"Transgender" = mentally ill

And I already gave an example taken directly from your Wiki article (which isn't and should never be used for citations, when I ask, don't give me wiki articles) with the comments of two scientists. By definition, transgender is a mental illness.

Not convincing to you because you don't believe in the advancement of treatment. All science falls on the side of advancing treatments to treat disease rather than mindlessly bowing down to symptomatic therapy.

As they should, transitioning should never be allowed until all current options have been expended while furthering investigation.

You realize i've asked for you to cite studies where such-and-such has been proven/disproven and you haven't done so.

Incorrect, and you failed to understand what I said. Acknowledging that it is treatment to improve _____ symptom is in itself admittance that it is a mental illness with a symptom worthy of symptomatic treatment. For the rest of their lives in order to maintain their pseudo-happiness they will have to undergo constant monitoring and hormone therapy. That is by definition treating a condition.

The more you try to argue against this being a mental illness only more deeply legitimizes the already accepted notion among non-politically influenced scientists that yes, it is a mental illness.

Reread my comment on how analogous transgenderism and anorexia both are.

Here ^

Following their transition, they must undergo abnormal means of maintaining their state. If you read the prior study comments up, you'd come to realize that if they discontinue or if improper protocol is followed can lead to serious risk.

They are indefinitely at risk by going down the path by means of our medical institution's declassification.

The difference is both sides have evidences to back up their claims even though on all sides we have what are called "theories." Even in the circles of evolution do we still find theory and debate because so-and-so found a fossil they proclaimed to be a transitional fossil, only to later discover that the species was actually not extinct and was not a proof for transition of that species.

In short, this isn't a matter up for debate; transgenderism does not conform to normal human biology, it does not conform to a healthy mental state that follows the rules of the human race. Simply because you have a definition being influenced by politics doesn't negate the fact that legitimate science doesn't agree.

It's still exactly the same as an individual suffering from apotemnophilia, however, the big difference is one is politically influenced, and the other isn't. Both share desires that run contrary to normal human biology and healthy mental state, thus, a mental illness, a strong delusion.

e: Simple question, how do you think the classification of all-things gender/sex came to be in the WHO? Consensus. The only reason declassification is being proposed is political aims by "current year" quacks that aren't scientists.

e2: Perhaps it's also best we go back to the beginning of this thread. A real authority on this subject is Paul McHugh and the Johns Hopkins

Reverting back to those who were at the forefront of this field and ceased practice are those who should be listened to, rather than the whining of politics.

 

I don't know if my link is working correctly, but it's a link to a citation of the Merck Manual of Diagnosis and Therapy. I'll address the second point later on.

I do believe in the advancement of treatment. However, there's such a thing as hopeless cases. Looking at euthanasia, you could have a cancer-riddled 85 year old where surgery/chemotherapy can only prolong the agony by another 6 months. Looking at gender dysphoria, there's no currently available "cure", so submitting to therapy/medication only prolongs their agony. People are free beings, and should be able to choose their own destiny when mentally competent.

The main data only comes from individual studies:

http://journals.aace.com/doi/abs/10.4158/EP.14.2.248?journalCode=endp

Yes, there's a condition, but it's not mental illness. It's just gender dysphoria.

You keep mentioning political influence - do you have any evidence that there has been a vast political conspiracy to win over virtually all medical associations? Note - I'm asking for direct evidence of a conspiracy, not the fact that there's a handful of dissenters out there.

You can't be institutionalized for being anorexic, either, unless your life is at risk.

Osteoporosis is hardly life-threatening. Of course discontinuing a treatment has its risks, people who take anti-depressants are advised to only discontinue them after consulting with a doctor.

My point was that ~98% of scientists agree about the fact of evolution. It clearly happened, yet there's still a group of dissenters. There, as now, consensus matters, and the dissenters are rightly written off.

It certainly does conform to human biology. How else does it arise in humans?

Again, if a person is thinking clearly, and over a long-ish period of time continues to want to chop off their arm, I don't see why it's my right to stop them.

If it's only a few fringe John Olivers, then why do the scientific institutions agree?

I'll quote myself from earlier in this thread:

The guy seems like a bit of an idiot, honestly.

 

Yet by definition, they are mentally unfit by living under the delusion that they are not their biologically assigned sex.

I was very curious about that reiner and gearhart study and sure enough the full text was available.

The headline in your link is misleading in the sense that it doesn't lend credibility to the notion that potential treatment isn't an option for such an illness. The way this study was conducted is entirely different and actually leads to many good points being made.
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa022236#t=article

(disturbing imo)

I'd post the entire "results" section but I don't want to make this an essay, but it's actually an interesting read; so i'll post this.

And this

So what we have is a mind-numbing clusterfuck of "it works, it doesn't work," and unknowns. However, this study isn't a good representation of reassignment for those who later in life come under the delusion that they are male/female. What it also does support is that they were generally more pleased when knowing their proper birth status. On top of that, it's clear that boys will indeed "be boys" even without their sex being revealed, and that many are more happy knowing their real identity.

Driven by severe delusion that they are not their biologically assigned sex.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/27/health/who-transgender-medical-disorder.html

The sole intent behind the declassification is stigma, politics, social "justice," not based on scientific finding/foundation.

Of course not, yet you are still at risk.

You're looking at osteoporosis through the wrong lenses, i'm not proclaiming it to be the same tier of some infectious disease that will kill you within days. It carries with it a long list of related complications that can amount quickly over the years and become extremely difficult to reverse.

Point is, that's a single risk factor taken into consideration among many.

And as you said, it's a matter of fact, unaffected by overwhelming political aims of "social justice" and fighting "stigmas." The pioneers and heavyweights of transgenderism/sexism who have hands-on experience say otherwise.

As the study I linked to above made clear, children are impressionable. There's a reason why transgenders don't even register as a percentage of the US population. It's extremely uncommon and doesn't follow biological norm. If you are born male, you are male, if you feel anything otherwise of your own volition, unaffected by others, you are by definition mentally ill.

Not what's being argued in whole; is that person mentally stable? The answer is explicitly no.

As I already said, it's politically influenced. Nowhere in the articles does it not say the definition is being changed due to outside pressure to break "stigma." Not only that, but you're under the impression that all of our medical institutions teach about this subject; there's a reason why only a very very small handful of surgeons practice reassignment, the overwhelming of which you find on transgender sites themselves is simply top surgery.

In case you've never seen it in the media, there have been pushes by quack-SJW's promoting the idea that schools and parents teach their children that their gender/sex is not something that is assigned to you by good old biology, your lovely chromosomes. That's what he's challenging, and he is right, it's quack science and mockery of the human body to promote the idea that you can be born a girl in the body of a boy.

It reminds me of a friend I know who told me once that they are a skinny person living in a fat body because she was reincarnated from a Hawaiian princess. (no, not joking)

Point is, no one should be attempting to essentially brainwash young impressionable children into believing that if you are born a man, with a penis, that if you want to be little one, you can be a girl. It defies logic, it defies biology to the core.

btw you realize you agreed with it being an illness right; same quote.

 

You don't understand what mentally competent means, then. In this context, it means that the patient has to have sufficient mental capacity to make decisions for themselves. The capacity to make decisions does not hinge on whether or not you believe that it's the right decision or a good decision.

Fair enough. I didn't read the cited article, and it was a very small sample set anyway.

Sex and gender aren't the same thing.

Well, the rest of the world IS no longer considering it a mental disorder. And removing stigma certainly is one of the benefits, the stigma of being transgender literally drives people to suicide. However, nowhere does that article suggest that there's a vast conspiracy that has somehow managed to gain every major medical institutions acceptance. I'm asking for direct evidence of a conspiracy. Evidence that shows who's funding it, why they're funding it, etc.

Then I'm not sure why you replied to my original comment that was talking about involuntary institutionalization.

The study you linked to seemed to talk about prenatal androgens.

See above with regard to mental competence.

Wait, the onus isn't on me to demonstrate that there's not a conspiracy, The burden of proof lies upon the one making the claim, which in this case is you.

I'm not talking about teaching, I'm talking about their official position on the matter.

That's not what he said, though. From what he said, he has an appalling grasp of the subject matter.

Nobody's trying to brainwash anybody. Having worked with preschool kids, I can guarantee that nobody's trying to recruit kids to the "cult of transgenderism".

I thought it was, until I did some research and realized that every major medical institution disagrees with me.

 

Depression, PTSD, bipolar disorder, generalized anxiety disorder. The point in my reply was: Why do you go and see a doctor? Because you know/think something is wrong, which would mean you are aware, you just don't have a name for it. When you go to a therapist, they analyze you based on what you decide to share, and they tell you what the word is for what you have described.

And I am saying that they are two different things: Identity and Expression.

It is indeed a college student's paper, but that doesn't make it any less reasonable to take into account. Genocide and colonialism are a big factor as to why people, yourself included, think that transgender folk are a modern phenomenon. Wiping out tribes that believed and accepted these things as social norms makes it a little less believable when these people aren't alive anymore, existing as their non-cisgender selves.

Again, two different things: Identity and Expression. Obviously those tom boys didn't think they were actual boys because they only liked "boyish" things. That would be gender expression, desiring to be more masculine/like a boy, and not gender identity, knowing that you are an actual boy.

Can anything biologically possibly dub you as an attack helicopter while in the womb? No. So, no, using that as an argument is stupid. Can anything biologically possibly dub you as male instead of female while in the womb? Yes. That is why the legitimacy of being transgender is a thing.

What about intersex people? Are they invalid too? If a child is raised with both ovaries and testes, what are they? A boy or girl? Do the sexual reproductive organs decide that? But what about the biology and anatomy that make this child a scientific anomaly? They are both male and female, are they not? Are they just "more" male if they have a penis or "more female" if they have a vagina? What if the parents decide to surgically remove the ovaries because they have a penis, and when the child is 15, they tell their parents that they feel like a girl? How do you have that conversation? Who is to say that the child shouldn't have had a penis? There's no possibility at all that a mistake could have been made in the developmental stages?

The most invalidating way I look at transgender people is that they are a biological screw up. Which is more realistic than them being mentally ill because what they say/think doesn't match what you've been taught.

 

In "this" context? The authorities on the matter say otherwise.

Physical reality, biological reality, something of which these people are in denial of based on delusion. Doesn't matter how you spin your words or try to redefine what constitutes a mental illness simply because you have politics influencing science.

So when you cite the research in support of your argument it's sufficient, but when it contradicts many of the points you defend the sample size only then matters. Fair enough, it was my initial thought anyways. However, if you read the results they got in-full you'd come to realize some of the interesting outcomes.

This is a shared topic when we're discussing research that in their results found that even when raised as girls, the boys still exhibited more male-like personality types. Even the boys who when their real sex/gender was revealed, they chose to then accept and identify with that fact. That happening in the research does the "you are BORN transgender!!" thought no justice.

As what the authorities concluded, it's a mental illness.

I never said it's a conspiracy, you're twisting "politics" into something it's not. None of the reports on the declassification make mention of it being a science influenced decision, all it says in that article and others of it being influenced simply by "stigma" and reform groups pushing their "equality" agenda.

It was part of the study, yes.

It doesn't have to manifest itself as a debilitating illness; referring back to the real authorities on the matter, their delusions are not founded in physical, biological, reality.

The only real defense made so far in this thread is that it was evolution in the making, which is incorrect as well. (regarding hermaphrodites)

Refer to my previous statement. You're claiming it's a conspiracy, political influence doesn't equate to some Illuminati mind control. If you read the opinion pieces on the declassification, you'd realize the ONLY reason for the change was politics. Politics being equal "rights" groups kicking and screaming that transgenderism isn't a mental illness, as has been so for decades.

And what are they basing the change upon? The articles make no mention of scientific significance being a factor, none whatsoever. Did they consult Johns Hopkins? Doubt it.

The people who pioneered the field have an appalling grasp on something we'd probably be behind on if it weren't for them? They are the authorities on the matter.

You didn't grasp what I said, I didn't say there's an institutional effort to brainwash kids. What I did say is there are SJW groups making pushes to incorporate that curriculum. Teaching kids (as they did in the study) that you can be annnnnything you want, is brainwashing, and should be regarded as criminal in nature.

ICD-10 Version:2016

And what I think is relevant to the linked study with the children

I still insist you read the results section; one of the findings was that the children that when told the truth of their sex/gender were more happy afterwards.

The WHO hasn't changed their official position, it has only been up for debate.

 

Yes, "this" context. They certainly do not say otherwise.

Mental Incompetence Law & Legal Definition
Mental Incompetency

I challenge you to find a single modern example of a judge upholding the long-term involuntary commitment of a person who has sufficient mental capacity to make decisions for themselves. Or provide some evidence. Either way.

Gender isn't based on physics or biology. Sex is.

Like I said, I hadn't read the referenced article. I should have, but I didn't. My apologies. Call it laziness.

So...boys who are cisgendered identify as being cisgendered regardless of their treatment? Seems to me like that would be evidence in favour of somebody's identified gender being unchangeable.

Unfortunately, "the authorities" are on my side. You have the very distinct minority on yours.

The article said one of the benefits was removing the stigma. Call it what you will, you've got to have evidence that politics is interfering with science on a grand scale.

Okay - why mention how impressionable children are, then?

Mental stability doesn't have a single thing to do with whether or not you're correct. Mental stability has to do with being, well, mentally stable. Having gender dysphoria doesn't make you unstable no more than depression or anxiety do.

A conspiracy doesn't require the Illuminati. Regardless, you're claiming that politics is responsible. It's on you to demonstrate that.

Great question, I didn't ask them. When my doctor tells me I need surgery, I believe him. When climatologists say that global warming is real, and caused by humans, I believe them. I'm a financial advisor - when I tell my clients that their investments are poorly chosen, they believe me. Why? Because people generally listen to people who know what they're talking about. Personally, I would presume that scientific organizations base their positions on science, but to be sure, I haven't asked them.

Also, it was one guy at John Hopkins. I haven't found anything to suggest that that's the position of the entire institution.

It's not that unreasonable. Sigmund Freud was one of the pioneers of psychology, yet his theories are only taught for their historic importance today.

Maybe I missed this - where's the position of "SJW" groups wanting to teach kids that they can choose their gender?

Apologies - 99% of major medical institutions.

Those children weren't transgender, though, according to my understanding of the study.[/quote]

 

You realize you're the only one who's brought up this entirely separate topic of "mental incompetence." You're shifting the goalposts to something entirely irrelevant.

NAMI: National Alliance on Mental Illness | Mental Health Conditions

Is someone who's transgender suffering under a mental illness? Yes. What is affected? Their thinking, the delusion that they believe they are not their biologically assigned sex and corresponding gender.

Interesting, lets refer back to the previous study that would challenge that "but gender is a social construct!" nonsense.

Gender is not entirely a social construct, that notion can and will never be proven as even behavioral patterns that are identified more with the male than female genders are seen across each and every culture since recorded history.

Seems to me that gender isn't the pseudo-science "construct" people would like to proclaim it is. All it did prove is that it's impressionable upon young children, and even then, it fails.

Weren't you the one just raving about how the WHO was putting up for debate the declassification? The WHO is a medical board of global practitioners, I could very easily argue that it's a medically global consensus that it is a mental illness. Also, can you name any number of institutions, by name specifically, that proclaim it not to be and support their stance with a science and not political reasoning?

"Grand scale," I gave you a single example regarding polio, I guess you missed it. Polio for decades now has been proclaimed "eradicated," even though there are over a hundred enterovirus' that are responsible for polio; all of which contributing to things such AFP, acute flaccid myelitis and others. The long and short is they dubbed polio eradicated for industrial/political means, yet these things still exist that are entirely, effectively, polio.

But of course, we could simply look at the billions of dollars drug companies spend lobbying.

Simply refer to the passage where the boys still aligned with more male-dominant activities than women do; there are a litany of holes in your argument depending on what your arguing, with respects to how the study challenges many of them. The "social construct" theory is one of them. Hormone therapy, whether you're in favor or against, will be a good or bad thing depending on the results and how you argue it.

So then we're back again to my same question, am I perfectly mentally stable, fit, whatever language you want to try to bend, if I want my healthy left arm amputated because I "feel" like it doesn't belong to me. Treatment is a non-issue at this point it seems, so it comes down to defining a mental illness. Both share common traits, that the person in question doesn't "feel" like such-and-such, even though what they are conforms to reality.

The reality is I am a human, I am supposed to, based on my biology, have two healthy arms. Nothing exists that should urge me to want my arm amputated. If that does occur, am I still perfectly mentally healthy? No, there is something very wrong.

Simply because these illnesses don't manifest as something physically debilitating where I now need a handicap sticker doesn't make it any less a mental illness.

I already asked you to show me where in these articles science was being debated and that was the driving force behind the change of definition. In every article the only driving force was politics, when I say politics, it doesn't mean spooky Democrat/Republicans donating millions to some secret fund; activist groups who suffer the same delusion have been pushing to have their delusion legitimized by our institutions that aren't founded upon a scientific or biological reality basis, all are based on fantasy.

Good analogy, allow me to play along. If the foremost experts regarding transgenderism/transexualism tell you that it's a mental illness and the WHO classifies it as a mental illness because these foremost experts have decades of practice in the field, who do you believe, the experts, or doctors who are simply agreeing with political stances unsupported by the experts.

When Paul McHugh spoke he consistently used the word "we," inclusively, even if he had been saying "I" in conclusion, McHugh served as the chief psychiatrist for forty years. This is why we call such institutions and individuals "the authorities," because they have the most experience. The drive-by opinion of some random doctor being interviewed for comment on whether or not they think trans___ should be declassified is an unimportant opinion that holds weight, it's the equivalent to us arguing the definition right now, my specialty isn't psychiatry, i'm simply relaying what the authorities have concluded.

Which is usually replaced by something better, I have yet to see anyone that can match the experience as Johns Hopkins or McHugh; where is the current authority that is either confirming or denying the subject?

It is a problem, i'd compare it to university professors being very expressive in their Left-leaning ideals. Not that I find anything wrong with that, personally, I don't think politics should be part of educational discussion in the sense that an educator shouldn't be biased in what's presented. Now, on to the actual examples.

School Told to Call Kids ‘Purple Penguins’ Because ‘Boys and Girls’ Is Not Inclusive to Transgender, by Katherine Timpf, National Review
NC school to teachers: Don't call students 'boys and girls' | Fox News
Oregon Transgender Teacher Wins $60K in Gender Pronoun Complaint

Obviously this isn't an epidemic, but it does occur. The last article I find the most cancerous.

Who else that's as inclusive/global as WHO? The WHO offers no citation, so I would be curious to look at the citations for decision making regarding classification.

Which is what was attempted, reassignment.

 

I asked previously:

You responded:

I'm arguing against this.

For the sake of argument, let me concede that it's a mental illness in the sense that, biologically, something went wrong somewhere. That doesn't mean that they're mentally incompetent. Consider another mental illness: Depression. Strictly speaking, they have a mental illness that affects their thinking, yet they're absolutely not considered "incompetent" to the degree that a judge or doctor can pronounce them incapable of making decisions for themselves.

Institutionalization, generally, is reserved for those who volunteer to be admitted, or those who are literally incapable of making decisions for themselves. Your argument that they should be institutionalized doesn't make any sense.

Sorry, I misspoke. I should have said that gender isn't synonymous with sex.

Going by the study, yes, trying to change somebody's gender fails.

Yes, science revises itself. The science of today is better than the science of 50 years ago, which is better than the science of 500 years ago.

Well, my assumption would be that they WOULD list it as a mental disorder if they considered it to be one. How many institutions have a comprehensive list of everything that they consider NOT to be a mental illness? "And lastly, let it be known that happiness is normal, being outgoing is normal, etc."

I'm not asking for evidence that politics can influence medicine, I'm asking for evidence that it does influence medicine in this particular situation.

If a biologically male person identifies as being male, and a (weak) study shows that trying to influence them as children is ineffective, wouldn't that imply that trying to influence a biological male who identifies as female would be similarly ineffective?

Oh, sure, something went wrong somewhere. You might still be mentally stable, though, depending.

Science is usually based on science. The onus is on you to demonstrate that the scientists are basing their decision on something other than science.

Sigmund Freud was arguably one of the pioneers of psychology, yet his work is almost entirely disregarded nowadays. Being the first on the scene doesn't mean anything.

The only time he mentioned "we" was in regard to a study that they pioneered in the 70's. Psychology has come a long way since then, so if his study still holds weight today, 40 years later, I'd like to see it.

He's no longer the authority, same with Freud. I'm going with the WHO on this one.

The WHO.

"Purple penguins" isn't the whole story - Nebraska School Bans Genders in Favor of 'Purple Penguins'
"Don't call students 'boys and girls'" - don't see the problem with this.
"Oregon teacher" - the teacher was being allegedly harrassed. From the article:

"...co-workers made Soell’s life difficult by intentionally referring to Soell as “she,” “Ms Soell” or “lady” in front of parents and teachers, according to the complaint, submitted to officials in the Gresham-Barlow School District and obtained by the Oregonian. The harassment continued for over a year..."

If true, that's absolutely harassment, on a legal level. That sort of thing is a gigantic liability for any institution, and always has been. Seems like the district settled rather than bring this to trial, so we won't know if there was actually harassment or not, though.

I'd regard the WHO as the major global authority. I don't know of any others.

I would be too. Might be an interesting read.

Right, reassignment on a cis-gendered person. I wouldn't expect that to work.

 

So then i'm assuming you're not in agreement with institutionalizing someone because although they're mentally ill, it isn't affecting them to the extent that they can't function properly; fair enough.

There's more than one way this could be argued in favor of institutionalizing them, all of which I already know you'll be using the defense of their ability to make decisions for themselves. Knowing that, the only thing i'd point out is the culmination of evidences presented while also taking into consideration other illnesses like apotemnophilia and the similar effects, is the mental stress for those who want to and can't transition. This leads me to another point, I legitimately believe a large fraction of people who claim to be transgender are going through your classic mid-life crisis, and don't actually suffer from any delusion, other than the pseudo-delusion of wanting to join the fad band wagon. Getting back to the point, mental stress of some form was present in an overall conclusion of the evidences presented.

That is then when they (name McHugh) concluded that there is virtually no benefit to transitioning for these individuals.

Then again, what displeases me most is that in the hierarchy of studies, no RCTs exist, although we have one already listed, obviously as you've already gladly pointed out, it's tiny.

But it is; the notion that gender is simply a social construct and not synonymous with sex is a modern phenomenon due to anthropologists only a few decades ago. Across virtually all cultures since recorded history, gender has been synonymous with sex and the way we behave. There is plenty of biological evidence that proves gender is not something simply imposed on youth by external means. I can go over much of this if you'd like.

Which could also prove that gender simply isn't socially constructed. The guidelines were very strict, and as you and I read, the boys were adverse to being dressed as a girl and they rarely if never played with toys synonymous with little girls. This is again, something seen across the globe.

And if scientific consensus reflected the wanting of social activists, the change would have occurred by now. When a topic is heated, things change very quickly. I can think of a few areas of nutrition where due to strong political and scientific influence, the medical landscape was changed extremely quickly, within months or only a few years depending on the topic.

"Institution" shouldn't be used to loosely when speaking on specific topics if the field isn't vastly studied. I could check the government page for current clinical trials undergoing any form of research regarding transgenderism/transexualism and it'd most likely be zero.

In fact, out of curiosity, there's only two, one of which has no published results.

Point being, whether to your benefit/hindrance or mine, this isn't an area where there is actually a general consensus. And for the sake of making your argument for you and being fair, the only real authority on the matter is still Johns Hopkins, the WHO is nearly entirely irrelevant in many aspects. To even address something you brought up, normalcy. If you read further down in the original WHO link I provided you would have come across fetishes that they actually list, which I found quite interesting. How "science based" can judgement being passed on a fetish be? In many, not all, it can't.

Which is why I asked you to show me where in any of the articles regarding the declassification it cited research as their basis for declassification. That's the point i'm making, the only supportive "evidences" being cited are those by social activist groups. There's nothing else that can or would be cited or even alluded to.

Like i've laid out above, this can be used to easily argue both positions. I'm arguing that in the end, gender roles are not socially constructed. This is something that has been seen in virtually every culture since recorded history; men and women have always had gender roles for good reason. These reasons are supported by biology, the litany of physically/visually verifiable differences with a man and woman don't don't involve parental/societal indoctrination.

I read the links you provided for the WHO declassification, I asked you to show me where in the articles the opinions of the doctors were being based on scientific evidence. In every instance it was purely political, pushes from activist groups.

And as I said, where/who/what is the new authority on the matter? Sure, in certain fields there's a reason why textbooks will change at a university, because as we progress, things not previously known are discovered. However, more times than not, they're never discarded and still used as very good introductory material. Ex: I still find people recommending Pauling's "General Chemistry." Why? Because people have much to learn from those who are/were regarded as the best. However, obviously, those more currently qualified after these decades come along with new text, new discoveries.

tl;dr- the above hasn't happened in opposition to Johns Hopkins.

I don't see a purpose to you contesting his usage of "we" or something exclusive, it was a collective effort and the decision making to discontinue wasn't the decision of a single man. Paul McHugh and his compatriots came to a collective conclusion and opinion, end of story.

If he/they are no longer the authorities, then who are? I'll further clarify my request below.

As mentioned in my latter post, not a single citation is ever provided for their decision making. Not only that, the WHO is not the one conducting the research, these conclusions are not global initiative studies, none of their decisions are based on hands-on experience. Here's a simple question, which one of the medical practitioners on their board is qualified to contest the statements and conclusions made by Johns Hopkins? None of them.

Ironically, this is the exact argument you should actually be using.

In the end, the WHO is not a practicing authority, Johns Hopkins was and remains the single authority unless I am unaware of another private research university picking up on and advancing where Johns Hopkins.

That's not what I was arguing. You asked for examples of these kind of pushes being made, that's simple what I provided. What the outcome was is the non-issue.

Regarding the teacher's settlement, I can only imagine how much exaggeration her testimony would possess, considering I could find any number of purple haired SJW nutcases on YouTube right now, freaking out at the simplest of things.

Which comes back around to how they come to their classifications and where the research falls under the hierarchical pyramid of evidence.

They were all raised to be female, they were ignorant of their sex/gender from the beginning.

 

it's a set of believes

 

I never really thought of transgenders as having mental illnesses until someone called it gender dysmorphism and related it to muscle dysmorphia. It's definitely a mental illness but transgenders shouldnt be treated negatively because it.

 

Hey dude! I apologize that I've been gone for so long, I've had some fairly serious medical issues. If it's okay with you, I'd like to hit the soft reboot on this issue. I hope all has been well with you and yours! Happy holidays and all that shit!

So, let's reduce my argument. Let's agree that wanting to have sexual reassignment surgery is a sign of a mental illness. Clearly it's not the statistical norm, so we're throwing it in the illness slot.

So I'm fairly sure that we've agreed in the past that if somebody suddenly shouts out "I want to slice my arm off!", that that's a mental illness that should be treated. However, in my experience, a transsexual person who wants surgery is a little bit different.

Imagine a person who wanted their arm sliced off. They are perfectly normal in every other way, except that they've always wanted to be a one-armed person since they were 6 years old. They're now 24, so they've wanted their arm sliced off for about 18 years. Imagine that there are millions of people like them in the world, and that those who have their arm sliced off go on to lead significantly happier lives, in most cases. Imagine also that evidence shows that they have fundamentally different brain structures than normal people. Imagine that medication and therapy don't work, and that the extremely high levels of depression/anxiety that go along with this disorder cause them to commit suicide at alarmingly high rates. Now, we obviously don't have the medical technology to chop up their brain and rearrange it like a normal brain, so in this situation, the only way to alleviate their suffering is to cut off their arm. The alternative is them probably committing suicide. In this situation, do you agree that the person should be allowed to have their arm cut off?

 

T_T... dude it's been like 3 months lol and i'm too busy with work to really pay attention to this thread with a close eye anyways. So in closing i'll simply say this--

Transgenderism/transexualism deviate from what is decided by our biology/nature itself, it isn't something that we simply choose. As is also echoed by the people who pioneered the "sex-change" and closely monitored the mental states of these individuals, it is a mental illness. How we treat it at this point isn't something i'm going to debate because i'll be here another 10 pages; 'treatment' can range from heavy medication to my personal belief in psychiatric hospitals existing to monitor and limit those who are a danger to themselves, as I said numerous times, giving into the delusions of those who are severely sick is not a 'cure,' it's appeasement and surrendering ourselves, themselves, science and medicine as a whole to the mentally insane.

To quickly answer your question, no, their arm should not be cut off; the individual should be detained/institutionalized and/or heavily medicated. Many people seem to view that somehow as inhumane or medieval, in my personal opinion, it's a necessity when dealing with those who cannot, by definition, make proper decisions that don't harm themselves. They are suffering from an extremely strong delusion, if people view that form of study and control over such an individual as inhumane and medieval, so what, quite honestly I think that's one of the reasons why no progress is made, because most people are simply too scared to point out the obvious and tell it like it is or how it should be. The furthest you'll actually find these studies go is just your every day anti-depressant and hormone therapy, which is a joke, it has been around for decades and not much has changed (as we actually saw and deconstructed in the study with children being raised as the opposite sex from childhood till they were adults, cbf to even go over it again).

tl;dr- the alternative is not letting them die, it's institutionalizing them and yes, using them as guinea pigs. Simply because it leads to their "happiness" is an irrelevant benefit and not a real cure. It'd be like utilizing the barbaric forms of cancer treatment we currently use (chemo, radiation, surgery) without any advancements that run contrary to modern cancer practices. Will people be used as guinea pigs? Absolutely- will the end result be better treatment and understand? Absolutely.

tl;dr tl;dr- I'm done lol

To conclude in absolute, I believe in institutionalizing people of this nature, plain and simple. No serious progress will ever be made otherwise and I don't agree with submitting to the whims of those who cry "oh humanity" in relation to institutionalization, when the mentally insane are left to their own delusions. Our medical field of 2016 is much different than the early days of Johns Hopkins, experimentation is a necessary 'evil.'


Nice speaking and debating with you Shredderbeam and Merry Christmas. If you want to leave a last remark or respond to my post go ahead, I won't be posting here again and will request the thread be locked after your closing post.

 

Yeah, sorry, I've been completely out of commission unfortunately.

No evidence shows that even the most invasive therapies, including electroshock therapy, work, because they have a fundamentally different brain structure. That's something you can't medicate away.

First, people have rights, even people with mental illness. Second, we have made (and will continue to make) incredible medical progress without using unwilling humans as experimental guinea pigs. The situation you describe is incredibly reminiscent of Dr. Mengele's Nazi experiments. Third, that starts a slippery slope. Do we use depressed people as guinea pigs? People with anxiety? Social anxiety? When people can be taken against their will, while they're legally mentally competent, you're in a dangerous situation.

The same to you, and happy Christmas.

 

Closed @ OP's request.