BYU Student Flashes Rainbow Flag at Graduation

[Danzo]

13 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Gender dysphoria: Clinically significant distress caused when a person's assigned birth gender is not the same as the one with which they identify.

It’s not the identification that is the “disorder,” but the distress caused by it. In short, someone who isn’t distressed by it doesn’t have a disorder

Same goes for homosexuality: no distress, no disorder. It’s disgusting that someone would so cavalierly label people as mentally ill because he or she doesn’t agree with their choices. 

Just curious, but why the need for medical intervention if these are just choices?

[ttribe]

36 minutes ago, smac97 said:

No.

I'm fairly skeptical regarding the DSM, as I think it is dressed up as objective and empirical and scientific.  I'm not sure it is.  Plenty of discussions about flaws in the DSM (e.g., here and here).  And here:

I'm also skeptical of discrete labels and categorizations and "identities," such as "homosexual."  See, e.g., here:

Thanks,

-Smac

So, let me get this straight - You, an observer with no training in psychology, psycho-therapy, and psychiatry, are skeptical of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders as maintained by the American Psychiatric Association, which reflects the results of decades of dedicated research and analysis by countless professionals and academics with actual training in these areas because you think it might have been influenced to some unknown degree by political factions and as a counter to the DSM, the APA, and hundreds of thousands of trained mental health professionals, you offered up the words of Hamba Tuhan, himself a PhD in History, and the pop-psychology musings of a clinical psychologist who traded in the rigors of the academy in favor of his YouTube practice. Near as I can tell, the only reason you side with Hamba and Jordan Peterson is because they more closely align with your political and ideological beliefs. If that doesn't peg the irony meter, I don't know what does.

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, ttribe said:

Does that imply you would advocate for homosexuality to be once again classified as a mental illness, as well?

Is there such a thing as a spiritual illness?

[ttribe]

Just now, JLHPROF said:

Is there such a thing as a spiritual illness?

You're going off on a tangent. The assertion was that identification of trans or non-binary are indicia of mental illness. If there is such a thing as "spiritual illness" I leave that to theologians and philosophers, neither of whom should be unduly influencing public policy or health care practices.

[ttribe]

41 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Just curious, but why the need for medical intervention if these are just choices?

Are you ignoring my CFR, now?

[jkwilliams]

51 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Just curious, but why the need for medical intervention if these are just choices?

I’m not sure I understand what you’re asking, but I’m not transgender, so I wouldn’t know the answer even if I did. 

[Danzo]

12 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Are you ignoring my CFR, now?

Smack provided references to gender dysphoria being a medical issue. 

You don't seem to believe it, so I take it you oppose medical treatment. 

[Danzo]

3 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I’m not sure I understand what you’re asking, but I’m not transgender, so I wouldn’t know the answer even if I did. 

So you don't believe in medical treatment for gender dysphoria?

[ttribe]

Just now, Danzo said:

Smack provided references to gender dysphoria being a medical issue. 

You don't seem to believe it, so I take it you oppose medical treatment. 

Not sure how you made that extraordinary leap of logic. Your response makes it obvious you read nothing I linked.

I also didn't ask Smac for support for the assertion that you made. I asked you. Again, do you have anything to back up your assertion that a diagnosis of mental illness is a prerequisite to receiving insurance coverage for treatment of Trans patients? Yes, or No?

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, Danzo said:

So you don't believe in medical treatment for gender dysphoria?

Now I really have no idea what you’re talking about. 

[smac97]

49 minutes ago, ttribe said:

So, let me get this straight -

I sense an "Appeal to Authority" coming down the chute.

49 minutes ago, ttribe said:

You, an observer with no training in psychology, psycho-therapy, and psychiatry,

And there it is!

49 minutes ago, ttribe said:

are skeptical of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders as maintained by the American Psychiatric Association, which reflects the results of decades of dedicated research and analysis by countless professionals and academics with actual training in these areas because you think it might have been influenced to some unknown degree by political factions and as a counter to the DSM, the APA, and hundreds of thousands of trained mental health professionals,

Funny how "Let me get this straight" turned into "Let me radically distort and misrepresent what you just said."

I provided - and you ignored - several links to materials pertaining to my skepticism about the DSM being objective and empirical and scientific.

49 minutes ago, ttribe said:

you offered up the words of Hamba Tuhan, himself a PhD in History, and the pop-psychology musings of a clinical psychologist who traded in the rigors of the academy in favor of his YouTube practice.

First an "Appeal to Authority," and now Ad Hominem.  

49 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Near as I can tell,

Operative words, these.

49 minutes ago, ttribe said:

the only reason you side with Hamba and Jordan Peterson is because they more closely align with your political and ideological beliefs.

Ad Hominem again.

I invite you to consider the difference between an assumption and a conclusion.  Between an assertion and an informed opinion.

My political beliefs are downstream from my religious/philosophical/ideological ones.  And the latter are borne of real effort to read and study and discuss and debate and understand.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[The Nehor]

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I sense an "Appeal to Authority" coming down the chute.

So are appeals to authority always fallacious?

You also misunderstand what “ad hominem” means and routinely use the kind of reasoning you are calling an “ad hominem” yourself.

Edited May 10, 2022 by The Nehor

[ttribe]

16 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I sense an "Appeal to Authority" coming down the chute.

And there it is!

Funny how "Let me get this straight" turned into "Let me radically distort and misrepresent what you just said."

I provided - and you ignored - several links to materials pertaining to my skepticism about the DSM being objective and empirical and scientific.

First an "Appeal to Authority," and now Ad Hominem.  

Operative words, these.

Ad Hominem again.

I invite you to consider the difference between an assumption and a conclusion.  Between an assertion and an informed opinion.

My political beliefs are downstream from my religious/philosophical/ideological ones.  And the latter are borne of real effort to read and study and discuss and debate and understand.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Let's just do a little reading, shall we (https://fallacyinlogic.com/appeal-to-authority-fallacy/)? As to fallacious uses of appeals to authority, we find the following:
 

Quote

Generally, a fallacious appeal to authority is one that fails to meet the requirements of a legitimate one: the authority is not a real expert in the relevant area of knowledge, their statement is not concerned with the actual issue, or their views go against the general agreement among experts in that field of study.

Let’s look at various ways this fallacy may occur.

Appeal to false authority

This is likely the most common way of erroneously citing (supposed) experts. It occurs when someone uses the words of poor or irrelevant authorities as evidence for a claim. In such a case, the authorities are unqualified or their expertise is not relevant to the argument being made.

A typical example of this fallacy would be almost any celebrity endorsement in advertising.

Against the Consensus

When an expert’s views are contradictory to the consensus (or general agreement) within a field of study, their testimony can only provide weak evidence.

As seen in the example earlier, if 97% of climate scientists say that climate change is real, it is unreasonable to make a conclusion based on the beliefs of the 3% who disagree.

Gee, that looks a lot like your appeals to Hamba and Peterson.

Reading on:
 

Quote

Making a claim based on the opinions of experts is by no means always unreasonable or fallacious. In many issues, we have to rely upon the testimonies of relevant experts and scientific consensus – that is, the collective position of the scientists in a particular field of study.

For instance, for someone who is not a medical professional, it’s a better option to seek a medical expert’s advice about their medical issues than do what they themselves believe to be correct.

Relevant experts can provide us with strong reasons to believe that something is true due to their experience, training, knowledge, and access to more information. They are able to evaluate information better and put more compelling evidence and arguments together than a non-expert could. Consequently, when someone makes a claim that is in accordance with the views of the experts, it’s also supported with all the evidence the experts are relying upon.

As such, there are certain requirements that should be met for an argument from authority to be legitimate:

1. The authority is an acknowledged expert in the field under consideration.
2. The statement of the authority is relevant to their field of expertise.
3. There is a general agreement among experts in the field under consideration.

Hmmm, I think I was the one referencing the generally accepted group of experts, was I not?

Edited May 10, 2022 by ttribe

[jkwilliams]

6 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Let's just do a little reading, shall we (https://fallacyinlogic.com/appeal-to-authority-fallacy/)? As to fallacious uses of appeals to authority, we find the following:
 

Gee, that looks a lot like your appeals to Hamba and Peterson.

Reading on:
 

Hmmm, I think I was the one referencing the generally accepted group of experts, was I not?

I believe scholarly consensus is overruled by a reactionary YouTube personality. 

[OGHoosier]

5 hours ago, ttribe said:

So, let me get this straight - You, an observer with no training in psychology, psycho-therapy, and psychiatry, are skeptical of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders as maintained by the American Psychiatric Association, which reflects the results of decades of dedicated research and analysis by countless professionals and academics with actual training in these areas because you think it might have been influenced to some unknown degree by political factions and as a counter to the DSM, the APA, and hundreds of thousands of trained mental health professionals, you offered up the words of Hamba Tuhan, himself a PhD in History, and the pop-psychology musings of a clinical psychologist who traded in the rigors of the academy in favor of his YouTube practice. Near as I can tell, the only reason you side with Hamba and Jordan Peterson is because they more closely align with your political and ideological beliefs. If that doesn't peg the irony meter, I don't know what does.

Just going off the links @smac97 posted, I think the case against the DSM-V is more serious than you admit. Dr. Allen Frances, who chaired the APA task force that wrote the DSM-IV, has criticized it for expanding the definitions of prominent disorders to include normal and expected reactions to life, thus prompting overdiagnosis and overmedicalization. Furthermore, the whole thing suffers from terrible diagnostic reliability problems - doctors using the same manual struggle to make the same diagnosis for the same patient. 

Meanwhile, scoffing aside, journalist Gary Greenberg has documented political influence on the DSM-5 from his two years embedded with the DSM-5 composition task force. His findings were published as The Book of Woe: The DSM and the Unmaking of Psychiatry. It's not political factions in the sense that "the Democratic National Committee called and told us to say this." No, it's politics in the sense that everything is politics; the APA wants to maintain its position relative to international health organizations, there are internal turf wars between academics, etc. Large industry groups like the APA function like guilds, and their declarations do not represent so much a declaration of settled fact as the prevailing opinion in their steering committees. In all of this politics has its place. This is true of the APA, the ABA, or any other large industry organization which you might name. 

This means that placing our minds unreservedly at the behest of these organizations and the people who run them is fraught with danger. We should regard experts as advisors, not as authorities that get to dictate what we believe. The responsibility for weighing truth is incumbent upon all of us, it cannot be shoved off our shoulders onto prophets nor Ph.Ds (who have increasingly taken up the role of priestly caste that existed in earlier societies.) This is especially true when dealing with things that are fundamentally subjective in nature, and mental disorders in many cases are - subjective in the sense that they cannot be externally observed but instead rely on self-reported and self-interpreted experience. The symptoms of many categorized disorders are constrained to self-reports which cannot be further examined, since the long-promised grand theory of neuroscience and psychiatry remains a distant phantom. There really is an objectivity problem there - as the replication crisis and diagnostic reliability problem make evident.

Finally, as an aside, why shouldn't a Ph.D in History qualify one to discuss the nature of evolving social labels and categories? You can't run experiments on abstract concepts like "identity" or "orientation." They exist prior to experimentation as "sensemaking concepts," the irreducible ideas which form the framework in which exploration and experimentation occur. Seems to me that a historian would be as well suited to discuss the development and validity of these concepts as anybody else. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

2 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

Seems to me that a historian would be as well suited to discuss the development and validity of these concepts as anybody else. 

And in fact it has been interactions with those who work across time and space -- i.e., historians, anthropologists, and linguists -- that have helped push the psychological establishment to begin considering just how historically and culturally bound the entire enterprise is, with most research both originating from WEIRD (Western, educated, industrialised, rich, and democratic) societies and dealing almost exclusively with WEIRD subjects.

Here's a sampling of recent and easily accessible self-introspection:

Nicolas Geeraert, 'Many Cultures, One Psychology?', American Scientist, 106:4 (July-Aug 2018):

Quote

The academic discipline of psychology was developed largely in North America and Europe. Some would argue that it has been remarkably successful in understanding what drives human behavior and mental processes, which have long been thought to be universal. But in recent decades some researchers have started questioning this approach, arguing that many psychological phenomena are shaped by the individual cultures in which we live ...

The authors of the study noted that “members of WEIRD societies, including young children, are among the least representative populations one could find for generalizing about humans"...

Another domain that was originally dominated by studies of WEIRD samples is mental health; [however,] a number of culture-specific syndromes have been identified.

Hans IJzerman, Natalia Dutra, Miguel Silan, Adeyemi Adetula, Dana M. Basnight Brown, and Patrick Forscher, 'Psychological Science Needs the Entire Globe, Part 1: The Problem With U.S. Dominance in Psychological Science', Association for Psychological Science, 30 Aug. 2021:

Quote

A long-heard complaint about psychological science is that study subjects and authors are predominantly White and North American (Arnett, 2008), a state of affairs that does not seem to be improving (Thalmayer et al., 2021). In widely cited international psychology journals, the literature favors samples and authors from a very narrow population, usually located in the United States and often referenced with the acronym WEIRD (Western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic). This U.S. dominance extends to journal editors; across scientific disciplines, most journal editors are from the United States (29%), with Great Britain (8%), Italy (7%), and China (7%) in distant second, third, and fourth places (Altman & Cohen, 2021) ...

U.S. dominance hurts our attempts to create generalizable psychological theories (IJzerman et al., 2020). Take, for example, theories of child-rearing practices (Keller, 2018). One of the most famous theories in psychology, attachment theory, presumes a primary relationship between the mother and the developing child, a model that is largely based on the concept of the nuclear family. The idea of the nuclear family presumes a family structure similar to the U.S. middle-class ideal, in which parents live with their children in a home separate from their extended family. But in many cultural contexts, attachment theory may have limited applicability: Among traditional families in southern Madagascar, for instance, infants interact almost exclusively with peer groups of older children, and these older children are thus major infant caretakers (Scheidecker, 2017). 

This example illustrates how theories in psychology become loaded with assumptions that are embedded in U.S. culture.

'Psychology has a diversity problem', University of Queensland School of Psychology, media release, 13 June 2017:

Quote

“What we documented was alarming – 90 per cent of papers published relied on data drawn only from WEIRD participants,” Dr Nielsen said.

“Countries in Central and South America, Africa, Asia, the Middle East and Israel contain around 85 per cent of the world’s population, yet contributed less than three per cent of participants.

“This is a real problem, as quite often researchers will draw conclusions about their results stating ‘This study shows that children of X age will…’ without clarifying that their findings might not apply to all children or indeed anything more than a minority of the world’s children".

Matthew Warren, 'Researchers Assume White Americans Are More Representative of Humankind than Other Groups, According to Analysis of Psychology Paper Titles', British Psychological Society Research Digest, 29 July 2020:

Quote

It’s well-known that psychology has a problem with generalisability. Studies overwhelmingly involve “WEIRD” participants: those who are western and educated, from industrialised, rich and democratic societies. And while there is increasing recognition that other populations need better representation in research, many psychologists still often draw sweeping conclusions about humanity based on results from a narrow portion of the world’s population.

A new study published in Social Psychological and Personality Science suggests that this problem may have had another, more insidious effect. The authors argue that because of psychology’s traditionally narrow focus, we’ve ended up implicitly assuming that results of studies on WEIRD groups — particularly white Americans — are somehow more universally generalisable than those from other populations.

 

Edited May 11, 2022 by Hamba Tuhan

[Danzo]

17 hours ago, ttribe said:

Not sure how you made that extraordinary leap of logic. Your response makes it obvious you read nothing I linked.

I also didn't ask Smac for support for the assertion that you made. I asked you. Again, do you have anything to back up your assertion that a diagnosis of mental illness is a prerequisite to receiving insurance coverage for treatment of Trans patients? Yes, or No?

Oh dear,

First thing that come up with quick google search.

http://www.aetna.com/cpb/medical/data/600_699/0615.html

I pasted some excerpts below, bolding the requirements of a diagnosis of gender dysphoria.

"Policy

Aetna considers gender affirming surgery medically necessary when criteria for each of the following procedures is met:

1. Requirements for Breast Removal

   1. Single letter of referral from a qualified mental health professional (see Appendix); and
   2. Persistent, well-documented gender dysphoria (see Appendix); and
   3. Capacity to make a fully informed decision and to consent for treatment; and
   4. For members less than 18 years of age, completion of one year of testosterone treatment; and
   5. If significant medical or mental health concerns are present, they must be reasonably well controlled."

1. Requirements for Gonadectomy (Hysterectomy and Oophorectomy or Orchiectomy)

   1. Two referral letters from qualified mental health professionals, one in a purely evaluative role (see appendix); and
   2. Persistent, well-documented gender dysphoria (see Appendix); and
   3. Capacity to make a fully informed decision and to consent for treatment; and
   4. Age 18 years or older; and
   5. If significant medical or mental health concerns are present, they must be reasonably well controlled; and
   6. Twelve months of continuous hormone therapy as appropriate to the member's gender goals (unless the member has a medical contraindication or is otherwise unable or unwilling to take hormones).

A diagnosis of gender dysphoria requires a marked difference between the individual’s expressed/experienced gender and the gender others would assign him or her, and it must continue for at least six months. This condition may cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational or other important areas of functioning.  

[ttribe]

3 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Oh dear,

First thing that come up with quick google search.

http://www.aetna.com/cpb/medical/data/600_699/0615.html

I pasted some excerpts below, bolding the requirements of a diagnosis of gender dysphoria.

"Policy

Aetna considers gender affirming surgery medically necessary when criteria for each of the following procedures is met:

1. Requirements for Breast Removal

   1. Single letter of referral from a qualified mental health professional (see Appendix); and
   2. Persistent, well-documented gender dysphoria (see Appendix); and
   3. Capacity to make a fully informed decision and to consent for treatment; and
   4. For members less than 18 years of age, completion of one year of testosterone treatment; and
   5. If significant medical or mental health concerns are present, they must be reasonably well controlled."

1. Requirements for Gonadectomy (Hysterectomy and Oophorectomy or Orchiectomy)

   1. Two referral letters from qualified mental health professionals, one in a purely evaluative role (see appendix); and
   2. Persistent, well-documented gender dysphoria (see Appendix); and
   3. Capacity to make a fully informed decision and to consent for treatment; and
   4. Age 18 years or older; and
   5. If significant medical or mental health concerns are present, they must be reasonably well controlled; and
   6. Twelve months of continuous hormone therapy as appropriate to the member's gender goals (unless the member has a medical contraindication or is otherwise unable or unwilling to take hormones).

A diagnosis of gender dysphoria requires a marked difference between the individual’s expressed/experienced gender and the gender others would assign him or her, and it must continue for at least six months. This condition may cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational or other important areas of functioning.  

I stand corrected on the requirement of said diagnosis being necessary for insurer's to cover certain (but not all) treatment.

That being said, there is an important distinction to be emphasized here. Namely, that being transsexual is NOT, in and of itself, a mental illness.

Additional information: https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/gender-dysphoria/symptoms-causes/syc-20475255

- "Gender dysphoria is the feeling of discomfort or distress that might occur in people whose gender identity differs from their sex assigned at birth or sex-related physical characteristics." (emphasis mine)

- "A diagnosis for gender dysphoria is included in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), a manual published by the American Psychiatric Association. The diagnosis was created to help people with gender dysphoria get access to necessary health care and effective treatment. The term focuses on discomfort as the problem, rather than identity."

- "People who have gender dysphoria also often experience discrimination, resulting in stress. Accessing health services and mental health services can be difficult due to fear of stigma and a lack of experienced care providers."

You seem to be thinking that "gender dysphoria" and being transsexual are the same thing. Although many individuals who identify as transsexual may experience the diagnosis outlined above, not all transsexuals will.  My original comment, to which both you and Smac responded was (emphasis added):

Quote

Unless you're suggesting that all individuals who identify as trans or non-binary are mentally ill, there is no politicization happening here.

Moreover, refusal to cover gender affirming health care is likely to change in the near future given information such as this: https://transequality.org/know-your-rights/health-care

[Rain]

On 5/6/2022 at 10:18 AM, HappyJackWagon said:

I find threads like this depressing. It might just be time for another break from this forum. But then again, sometimes I have free time at work so...

Last night around midnight my daughter came into our room and asked if her friend could spend the night. Someone had outed the friend as gay to her family and they blew up. She was preached at, yelled at and condemned, and told to get out, by the people she should be able to trust and depend on. (hopefully they will come to their senses and repent) So she came to our place and we were happy to have her. She is welcome as long as she wants to stay. But good grief! This girl's devout family are doing their Christian duty by condemning her but for the life of me I can't figure out what possible benefit their behavior, judgement and condemnation could serve for the church or for the family. Do they think they can change her orientation with some tough love? 

It is reactions like this that give religion a bad name. It's deserved. This very thread condemns the graduate for her dishonesty and for flouting the rules so publicly. With these kinds of reactions is it any wonder that people would a. hide their orientation and thus be called a liar or b. become angry at the abuse they suffer and lash out? And how are these people received? With judgement. As if judging others is one of the fundamental Christian principles we've all taken oaths to uphold.

The United Methodist Church is currently in the process of splitting precisely because of this issue. Some (the new Global Methodist Church) believe it is more important to uphold rules restricting LGBTQ inclusion than it is to actually follow the principles of inclusion and stated goal of creating disciples of Christ. They only want certain types of people to be disciples so good riddance to them. Mormonism, Christianity, and religion in general deserve the increasingly empty pews when they can't even treat others with decency and respect, let alone a mere attempt to follow the 2nd great commandment.

 

PS- rant over

You are really hurting for her and care about her and others like her.

[Danzo]

5 minutes ago, ttribe said:

I stand corrected on the requirement of said diagnosis being necessary for insurer's to cover certain (but not all) treatment.

That being said, there is an important distinction to be emphasized here. Namely, that being transsexual is NOT, in and of itself, a mental illness.

Additional information: https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/gender-dysphoria/symptoms-causes/syc-20475255

- "Gender dysphoria is the feeling of discomfort or distress that might occur in people whose gender identity differs from their sex assigned at birth or sex-related physical characteristics." (emphasis mine)

- "A diagnosis for gender dysphoria is included in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), a manual published by the American Psychiatric Association. The diagnosis was created to help people with gender dysphoria get access to necessary health care and effective treatment. The term focuses on discomfort as the problem, rather than identity."

- "People who have gender dysphoria also often experience discrimination, resulting in stress. Accessing health services and mental health services can be difficult due to fear of stigma and a lack of experienced care providers."

You seem to be thinking that "gender dysphoria" and being transsexual are the same thing. Although many individuals who identify as transsexual may experience the diagnosis outlined above, not all transsexuals will.  My original comment, to which both you and Smac responded was (emphasis added):

Moreover, refusal to cover gender affirming health care is likely to change in the near future given information such as this: https://transequality.org/know-your-rights/health-care

 

Generally, getting medical treatment requires a medical diagnosis. 

I think this is a good thing.  

I have found that people often are not very good at self diagnosis.   

 

[ttribe]

11 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

Just going off the links @smac97 posted, I think the case against the DSM-V is more serious than you admit. Dr. Allen Frances, who chaired the APA task force that wrote the DSM-IV, has criticized it for expanding the definitions of prominent disorders to include normal and expected reactions to life, thus prompting overdiagnosis and overmedicalization. Furthermore, the whole thing suffers from terrible diagnostic reliability problems - doctors using the same manual struggle to make the same diagnosis for the same patient.

Believe it or not, I did actually read Smac's links. Nowhere do I deny that there are controversies surrounding the DSM. Science is replete with controversy; it's part of the process. It improves the results. It makes us better.

Additionally, nowhere did I invoke the DSM to prove any point I was making. It was Smac who offered a blanket dismissal of the DSM - "I'm fairly skeptical regarding the DSM, as I think it is dressed up as objective and empirical and scientific.  I'm not sure it is." A dismissal which was based on his comment that "Seems like what are supposed to be clinical diagnostic concepts are being modified or erased based on feelings and finances.  Based on what is trendy and politically opportune or inopportune." (emphasis added). This comment was made in response to my question as to whether he was suggesting that all transsexuals are mentally ill, by definition. It is demonstrably not the case that all transsexuals are mentally ill. I followed up by asking if he thought homosexuality should be once again identified as a mental illness, to which he answered "No" and then he brought up the DSM, specifically.

It should also be noted that nowhere does Smac (or now, you) link a specific DSM controversy to the question of gender identity. It is Smac's hand waving dismissal of the DSM as a rhetorical device to which I object.

Quote

Meanwhile, scoffing aside, journalist Gary Greenberg has documented political influence on the DSM-5 from his two years embedded with the DSM-5 composition task force. His findings were published as The Book of Woe: The DSM and the Unmaking of Psychiatry. It's not political factions in the sense that "the Democratic National Committee called and told us to say this." No, it's politics in the sense that everything is politics; the APA wants to maintain its position relative to international health organizations, there are internal turf wars between academics, etc. Large industry groups like the APA function like guilds, and their declarations do not represent so much a declaration of settled fact as the prevailing opinion in their steering committees. In all of this politics has its place. This is true of the APA, the ABA, or any other large industry organization which you might name. 

Of course 'politics' are involved if people are involved. That's not the type of politics I saw in Smac's statement in response to whether all transsexuals are mentally ill when he said - "Based on what is trendy and politically opportune or inopportune." Given his historical adherence and defense of U.S.-centric conservatism, I perceived his comment to be a regurgitation of the commentary of conservative talking heads who decry the exclusion homosexuality and transsexuality from mental illness diagnostic tools.

Quote

This means that placing our minds unreservedly at the behest of these organizations and the people who run them is fraught with danger. We should regard experts as advisors, not as authorities that get to dictate what we believe. The responsibility for weighing truth is incumbent upon all of us, it cannot be shoved off our shoulders onto prophets nor Ph.Ds (who have increasingly taken up the role of priestly caste that existed in earlier societies.) This is especially true when dealing with things that are fundamentally subjective in nature, and mental disorders in many cases are - subjective in the sense that they cannot be externally observed but instead rely on self-reported and self-interpreted experience. The symptoms of many categorized disorders are constrained to self-reports which cannot be further examined, since the long-promised grand theory of neuroscience and psychiatry remains a distant phantom. There really is an objectivity problem there - as the replication crisis and diagnostic reliability problem make evident.

I offered absolutely nothing to suggest that the words of social scientists, psychologists, psychiatrists, or doctors should be considered some kind of gospel. But we do have experts for a reason. And these people are professionals who spend a great deal of time, energy, and resources studying these topics such that for Smac to engage in a hand-waving dismissal of their work as a layman who is more concerned with 'politics' is, at best, unbridled arrogance on his part.

Quote

Finally, as an aside, why shouldn't a Ph.D in History qualify one to discuss the nature of evolving social labels and categories? You can't run experiments on abstract concepts like "identity" or "orientation." They exist prior to experimentation as "sensemaking concepts," the irreducible ideas which form the framework in which exploration and experimentation occur. Seems to me that a historian would be as well suited to discuss the development and validity of these concepts as anybody else. 

Because the context of the discussion was about the diagnosis of a mental illness, not the evolution of labels and categories. You are expanding the context of the discussion now to the history of the use of labels. In this instance the label is to facilitate the communication and description of a condition in this back-and-forth. The etymology of said labels is less of an issue with respect to whether an entire class of people are considered 'mentally ill,' or not.

[ttribe]

21 minutes ago, Danzo said:

 

Generally, getting medical treatment requires a medical diagnosis. 

I think this is a good thing.  

I have found that people often are not very good at self diagnosis.   

 

But, do you think that all transsexuals are mentally ill? That was my original question.

[Danzo]

13 minutes ago, ttribe said:

But, do you think that all transsexuals are mentally ill? That was my original question.

Anytime someone uses the word "all" in a debate generally means someone is setting up a trap.  There are nuance and exceptions to everything and one can come up with hypotheticals to negate the "all".

However, generally I think that transsexuals who use medical treatments are ill to try and force their body to be more like they imagine their body should be are experiencing mental illness. (The Insurers and doctors seem to agree on this)

People who self diagnose themselves may or may not fit the clinical definitions of Gender Dysphoria.

As with any medical condition, there are varying degrees of the condition, from mild to severe.

Transsexualism seems to   start with the idea that one is not happy with themselves and their happiness depends on their bodies being altered to fit their perceived notion of the way their bodies should look like.

I don't believe people who dislike their bodies to to the point that they are willing to mutilate themselves have good mental health. 

[ttribe]

1 minute ago, Danzo said:

Anytime someone uses the word "all" in a debate generally means someone is setting up a trap.  There are nuance and exceptions to everything and one can come up with hypotheticals to negate the "all".

However, generally I think that transsexuals who use medical treatments are ill to try and force their body to be more like they imagine their body should be are experiencing mental illness. (The Insurers and doctors seem to agree on this)

People who self diagnose themselves may or may not fit the clinical definitions of Gender Dysphoria.

As with any medical condition, there are varying degrees of the condition, from mild to severe.

Transsexualism seems to   start with the idea that one is not happy with themselves and their happiness depends on their bodies being altered to fit their perceived notion of the way their bodies should look like.

I don't believe people who dislike their bodies to to the point that they are willing to mutilate themselves have good mental health. 

It was not a trap.

But, after many words, it seems your answer is "yes."

[Danzo]

Just now, ttribe said:

It was not a trap.

But, after many words, it seems your answer is "yes."

Generally, yes.