Transgenders

[Agnostic75]

Was it through groundbreaking new insights or political pressure that the designation "mental illness" was changed?

A much better question is "was it through groundbreaking new insights or political pressure that homosexuality was designated a mental illness in the first place?"

Many religous conservatives claim that homosexuality was removed from the DSM 1973 because of political pressure, but where is any credible evidence that supports that claim? How could psychiatrists have thrown their morals away and have voted for something that they did not believe? That is very unlikely. And what about the 46 years of research that has happened since then? What research during the past 46 years shows that homosexuality is unhealthy?

What options to you offer homosexuals that usually works?

 

[painted wolf]

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.

Of course you do... :sarcastic

wa:do

 

[-Peacemaker-]

A
What options to you offer homosexuals that usually works?

Trust in Jesus

 

[tumbleweed41]

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...

Agreed upon by whom?
And are you under the assumption that all transgenders are homosexual?

 

[LuisDantas]

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.

So, what about answering Tumbleweed's question?

Iis it a strawman? Or are you instead claiming that the "divergence" is in some sense meaningful despite your own refusal to give credit to your own source?

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.

It would be if it were still a question.

 

[painted wolf]

Trust in Jesus

As long as it's only your version of Jesus.

Because only you have the real version of Jesus right...

wa:do

 

[Penumbra]

Jesus never even mentioned homosexuality or transgenderism.

The bro was too busy working on other things to be hatin'.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

Agreed upon by whom?
And are you under the assumption that all transgenders are homosexual?

Once again if you had actually read this conversation you wouldn't have needed to ask who I was talking about. There's more than enough context clues in the last few pages to give you that answer.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

Jesus never even mentioned homosexuality or transgenderism.

The bro was too busy working on other things to be hatin'.

It's flat out impossible to argue with integrity that he approved of such behavior. He was a student of the OT, he knew exactly what its definition of sexual immorality was and specifically told people to abstain from it. He also didn't even give one hint that somewhere in the new covenant that Christians believe he established a new standard of sexual immoraly was being implemented

 

[tumbleweed41]

So your bringing up the topic was a strawman?

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...

Agreed upon by whom?
And are you under the assumption that all transgenders are homosexual?

Once again if you had actually read this conversation you wouldn't have needed to ask who I was talking about. There's more than enough context clues in the last few pages to give you that answer.

You keep avoiding the questions.

• 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?

 

[Penumbra]

It's flat out impossible to argue with integrity that he approved of such behavior. He was a student of the OT, he knew exactly what its definition of sexual immorality was and specifically told people to abstain from it. He also didn't even give one hint that somewhere in the new covenant that Christians believe he established a new standard of sexual immoraly was being implemented

So if you and Jesus are fans of the OT, I take it that you're equally against mixed fabrics and eating shellfish, among other things. Plus you're all for making sure there are tassels on clothing, as specified in the OT.

If so, can you please link to a thread or two where you've discussed those things?

 

[-Peacemaker-]

You keep avoiding the questions.

• 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?

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.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Unbelievable...

Indeed.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

If your god made me this way, and put me into a society that hates my existence, then no, he doesn't know what he's talking about.

The definition of "friend" is not: person that tells me exactly what I want to hear and supports me doing whatever I want. I'll grant you that Christians have often sucked at ministering to homosexuals and perhaps by extension transgenders. The reality is that there is a battle taking place for the hearts and minds of people as both sides are actively pushing their agenda. People are bound to get emotional from time to time and say things in anger as opposed to love. It's interesting how the same thing can be said in two different ways and provoke far different responses.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The definition of "friend" is not: person that tells me exactly what I want to hear and supports me doing whatever I want. I'll grant you that Christians have often sucked at ministering to homosexuals and perhaps by extension transgenders. The reality is that there is a battle taking place for the hearts and minds of people as both sides are actively pushing their agenda. People are bound to get emotional from time to time and say things in anger as opposed to love. It's interesting how the same thing can be said in two different ways and provoke far different responses.

I'm saying nothing in anger: if your god is actively involved with the world, then I do not believe he really knows what he's doing. Until not a single innocent person dies at the hands of the corrupt, when not a single child in this world suffers, and when the legal systems of the world actually work, then I will believe there is a god who actually cares about us. Until then, if God gets involved, then he is a big meanie.
As for one agenda, we have one side saying these people are just regular people who should be allowed to live their lives just like anyone else, and on the other side we have people claiming they are mentally ill or unstable. You have many scientist representing many disciplines on the latter side, and only a handful of who support the former and who use approaches that have been proven to be ineffective. And because I feel like bragging about it some more, how many psychologically disturbed people do you know who get invitations to join honor societies at school? I'm telling you, there is nothing wrong with my head. The problem is that there are some funny looking things that don't belong, and what IS wrong is that I have not been living my life. And if me living my life is against the policies of your god, then I would gladly stand against your god to embrace to happiness that he has denied me.

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.

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.

 

[Maya3]

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.

Actually I would also appreciate if you answered our questions instead of changing the subject. Mine for example, if you go back you´d see several that you have not replied to.

Maya

 

[methylatedghosts]

You keep avoiding the questions.

• 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?

It's harder to lose an argument if you keep changing it

 

[-Peacemaker-]

I'm saying nothing in anger: if your god is actively involved with the world, then I do not believe he really knows what he's doing. Until not a single innocent person dies at the hands of the corrupt, when not a single child in this world suffers, and when the legal systems of the world actually work, then I will believe there is a god who actually cares about us. Until then, if God gets involved, then he is a big meanie.
As for one agenda, we have one side saying these people are just regular people who should be allowed to live their lives just like anyone else, and on the other side we have people claiming they are mentally ill or unstable. You have many scientist representing many disciplines on the latter side, and only a handful of who support the former and who use approaches that have been proven to be ineffective. And because I feel like bragging about it some more, how many psychologically disturbed people do you know who get invitations to join honor societies at school? I'm telling you, there is nothing wrong with my head. The problem is that there are some funny looking things that don't belong, and what IS wrong is that I have not been living my life. And if me living my life is against the policies of your god, then I would gladly stand against your god to embrace to happiness that he has denied me.

I've probably said some things in anger though. I know I can be obnoxious sometimes on here. I know I need to say things in a nicer way. I enjoy talking with everyone here even if I don't always show it. Now back to the converstion. The whole "we just want to live our lives" is disingenuous IMO. This is about certain JUSTIFYING themselves in the eyes of others. That is why it's a battle for people's hearts.

 

[methylatedghosts]

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.

It would be nice if you would just once at least answer these questions directly. Your "answers", spread across many posts in flakey hints only seem to be clear to you. If they were clear to anyone else, they wouldn't have to actually ask, now would they? Moreover, if they were clear and concise, it would simply be a matter of pointing out exactly which posts you answered these questions in.

Either that, our simply concede the argument, because your lack of cooperation doesn't get us anywhere.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

It would be nice if you would just once at least answer these questions directly. Your "answers", spread across many posts in flakey hints only seem to be clear to you. If they were clear to anyone else, they wouldn't have to actually ask, now would they? Moreover, if they were clear and concise, it would simply be a matter of pointing out exactly which posts you answered these questions in.

Either that, our simply concede the argument, because your lack of cooperation doesn't get us anywhere.

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