Is Gender Irrelevant?

[Michael Hardner]

Thx

No, on the contrary. Thank you for teaching me something.

But many non-professionals deal with family members with mental illnesses and often develop insights which can be as relevant to a discussion as a professional.

Absolutely true. This is why I'm against the ivory-tower mentality for professionals. Every profession includes an oath to serve a greater good, and that should include listening and responding to members of the publics.

Also, as with the climate debate, there are activists who willfully misrepresent the opinion of professionals to support their political agenda.

For sure. There are also those who blur the lines between their profession (eg. economist) and those that deliver harder science on the environment.

This is what is happening with cybercoma and his constant insistence that gender dysphoria is not a mental illness/disorder despite the clear statement in the DSM5.

Well, I'll wait for his response. I will only say that I had no idea that this was in DSM, and as such consider myself educated. Maybe furthering the discussion will teach me more still.

[bleeding heart]

But Tim, you are undermined by your own source. You yourself point out the "only difference"....that difference being exactly the one which cybercoma is arguing, and which you dispute. that is, the source you use as authoritative backs up the counterarguments to you...explicitly.

Further, it says that the "medical approach treatment for people diagnosed with GID is to support them in physically modifying their bodies so that they better match their gender identities."

Oh...and since you offer up "biology" as the Holy Grail, the sacredness Not To Be Tampered With (presumably including other invasive medical procedures, not only transgenderism), then how do you come to terms with the notion--also briefly navigated in the source you provide--that there appears to be a biological component to transgenderism?

Genetic variation, hormones, and differences in brain functioning and brain structures provide evidence for the biological etiology of the symptoms associated with GID.

[TimG]

Further, it says that the "medical approach treatment for people diagnosed with GID is to support them in physically modifying their bodies so that they better match their gender identities."

I knew someone would notice that. But there are two separate points: 1) whether gender dsyphoria is a mental illness requiring treatment or 2) what are the best treatments for this illness.

The DSM makes it clear that I am correct to call it a mental illness. It also suggests that a sex change is a suitable treatment for the specified mental illness. I disagree but we can't really get into my reasons for disagreeing unless we agree that we are dealing with a mental illness and discussing treatment options.

As for the biological component: most mental illnesses have a biological component. And in some cases drugs or other medical interventions are required to treat such illness. However, I think I can confidently state that any professional would agree that the first priority should be given to treatments that do not require potentially damaging medical interventions.

Edited April 1, 2014 by TimG

[cybercoma]

Further, it says that the "medical approach treatment for people diagnosed with GID is to support them in physically modifying their bodies so that they better match their gender identities."

Exactly.

[cybercoma]

I knew someone would notice that. But there are two separate points: 1) whether gender dsyphoria is a mental illness requiring treatment or 2) what are the best treatments for this illness.

Sure, just break them apart because you find that convenient now, when your argument all along has been that people who modify their body must be suffering a mental illness for doing so and they shouldn't be allowed to.

The problem is that modifying the body is exactly what the mental health professionals suggest for dealing with the problem. Hence, the CURE (more accurately the treatment) is to do what you're saying is the illness. It's not and you can't accept that you're wrong.

[cybercoma]

It should also be pointed out that APA changed it from a "disorder" to "dysphoria." This may seem meaningless but it's an important distinction, especially for this discussion. The APA writes, "A psychological condition is considered a mental disorder only if it causes distress or disability. Many transgender people do not experience their transgender feelings and traits to be distressing or disabling, which implies that being transgender does not constitute a mental disorder per se."

[TimG]

Sure, just break them apart because you find that convenient now, when your argument all along has been that people who modify their body must be suffering a mental illness for doing so and they shouldn't be allowed to.

Stop misrepresenting what I said. I never said they should not be allowed to get sex changes. From the beginning I stated that "gender identity" issues are not "normal" but rather a mental illness. You dogmatically insisted that I was wrong and that that "gender identity" issues were perfectly normal and the only problem was with people trying to treat it as a mental illness. Now that we have established that I am right to describe them as a mental illness the question becomes: what is the best treatment?

The problem is that modifying the body is exactly what the mental health professionals suggest for dealing with the problem. Hence, the CURE (more accurately the treatment) is to do what you're saying is the illness. It's not and you can't accept that you're wrong.

The wiki expands more on treatment:

Treatment has typically either aimed to change the person's body to match their identity, or the opposite. Today, treatment is generally driven by the patient's desired outcome. It may include psychological counselling resulting in lifestyle changes, or physical changes resulting from medical interventions such as hormonal treatment, genital surgery, electrolysis or laser hair removal, chest/breast surgery, or other cosmetic surgeries. The goal of treatment may simply be to reduce problems resulting from the person's transgender status, for example counselling the patient in order to reduce guilt associated with cross-dressing, or counselling a spouse to help him or her adjust to the patient's situation.

IOW - convincing people to accept their biological sex is a recognized treatment for this mental illness.

However the more insidious statement is the idea that the patient's desired outcome drives the treatment choices. i.e. a society that encourages people to self mutilate just because the have some gender identity issues will encourage more people to self mutilate. A society that encourages people to accept the biological gender will have more people choosing that option. I don't see a society that encourages people to self mutilate as a good thing.

Edited April 1, 2014 by TimG

[bleeding heart]

Just so. This has long been a dispute, both among transgender individuals (some who do think it should be considered a mental disorder, and some who don't), as well as a dispute between mental health professionals.

The usefulness of medical interventions, on the other hand, enjoys far less dispute and disagreement. It appears to be a near-consensus, in fact.

At any rate, I'm not sure why, Tim, after using "natural" biology as one of (perhaps THE) chief arguments....you blithely pass over the biological component in these cases, effectively shrugging it off.

You want it both ways. You can't have it. If the debate fundamentally hinges on matters of biology....then there are questions of hormonal and even brain structure among many tested transgender folk that problematize your oversimplified view.

Evidently even brain structure is a matter of "political correctness," when convenient.

[TimG]

The APA writes, "A psychological condition is considered a mental disorder only if it causes distress or disability. Many transgender people do not experience their transgender feelings and traits to be distressing or disabling, which implies that being transgender does not constitute a mental disorder per se."

From the beginning I have agreed with this distinction. Some one can fully accept their biological sex and a different psychological gender. There is no requirement that the two match. But if someone is so bothered by mismatch that they need treatment then they do have a mental illness.

[cybercoma]

We get it, Tim. Your view of transgendered people is just like the Christian schools that try to reprogram homosexuals to be more "normal."

[TimG]

At any rate, I'm not sure why, Tim, after using "natural" biology as one of (perhaps THE) chief arguments....you blithely pass over the biological component in these cases, effectively shrugging it off.

No - it is a silly argument. If people are born with a psychological gender that does not match their biological sex there is absolutely no reason to correct this mismatch. People should be able to accept the mismatch and live a normal productive life. It only becomes a issue when people insist on ignoring the dual identity and insist on making the two match.

[TimG]

We get it, Tim. Your view of transgendered people is just like the Christian schools that try to reprogram homosexuals to be more "normal."

Step arguing strawmen. No one is saying they should be reprogrammed - I am saying they should just accept who they are without medical interventions. Why is that wrong?

[bleeding heart]

Well, let's say for the sake of argument that such a thing constitutes a mental illness. I have no horse in the race...and as I've said, there is sharp debate over designations, both within and without of the professional medical community...

....so in either case, what is the problem with the medical procedures? To clarify: what have been the problems with it? I understand the desire for caution about invasive medical procedures...but what is, specifically, the problem here? Can we pointe directly to any actual serious problems that have in fact arisen?

Because as I've said: while the transgender communities and medical communities are debating the mental illness designation, there appears to be far less debate about the efficacy of the procedures.

[bleeding heart]

Tim, you're being obtuse about this. You are insisting upon a clear-cut male-female dichotomy...when I pointed out that many transgender people have biological differences--including structural brain differences, and hormonal differences--which problematize your stark male/female binary.

Edited April 1, 2014 by bleeding heart

[-1=e^ipi]

You two seem to think this is just some decision that's made willy-nilly. Like, "oh hey, maybe I'll be a woman for awhile. Hope I don't change my mind later. heheheehe." This is a serious life decision. One that transgendered people typically struggle with their entire life.

So where do the 6 year old transgendered people fit into this?

[bleeding heart]

People understandably find the issue of children difficult. The general consensus appears to be: let the child lead in the direction that makes him or her most comfortable, and wait to see what the future brings.

Not the most radical proposition, I should think.

Edited April 1, 2014 by bleeding heart

[TimG]

Tim, you're being obtuse about this. You are insisting upon a clear-cut male-female dichotomy...when I pointed out that many transgender people have biological differences--including structural brain differences, and hormonal differences--which problematize your stark male/female binary.

You are not even reading my posts. I have stated several times that I see no reason for the biological sex to match the psychological gender. People are who they are. The question is why can't you accept that some people have this mismatch? Why do you want to use invasive medical procedures to eliminate it when it appears? Is it your version of eugenics? Use surgery to eliminate those people born with mismatches instead of accepting them they way they are? Edited April 1, 2014 by TimG

[bleeding heart]

What do you mean, "why can't accept that"?

When have I argued that people do not have the mismatch, and that some of them do not wish to use invasive medical procedures to eliminate it?

Seriously, who are you even talking to?

further, the point I have been making here is that sometimes there is a partial biological MATCH with the psychological gender....that is, the possible biological component of transgenderism that you are unwilling to address.

Edited April 1, 2014 by bleeding heart

[TimG]

What do you mean, "why can't accept that"?

You are the one saying that biological sex must match the psychological gender. I am saying they don't need to match. Edited April 1, 2014 by TimG

[bleeding heart]

I am not saying that. There is no "must." It depends on the individual.

I am pointing out that sometimes there is a biological component that appears to have something to do with the psychological gender....and this uncontroversial truism seems to have you up in arms.

Probably because it complicates your ostensible trump card of "biological fact" vs. "psychology."

Edited April 1, 2014 by bleeding heart

[Black Dog]

Stop misrepresenting what I said. I never said they should not be allowed to get sex changes.

10 minutes later.

Step arguing strawmen. No one is saying they should be reprogrammed - I am saying they should just accept who they are without medical interventions. Why is that wrong?

So glad to know that you won't physically prevent people from getting sex changes even as you decry such procedures, even if they are deemed to be the most suitable treatment. Concern troll bullshit.

I have stated several times that I see no reason for the biological sex to match the psychological gender. People are who they are. The question is why can't you accept that some people have this mismatch?

Why can't you accept that soem people actually dealing with this might not want to accept that?

Why do you want to use invasive medical procedures to eliminate it when it appears? Is it your version of eugenics? Use surgery to eliminate those people born with mismatches instead of accepting them they way they are?

Boy for someone just crying about strawmen, you're sure quick to build them.

[bleeding heart]

Good lord, "eugenics"?

"Strawman" is accurate, but almost too generous.

[TimG]

So glad to know that you won't physically prevent people from getting sex changes even as you decry such procedures, even if they are deemed to be the most suitable treatment.

There is some research to suggest that prescribing heroin is a suitable treatment for hard core addicts who have failed with other forms of treatment. Accepting this treatment possibility does not mean accepting it as the default treatment or as a desirable treatment. Sex changes are the same.

The problem with activists today is they are not looking as sex changes as a last resort for people who have failed with less invasive treatments. They are looking at them as the default treatment for gender identity issues. We see ridiculous normalization of an extreme intervention in the coverage of parents who put their gender confused kids on hormones so they can "make the choice" when they are older. A society who accepts this is barbaric.

Edited April 1, 2014 by TimG

[cybercoma]

Hence, why I've stopped replying. It's pointless.

[bleeding heart]

Prescribing dangerous drugs to addicts is a proposal that recognizes the actual, physical dangers of extreme withdrawal, which in (a very few, yes) cases can actually be lethal.

That said, there is no rational analogy to be had. Even if the heroin prescriptions are a terrible idea (which sounds it to me, for what it's worth) it bears no relation.

I don't know why you insist upon repeating the addict analogy...it's promiscuously inaccurate. Transgender people are not suffering from anything resembling an addiction.

And no, no activists are seeing sex changes as "default treatments for gender identity issues." It's that activists support sex changes when the subject wants them, which is always after long and thoughtful consideration on the part of those who want the changes.

The medical professionals whom you have cited as authorities seem to broadly agree.

Edited April 1, 2014 by bleeding heart