|
Not a gay hate topic i understand gays like a different gender which is fine. The point is being born a gender but believing your the other gender and in the wrong body does that not sound like something mental rather than sexual?
Coming from someone with split personality and depression i understand what a mental condition is. This is NOT intended to offend anyone and is a serious question.
Official Noctis Lucis Caelum of the Final Fantasy Versus XIII board
Official Zabuza Momochi of the Naruto Shippuden Ultimate Ninja Storm Generations board |
|
it is, it's call gender identity disorder
|
|
I have to admit, I can't help but feel as though people who are in reality one gender, but "feel" as though they are the opposite gender, probably have something "odd" in their brain.
That said, I don't think it should be considered enough of a problem to mandate medication, therapy, institutionalization, or any other treatment. It's probably mostly harmless to themselves and others. Also bears mentioning that I believe transsexuals deserve all the same rights and privileges as any other person. Marriage, insurance benefits, hospital benefits, etc. I also don't think they should have to reveal their transsexual state if they don't want to. |
|
I shouldn't need to see a birth certificate to know if im around a boy or girl.
Official Noctis Lucis Caelum of the Final Fantasy Versus XIII board
Official Zabuza Momochi of the Naruto Shippuden Ultimate Ninja Storm Generations board |
|
From: Hikaru-X | #004
I shouldn't need to see a birth certificate to know if im around a boy or girl. Depending on how convincing the transformation is, there are probably quite a few transsexuals that could pass convincingly for their new gender. If they can do that, then they shouldn't have to openly announce that they used to be a boy/girl. |
|
This is a really difficult question, on the one hand IMO it does sound like some sort of mental disorder to me, but that automatically gets you labeled as a discriminator.
The signature you entered contains possibly offensive language. Please change it.
|
|
Gender Identity Disorder is a thing already.
Someone threw up my cat's wang bomb! - IceMage20
|
|
I think it's a mental condition in the sense that it would be considered a mental condition if I were to believe I was a dog (or the reincarnation of Elvis) trapped in my current body.
|
|
I shouldn't need to see a birth certificate to know if im around a boy or girl.
Lol. So you're just sexist then, because it matters not whether a person is male or female. I think it's a mental condition in the sense that it would be considered a mental condition if I were to believe I was a dog (or the reincarnation of Elvis) trapped in my current body. Except there is legitimate scientific backing for transsexuality being real...?
And slowly...you come to realize...its all as it should be.
|
|
Except there is legitimate scientific backing for transsexuality being real...?
Psychopathy, bipolarism, kleptomania, antisocialism and a whole host of mental conditions are equally "real", and considered disorders just the same. |
|
Whee! ****-storm swan dive time! Well, I'll say my view again.
Some people, especially in the transgender community, are trying to remove Gender Identity Disorder from the Diagnostic Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, as it pathologizes people who are transgender, or who must become transgender. They argue there is nothing wrong or deviant besides the fact that they are transgender. I disagree with them on the grounds that not all people with Gender Identity Disorder are transgender. The mainstream intervention for Gender Identity Disorder in the United States is altering one's lifestyle so that one lives as the opposite gender. Doing that has been found in research to result in people being able to function without any "clinically significant distress or impairment" (one of the critical general requirements for having a mental disorder). There is otherwise no "cure". I believe that for many individuals and communities in the United States, especially those from non-Western cultures, adopting an opposite gender identity is not an acceptable option. Removing Gender Identity Disorder from the DSM would make it more difficult for these people to receive help and validation that is appropriate for their moral and community standards. These people should feel free to go to therapy to learn how to better cope with the fact that they are not comfortable in their own skin. There is no need for everyone to change their gender. One can choose a more difficult path.
Do your own research!
|
|
Ok so what sexuality are they gonna defend next pedophilia? necrophilia? zoophilia(beastality)?
Official Noctis Lucis Caelum of the Final Fantasy Versus XIII board
Official Zabuza Momochi of the Naruto Shippuden Ultimate Ninja Storm Generations board |
|
Psychopathy, bipolarism, kleptomania, antisocialism and a whole host of mental conditions are equally "real", and considered disorders just the same.
I mean that transsexuality has a biological reason behind it, and transsexuals aren't dangerous so, really, shut up. Ok so what sexuality are they gonna defend next pedophilia? necrophilia? zoophilia(beastality)? Necrophilia is fine. its a corpse, who cares, might as well complain if someone has sex with a roasted turkey. The other two are questions of consent. PS Transsexuality isnt a sexuality. God I dont know how I find the patience.
And slowly...you come to realize...its all as it should be.
|
|
@TC
There's a key difference between those and transsexuals. Children, animal, and the dead aren't consenting adults. |
|
Hikaru-X posted...
Ok so what sexuality are they gonna defend next pedophilia? necrophilia? zoophilia(beastality)? Transexuality isn't a sexuality. There's a huge difference between homosexuality and identifying more with the opposite sex, for example. If you're a homosexual, that doesn't necessarily mean you want to have a sex change. Also, the slippery slope argument doesn't work. We're talking about consent here.
If you build a man a fire, he is warm for the rest of the night.
If you set a man on fire, he is warm for the rest of his life. |
|
Lol. So you're just sexist then, because it matters not whether a person is male or female
Uhhh...it sort of does if you want to have sex with them and are picky about what sex you have sex with. I'd be a little upset if I married a girl so we could have children together and on our wedding night she turned out to have the wrong parts. Though I'd actually probably see the humour in it.
"You applied over those years a Lisa Simpson, Miko Miyazaki and Brianesque level of hypocrisy." - OldFrenchDragon
|
|
animal
Tell that to the beagle trying to hump your leg. That's exactly how they "consent" in nature. By initiating. |
|
I'd be disappointed if I married someone who kept something that I might potentially care about from me until after our wedding. Whether that something is transsexuality or her not liking cats, I'd be roughly equally disappointed.
**R.O.B.A.Z.O.I.D**
|
|
Tell that to the beagle trying to hump your leg. That's exactly how they "consent" in nature. By initiating. He's consenting to humping your leg, he's not consenting to being ****ed but your dick. And a girl letting an animal **** her is perfectly acceptable in my eyes.
And slowly...you come to realize...its all as it should be.
|
|
Animals can't legally consent at all. Consent implies understanding of the act being performed.
**R.O.B.A.Z.O.I.D**
|
|
He's consenting to humping your leg, he's not consenting to being ****ed but your dick.
By that logic a dog can't even consent to being petted on the head? You're just assumng non-resistance (or tail-wagging happy) equals consent. And a girl letting an animal **** her is perfectly acceptable in my eyes. OK, so this kind of zoophilia is OK then. Animals can't legally consent at all. Consent implies understanding of the act being performed. A dog seeking sex knows exactly what it wants. Sexual relieft with whatever's there. Unless we want to ban all animals from having sex with each other since apparently none of them fully understand the biological consequences and nature of their actions. |
|
A-a-an intellegent post by prezmen I actually agree with? Did you forget to change accounts or something?
River Song: Well, I was off to this gay gypsy bar mitzvah for the disabled when I thought 'Gosh, the Third Reich's a bit rubbish, I think i'll kill the Fuhrer'
|
|
I don't really have a problem with zoophilia at all as long as the animal isnt being physically harmed by the acts.
So, like, come up with something new.
And slowly...you come to realize...its all as it should be.
|
|
I don't really have a problem with zoophilia at all as long as the animal isnt being physically harmed by the acts.
So, like, come up with something new. No, as long as you are logically consistent, I am fine. I do disagree with zoophilia, but not because of this fabricated "legal consent" reasoning. |
|
From: Kicksave | #024
this fabricated "legal consent" reasoning. How exactly is a legal definition "fabricated"?
When you pirate MP3's you are downloading COMMUNISM. - Mighty_Giraffe
|
|
^An animal does not "legally consent" to anything. It's an animal. A sheep does not legally consent or not consent to getting slaughtered, it does not need to understand it, and it does not matter. It has none of these rights or recognitions.
Crazy mental gymnasts apply sexual consent rights to animals, and then further assume that these animals never give consent even when they are actively trying to hump you or the neighbor's chau. |
|
Hikaru-X posted...
Ok so what sexuality are they gonna defend next pedophilia? necrophilia? zoophilia(beastality)? So much for "this is not intended to be offensive". I can see that I've wasted my time on the narrow-minded yet again. I hope everyone else will quickly learn that lesson about you.
Do your own research!
|
|
I cannot stand the whole "zomg need consent then it's ok!!"
Kids can give consent. Mentally challenged people can give consent. Animals don't give consent to be killed for food, why would they need to give consent to be sexually taken advantage of? It's just such a stupid argument.
Maybe it's time you looked at yourself and stop blaming life on someone else.
http://www.smbc-comics.com/comics/20090602.gif |
|
From opening post:
This is NOT intended to offend anyone and is a serious question. From next post by TC: I shouldn't need to see a birth certificate to know if im around a boy or girl. Well, that didn't take long...
"Physics is not a religion. If it were, we'd have a much easier time raising money."
-- Leon Lederman |
|
I agree square, I was just about to post that exact same sentiment.
And slowly...you come to realize...its all as it should be.
|
|
You should have quoted the next (and final) post. That was the worst of all.
Is this finally a conundrum that CAN'T be solved by helicopter theft?
|
|
gender identity disorder is a mental condition
the treatment for which is gender reassignment surgery
like my whip like my chick
http://www.last.fm/user/AniranC |
|
It's not really a mental condition, its more of a neurobiological condition.
And slowly...you come to realize...its all as it should be.
|
|
http://www.genderpsychology.org/psychology/BSTc.html
This is an important read.
And slowly...you come to realize...its all as it should be.
|
|
Why the Hell are we indulging the tc's desire to discuss zoophili? Transgenderism literaly has NO similarity with zoophilia other than that it has to do with humans.
Anyway, no it shouldn't be a mental disorder and I say that as a person living in a country where the adverse effects of this label is entirely too evident. Instead, it should be labeled as a physical disorder that can manifest as transient mental symptoms, much like Grave's disease. The reason why it isn't a mental disorder is that treating it as such will do squat diddlypoop. With mental disorders, the goal for any treatment will always be cerebral. For transgenderism, the cure will always be somatic. This isn't to say that the treatment should be given willy-nilly, but words are important. Prezman: I almost hesitate to ask since I think your answer will make me facepalm, but how would you react if the year was 1970 and I was telling you that homosexuality should remain on the DSM as a mental disorder because I think that"for many individuals and communities in the United States, especially those from non-Western cultures, having a homosexual relationship is not an acceptable option. Removing homosexuality from the DSM would make it more difficult for these people to receive help and validation that is appropriate for their moral and community standards.
E ys Bahamut! oui risyhc puna sa! Oui uvvaht sa cahcac!!!
DISCLAIMER: I'm not accountable for this post. I don't know English I just hit keys at random. |
|
Oversimplified:
The biological development of human sex is a multistep process that occurs both in utero, and across the lifespan to a lesser extant. You might characterize the steps as predominantly active, and counteractive: A human life becomes a 'typical male' through the combination of masculinizing processes and defeminizing processes, and a 'typical female' through feminizing and demasculinizing processes. When critical developmental steps are 'missed' or resolved abnormally, you end up with physical intersexuality. An intersex state can be congenital, induced by external factors like teratogens or maternal hormones, and so on. I'm baffled as to why, faced with the non-dichotomous and objectively verifiable physical development of human sex, people then go on to assume that neural development is strictly binary and concordant instead. Edit: But yeah, until the way we experience a revolution in how the society views and addresses neurology and mental health, diagnostic labels as a whole are a necessary evil.
Dynamic signatures are too much hassle for me at this point.
Currently Playing; [Nothing] |
|
From: OMGWTFPIE | #028
I cannot stand the whole "zomg need consent then it's ok!!" legal consent* In that light the rest of your post doesn't make much sense.
http://www.last.fm/user/HetlerSketler
Where are the cartographers of human purpose? |
|
OMGWTFPIE posted...
I cannot stand the whole "zomg need consent then it's ok!!" Kids can give consent. Mentally challenged people can give consent. Animals don't give consent to be killed for food, why would they need to give consent to be sexually taken advantage of? It's just such a stupid argument. Did Pie just say that it's okay to have sex with children? There's a difference between saying the words "yes it's okay" and giving legal consent. Giving legal consent requires... well... being legally able to give consent.
Home is behind, the world ahead. And there are many paths to tread
Through shadow to the edge of night, until the stars are all alight |
|
the final bahamut posted...
Prezman: I almost hesitate to ask since I think your answer will make me facepalm It probably will, but it's a question I asked myself before reflecting the way I did. If I can only remember it... but how would you react if the year was 1970 and I was telling you that homosexuality should remain on the DSM as a mental disorder because I think that"for many individuals and communities in the United States, especially those from non-Western cultures, having a homosexual relationship is not an acceptable option. Removing homosexuality from the DSM would make it more difficult for these people to receive help and validation that is appropriate for their moral and community standards. Outside the United States, I believe Europe or the UN retains the classification of ego-dystonic homosexual orientation, which I have absolutely no problem with although I don't endorse it. What you propose is something socially similar and I find it intriguing. However, the history of discrimination against gays in the United States, which was validated by the medical community, led to the result that was aimed at correcting that discrimination. The reason homosexuality was removed from the DSM, in my view, is largely because it needed to be expressed unambiguously that there is no "cure" for homosexuality and that it is a natural condition. While it's very well established in the scientific community that sexual orientation is static, I think the view that homosexuality is a natural condition is partly a political judgment; in particular I respect the Catholic Church for dissenting from it. I will say that pretty much all of the "clinically significant distress and impairment" associated with homosexuality has to do with 1) society's homophobic reactions toward homosexuality, and 2) barriers holding one back from accepting oneself and one's life as gay. Remove the social stuff, and you remove the mental effects. You could make the same argument about transgender people, but I would not agree with it. You have to do something physical or make an actual change to your life and behavior. But taken to its logical conclusions, this is also a political judgment, and this is where I draw the line. We should not normalize transsexuality.
Do your own research!
|
|
I heard someone say its ok to F*** kids if they give consent and another saying its ok to F*** animals what the hell is wrong with some of you people? Hell another said its ok to dig up graves and F*** dead people. What the hell!
Official Noctis Lucis Caelum of the Final Fantasy Versus XIII board
Official Zabuza Momochi of the Naruto Shippuden Ultimate Ninja Storm Generations board |
|
Kicksave posted...
animal Tell that to the beagle trying to hump your leg. Dogs don't hump because they're horny. They hump to express dominance.
"This grass feels funny," Kirby thought. It feels like.... pants
|
|
OMGWTFPIE posted...
I cannot stand the whole "zomg need consent then it's ok!!" Kids can give consent. Mentally challenged people can give consent. Animals don't give consent to be killed for food, why would they need to give consent to be sexually taken advantage of? It's just such a stupid argument. No, kids and the mentally challenged people cannot give LEGAL consent.
If you build a man a fire, he is warm for the rest of the night.
If you set a man on fire, he is warm for the rest of his life. |
|
Hikaru-X posted...
I heard someone say its ok to F*** kids if they give consent and another saying its ok to F*** animals what the hell is wrong with some of you people? Hell another said its ok to dig up graves and F*** dead people. What the hell! You're just purposefully putting words into people's mouths?
"This grass feels funny," Kirby thought. It feels like.... pants
|
|
EltoniaX posted...
It's not really a mental condition, its more of a neurobiological condition. Just want to point out that all mental conditions (at least Axis I) are simultaneously neurobiological conditions. Schizophrenia --> associated with overactive dopaminergic activity. Anxiety Disorders --> increased adrenergic activity via the locus coeruleus Major Depressive Disorder --> modulation of the neurotransmitters serotonin, norepinephrine and dopamine Bipolar Disorder --> modulation of the neurotransmitters serotonin, dopamine and glutamate
merp
|
|
Outside the United States, I believe Europe or the UN retains the classification of ego-dystonic homosexual orientation, which I have absolutely no problem with although I don't endorse it. What you propose is something socially similar and I find it intriguing.
No, what I'm proposing is what you were proposing with regards to transgenderism: That we label all transgenders/homosexuals as suffering from a mental condition for the sake of being able to address ego-dystonic patients. However, the history of discrimination against gays in the United States, which was validated by the medical community, led to the result that was aimed at correcting that discrimination. The reason homosexuality was removed from the DSM, in my view, is largely because it needed to be expressed unambiguously that there is no "cure" for homosexuality and that it is a natural condition. While it's very well established in the scientific community that sexual orientation is static, I think the view that homosexuality is a natural condition is partly a political judgment; in particular I respect the Catholic Church for dissenting from it. First off, it's not a political judgement, it's an entirely scientific one. Unless you want to go the route that "Natural" means "Established by the Cosmic Order" - which unlike the scientific judgement is a very subjective, religious and in some ways political judgement - there really isn't a single way in which homosexuality can be viewed as anything other than a natural condition. Secondly: If you think transgenders aren't discriminated against or that the status of it being a mental condition isn't leading to some people trying to cure it - often against the wishes of the patient - I really don't have words. Because such a standpoint would make you extremely ignorant of anything in regards to transgenderism. I'm not saying you're saying that, but it's what I'm hearing from you. I will say that pretty much all of the "clinically significant distress and impairment" associated with homosexuality has to do with 1) society's homophobic reactions toward homosexuality, and 2) barriers holding one back from accepting oneself and one's life as gay. Remove the social stuff, and you remove the mental effects. You could make the same argument about transgender people, but I would not agree with it. You have to do something physical or make an actual change to your life and behavior. But taken to its logical conclusions, this is also a political judgment, and this is where I draw the line. We should not normalize transsexuality. Because we have to do something physical to help transgendered people? What about people with Grave's disease? We have to do something physical for them too. Should we not normalize treatment for Grave's disease? Should we start claiming that they should get therapy and come to terms with their overgrown gland? No? Of course not. The thing is that the psychiatric symptoms of body dysmorphia that many transgenders experience is caused not by the mind but by the body. Change the shape of the body, and their mental health is vastly improved. This is a simple matter of helping people and letting them be themselves, and it's something we can do pretty easily. Normalizing transexuality won't mean that more innocent children start putting their genitals under the knife for faulty reasons, it'll simply mean that more transgendered kids will feel that it's okay for them to pursue a path that can stop them from feeling miserable.
E ys Bahamut! oui risyhc puna sa! Oui uvvaht sa cahcac!!!
DISCLAIMER: I'm not accountable for this post. I don't know English I just hit keys at random. |
|
From: Orange Clockwork | #042
No, kids and the mentally challenged people cannot give LEGAL consent. How old is 15, really?
Face it, Blake Griffin is more a SF than (Rashard) Lewis is - Bullet_Proof_18
|
|
From: SSJ5Vegeta | #046
How old is 15, really? 15
http://www.last.fm/user/HetlerSketler
Where are the cartographers of human purpose? |
|
the final bahamut posted...
Outside the United States, I believe Europe or the UN retains the classification of ego-dystonic homosexual orientation, which I have absolutely no problem with although I don't endorse it. What you propose is something socially similar and I find it intriguing. --No, what I'm proposing is what you were proposing with regards to transgenderism: That we label all transgenders/homosexuals as suffering from a mental condition for the sake of being able to address ego-dystonic patients. You said you would like to see gender identity disorder made a medical disorder rather than a mental disorder: Anyway, no it shouldn't be a mental disorder and I say that as a person living in a country where the adverse effects of this label is entirely too evident. Instead, it should be labeled as a physical disorder that can manifest as transient mental symptoms, much like Grave's disease. The reason why it isn't a mental disorder is that treating it as such will do squat diddlypoop. With mental disorders, the goal for any treatment will always be cerebral. For transgenderism, the cure will always be somatic. Regardless of whether or not a person will choose to change their gender or, recognizing their condition, do something else, you would leave gender identity disorder as a diagnosable condition that can be a focus of treatment or intervention. Secondly: If you think transgenders aren't discriminated against... Hardly, and you're a case in point! I think it is extremely hypocritical for you to stand there and ask me "but do you think homosexuality should have remained a mental disorder?" if you think gender identity disorder should remain a disorder as well, only in a different field.
Do your own research!
|
No comments:
Post a Comment