Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 7 LastLast
Results 101 to 120 of 131
  1. #101
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,194
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Bruce Jenner is MAN who is mentally ill.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Sarcasm and innuendo that the current psychological's manual definition is faulty due to bias is not support that it is.

    So I ask that you SUPPORT OR RETRACT psychological manual's definition is faulty on some level.
    It wasn't intended to be. Sarcasm wasn't my point, and you should re-read the part where I praise your source as being valid and appropriate.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    And that makes a lot of sense. A disease has to cause harm to the person. So being transgendered CAN cause distress and therefore lead to disease where one has an unhealthy state of mind because of the stress and upset of having their body and mind not align but it's not inherently a disease. If one doesn't have a problem or they can change the disconnect by altering their body to fit their mind, then they are not diseased (so if Jenner had a disease due to body dysmorphia, the surgery probably cured it).

    As far as your support, the book you are referring to is 12 years old. Also the link is to a site with a clear right-wing bias. CNS's parent company is the Media Research Center. In their "about us" page the MRC says "MRC’s sole mission is to expose and neutralize the propaganda arm of the Left: the national news media. This makes the MRC’s work unique within the conservative movement."

    So in comparing purely scientific/medical sources with current information with a source with a right-wing bias quoting a book written a dozen years ago, I'd say the former is much more credible. Really, if it was at all a consensus amongst the current medical community that transgenderism is a mental illness, CNS wouldn't have to go back 12 years to find something that says it is a mental illness.
    You know, the funny thing about data is that it really doesn't get old.
    for example if 12 years ago I were studying and actually treating cancer patients, and I found that untreated cancer patients were generally happy.
    then today, someone reported that cancer patients are generally unhappy.
    That wouldn't "debunk" my 12 year old research.

    Also, the kind of support that you would expect from me is to appeal to a professional with experience in this field.. yes?
    Really the only legit knock you can make about the source is #1 that he is in the current minority. #2 that his experience is "old".
    Neither of those are very strong counters IMO.

    If you really want to attack his Position, instead of just assuming and asserting it's incorrectness. You would have to show what he specifically got wrong at the time. And/or what has changed from then to now.
    Honestly, haven't read that book.. just quoting a valid and proper source in support of my opinion, as is expected.

    -------------

    Quote Originally Posted by SAD
    1. You quote a biased source - Conservative News Service; whilst insufficient to reject everything they say, readers should be warned that this is a site that already has an anti-LGBT stance to begin with.
    That doesn't make my point invalid, that outlet accurately reported the DR stance. The DR is the original source, and he is of the proper kind of support.

    Quote Originally Posted by SAD
    2. The doctor quoted in the article is well known and well debunked already. To wit:
    He may be in the minority, but he has hardly been "debunked". His view is only now in the minority, but it wasn't so long ago (like yesterday practically) where his view was "medically sound".
    Further your "source" for debunking him is another biased site, that doesn't even appear to be a DR at all. Please See Mican's post where he sites actual Dr and current medical opinion.
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  2. #102
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,536
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Bruce Jenner is MAN who is mentally ill.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    You know, the funny thing about data is that it really doesn't get old.
    for example if 12 years ago I were studying and actually treating cancer patients, and I found that untreated cancer patients were generally happy.
    then today, someone reported that cancer patients are generally unhappy.
    That wouldn't "debunk" my 12 year old research.
    I'm not saying older research is wrong. I'm saying that it is inferior to recent research (which is what my support is based on). And that's pretty easy to support.

    The longer time that something is researched, the more likely one is to get correct results. Therefore recent scientific conclusions are superior to older conclusions. So my support is superior to yours on that basis.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Also, the kind of support that you would expect from me is to appeal to a professional with experience in this field.. yes?
    Really the only legit knock you can make about the source is #1 that he is in the current minority. #2 that his experience is "old".
    Neither of those are very strong counters IMO.
    I'm not saying that he's wrong because his data is old and he's in the minority. I'm saying using him as support is inferior to my support, which uses newer data and is the view of the majority of EXPERTS (so it's not an appeal to popularity but an appeal to expertise, which is a legitimate basis of support)


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    If you really want to attack his Position, instead of just assuming and asserting it's incorrectness. You would have to show what he specifically got wrong at the time. And/or what has changed from then to now.
    I'm not attacking him. I'm providing superior support to what you provided.

    And let's not forget the source of the support for that is significant. Your source was a site with a clear right-wing bias. That doesn't mean that whatever they post is automatically wrong but it does show that they are likely more interested in cherry-picking data that supports their pre-determined conclusions than the sources that I used are (which are medical and psychological sources that have no admitted or supported political bias. Again, if the data was really on the MRC's side, they would surely pick something more recent that what was published 12 years ago. The fact that they had to go back 12 years indicates that nowadays, it's pretty much a consensus that transgenderism is not a disease.

    An unbiased look at any issue does not have one looking for data that backs up their conclusions. To get an unbiased look, one would look at the CURRENT data that the experts forward and accepting it whatever it may be. And if we go to the APA site, we get:

    "A psychological state is considered a mental disorder only if it causes significant distress or disability. Many transgender people do not experience their gender as distressing or disabling, which implies that identifying as transgender does not constitute a mental disorder. "

    https://www.apa.org/topics/lgbt/transgender.aspx

    I would guess if I were going to try to find support for the position that transgenderism is a mental disorder I would not be able to support that by looking at the current medical and psychological site. I would have to search and search to find something that backs up the position that I am seeking to support. And I would likely have to go to a source with a right-wing bias and within it find a source that contradicts the information I would find if I were to do an unbiased search.

    So CLEARLY the support I provided is superior to yours. It's more recent and it's what most of the credible experts believe.

    And besides that, the position that the APA makes sense. Don't you agree that something must cause "distress and disability" in order to qualify as a disease? And if so, then the only way that being transgendered can be a disease is if it inherently causes distress and disability. So if someone is transgendered but have no problem with it (no distress) and are able to function just as well as the average person (no disability), then they do not have a disease. Since such a thing is certainly possible, transgenderism cannot be inherently be considered a disease.

    So I have supported that it's not a disease two ways:
    1. By providing superior support from experts compared to your support from experts
    2. Argued via the definition of "disease".
    Last edited by mican333; June 11th, 2016 at 10:44 AM.

  3. #103

    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    321
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Bruce Jenner is MAN who is mentally ill.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post

    That doesn't make my point invalid, that outlet accurately reported the DR stance. The DR is the original source, and he is of the proper kind of support.
    I admit that already - this is just a warning that this site is extremely biased and commonly cited by the conservatives. I view posts from Pink News just as skeptically.

    He may be in the minority, but he has hardly been "debunked". His view is only now in the minority, but it wasn't so long ago (like yesterday practically) where his view was "medically sound".
    Further your "source" for debunking him is another biased site, that doesn't even appear to be a DR at all. Please See Mican's post where he sites actual Dr and current medical opinion.
    The source directly quotes a valid rebuttal for this specific position - there are problems with his data and conclusions.

    I'll leave it up to Mican to reach the inevitable conclusion that your point is false - no need for both of us to do it.

  4. #104
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    377
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Bruce Jenner is MAN who is mentally ill.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    the most current psychological manual's new definition, which is certainly not influenced by politics at all(sarcasm)
    It's actually a good thing that our definitions are fluid and can be updated.
    For example, the definition of "rape" has changed over time as cultural opinions have shifted. Or how about "voter", which has changed drastically in how we define it.
    Your comment implies that you find something wrong with changing how we define things.

  5. #105
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,194
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Bruce Jenner is MAN who is mentally ill.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    An unbiased look at any issue does not have one looking for data that backs up their conclusions. To get an unbiased look, one would look at the CURRENT data that the experts forward and accepting it whatever it may be. And if we go to the APA site, we get:
    False, old =/= biased
    and New =/= unbiased.

    You haven't shown that the older data was some how biased, or that the harm this particular DR observed and thus based his decision on did not occur.
    In fact, If I want to show that a position is "reasonable" to hold, then pointing to a very recent major opinion is exactly what one should expect.
    The fact that it has only RECENTLY been changed doesn't mean that before that the medical community was biased and unreasonable.. does it? If it does then I reject their "current" opinion as probably equally biased and unreasonable, as they have shown themselves (according to your opinion) as biased sources.
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  6. #106
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    377
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Bruce Jenner is MAN who is mentally ill.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    False, old =/= biased and New =/= unbiased.
    You haven't shown that the older data was some how biased, or that the harm this particular DR observed and thus based his decision on did not occur.
    In fact, If I want to show that a position is "reasonable" to hold, then pointing to a very recent major opinion is exactly what one should expect.
    The fact that it has only RECENTLY been changed doesn't mean that before that the medical community was biased and unreasonable.. does it? If it does then I reject their "current" opinion as probably equally biased and unreasonable, as they have shown themselves (according to your opinion) as biased sources.
    I believe you misunderstood him. He didn't say that old data/studies are themselves biased, he said that looking for any old data/studies which support one's conclusion and ignoring the current, more accurate data/studies, is biased.

  7. #107
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,536
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Bruce Jenner is MAN who is mentally ill.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    You haven't shown that the older data was some how biased
    I didn't say it was. I'm saying that older data is inferior to more recent data. If you have a disease, would prefer the treatment of the 1910s or the treatment of the 2010s?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    or that the harm this particular DR observed and thus based his decision on did not occur.
    He did not provide enough detail of "harm" for me to assess his judgment either way. So instead I offer many, many more credible experts who say that transgenderism is not a mental disorder.

    I also made my own argument about why it should not be considered a mental disorder and it's not been rebutted. Again, it has to cause harm to the person before it can be considered a disease.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    In fact, If I want to show that a position is "reasonable" to hold, then pointing to a very recent major opinion is exactly what one should expect.
    The fact that it has only RECENTLY been changed doesn't mean that before that the medical community was biased and unreasonable.. does it? If it does then I reject their "current" opinion as probably equally biased and unreasonable, as they have shown themselves (according to your opinion) as biased sources.
    I don't hold that older medical notions are biased. I hold that compared to more recent medical notions, they are more likely to be incorrect. I also hold that when it comes to experts, the majority opinion is more likely to be correct than the minority opinion. Based on those two criteria, I hold that the APA is a better source of support than the doctor you are referring to.

    The only bias I forwarded was the source of your information that has an admittedly right-wing bias. I don't hold that the doctor they referred to was biased at all, just that his position is outdated and he's in the minority amongst experts. If you want to forward that the current medical beliefs of the APA are biased in some way that makes their conclusions faulty, I ask that you SUPPORT OR RETRACT that claim.

  8. #108
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,194
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Bruce Jenner is MAN who is mentally ill.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    I didn't say it was. I'm saying that older data is inferior to more recent data.
    Yes, you said

    Quote Originally Posted by mican
    To get an unbiased look, one would look at the CURRENT data that the experts forward and accepting it whatever it may be
    So the opposite would be . "to get a biased look, look at past data and accept it whatever it may be."

    Ie Old=biased if you look at it, or offer it as support for anything but the new and improved appeal to novelty.
    There is no way around it, unless you are not talking about my source at all, which you clearly are.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    If you have a disease, would prefer the treatment of the 1910s or the treatment of the 2010s?
    This is a ridiculous comparison. Really. I mean the specific data point (IE published work of a Respected Dr in the relevant field) is 15 years old, but the opinion he voiced IS NOT. It is only recently, RECENTLY considered the minority. It doesn't automatically fall from "consensus" to "18th century quackery". All your doing is trying shut up any reasonable decent by shouting "consensus! consensus! consensus!!!!!
    For shame..

    All the while insisting that I ignore the political timing of the "consensus" changing it's opinion. Nothing to see here, coincidence I assure you.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    The only bias I forwarded was the source of your information that has an admittedly right-wing bias.
    I'm calling ******** on this one. My source is not the paper, it is clearly the DR. He is simply quoted by that paper. Would you feel better if I just direct linked to the book?

    See here is your problem. First, you have to discredit my source. So you attack where the quote occurs. "I don't like that rag, so I won't hear any professional quotes from it".
    Second, you have to attack the actual substance of my source. "Aww.. it's too old, 15 year old data is equal to something from the 18th century, Quackery! "
    Finally, you have to degrade the person of my source. "Not only is this data ooooooollldd. My source is much, much, much more qualified than some quack from "Johns Hopkins University"... what is that anyway a 3rd world brothel?.. No I am pointing to the be all end all "consensus".


    So yea, I dramatized a bit, but I nail your dead to rights on each point. Fallacy on fallacy in order to not even hear a dissenting opinion. You should have the good decency of saying, AS I did, your source is a valid one, but we have more persuasive voices, or better reason to go with X .. as the current consensus has". Maybe my sarcasm threw you off, I mean, lord forbid I add a bit of humor, to wink at the obvious.

    All I was doing, was seeking to validly support my position, and you can't even recognize when that has occurred. So good luck you can have the last word.
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  9. #109
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,536
    Post Thanks / Like

    Unhappy Re: Bruce Jenner is MAN who is mentally ill.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    So the opposite would be . "to get a biased look, look at past data and accept it whatever it may be."

    Ie Old=biased if you look at it, or offer it as support for anything but the new and improved appeal to novelty.
    There is no way around it, unless you are not talking about my source at all, which you clearly are.
    There are two things being referred to as your source
    1. The website
    2. The doctor quoted by the website.

    I am saying, and supported, that the website is biased. But I am not saying that the doctor who was quoted is biased.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    This is a ridiculous comparison. Really. I mean the specific data point (IE published work of a Respected Dr in the relevant field) is 15 years old, but the opinion he voiced IS NOT. It is only recently, RECENTLY considered the minority. It doesn't automatically fall from "consensus" to "18th century quackery". All your doing is trying shut up any reasonable decent by shouting "consensus! consensus! consensus!!!!!
    For shame..
    Oooooh! For shame! How (overly) dramatic. Give me a break.

    I'm using a large span of time just to demonstrate that newer information is better than older information. I didn't say quackery nor even implied it - I'm sure they knew a lot of valid medical information 100 years ago but the point is we know more NOW.

    And I didn't shout anything. I'm just pointing out that there currently is a consensus on the issue. If you have a rebuttal, then present it. No one is stopping you from making a reply if you have one.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    All the while insisting that I ignore the political timing of the "consensus" changing it's opinion. Nothing to see here, coincidence I assure you.
    More dramatics. I didn't insist that you ignore anything.

    If you want to argue that the current views on transgenderism is political then make your argument. Who on Earth is stopping you? Not me. Although you will need to support any argument that you make. So far your political argument has not risen above innuendo and sarcasm. So not only am I not forbidding you from making that argument, I'm asking that you DO make that argument provided you can support it.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I'm calling ******** on this one. My source is not the paper, it is clearly the DR. He is simply quoted by that paper. Would you feel better if I just direct linked to the book?
    The source I was referring to is the website. The site is biased.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    See here is your problem. First, you have to discredit my source. So you attack where the quote occurs. "I don't like that rag, so I won't hear any professional quotes from it".
    Second, you have to attack the actual substance of my source. "Aww.. it's too old, 15 year old data is equal to something from the 18th century, Quackery! "
    Finally, you have to degrade the person of my source. "Not only is this data ooooooollldd. My source is much, much, much more qualified than some quack from "Johns Hopkins University"... what is that anyway a 3rd world brothel?.. No I am pointing to the be all end all "consensus".

    So yea, I dramatized a bit, but I nail your dead to rights on each point. Fallacy on fallacy in order to not even hear a dissenting opinion. You should have the good decency of saying, AS I did, your source is a valid one, but we have more persuasive voices, or better reason to go with X .. as the current consensus has". Maybe my sarcasm threw you off, I mean, lord forbid I add a bit of humor, to wink at the obvious.
    Well, I did say that:
    1. Your web site is biased
    2. Your data is inferior to the data that I presented due to being older
    3. My source is better since it is the current consensus of the psychiatric community as opposed to just one doctor.

    But as there is nothing wrong with all of those arguments. They are all valid rebuttals to your arguments.

    So I see no basis to say to me "See here is your problem" and resort to all of the pissy sarcasm. To my mind, it looks like I pretty much succeeded in winning the debate and all of your complaining and sarcasm is poor sportsmanship.

    I typically would not say such a thing but there is really no good excuse for your behavior in your last post.
    Last edited by mican333; June 15th, 2016 at 12:19 PM.

  10. #110
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,144
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Bruce Jenner is MAN who is mentally ill.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I do not challenge that at all. In fact, it's the argument I'm attributing to MT although he claims, without support, that I am misrepresenting his argument.

    So I absolutely agree that being in the minority qualifies as "abnormal" and as Jenner's desire is a desire clearly not shared by the majority, it is an "abnormal" desire.



    And therefore we should only really judge Jenner's decision based on whether it's a harmful decision or not. If he's doing something harmful to himself then we have a reason to oppose it - out of concern for his well-being if nothing else. On the other hand, if he's making a healthy or at least neutral decision given his circumstances, then we have no reason to oppose it (or at least I'm not aware of a reason that's not based in it being an unhealthy choice).

    And a few posts up, I presented support from the APA that transgenderism is not considered an inherently harmful condition and therefore have supported that Jenner's decision is not inherently harmful to himself.


    [


    The only reason that a behavior should be examined more is if the prior examination is inadequate. I'm not sure that that is the case.





    I'm actually not aware of his family relationships (I'm not interested enough in it to learn about it) but one will need to tie the dysfunction directly tied to his transgender status to make the case. If the problem is primarily their bad reaction to his transgenderism then the problem is their attitude. If the problem is tied to him trying to hide his transgenderism then the problem is denying his "true self" as opposed to being transgendered




    You defined "abnormal" as a "purely a statistical accounting of someone's behavior."

    I'm unaware of any attempt to say that his behavior is not in a statistical minority.




    Again, no one has said that he's not statistically in the minority.




    And I reject the notion that there is an attempt to cover up the fact that his behavior is abnormal.

    And I've seen no support that Jenner is actually unhealthy due to his gender issues. A person who has cancer and is transgendered has health issues but they are not due to being transgendered. Likewise if Jenner is mentally ill and transgendered, it does not mean that he's ill due to being transgendered. So I think there needs to be support that his decision is actually unhealthy before it's reasonable to be concerned that we are downplaying something that is actually unhealthy.

    And besides it, it's almost certainly a subjective notion on when something is being underplayed or overplayed. I mean one could argue that unless someone mentions Jenner's mental illness (if there is one) in every single sentence that mentions him, they are underplaying his illness or one could argue that just saying it once is enough. Where's the line of when it's "too little"?
    You spent a lot of time in this thread noting that the ACA no longer claims transgenderism is a disorder and that Jenner seems healthy.

    However, now we hear Jenner wants to return to being a man. We know his relationship with his wife is estranged. Did they divorce? I don't really know. I try not to know, but watch a little news and.... This is kind of what I was alluding to earlier. Jenner displayed abnormal behavior (we all agree) and may have been exhibiting harmful behavior (we do not know). We have been told he's gone through some serious surgeries and has had trouble with relationships. I don't think MT is seriously off the mark in comparing tg to any other possible body image dysphoria such as anorexia.

    I think where MT gets into trouble is relying on 15 year old data which is no longer accepted by the medical community at large. First, he is assuming there was no political pressure 15-20 years ago when this study was done. Psychology is a pretty new field of study. I think the first DSM only came out in the 50's. The basis for determining what is and is not a mental disorder is based on a panel and consensus. We cannot say the results of the older study are wrong, but it is not the prevailing view right now.

    However, I think it is clear that our understanding of gender identity issues is pretty small and we can expect changes to how we define and treat these issues in the future. There are clearly some subset of people who have GI issues, such as Jenner, where surgery is a bad move. It is not a viable treatment and is likely to do more harm than good. I think the problem with his coverage is that when he came out and got the surgery, did the transformation, it was celebrated. Now that he has sort of wished he could take it all back, there has been no news coverage. To MT's point, this is probably setting up unhealthy expectations for people who follow in his path going forward.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  11. #111
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,536
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Bruce Jenner is MAN who is mentally ill.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    You spent a lot of time in this thread noting that the ACA no longer claims transgenderism is a disorder and that Jenner seems healthy.

    However, now we hear Jenner wants to return to being a man. We know his relationship with his wife is estranged. Did they divorce? I don't really know. I try not to know, but watch a little news and.... This is kind of what I was alluding to earlier. Jenner displayed abnormal behavior (we all agree) and may have been exhibiting harmful behavior (we do not know). We have been told he's gone through some serious surgeries and has had trouble with relationships. I don't think MT is seriously off the mark in comparing tg to any other possible body image dysphoria such as anorexia.
    Saying that all transgender people have serious problems because one particular transgendered person has a problem is to engage in the hasty generalization fallacy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    I think where MT gets into trouble is relying on 15 year old data which is no longer accepted by the medical community at large. First, he is assuming there was no political pressure 15-20 years ago when this study was done. Psychology is a pretty new field of study. I think the first DSM only came out in the 50's. The basis for determining what is and is not a mental disorder is based on a panel and consensus. We cannot say the results of the older study are wrong, but it is not the prevailing view right now.
    But we can say that in terms of what's better support, more recent findings are typically better.

    The more something is studied the more accurate picture of it one gets.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    However, I think it is clear that our understanding of gender identity issues is pretty small and we can expect changes to how we define and treat these issues in the future. There are clearly some subset of people who have GI issues, such as Jenner, where surgery is a bad move. It is not a viable treatment and is likely to do more harm than good.
    I see no valid support for this position.

    Let me just use some logic. First off, something is not a disease unless it causes harm to the person. Transgenderism is not inherently harmful. But it can lead to harmful things such as depression or anxiety over the body gender and mind gender not aligning. And in that situation, altering the body to match the mind can alleviate that depression and do more good than harm.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    I think the problem with his coverage is that when he came out and got the surgery, did the transformation, it was celebrated. Now that he has sort of wished he could take it all back, there has been no news coverage. To MT's point, this is probably setting up unhealthy expectations for people who follow in his path going forward.
    I haven't paid much attention to him even when he had the surgery so I have specific response regarding him.

    But the notion that surgery in general is not a wise thing has not been supported.

  12. #112
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,194
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Bruce Jenner is MAN who is mentally ill.

    Quote Originally Posted by IBELSD
    I think where MT gets into trouble is relying on 15 year old data which is no longer accepted by the medical community at large
    Well, to be clear, I wasn't referring to some 15 year old study that has now fallen out of favor, or been disproved etc.
    I point to a Dr who conducted gender re-assignment surgeries and noted his personal observations and opinions on the matter. Opinions which he included in his book and a quote I site. He is currently in the minority of the field.

    I was thinking that If I were going to say that this is a disorder, then I probably should site someone in the field with experience in this specific matter. you know, to "support" my claim. Also, apparently unless a position is in the "majority" at the time of it being argued, then it isn't a valid position. Which is silly I know, but that is the view of some here.

    Of course people here tend to take the line that if they are not personally persuaded, then the position is not "supported".

    Quote Originally Posted by IBELSD
    Psychology is a pretty new field of study.
    I'm not sure how much longer we can say that it is a "new" field. It has been around for a while now. What Freud was early 19th century?

    Quote Originally Posted by IBELSD
    First, he is assuming there was no political pressure 15-20 years ago when this study was done.
    Again, not study as far as I know. Also, I'm not sure it would help a persons case to show that the establishment has been swayed in the past by political pressures, because that compromises his source. (though as far as I know it is common knowledge that it was swayed by political pressures, especially early on. That is what I was taught as I perused psyc degree. But, that is neither here nor there.
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  13. #113
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,144
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Bruce Jenner is MAN who is mentally ill.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Well, to be clear, I wasn't referring to some 15 year old study that has now fallen out of favor, or been disproved etc.
    I point to a Dr who conducted gender re-assignment surgeries and noted his personal observations and opinions on the matter. Opinions which he included in his book and a quote I site. He is currently in the minority of the field.
    I kind of jumped into this midstream and was going off of what I thought I read between you and Mican. If I am misconstruing the facts, I apologize.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I was thinking that If I were going to say that this is a disorder, then I probably should site someone in the field with experience in this specific matter. you know, to "support" my claim. Also, apparently unless a position is in the "majority" at the time of it being argued, then it isn't a valid position. Which is silly I know, but that is the view of some here.
    Except that if we are using the clinical term "disorder" then there is a bit of a community standard involved. A single doctor cannot label a set of behaviors a disorder. He can lobby his position to the board and they can decide to accept it or not. At the root of psychology we are discussing behavior and norms. Disorders are not typically defined by some genetic or chemical marker. There is no psychotic "virus" so to speak as an example. We base abnormal behaviors by some set of behavioral markers and term an abnormal behavior a disorder when it meets some minimum number of behavioral markers. These disorders and their markers are set by the psychiatric community through meetings and debate. Is there political and social pressure that influences these decisions? Of course. However, let's keep in mind we are talking about behaviors and their acceptance in society. So, whereas, a man dressing like a woman may have been seen as a disorder 50 years ago, today, it is looked at more causally and may not be a disorder at all (or at least the threshold at which we'll call it a disorder is harder to reach) such as gender dysphoria/identity disorders.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Of course people here tend to take the line that if they are not personally persuaded, then the position is not "supported".
    I have seen this argument presented a few times.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I'm not sure how much longer we can say that it is a "new" field. It has been around for a while now. What Freud was early 19th century?
    Until I am dead.. ??? Compared to sciences like astronomy which have been around for a thousand years, I think our knowledge of the brain and behavior is in its adolescent stages. The father of American psychology, William James, practiced at the turn of the century (late 1800's and died in 1910). So, as a legitimate field of study it is just over 100 years old. As sciences go, it is still pretty young. But, to take your point, as the field has matured, it makes sense that many of its earliest assumptions (eg. transgender and homosexuals) was a bit off the mark. Let's not ignore all the other changes which have occurred to definitions ranging from depression to autism and beyond. Really, if you look at the changes from DSM II to today, if the assessment of transgender and homosexual didn't change you should be suspect.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Again, not study as far as I know. Also, I'm not sure it would help a persons case to show that the establishment has been swayed in the past by political pressures, because that compromises his source. (though as far as I know it is common knowledge that it was swayed by political pressures, especially early on. That is what I was taught as I perused psyc degree. But, that is neither here nor there.
    It is totally here and there. The DSM definitions have always and will always be influenced by social pressure. Since we are, at its heart, discussing social norms, then such pressure is not entirely out of place.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  14. #114
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,536
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Bruce Jenner is MAN who is mentally ill.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I was thinking that If I were going to say that this is a disorder, then I probably should site someone in the field with experience in this specific matter. you know, to "support" my claim. Also, apparently unless a position is in the "majority" at the time of it being argued, then it isn't a valid position. Which is silly I know, but that is the view of some here.
    You are obviously referring to me and that is not what I said. I did not say that what you provided is not valid support.

    I said that I provided BETTER support in opposition. I provided a source that is based on many more experts and is more current.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Of course people here tend to take the line that if they are not personally persuaded, then the position is not "supported".
    Assuming you are referring to me, you are wrong. If you are going to continue this claim I will challenge you to support or retract it.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Also, I'm not sure it would help a persons case to show that the establishment has been swayed in the past by political pressures, because that compromises his source. (though as far as I know it is common knowledge that it was swayed by political pressures, especially early on.
    I've seen that argument in the past. But I've never seen it supported. So it's not common knowledge, it's an unsupported claim.

  15. #115
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,144
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Bruce Jenner is MAN who is mentally ill.

    I just wanted to offer an addendum to my previous post where I stated that disorders are not defined by genetic markers, etc. Of course, this is not completely true in that many disorders can be traced back to organic causes. However, these root causes are generally not perfectly understood, often hard to test, and generally not infallible as identifiers. Many disorders can be caused by both organic and environmental factors. Some disorders may have organic predispositions, but require environmental triggers. All in all though, these things generally require the doctor to base the existence of a condition on a set of observable behaviors.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  16. #116
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,194
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Bruce Jenner is MAN who is mentally ill.

    Quote Originally Posted by IBELSD
    It is totally here and there. The DSM definitions have always and will always be influenced by social pressure. Since we are, at its heart, discussing social norms, then such pressure is not entirely out of place.
    Social norms is really quite a loose term here. A fringe group of people representing .0001% of the population can hardly be called the social norm. yet psychology is going to attempt to label it and massage it into a social norm.

    I am not even certain that Psychology has an official definition for what is "normal" to begin with.
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  17. #117
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,144
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Bruce Jenner is MAN who is mentally ill.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Social norms is really quite a loose term here. A fringe group of people representing .0001% of the population can hardly be called the social norm. yet psychology is going to attempt to label it and massage it into a social norm.

    I am not even certain that Psychology has an official definition for what is "normal" to begin with.
    Social norms define what culture holds acceptable. Do you think the ancient Greeks would have considered homosexuality to be a disorder? There is some belief that schizophrenic behavior was considered acceptable at one time and believed to be a sign of talking to the gods. The real issue is whether the behavior involved is harmful. Is homosexuality harmful? Is transgenderism harmful? Drinking a glass of wine is not harmful. However, if the doctor tells you that your liver is not working properly and drinking could kill you, then drinking a glass of wine is destructive behavior. Not being able to stop drinking the glass of wine may be an indicator of alcoholism. The person was not any less alcoholic before finding out about his liver, but it is not at disorder if the behavior has not led to harmful behavior. So, the entire process contains some amount of subjectivity and, yes, political social pressure will always be involved.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  18. #118
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,194
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Bruce Jenner is MAN who is mentally ill.

    Quote Originally Posted by IBELSD
    Social norms define what culture holds acceptable. Do you think the ancient Greeks would have considered homosexuality to be a disorder?
    I totally agree with you here. It does however present a very interesting problem with appealing to such a "science" as an authority on a topic. That being, it becomes little more than an appeal to popularity.
    Suppose I were arguing against the Greeks, where my position was that homosexuality was a mental illness, and they argued that it was completely normal behavior.
    Would they win simply because the majority agreed that it was normal?

    If then psychology's concept of what is a disorder and what isn't, is ultimately based on popularity, then appealing to it as a source is fallacious.
    Which of course leads right into your next point.

    Quote Originally Posted by IBELSD
    The real issue is whether the behavior involved is harmful. Is homosexuality harmful? Is transgenderism harmful?
    We would have to establish what is harm. For example, anal sex is that Harmful or not? Does an increased risk or an added negative health effect count as harm.. even if a particular individual doesn't experience it?

    https://www.medinstitute.org/2012/06...ous-trend-3-2/
    Quote Originally Posted by LINK
    Anal sex is clearly a dangerous form of sexual activity.
    My point is that it isn't called "dangerous" because it posses no harm, so... does that count?

    Or do we focus on the mental side? Suicide is a good sign of poor mental health yes?

    http://www.vocativ.com/culture/lgbt/...ender-suicide/
    Quote Originally Posted by LINK
    According to surveys, 4.6 percent of the overall U.S. population has self-reported a suicide attempt, with that number climbing to between 10 and 20 percent for lesbian, gay or bisexual respondents. By comparison, 41 percent of trans or gender non-conforming people surveyed have attempted suicide.

    Quote Originally Posted by LINK
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brynn-...b_8564834.html
    People who are seen as transgender or gender non-conforming are more likely to have attempted suicide. Also, people who have had access to surgery which allows them to “pass,” such as facial feminization surgery, report qualities of life not significantly different from the general population. This is perhaps the most damning study, since it strongly suggests that when transgender people are treated the same as cisgender (non-transgender) people, the risk of suicide becomes no different than for anyone else.

    So one source points out a ridiculously high rate, and another tries to explain that rate as a side effect of intolerance.
    Which brings us full circle back to the "socially acceptable". Clearly it is not socially acceptable, otherwise there wouldn't be intolerance.
    Even if we accept that it is the intolerance, that leaves that specific mindset as harmful to the individual.

    So where should that harm fall on the scales?

    Point is, you asked if it is harmful, and I think the clear answer is yes, at least to some extent, and suicide is a pretty bad indicator, and it is extremely high for this group.
    again, I am not disagreeing with you, I think you bring up some interesting points.

    To the extent that "tolerance" is at work.
    What if we were all much more supportive and accepting of people who have alcoholic lifestyles? Would that stop being a problem and not be a "disorder"?
    No more broken families, because we all just love how chocoholics act when they are drunk? etc.. you get the implications. There is some comparisons to be made.
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  19. #119
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,536
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Bruce Jenner is MAN who is mentally ill.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    If then psychology's concept of what is a disorder and what isn't, is ultimately based on popularity, then appealing to it as a source is fallacious.
    No, it's appeal to expertise, which is a valid source of support. Using multiple experts is not an appeal to popularity but strengthening one's appeal to expertise (the more experts that agree, the better).


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    We would have to establish what is harm. For example, anal sex is that Harmful or not? Does an increased risk or an added negative health effect count as harm.. even if a particular individual doesn't experience it?
    In terms of what is a disease, I'm pretty sure that it has to be consistently harmful, not something that can be harmful. For example, cancer is consistently harmful and therefore a disease.

    And also a disease has to be condition as opposed to a choice. So even if anal sex is consistently harmful (but I don't think it is), it's a chosen activity.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Point is, you asked if it is harmful, and I think the clear answer is yes, at least to some extent, and suicide is a pretty bad indicator, and it is extremely high for this group.
    But the harmful thing is not transgenderism, but intolerance of transgenderism. Intolerance of transgenderism is harmful to transgendered people and increases the risk of them committing suicide.

    As an analogy, if it can be shown that racism, especially when it was more prevalent in the past, contributed to a higher-than-average suicide rate in black people, we should say that racism is what is increasing the suicide in black people. We wouldn't say being black is what makes one more suicidal.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    To the extent that "tolerance" is at work.
    What if we were all much more supportive and accepting of people who have alcoholic lifestyles? Would that stop being a problem and not be a "disorder"?
    No more broken families, because we all just love how chocoholics act when they are drunk? etc.. you get the implications. There is some comparisons to be made.
    If one is supportive of something that is harmful, alcoholism, they are risking enabling dangerous behavior (since alcoholism has clear dangers) and doing more harm than good.

    Until it is supported that transgenderism is likewise inherently dangerous, the comparison is faulty. Saying we should not enable dangerous behavior does not show that we should be tolerant of behavior that is not dangerous.
    Last edited by mican333; June 19th, 2016 at 08:55 AM.

  20. #120
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,144
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Bruce Jenner is MAN who is mentally ill.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I totally agree with you here. It does however present a very interesting problem with appealing to such a "science" as an authority on a topic. That being, it becomes little more than an appeal to popularity.
    Suppose I were arguing against the Greeks, where my position was that homosexuality was a mental illness, and they argued that it was completely normal behavior.
    Would they win simply because the majority agreed that it was normal?

    If then psychology's concept of what is a disorder and what isn't, is ultimately based on popularity, then appealing to it as a source is fallacious.
    Which of course leads right into your next point.


    We would have to establish what is harm. For example, anal sex is that Harmful or not? Does an increased risk or an added negative health effect count as harm.. even if a particular individual doesn't experience it?

    https://www.medinstitute.org/2012/06...ous-trend-3-2/


    My point is that it isn't called "dangerous" because it posses no harm, so... does that count?

    Or do we focus on the mental side? Suicide is a good sign of poor mental health yes?

    http://www.vocativ.com/culture/lgbt/...ender-suicide/






    So one source points out a ridiculously high rate, and another tries to explain that rate as a side effect of intolerance.
    Which brings us full circle back to the "socially acceptable". Clearly it is not socially acceptable, otherwise there wouldn't be intolerance.
    Even if we accept that it is the intolerance, that leaves that specific mindset as harmful to the individual.

    So where should that harm fall on the scales?

    Point is, you asked if it is harmful, and I think the clear answer is yes, at least to some extent, and suicide is a pretty bad indicator, and it is extremely high for this group.
    again, I am not disagreeing with you, I think you bring up some interesting points.

    To the extent that "tolerance" is at work.
    What if we were all much more supportive and accepting of people who have alcoholic lifestyles? Would that stop being a problem and not be a "disorder"?
    No more broken families, because we all just love how chocoholics act when they are drunk? etc.. you get the implications. There is some comparisons to be made.
    First, the idea of harm is well-defined within the psychiatric community. It is specific to behaviors would would likely result in a loss of life, inability to maintain relationships, inability to maintain a job, etc. Saying a behavior may lead to an increased chance of cancer over a long period of time does not typically fall under this umbrella. Someone who drinks regularly, but does not drink on the job, is able to function within family and social circles, isn't suffering from liver disease, et al. would generally not be considered an alcoholic. That is how psychiatrists define the boundaries between normal and abnormal. So, it is not a matter of "acceptance" of drinking. Our society clearly accepts people who drink alcohol. It is the idea that when someone is an alcoholic, that they cannot otherwise function normally.

    So, the question is not whether being gay or tg has some negative side-effects. The question, from a psychiatric standpoint, is whether being gay or tg leads to socially incompatible results which creates an inability to function normally in society. As an example, as society becomes more tolerant of gay people, and being gay does not prevent someone from holding a job or forming healthy relationships, then its inclusion as a disorder must also be rethought. So, definitions can change over time and it is appropriate.

    I am guessing you are considering a slippery slope argument here. Why not murderers or rapists? Could psychiatrists one day determine that psychotic behavior is no longer abnormal? Sure. However, I'd hate to see what society looks like where being psychotic is considered normal.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  21. Likes MindTrap028 liked this post
 

 
Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 7 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Sex with the Mentally Challenged
    By latentorganiza in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: February 18th, 2008, 12:18 AM
  2. Bruce Willis
    By Turtleflipper in forum Entertainment
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: June 29th, 2007, 08:00 AM
  3. Mentally retarded
    By disinterested in forum Philosophical Debates
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: June 1st, 2006, 12:36 PM
  4. Reality vs. The Mentally Ill
    By KneeLess in forum Philosophical Debates
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: March 22nd, 2004, 06:05 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •