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 11 of 13 FirstFirst ... 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 LastLast
Results 201 to 220 of 247

Thread: Gay/Transgender

  1. #201
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,758
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gay/Transgender

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    I agree grieving, in and of itself is not a disorder. But grieving can be harmful ("the basis of a disorder", to quote you) and that is when it's a disorder.
    Likewise, eating is not in and of itself a disorder, but when it is harmful, it is a disorder.
    And being transgendered is not in and of itself a disorder, but when it is harmful, it is a disorder.
    When eating becomes harmful, it is no longer just eating. It is technically something else. And that something else, when identified, has a name and the name is not "eating". It's "anorexia" or "bulimia" or "binge eating disorder" or whatever.

    So when eating "becomes a disorder" it is no longer "eating". "Eating" has never been identified as a disorder.

    The same goes for the rest of the examples.

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    But it isn't "related" to grieving. It is (per your definition) abnormal /harmful grieving that is a disorder.
    And when that abnormal grieving is identified as a disorder, it is a grieving-related disorder that has a name. And again, the name is not "grieving".

  2. #202
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    456
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gay/Transgender

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    When eating becomes harmful, it is no longer just eating. It is technically something else. And that something else, when identified, has a name and the name is not "eating". It's "anorexia" or "bulimia" or "binge eating disorder" or whatever.

    So when eating "becomes a disorder" it is no longer "eating". "Eating" has never been identified as a disorder.

    The same goes for the rest of the examples.



    And when that abnormal grieving is identified as a disorder, it is a grieving-related disorder that has a name. And again, the name is not "grieving".
    It is given a different "name" to distinguish that "it" has become harmful/disorder. It is still grieving, just harmful grieving given a "medical label" (semantics)...

    Like if said person were had dysphoria because of being transgendered?

  3. #203
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,758
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gay/Transgender

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    It is given a different "name" to distinguish that "it" has become harmful/disorder.
    It is given a different name because it is something different.

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    It is still grieving, just harmful grieving given a "medical label" (semantics)...
    It is not just an issue of semantics. It is something different than just grieving. Grieving may have lead to the disorder but the disorder is not grieving by a different name.



    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Like if said person were had dysphoria because of being transgendered?
    And "dysphoria" is something different than "transgendered". Different words to go along with different definitions. You can say that being transgendered can lead to dysphoria but you can't say being transgendered is the same thing as having a dysphoria.

    Technically, "it" either is a disorder or it is not a disorder.

    Dysphoria IS a disorder.
    Transgenderism IS NOT a disorder.

  4. #204
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    456
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gay/Transgender

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    It is given a different name because it is something different.
    You need to be a bit more specific here...

    What/how is it "different"

    And

    The definition of the disorder is abnormal grieving!
    So again, what is "different"?

  5. #205
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,758
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gay/Transgender

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    You need to be a bit more specific here...

    What/how is it "different".
    If grieving becomes depression (which is a disorder), then one suffers from:

    "a mood disorder marked especially by sadness, inactivity, difficulty in thinking and concentration, a significant increase or decrease in appetite and time spent sleeping, feelings of dejection and hopelessness, and sometimes suicidal tendencies"

    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/depression

    That is certainly a different word and definition than "Grieving".

    If you are referring to a different disorder when you use the word "grieving" you will have to identify the disorder before it can be compared.

  6. #206
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    456
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gay/Transgender

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    If grieving becomes depression (which is a disorder), then one suffers from:

    "a mood disorder marked especially by sadness, inactivity, difficulty in thinking and concentration, a significant increase or decrease in appetite and time spent sleeping, feelings of dejection and hopelessness, and sometimes suicidal tendencies"

    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/depression

    That is certainly a different word and definition than "Grieving".

    If you are referring to a different disorder when you use the word "grieving" you will have to identify the disorder before it can be compared.
    "If Grieving becomes depression"?????
    WTH...

    You/we have been referring to grieving/abnormal grieving for how many posts now, and suddenly you want a "particular disorder..........???????..........

    You seem out of rebut. Are we done on this topic?

  7. #207
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,758
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gay/Transgender

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    "If Grieving becomes depression"?????
    WTH...

    You/we have been referring to grieving/abnormal grieving for how many posts now, and suddenly you want a "particular disorder..........???????..........
    And we weren't discussing disorders at all?

    I was referring to the difference between grieving and a disorder so why you are saying "WTH" for me demonstrating the difference by introducing an actual disorder into the conversation is beyond me.


    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    You seem out of rebut. Are we done on this topic?
    I am not out of rebut. I have shown that there is a difference in both name and definition between grieving and a disorder.

    There is no known disorder that is identified merely as "abnormal grieving". A "grieving disorder" would stem from someone having so much grief that it develops into a disorder and whatever that disorder is is not just grieving.

    And getting back to the topic on hand that we both identified. "Dysphoria" and "transgenderism" are two different words with two different definitions. So I have amply supported that transgenderism is not sometimes a disorder because transgenderism is not sometimes a dysphoria. The correct wording is sometimes transgendered people have a dysphoria ins the same way that sometimes grieving people have a disorder (and the disorder is not just another word for "grieving").

    Whether we are done on this topic depends on whether you choose to forward a rebuttal to my argument.
    Last edited by mican333; January 1st, 2018 at 09:48 AM.

  8. #208
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    456
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gay/Transgender

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    There is no known disorder that is identified merely as "abnormal grieving". A "grieving disorder" would stem from someone having so much grief that it develops into a disorder and whatever that disorder is is not just grieving.
    It's still grieving. It has just gotten to a point where it is unhealthy. No new term is applied.

    https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...drug-companies
    "In my list of the 10 worst things about DSM 5, its decision to confuse normal grief with clinical depression earned a very high ranking at second place."
    " Making grief a mental disorder will be a bonanza for drug companies, but a disaster for grievers"
    "It is simply outrageous that DSM 5 will diagnosis mental disorder in the normally bereaved as early as two weeks following their loss- thus encouraging the massive misdiagnosis of grief as Major Depressive Disorder.

    So, "making grief a disorder" and "misdiagnosis of grief as a major depressive order". Still sounds like grief from the experts. Once it became a disorder, they still call it grief. Pretty much how a disorder is defined...

    I realize you are not appealing to DSM at this point, but this is how disorders are looked at by professionals. I only see you trying to show a new "something" once anything has become a disorder....

  9. Thanks MindTrap028 thanked for this post
  10. #209
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,758
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gay/Transgender

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    It's still grieving. It has just gotten to a point where it is unhealthy. No new term is applied.

    https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...drug-companies
    "In my list of the 10 worst things about DSM 5, its decision to confuse normal grief with clinical depression earned a very high ranking at second place."
    " Making grief a mental disorder will be a bonanza for drug companies, but a disaster for grievers"
    "It is simply outrageous that DSM 5 will diagnosis mental disorder in the normally bereaved as early as two weeks following their loss- thus encouraging the massive misdiagnosis of grief as Major Depressive Disorder.

    So, "making grief a disorder" and "misdiagnosis of grief as a major depressive order". Still sounds like grief from the experts. Once it became a disorder, they still call it grief. Pretty much how a disorder is defined...

    I realize you are not appealing to DSM at this point, but this is how disorders are looked at by professionals. I only see you trying to show a new "something" once anything has become a disorder….
    Only because it makes perfect sense to do so and you have presented no rebuttal to this notion. If you don't agree with the DSM, and it's clear that you do not, then you can't use them for support against my argument. So appealing to them for support makes no sense at all and such appeals should be ignored.

    So here is MY argument and if you disagree with any of it, please show me where YOU (not the DSM, but you) disagree. If you have no disagreements, then it should be accepted. So here it is:

    All disorders
    1. Have names separating them from non-disorders
    2. Are harmful on some level.

    I normal grieving harmful? No. Therefore it is not a disorder.
    Is there a difference between normal grieving and harmful grieving? Yes.
    If grieving is harmful, is it appropriate to call it a disorder? Yes.
    If harmful grieving is a disorder, then the disorder should have a name to separate itself from what's not harmful.

    So whatever name you give it, it is different from normal grieving in both definition and name.

    Therefore normal grieving is not and cannot be, a disorder.

    Whether some "expert" wants to oppose the logic of my argument is not relevant. If YOU agree with my logic, then my argument should be conceded. If you don't agree, then present your own reasoning why you think I'm wrong.

    .

  11. #210
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    456
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gay/Transgender

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    If harmful grieving is a disorder, then the disorder should have a name to separate itself from what's not harmful.


    Ok, let us see where this goes:

    "harmful grieving is a disorder".
    Good so far.
    Give it a name to classify it from "normal grieving".
    Still good.
    We shall call it (for our conversation) ZWAT.
    Still good.
    Now ZWAT is a disorder.
    Great!
    How do we define ZWAT?
    It is defined as "harmful grieving" as noted by you per your last post.

    It's still "grieving" dude, it just progressed to the point of being "harmful".

  12. #211
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,758
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gay/Transgender

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Ok, let us see where this goes:

    "harmful grieving is a disorder".
    Good so far.
    Give it a name to classify it from "normal grieving".
    Still good.
    We shall call it (for our conversation) ZWAT.
    Still good.
    Now ZWAT is a disorder.
    Great!
    How do we define ZWAT?
    It is defined as "harmful grieving" as noted by you per your last post.

    It's still "grieving" dude, it just progressed to the point of being "harmful".
    For simplicities sake within the debate, I've said "harmful grieving" but the notion that "harmful grieving" would actually be a valid definition for a disorder is not supported at all. In fact, I very much doubt that "harmful grieving" would be considered a valid definition. As an example of the definition of a disorder, here's the definition of "depression":

    "a mood disorder marked especially by sadness, inactivity, difficulty in thinking and concentration, a significant increase or decrease in appetite and time spent sleeping, feelings of dejection and hopelessness, and sometimes suicidal tendencies"

    Notice that the cause of the disorder is not mentioned in the definition. In fact, it seems likely that harmful grieving would result in depression (likely the primary result of harmful grieving). So again, the notion that there really would be a disorder simply defined as "harmful grieving" seems very unlikely. The harm would be specified (like it is in the above definition) and once the disorder if adequately defined, it's entirely possible that one can attain it by means other than grieving and therefore it wouldn't even be a grieving-exclusive disorder.

    The notion that there can reasonably be a disorder that is simply defined as "harmful grieving" seems pretty dubious to me and is definitely not supported.

    But setting this issue aside, the debate is about transgenderism, not grief. Even you are correct that a grieving-related disorder can be defined as "harmful grieving" that does not necessarily apply to everything else. So let's get back to the actual topic - the transgendered. I do not see how being transgendered can be considered a disorder nor have I seen any argument supporting that it can be.

    As far as I know, the primary disorder related to transgenderism is "body dysphoria". But "dysphoria" is not the same as transgenderism and could not be reasonably defined as "harmful transgenderism" (going by your "grief" scenario). Dysphoria is basically feeling distress due to being transgendered. And of course those transgendered people who don't feel such distress do not have a dysphoria. So one can correctly say that a transgendered person can have a dysphoria but one cannot correctly say that transgenderism can be a dysphoria.

    So I see no argument supporting that transgenderism can be a disorder. It does not fit the definition of a disorder and therefore it is not a disorder.

  13. #212
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,192
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gay/Transgender

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    It's still grieving. It has just gotten to a point where it is unhealthy. No new term is applied.

    https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...drug-companies
    "In my list of the 10 worst things about DSM 5, its decision to confuse normal grief with clinical depression earned a very high ranking at second place."
    " Making grief a mental disorder will be a bonanza for drug companies, but a disaster for grievers"
    "It is simply outrageous that DSM 5 will diagnosis mental disorder in the normally bereaved as early as two weeks following their loss- thus encouraging the massive misdiagnosis of grief as Major Depressive Disorder.

    So, "making grief a disorder" and "misdiagnosis of grief as a major depressive order". Still sounds like grief from the experts. Once it became a disorder, they still call it grief. Pretty much how a disorder is defined...

    I realize you are not appealing to DSM at this point, but this is how disorders are looked at by professionals. I only see you trying to show a new "something" once anything has become a disorder....

    You do realize that the major disagreement here is at what point normal grieving is pathological, right? The diagnostics are not challenged other than the length of time from the grieving event until the diagnosis can be made. Still, in any profession it is normal for experts to disagree. One of the quotes in your link is that
    “Well-trained clinicians will be able to make this distinction [between normal grief and depression] and most have done so without the help of DSM-5 for many years.”

    In other words, the DSM is merely a tool. It is not gospel. There is room for a clinician to hold off on a diagnosis even if the criteria has been met. This is not at all what we are discussing as it relates to transgenderism. I'm still waiting for someone to propose what diagnostic criteria should be used separate from the gender identity disorders already available.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  14. Likes MindTrap028 liked this post
  15. #213
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    456
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gay/Transgender

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    For simplicities sake within the debate, I've said "harmful grieving" but the notion that "harmful grieving" would actually be a valid definition for a disorder is not supported at all. In fact, I very much doubt that "harmful grieving" would be considered a valid definition. As an example of the definition of a disorder, here's the definition of "depression":

    "a mood disorder marked especially by sadness, inactivity, difficulty in thinking and concentration, a significant increase or decrease in appetite and time spent sleeping, feelings of dejection and hopelessness, and sometimes suicidal tendencies"

    Notice that the cause of the disorder is not mentioned in the definition. In fact, it seems likely that harmful grieving would result in depression (likely the primary result of harmful grieving). So again, the notion that there really would be a disorder simply defined as "harmful grieving" seems very unlikely.
    Well, we have been speaking as laymen ever since you tossed DSM out of the conversation

    ---------- Post added at 05:23 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:14 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Dysphoria is basically feeling distress due to being transgendered. And of course those transgendered people who don't feel such distress do not have a dysphoria.


    So in this case:
    "Dysphoria is basically feeling distress due to being transgendered."

    If being transgendered is the cause of the "distress", and the level of distress has reached a "harmful" stage, that is called Dysphoria.

    ---------- Post added at 05:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:23 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    So I see no argument supporting that transgenderism can be a disorder. It does not fit the definition of a disorder and therefore it is not a disorder.
    And you have given no reason why it can not be a disorder.

    Maybe you need to define disorder again then. A while back you said something like something that has become harmful or some such

    ---------- Post added at 05:27 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:25 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    And of course those transgendered people who don't feel such distress do not have a dysphoria.
    And I have been saying this for pages.

    So those that do feel such distress, do have dysphoria, and being transgendered is the cause.

    ---------- Post added at 05:36 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:27 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    You do realize that the major disagreement here is at what point normal grieving is pathological, right? The diagnostics are not challenged other than the length of time from the grieving event until the diagnosis can be made. Still, in any profession it is normal for experts to disagree. One of the quotes in your link is that
    [COLOR=#000000][FONT=Arial] “Well-trained clinicians will be able to make this distinction [between normal grief and depression] and most have done so without the help of DSM-5 for many years.”
    There is more to the diagnosis than just "the length of time"...


    True "clinicians" have been doing this for years with varied results. However, the idea behind DSM is to standardize the field so that a person could see several "clinicians" and get the same diagnosis from each one. The aim is to match medical doctors. So, yes, the goal is to be the "gospel" whether they have attained it yet or not.

    ---------- Post added at 05:38 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:36 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    I'm still waiting for someone to propose what diagnostic criteria should be used separate from the gender identity disorders already available.
    I don't understand what you are getting at here?

  16. #214
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,758
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gay/Transgender

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Well, we have been speaking as laymen ever since you tossed DSM out of the conversation
    But we are still using the clinical definition of a "disorder".

    Someone crying so hard that they aren't paying attention and walking into traffic would suffice as "harmful grieving" but does not qualify as a "disorder"

    So just engaging in something in a harmful manner does not mean that it is a disorder.

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    So in this case:
    "Dysphoria is basically feeling distress due to being transgendered."

    If being transgendered is the cause of the "distress", and the level of distress has reached a "harmful" stage, that is called Dysphoria.
    Right. That distress would be called "dysphoria".

    But being transgendered isn't a dysphoria.


    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    And you have given no reason why it can not be a disorder.

    Maybe you need to define disorder again then. A while back you said something like something that has become harmful or some such
    Actually, it is your argument that anything can be a disorder so really I can just reject that position because you have not supported your argument. Your argument, so far, seems to be that since anything can be harmful, anything can be a disorder which indicates that you are saying that just being "harmful" is enough for something to be a disorder.

    If that is your argument, then you should provide a clinical definition of a disorder just requires something to be harmful.

    While i do agree that all disease and disorders are harmful, I do not accept that everything that is harmful is a disorder.



    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    And I have been saying this for pages.

    So those that do feel such distress, do have dysphoria, and being transgendered is the cause.
    As an analogy, being exposed to carcinogens can be the cause of cancer.

    But that does not mean that carcinogens are, or can be, a disease.

    So saying that transgendered is, or can be, the cause of attaining a disorder does not mean that transgenderism can be considered a disorder itself.

  17. #215
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,192
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gay/Transgender

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    There is more to the diagnosis than just "the length of time"...
    Based on your link, the duration is the major point of contention. Do you have something which supports other major points of contention?

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    True "clinicians" have been doing this for years with varied results. However, the idea behind DSM is to standardize the field so that a person could see several "clinicians" and get the same diagnosis from each one. The aim is to match medical doctors. So, yes, the goal is to be the "gospel" whether they have attained it yet or not.
    To a large degree it does standardize the field. However, like any profession, there are disagreements and gray areas. If anyone could just pick up a DSM and diagnose someone, then it wouldn't take someone with a degree to determine the diagnosis.

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    I don't understand what you are getting at here?
    People keep arguing that trans should be in the DSM, but I have yet to read anyone's suggestion as to what diagnostic criteria it should contain and how it would differ from other identity disorders already listed.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  18. #216
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    456
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gay/Transgender

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333;557149
    But we are still using the clinical definition of a "disorder".
    Which is?

    ---------- Post added at 12:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:57 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    As an analogy, being exposed to carcinogens can be the cause of cancer.

    But that does not mean that carcinogens are, or can be, a disease.

    So saying that transgendered is, or can be, the cause of attaining a disorder does not mean that transgenderism can be considered a disorder itself.
    Now this is the best analogy you have made on any subject you and I have discussed

    ---------- Post added at 01:07 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:59 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Actually, it is your argument that anything can be a disorder so really I can just reject that position because you have not supported your argument. Your argument, so far, seems to be that since anything can be harmful, anything can be a disorder which indicates that you are saying that just being "harmful" is enough for something to be a disorder.
    To be fair, when I said this, DSM-V was still in the conversation and I was attacking their methodology. As support I cited Psych Today and the chair of DSM-IV (and I stand by that assertion, though I believe I said something like, almost anything can be a disorder according to DSM-V). The term "Harmful" I think you brought up, but I don't see that it matters who said it. At any rate, I never said anything like meeting one criteria can be a disorder. In my last post I asked what definition of a disorder was (if we are not using DSM).

    ---------- Post added at 01:12 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:07 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    As an analogy, being exposed to carcinogens can be the cause of cancer.

    But that does not mean that carcinogens are, or can be, a disease.

    So saying that transgendered is, or can be, the cause of attaining a disorder does not mean that transgenderism can be considered a disorder itself.
    Is being the "cause of a disorder" instead of "being a disorder" really that much different in the end result in this case?

    After all, you just said being transgendered is "a carcinogen" to mental health......

    ---------- Post added at 01:19 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:12 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Based on your link, the duration is the major point of contention. Do you have something which supports other major points of contention?
    The article I quoted mentions "two weeks" but not as criteria for diagnosis.
    https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...drug-companies
    "It is simply outrageous that DSM 5 will diagnosis mental disorder in the normally bereaved as early as two weeks following their loss- thus encouraging the massive misdiagnosis of grief as Major Depressive Disorder. Under trained primary care doctors are particularly likely to confuse grief and depression and to over treat with psychotropic medication. Drugs are necessary for the severe symptoms of depression in some individuals, but there is no evidence they are good for expectable grief. In fact, the research shows that the bereaved are already being medicated earlier than can be justified."
    "We issue an ardent appeal to DSM 5. Please, do not medicalize normal grief. It is not at all pathological to have symptoms that closely resemble mild depression during bereavement. The Bereavement Exclusion is absolutely necessary to protect against the false positive over diagnosis of depression. Keep it in place. The bereaved are already vulnerable. So, please take to heart your responsibility to them- 'first do no harm'."

    So Dr Frances is talking about misdiagnosing grief and depression and generally trying to not "medicalize normal grief."
    He doesn't specify the criteria/symptoms of depression or grief in that article.

    ---------- Post added at 01:24 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:19 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    People keep arguing that trans should be in the DSM, but I have yet to read anyone's suggestion as to what diagnostic criteria it should contain and how it would differ from other identity disorders already listed.
    I see. I don't think I suggested that. I did suggest that "politics" should not be involved in what is contained in DSM and what criteria to be used.
    Last edited by Belthazor; January 8th, 2018 at 02:04 PM.

  19. #217
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,758
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gay/Transgender

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Which is?
    mental disorder any clinically significant behavioral or psychological syndrome characterized by distressing symptoms, significant impairment of functioning, or significantly increased risk of death, pain, or other disability.

    http://medical-dictionary.thefreedic...ental+disorder

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    To be fair, when I said this, DSM-V was still in the conversation and I was attacking their methodology. As support I cited Psych Today and the chair of
    DSM-IV (and I stand by that assertion, though I believe I said something like, almost anything can be a disorder according to DSM-V).
    Then does that mean that if we toss out the DSM, we are also tossing out the argument that transgenderism can be a disorder and agree that it is not a disorder?

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Is being the "cause of a disorder" instead of "being a disorder" really that much different in the end result in this case?
    But then transgenderism is not the cause of dysphoria. You can connect them in some ways but the fact that many trangender people don't suffer from dysphoria clearly means that they cannot be considered the same thing.


    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    After all, you just said being transgendered is "a carcinogen" to mental health......
    I absolutely did not. You do realize that when one makes an analogy about one specific aspect, that does not mean that they are similar all other ways, right?

    So please do not attribute such a bigoted position to me when I CLEARLY did not say that.

    In fact, please retract that I said that.

  20. #218
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,192
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gay/Transgender

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    The article I quoted mentions "two weeks" but not as criteria for diagnosis.
    https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...drug-companies
    "It is simply outrageous that DSM 5 will diagnosis mental disorder in the normally bereaved as early as two weeks following their loss- thus encouraging the massive misdiagnosis of grief as Major Depressive Disorder. Under trained primary care doctors are particularly likely to confuse grief and depression and to over treat with psychotropic medication. Drugs are necessary for the severe symptoms of depression in some individuals, but there is no evidence they are good for expectable grief. In fact, the research shows that the bereaved are already being medicated earlier than can be justified."
    "We issue an ardent appeal to DSM 5. Please, do not medicalize normal grief. It is not at all pathological to have symptoms that closely resemble mild depression during bereavement. The Bereavement Exclusion is absolutely necessary to protect against the false positive over diagnosis of depression. Keep it in place. The bereaved are already vulnerable. So, please take to heart your responsibility to them- 'first do no harm'."

    So Dr Frances is talking about misdiagnosing grief and depression and generally trying to not "medicalize normal grief."
    He doesn't specify the criteria/symptoms of depression or grief in that article.

    ---------- Post added at 01:24 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:19 PM ----------



    I see. I don't think I suggested that. I did suggest that "politics" should not be involved in what is contained in DSM and what criteria to be used.
    I don't think you understand the issue in your link. The DSM often will state as one of the criteria that for some condition to be diagnosed that the underlying symptoms must be present for some minimum amount of time. So, in the case of the DSM's definition of major depressive disorder, it appears that the symptoms must have been exhibited for a minimum of two weeks. It is part of the diagnostics used in assessing the condition. So, yes, the two weeks is a criteria for diagnosis. That is the major point of contention.

    The Dr. quoted is talking about misdiagnosis, but does not disagree with the general set of diagnostics, only the conditional time period. This is important as you are making the claim that there is a large disagreement among professionals within field regarding the diagnostic criteria when, in fact, the disagreement is relatively minor and not unlike any other disagreement in any scientific field.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  21. #219
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    456
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gay/Transgender

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post

    mental disorder any clinically significant behavioral or psychological syndrome characterized by distressing symptoms, significant impairment of functioning, or significantly increased risk of death, pain, or other disability.


    http://medical-dictionary.thefreedic...ental+disorder
    ok, lets go with this definition

    ---------- Post added at 05:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:43 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    mental disorder any clinically significant behavioral or psychological syndrome characterized by distressing symptoms, significant impairment of functioning, or significantly increased risk of death, pain, or other disability.

    http://medical-dictionary.thefreedic...ental+disorder



    Then does that mean that if we toss out the DSM, we are also tossing out the argument that transgenderism can be a disorder and agree that it is not a disorder?
    In post #211 you say
    " Dysphoria is basically feeling distress due to being transgendered. And of course those transgendered people who don't feel such distress do not have a dysphoria."

    Only the semantics of "due to" vs "caused" is a difference here. But again, I don't see a meaningful difference in result between can be a disorder and being the cause of a disorder.

    ---------- Post added at 05:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:50 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I absolutely did not. You do realize that when one makes an analogy about one specific aspect, that does not mean that they are similar all other ways, right?

    So please do not attribute such a bigoted position to me when I CLEARLY did not say that.

    In fact, please retract that I said that.

    I have nothing to retract. Your point was the cause of a thing is not the same as being the thing. And your comment (in full for context):
    "As an analogy, being exposed to carcinogens can be the cause of cancer.

    But that does not mean that carcinogens are, or can be, a disease.

    So saying that transgendered is, or can be, the cause of attaining a disorder does not mean that transgenderism can be considered a disorder itself. "

    speaks for itself. That a carcinogen causes disease but can't be a disease, just like being transgendered could be the cause a disorder but not a disorder itself.
    Or please give me another alternative that you meant cause that is the only way I can see the meaning in your analogy.

    ---------- Post added at 06:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:59 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    I don't think you understand the issue in your link. The DSM often will state as one of the criteria that for some condition to be diagnosed that the underlying symptoms must be present for some minimum amount of time. So, in the case of the DSM's definition of major depressive disorder, it appears that the symptoms must have been exhibited for a minimum of two weeks. It is part of the diagnostics used in assessing the condition. So, yes, the two weeks is a criteria for diagnosis. That is the major point of contention.

    The Dr. quoted is talking about misdiagnosis, but does not disagree with the general set of diagnostics, only the conditional time period. This is important as you are making the claim that there is a large disagreement among professionals within field regarding the diagnostic criteria when, in fact, the disagreement is relatively minor and not unlike any other disagreement in any scientific field.
    What "DSM often will state" was not in that article. The Dr was critiquing DSM-V methodology. There are only two mentions of time in that article with regards to grief. This is the first:
    ""It is simply outrageous that DSM 5 will diagnosis mental disorder in the normally bereaved as early as two weeks following their loss- thus encouraging the massive misdiagnosis of grief as Major Depressive Disorder."

    This hardly says anything like, as you say "appears that the symptoms must have been exhibited for a minimum of two weeks".
    The second reference is:
    "After 40 years and lots of clinical experience, I can't distinguish at two weeks between the symptoms of normal grief and the symptoms of mild depression- and I challenge anyone else to do so."

    Again, nothing resembling any kind of criteria for when grief can be a disorder based on two weeks a time frame issue.

    And the full paragraph:
    " After 40 years and lots of clinical experience, I can't distinguish at two weeks between the symptoms of normal grief and the symptoms of mild depression- and I challenge anyone else to do so. This is an inherently unreliable distinction. And I know damn well that primary care doctors can't do it in a 7 minute visit. This should have been the most crucial point in DSM 5 decision making because primary care docs prescribe 80% of all antidepressants and will be most likely to misuse the DSM 5 in mislabeling grievers."

    definitely shows the DR is worried about less trained Dr's prescribing most of the medications.
    Dr Frances ABSOLUTELY does not agree with DSM-V's (as you say) "general set of diagnostics, only the conditional time period.". The article is quite clear and he has been very outspoken about these issues in DSM-V for some time....

  22. #220
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,758
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gay/Transgender

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Only the semantics of "due to" vs "caused" is a difference here. But again, I don't see a meaningful difference in result between can be a disorder and being the cause of a disorder.
    The difference is not merely semantic (as in it's just about what word we are using). The cause of the disease and the disease itself are indeed two different things. I mean I can point out numerous objective differences between tobacco and lung cancer. And your OPINION that the difference is not significant does not qualify as support that such differences should be ignored and we should call them by the same name.

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    I have nothing to retract.
    Yes you do. You said that I said something that I did not say. Did I actually type the words that transgenderism is a carcinogen? If so, then show me where I said that. If not, then your claim that I said it is a false statement and you need to retract it.

    If I falsely claimed that you said something that you found offensive, I'd like to think that I would have respect for you to retract that claim. And I'd like to think that you have that kind of respect for me. Do you?

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Your point was the cause of a thing is not the same as being the thing. And your comment (in full for context):
    "As an analogy, being exposed to carcinogens can be the cause of cancer.

    But that does not mean that carcinogens are, or can be, a disease.

    So saying that transgendered is, or can be, the cause of attaining a disorder does not mean that transgenderism can be considered a disorder itself. "

    speaks for itself. That a carcinogen causes disease but can't be a disease, just like being transgendered could be the cause a disorder but not a disorder itself.
    That's a correct interpretation. What's not correct is that transgenderism is a carcinogen (in fact or in my interpretation of transgenderism and dysphoria) nor is it correct that I ever said that it is.

    Again, you claimed that I said something that I did not say. Please retract that claim or show me where I actually said it.

 

 
Page 11 of 13 FirstFirst ... 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

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
  •