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.
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.
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.
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.
Sorry, I misspoke. I should have said that gender isn't synonymous with sex.
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.
Going by the study, yes, trying to change somebody's gender fails.
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.
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.
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.
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."
"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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
Which comes back around to how they come to their classifications and where the research falls under the hierarchical pyramid of evidence.
Right, reassignment on a cis-gendered person. I wouldn't expect that to work.
They were all raised to be female, they were ignorant of their sex/gender from the beginning.
