the interdependence of these things in addition to pointing out that they are all parts of the bigger picture that is sexual immorality which could also be called "reckless sexual behavior". Beginning around post 128, the answers to some of the recent questions posted are found. If the reader actually reads from there on they should easily understand my answers. If people still disagree that my position is clear, I want them to demonstrate WHY. This is just to combat one of my pet peeves which is people that spend little more than 2 seconds trying to understand something and then complain that their questions haven't been addressed. Even more infuriating is the fact that in post 159 I specifically address something that a couple people have asked but still say I've left unaddressed which was the whole thing about a "straw man" by bringing up homosexuality and transgenderism's status as "mental illnesses". Sadly, for the person that brought it up, the question wasn't even a good one to begin with as it simply revealed that they had made no effort whatsoever to read the previous posts in order to have the necessary context to understand what was being currently addressed at the time they entered the conversation. It's difficult to fathom the audacity of someone who makes no effort to familarize themselves with what is being discussed and then complains that their concerns aren't being addressed.

 

[methylatedghosts]

I'm not unreasonble.

Could've fooled me...

As for the rest, I will look into it when I'm at my computer. A bit hard to multi-quote on my phone, and I don't yet want to leave my hammock in the afternoon sun

 

[tumbleweed41]

Unbelievable. Tell you what. Go through my responses and tell my why they don't address this stuff. My responses should be very clear if you just make that little bit of effort. It's going to require you to put more than 2 seconds of thought into my previous posts. I will not repeat myself for someone who refuses to put some effort into this.

Took your advice, read your every post, the answers you have given so far have been ambiguous and tend to stray. So I will ask this last time for clear concise answers;

• Is your referencing the former designation of homosexuality as a mental disorder simply a strawman to divert from the actual issues?
• Who are you referencing when you state "status as a mental illness was a piece of evidence demonstrating the fact that it is not unanimously agreed upon that homosexual behavior is harmless" As in, agreed upon by whom?
• Are you under the assumption that all transgenders are homosexual?

 

[tumbleweed41]

Something interesting about kids raised by homosexuals is that they have a higher rate of actually practicing that lifestyle themselves. I'm pretty sure that's not even in dispute.

I would agree that children of openly gay and lesbian couples are less likely to repress their natural sexual desires than those children who grow up in homophobic households.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

Took your advice, read your every post, the answers you have given so far have been ambiguous and tend to stray. So I will ask this last time for clear concise answers;

• Is your referencing the former designation of homosexuality as a mental disorder simply a strawman to divert from the actual issues?
• Who are you referencing when you state "status as a mental illness was a piece of evidence demonstrating the fact that it is not unanimously agreed upon that homosexual behavior is harmless" As in, agreed upon by whom?
• Are you under the assumption that all transgenders are homosexual?

The next step in this process is explainig WHY you feel what I wrote didn't address these questions. Ideally this stage of the process would involve you quoting specific posts and explaining why you feel the answers aren't clear. This at least demostrates that you not only read what I wrote but actually tried to understand.

 

[tumbleweed41]

The next step in this process is explainig WHY you feel what I wrote didn't address these questions. Ideally this stage of the process would involve you quoting specific posts and explaining why you feel the answers aren't clear. This at least demostrates that you not only read what I wrote but actually tried to understand.

Never mind.
Obfuscation becomes you.

 

[LuisDantas]

While you are at it, Peacemaker, what about answering post #165?

 

[-Peacemaker-]

Check this out big guy. the answer to why I brought up the status of mental illness is right here in post 159 as I said. I'll give you a hint where.... It's the sentence in big font

If you'd actually read this conversation you would've seen that its status as a mental illness was a piece of evidence demonstrating the fact that it is not unanimously agreed upon that homosexual behavior is harmless, contrary to what gays would like us to believe. The debate over its status as "mental ilness" is simply one small piece of evidence demonstrating this though admittingly not one of the stronger pieces precisely because of the fallible nature of "science". I also did ask a question: was it through groundbreaking new insights or political pressure that the designation "mental illness" was changed? Not being an expert on that issue I didn't attempt to give a definative answer, but I do think the question is interesting.

 

[LuisDantas]

I'm not unreasonble. I haven't connected my main points as well as I could've. The intention of tying transgenderism to homosexuality to the sexual revolution is to show the interdependence of these things in addition to pointing out that they are all parts of the bigger picture that is sexual immorality which could also be called "reckless sexual behavior".

Oh really?

Then I fear you are losing your time, and coming from premises that are both wrong and morally reprehensible.

I hope you continue, though. If you do, sooner or later you will realize that there is neither point nor human consideration nor virtue in attempting to associate immorality with either homosexuality or transgenderism.

Beginning around post 128, the answers to some of the recent questions posted are found. If the reader actually reads from there on they should easily understand my answers. If people still disagree that my position is clear, I want them to demonstrate WHY.

Among other reasons, because we have actual knowledge of facts that you are trying to guess at.

Also, as pointed out in #165 among other places, because your sources are chosen in a careless and biased way, so much so that even you admit to not trusting them to support your own points.

It's difficult to fathom the audacity of someone who makes no effort to familarize themselves with what is being discussed and then complains that their concerns aren't being addressed.

Yes, it is. But what can a man do?

 

[LuisDantas]

Check this out big guy. the answer to why I brought up the status of mental illness is right here in post 159 as I said. I'll give you a hint where.... It's the sentence in big font

Did you read #165 and understand it?

 

[-Peacemaker-]

Did you read #165 and understand it?

Unless I misread it, this post that you keep refering to is simply repeating what Tumbleweed asked.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

Both homosexuality and gender confusion were labeled mental illnesses by psychiatry. Around the time that both groups became vocal in their opposition and gained in political power, the designations were changed (or began the process of being changed). The result of groundbreaking new scientific discoveries or a lack of backbone in the face of accusations of "bigotry"? It's an interesting question

Hey Tumble check this out. You asked who I was refering when talking about which circle the debate over "mental illness" status raged. This is post 128 which I told you to read if you were interested in actually learning what I was talking about. In light of this post which circle do you think I could possibly have been refering to? Snow White's seven dwarves?

 

[LuisDantas]

Unless I misread it, this post that you keep refering to is simply repeating what Tumbleweed asked.

It was a bit more direct. And yet you answered neither of us. Was it a strawman? If not, how so?

 

[tumbleweed41]

Both homosexuality and gender confusion were labeled mental illnesses by psychiatry. Around the time that both groups became vocal in their opposition and gained in political power, the designations were changed (or began the process of being changed). The result of groundbreaking new scientific discoveries or a lack of backbone in the face of accusations of "bigotry"? It's an interesting question

Hey Tumble check this out. You asked who I was refering when talking about which circle the debate over "mental illness" status raged. This is post 128 which I told you to read if you were interested in actually learning what I was talking about. In light of this post which circle do you think I could possibly have been refering to? Snow White's seven dwarves?

Since you bring it back up, we can get to my first question.

• Is your referencing the former designation of homosexuality as a mental disorder simply a strawman to divert from the actual issues?

 

[-Peacemaker-]

Since you bring it back up, we can get to my first question.

• Is your referencing the former designation of homosexuality as a mental disorder simply a strawman to divert from the actual issues?

You'll notice around post 128 that we were talking about mental health so...no

 

[LuisDantas]

You'll notice around post 128 that we were talking about mental health so...no

You replied to #134, which reminded us all of why #128 does not sustain itself, so you must have read it.