Gay/Transgender

[Belthazor]

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.

Your claim:
"a carcinogen can be the cause of a cancer"
"being transgendered can be the cause of a mental disorder"

What is to retract?

---------- Post added at 06:52 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:35 PM ----------

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

So again, when I said being transgendered could be a disorder I was speaking with regards to DSM-V.
But, with this definition, why is it necessarily so that being transgendered can not meet this criteria?
I been shown no reason why not?

[mican333]

Your claim:
"a carcinogen can be the cause of a cancer"
"being transgendered can be the cause of a mental disorder"

What is to retract?

Your claim that I said that transgenderism is a carcinogen. Neither of the quotes you pasted say that.

Really, I was hoping you'd have the decency to retract an offensive claim that you attributed to me. But I guess you don't.

[Belthazor]

Your claim that I said that transgenderism is a carcinogen. Neither of the quotes you pasted say that.

I was kind of hoping that you would have the decency to retract your false claim that I said something that I clearly did not say. But I guess you don't.

And now you resort to insults rather than rebut my post which was:
"Your claim:
"a carcinogen can be the cause of a cancer"
"being transgendered can be the cause of a mental disorder"

What is to retract?"

Verbatim, no you didn't say it, but your logic leaves absolutely no room to not meet the same connection. It is still the result of your example whether you mean it to be or not....

and resorting to an adhom instead of a rebuttal is quite telling .....

[mican333]

And now you resort to insults rather than rebut my post which was

I didn't offer a rebuttal because I wasn't going to respond to your post until you either support that I said what you claimed I said or retracted it. Thank you for showing the showing the decency to retract your claim that I said it. Now I will respond to your post.

:

"Your claim:
"a carcinogen can be the cause of a cancer"
"being transgendered can be the cause of a mental disorder"

What is to retract?"

Verbatim, no you didn't say it, but your logic leaves absolutely no room to not meet the same connection.

Actually, that's completely wrong. Just because you can compare two things in an analogy does not mean that they are the same in any way outside of the analogy and therefore you cannot just interchange them and say that transgenderism is a "carcinogen" to mental health.

The analogy compares them in ONLY TWO WAYS. They are both:

1. Something that can increase the likelihood of getting a certain disease
2. Something that is different than the disease itself and therefore cannot be considered the same as the disease in name or definition.

That's it. Comparing them in any other way falls outside of my analogy and therefore you cannot reasonably attribute such a conclusion to me or my analogy.

To say that transgenderism is a "carcinogen" strongly implies that they are similar in many other ways (applying the same word indicates that it is effectively the same as the applied word). Such a conclusion is not supported by the use of my analogy. So no, your statement is not at all a necessary conclusion arrived at by the logic of my analogy.

So there's your rebuttal.

Not only did I not say it (as you finally conceded), but the statement you attributed to me cannot reasonably be derived from my analogy.

and resorting to an adhom instead of a rebuttal is quite telling .....

I did not resort to an adhom (I did not argue that your argument is incorrect due to any personal characteristics of you).



And now I will respond to the other point from your last post.

But, with this definition, why is it necessarily so that being transgendered can not meet this criteria?
I been shown no reason why not?

It cannot be considered a disorder because by all evidence transgenderism is not a clinically significant behavioral or psychological syndrome characterized by distressing symptoms, significant impairment of functioning, or significantly increased risk of death, pain, or other disability.

Either something meets that criteria and IS a disorder or it does not meet the criteria and IS NOT a disorder. Transgenderism falls in the latter category.

[Ibelsd]

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....

Please support your claim. Show me another critique of the DSM that Dr. Francis makes regarding the diagnostics for grief.

[Belthazor]

I didn't offer a rebuttal because I wasn't going to respond to your post until you either support that I said what you claimed I said or retracted it. Thank you for showing the showing the decency to retract your claim that I said it. Now I will respond to your post.

Well I'm glad you feel better, but I still see no significant difference in end result this case......

---------- Post added at 05:29 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:04 PM ----------

To say that transgenderism is a "carcinogen" strongly implies that they are similar in many other ways (applying the same word indicates that it is effectively the same as the applied word). Such a conclusion is not supported by the use of my analogy. So no, your statement is not at all a necessary conclusion arrived at by the logic of my analogy.

So there's your rebuttal.

Not only did I not say it (as you finally conceded), but the statement you attributed to me cannot reasonably be derived from my analogy.

What your analogy says is a carcinogen is to cancer as transgendered is to mental health, though I see now you didn't make that connection when you said it.

But as you say in #1, being transgendered can "increase the likelihood" (originally "cause") of a mental disorder. And in this case, the difference between cause of and the actual illness matters little, unless you were the treating Dr.

Basically, at first I was attacking DSM-V. This conversation about the transgendered was just the vehicle to appose DSM-V.
However, after you let DSM go and started using a "clinical" definition, there is still no reason a transgendered person can not meet that criteria either.

Either way, my personal opinion is along the lines of, Psychiatry is just beginning to learn about the human mind, and I think personalities are much more complex than is easily described with language. It matters little to me what is currently considered a disorder as DSM appears flawed to me. What does matter to me, for instance, is when DSM is used to medicate children as young as 2 yrs old for disorders. Now, in some extreme cases this is probably justified, but the current number of children on these types of med's isn't justifiable.

At this point I think productivity in the conversation is slowing so I will leave the last word to you.

---------- Post added at 05:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:29 PM ----------

Please support your claim. Show me another critique of the DSM that Dr. Francis makes regarding the diagnostics for grief.

My claim was Dr. Frances does not agree with the methodology of DSM-V. By your last two posts it seems that you haven't read the article in question, if not, it is a short and rather interesting read.
However, the title of the article supports his stance against DSM-V's handling of grief specifically:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...drug-companies
"Last Plea to DSM 5: Save Grief From the Drug Companies"

Now, if this is his "Last Plea", obviously, there are others.

Again, progress is slowing so, I leave the last word to you also...

[mican333]

Well I'm glad you feel better, but I still see no significant difference in end result this case......

But them I'm pretty sure almost everyone else thinks that there is a significant difference between something that can contribute to a disorder and the disorder itself. If you fail to notice the significance, it doesn't mean that it's not significant.

What your analogy says is a carcinogen is to cancer as transgendered is to mental health, though I see now you didn't make that connection when you said it.

Well, I didn't expect you to mistakenly read a lot more into my analogy than was there.

Again, when you analogize two things in a particular way, you are not comparing them in other ways and therefore it is not accurate to say they are the same in any other way. To say that transgenderism is like a carcinogen in general is to misinterpret my analogy.

But as you say in #1, being transgendered can "increase the likelihood" (originally "cause") of a mental disorder. And in this case, the difference between cause of and the actual illness matters little, unless you were the treating Dr.

So something that might cause an increase in a disease amongst the population, even if in most instances it doesn't lead to the disease, is effectively the same as the disease?

That sound ridiculous on its face so if you are going to repeat that absurd-sounding argument, you will need to support it.

Basically, at first I was attacking DSM-V. This conversation about the transgendered was just the vehicle to appose DSM-V.
However, after you let DSM go and started using a "clinical" definition, there is still no reason a transgendered person can not meet that criteria either.

Well, there's no reason that a male can not meet that criteria either. I mean a male can suffer from from the disorder schizophrenia and therefore meet the criteria. But just as that does not mean that being male can be considered a disorder, transgenderism cannot be considered a disorder just because some transgendered people meet the criteria.

Either way, my personal opinion is along the lines of, Psychiatry is just beginning to learn about the human mind, and I think personalities are much more complex than is easily described with language. It matters little to me what is currently considered a disorder as DSM appears flawed to me. What does matter to me, for instance, is when DSM is used to medicate children as young as 2 yrs old for disorders. Now, in some extreme cases this is probably justified, but the current number of children on these types of med's isn't justifiable.

But then that's off-topic to our discussion since we dropped that issue. The fact is that you have not shown that transgenderism meets the clinical definition of a disorder and therefore it cannot be considered a disorder.

At this point I think productivity in the conversation is slowing so I will leave the last word to you.

Okay. Transgenderism does not meet the criteria of a disorder and therefore it is not a disorder.

[JeanDupont]

A few comments:
Many fear what is different, which can lead to rejection
Second, if humans were weaker evolution-wise, gays would disappear by extinction due to lack of reproduction. This is not a disease, it is a lifestyle phenotype
Finally, considering how common it is, suggests that the mechanism making us heterosexual is quite fragile and has either numerous vulnerable spots either a very common trigger

[Belthazor]

Many fear what is different, which can lead to rejection

Very true of course but I don't see the relevance on this particular conversation.

---------- Post added at 04:58 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:57 PM ----------

Second, if humans were weaker evolution-wise, gays would disappear by extinction due to lack of reproduction. This is not a disease, it is a lifestyle phenotype

Could you expand on this thought? I don't understand "weaker evolution-wise".

---------- Post added at 05:06 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:58 PM ----------

Finally, considering how common it is, suggests that the mechanism making us heterosexual is quite fragile and has either numerous vulnerable spots either a very common trigger

The "mechanism making us heterosexual"???
If life didn't have some "innate will" to reproduce, said life would not be around to talk, or talk about. How much more "natural" can life be than reproducing....



Human's have changed the game. We are becoming "home-evolutus". We are directing our own evolution more and more, and every year the changes come faster...

[Ibelsd]

My claim was Dr. Frances does not agree with the methodology of DSM-V. By your last two posts it seems that you haven't read the article in question, if not, it is a short and rather interesting read.
However, the title of the article supports his stance against DSM-V's handling of grief specifically:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...drug-companies
"Last Plea to DSM 5: Save Grief From the Drug Companies"

Now, if this is his "Last Plea", obviously, there are others.

Again, progress is slowing so, I leave the last word to you also...

First, I read the link. I quoted from the link. Please share the quote where Dr Frances says he disagrees with the methodology used in the DSM. You have failed to show he has made other pleas for other issues. All his title suggests is that he has made this one plea multiple times.

He disagrees with a single diagnostic for a specific disorder. He does not disbelieve in the disorder. He believes that the time period used to diagnose it is too short. That is what Dr. Francis' plea is about. Stop redirecting. Either support your claim or acknowledge that you've made a mistake. This article does not support your claim. Period.

[Belthazor]

First, I read the link. I quoted from the link. Please share the quote where Dr Frances says he disagrees with the methodology used in the DSM. You have failed to show he has made other pleas for other issues.

Well in post #225 all you asked for was support the Dr's critique of grief specifically in DSM-V. But no worries:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...-worst-changes
"Brief background. DSM 5 got off to a bad start and was never able to establish sure footing. Its leaders initially articulated a premature and unrealizable goal- to produce a paradigm shift in psychiatry. Excessive ambition combined with disorganized execution led inevitably to many ill conceived and risky proposals."
"These were vigorously opposed. More than fifty mental health professional associations petitioned for an outside review of DSM 5 to provide an independent judgment of its supporting evidence and to evaluate the balance between its risks and benefits. Professional journals, the press, and the public also weighed in- expressing widespread astonishment about decisions that sometimes seemed not only to lack scientific support but also to defy common sense."

https://www.socialworkhelper.com/201...allen-frances/
"Dr. Frances stated one of the major issues with the DSM series is that its primary authors are research academics who are making suggestions and recommendations based on controlled research studies conducted in University clinics which are not helpful in everyday practice. By expanding the DSM 5 to cover challenges of everyday living, it will mislabel medical illness as a psychiatric disorder."

https://dxrevisionwatch.com/2010/01/...ision-process/
"…The research community has a central role and a great responsibility in taking advantage of this precious opportunity to carefully review and identify the problems in the DSM-V drafts and to suggest solutions…"

---------- Post added at 05:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:02 PM ----------

He believes that the time period used to diagnose it is too short. That is what Dr. Francis' plea is about. Stop redirecting. Either support your claim or acknowledge that you've made a mistake. This article does not support your claim. Period.

Dr Frances' mention of time frame was basically grief can not be diagnosed as pathological in two weeks (from time of the event), and the doctors that are prescribing the most drugs have the least training and limited time with the patient (I believe he mentions 7 minutes).
I made no mistake on this point.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...-worst-changes
"This is the saddest moment in my 45 year career of studying, practicing, and teaching psychiatry. The Board of Trustees of the American Psychiatric Association has given its final approval to a deeply flawed DSM 5 containing many changes that seem clearly unsafe and scientifically unsound."

CLEARLY Dr Frances is not on board with DSM-V.

[ladykrimson]

Not Trying to offend and I still believe in equal rights but:


The concept of Gay/Transgender being a mental disorder is entirely new to me so I've trying to prove this wrong, but I'm having trouble. Technically being Transgender is similar to a symptom of Dissociative Identity Disorder: alternate personalities with different genders. Also, being Gay is fundamentally opposed to heterosexual reproduction, I think that if Homosexuality were present and personally enforced in the start of our society, Natural Selection would have ruled them out. Honestly, I've come to think that Homosexuality is a luxury we've been able to afford due to population stability... if there were ten people left in the world Gay people would have to force themselves to reproduce for the advancement of the human race. Please, prove me wrong or right since I don't like having opinions that are illogical; and again, I haven't proved this wrong yet. Thank you.

This is an interesting thought process (this is a sincere compliment and not a sarcastic comment). Let me share my thoughts with you.

Homosexuality and transgenders have existed for a very long time as seen in the world's history (Egypt, Greece, Rome, India ) and myths (Greek, Chinese, Mayan, Indian). This would seem to contradict your theory of homosexuality being simply a luxury.

This is a personal opinion, but I think homosexuality is nothing more than being attracted to and able to fall in love with someone of the same gender. Being transgender is simply being born with the wrong chromosomes. If you truly want to understand it, start with simplicity.

[MindTrap028]

Being transgender is simply being born with the wrong chromosomes.

As a definition that is problematic. What should follow. Should our thoughts follow reality, or should reality follow our thoughts, so as to say that reality is wrong?

The problem with your definition is that saying you were born with the "wrong" chromosomes, is like saying you were born to the wrong race, or time or talents. It is to say your thoughts are right, and not reality.
It is something subjective. Where as your chromosomes are something concrete.

[mican333]

As a definition that is problematic. What should follow. Should our thoughts follow reality, or should reality follow our thoughts, so as to say that reality is wrong?

The problem with your definition is that saying you were born with the "wrong" chromosomes, is like saying you were born to the wrong race, or time or talents. It is to say your thoughts are right, and not reality.
It is something subjective. Where as your chromosomes are something concrete.

But as far as I can tell, you've never identified the aspect of PHYSICAL REALITY that transgendered people supposedly deny.

A transgendered woman does not typically deny any aspects of physical reality. They don't deny that they have a Y chromosome or were born with a penis (which are both true in physical reality). What they will disagree with you on is how the word "man" and "woman" should be defined. Should the term apply to how one is born or how one feels about themselves? And that argument is a semantic argument so taking any side of the argument is not an argument against physical reality.

So just thinking that the term "woman" should apply to oneself is not to deny any aspect of physical reality.

So I don't see what object fact that transgendered are denying. Please point it out if you are going to argue that they are denying objective facts.

[MindTrap028]

But as far as I can tell, you've never identified the aspect of PHYSICAL REALITY that transgendered people supposedly deny.

Their gender of course.

A transgendered woman does not typically deny any aspects of physical reality. They don't deny that they have a Y chromosome or were born with a penis (which are both true in physical reality). What they will disagree with you on is how the word "man" and "woman" should be defined.

Yes, so as to un-tether it from it's current correlation to reality. As though gender were malleable and determined by thoughts, which is absurd. For then an actor playing a woman really well, would not be pretending to be a woman, but could conceivably become a woman for the duration of the show, and then revert back to a man in thought.

They don't deny that they have a Y chromosome or were born with a penis (which are both true in physical reality). What they will disagree with you on is how the word "man" and "woman" should be defined. Should the term apply to how one is born or how one feels about themselves? And that argument is a semantic argument so taking any side of the argument is not an argument against physical reality.

Your right that it is semantic, and their argument is thus meaningless, because it doesn't establish a truth, it just changes language. Because then if they did change the language .. what new word would we use to identify people by their genetic traits currently referred to as male and female? Are we to accept that birthcertificats should just have a question mark in that field until the child's thoughts take one form or another? Should we just change the name of that field to cater to the semantic argument of the transgender?
That is the problem with semantic arguments, they destroy meaning, and seek to win arguments by destroying language used to describe the opposing position. (these questions are not rhetorical, but necessarily need to be answered if we are to consider actually applying the arguments forwarded by the opposition, the inability to answer is directly related to the weakness of the oppositions argument).

This is the proof of the fact they are denying, they say they are really a man in a woman body. they don't deny that they have a womans body, that is correct but they deny the reality of their own selves. They are in fact, a woman who things they are a man trapped in a woman's body. Re- body dismorphia arguments.

[mican333]

Yes, so as to un-tether it from it's current correlation to reality. As though gender were malleable and determined by thoughts, which is absurd.

Straw-man argument. No one has argued that gender is malleable and determined by thought nor is that the view of transgendered people.

I'm pretty sure that they will consistently forward that they were born the way that they are so they neither find their gender malleable nor think that they can just change their gender by thought.

Your right that it is semantic, and their argument is thus meaningless, because it doesn't establish a truth, it just changes language. Because then if they did change the language .. what new word would we use to identify people by their genetic traits currently referred to as male and female? Are we to accept that birthcertificats should just have a question mark in that field until the child's thoughts take one form or another? Should we just change the name of that field to cater to the semantic argument of the transgender?
That is the problem with semantic arguments, they destroy meaning, and seek to win arguments by destroying language used to describe the opposing position.

No. Semantic arguments do not destroy meaning nor language. And since you are engaging in a semantic argument yourself when you argue that we should use the word for either gender in certain situations and not others, you would be "destroying language" by your very argument. Of course you are not destroying language by engaging in a semantic argument and neither is anyone else.

There's nothing wrong with altering language to adjust to new understandings.

This is the proof of the fact they are denying, they say they are really a man in a woman body. they don't deny that they have a womans body, that is correct but they deny the reality of their own selves. They are in fact, a woman who things they are a man trapped in a woman's body. Re- body dismorphia arguments.

Again, if you are going to say that they are denying an objective fact, then please identify the objective fact that they are denying. Since the very word "man" and "woman" is part of a semantic debate and all semantic debates are subjective, this does not equate to any identifiable objective fact.

So I'm going to consider your argument that the transgendered are denying any objective facts and therefore objective reality to be retracted until you do forward a specific objective fact that the transgendered routinely deny.

[MindTrap028]

Straw-man argument. No one has argued that gender is malleable and determined by thought nor is that the view of transgendered people.

I'm pretty sure that they will consistently forward that they were born the way that they are so they neither find their gender malleable nor think that they can just change their gender by thought.

It most certainly is their position that it is determined by thought. namely that their thought and belief that they are a gender that doesn't correspond with their birth is what determine their actual gender. (IE they deny reality in favor of their personal thoughts and feelings, which by their own admission doesn't line up with a reality).

No. Semantic arguments do not destroy meaning nor language. And since you are engaging in a semantic argument yourself when you argue that we should use the word for either gender in certain situations and not others, you would be "destroying language" by your very argument. Of course you are not destroying language by engaging in a semantic argument and neither is anyone else.

There's nothing wrong with altering language to adjust to new understandings.

Straw man. i did not make that argument. In fact, I pointed to the issue not being resolved EVEN IF WE GRANT the new use of the current words in the debate.
Come on man

Again, if you are going to say that they are denying an objective fact, then please identify the objective fact that they are denying. Since the very word "man" and "woman" is part of a semantic debate and all semantic debates are subjective, this does not equate to any identifiable objective fact.

Continuation of a straw man, you have not properly grasped by argument so as to accurately respond to it.
Please re-read and try again as i don't understand your misconception. My argument does not depend on the words being used, and thus is not semantic.
You can change all the meanings to all the words and my argument is still sound as long as it is represented by some word. You may assume I have used those words if you like and respond to it. (though I won't understand it, as you will have destroyed the language with an argument of semantics).

So I'm going to consider your argument that the transgendered are denying any objective facts and therefore objective reality to be retracted until you do forward a specific objective fact that the transgendered routinely deny.

I'm going to consider my argument unrebutted as you have yet to address it. You are attacking some semantic argument which is a straw-man. .. but it makes sense as your argument is semantic in nature and lacks any real substance.

[mican333]

It most certainly is their position that it is determined by thought

Support or retract this assertion.

To be clear on my objection, I think, and therefore believe that a transgendered person would think, that the reason they identify as a particular gender is an in-born trait and not just a "thought" as in one can just think that they are a different gender. I personally can't change my gender identify just by thinking about it - I imagine that it would actually be impossible for me to actually change my gender identity no matter what. I mean I can say I'm a girl and dress like a girl and act like a girl, but I will never be able to think of myself as anything other than male.

Straw man. i did not make that argument. In fact, I pointed to the issue not being resolved EVEN IF WE GRANT the new use of the current words in the debate.
Come on man

Come on man, yourself. You said:

"That is the problem with semantic arguments, they destroy meaning, and seek to win arguments by destroying language used to describe the opposing position."

And as I said in my last post, that argument is incorrect - semantic arguments do not destroy meaning. I won't repeat my reasoning since you can go back to my post and read it yourself.

Continuation of a straw man, you have not properly grasped by argument so as to accurately respond to it.
Please re-read and try again as i don't understand your misconception. My argument does not depend on the words being used, and thus is not semantic.
You can change all the meanings to all the words and my argument is still sound as long as it is represented by some word. You may assume I have used those words if you like and respond to it. (though I won't understand it, as you will have destroyed the language with an argument of semantics).

Actually, it looks like if we stick with common definitions of "male" and "female", your argument doesn't work.

I believe you forwarded earlier that a male:

1. has XY chromosome
2. born with "boy parts".

So let's apply that to your argument, which is:


"This is the proof of the fact they are denying, they say they are really a man in a woman body. they don't deny that they have a womans body, that is correct but they deny the reality of their own selves. They are in fact, a woman who things they are a man trapped in a woman's body. Re- body dismorphia arguments."

And if apply the chromosome descriptor with the words "man" and "Woman" we get.

"This is the proof of the fact they are denying, they say they are really an XY in an XX's body. they don't deny that they have a XX body, that is correct but they deny the reality of their own selves. They are in fact, a XX who things they are a XY trapped in an XX body."

And that's not true. A transgendered female does not think that she has the XY chromosome. And if we replace it with "boy parts" and "girl parts", it's also not true as a transgendered female does not think that she is a person with a penis trapped in a body with a vagina.

What a transgendered female thinks is that despite the fact that she has XX chromosome and was born with girl parts, the term "male" should apply to her. And to disagree with her and hold that because she has XX chromosome and was born with girl parts, the term "female" should apply is indeed a semantic argument.

And really, if you are going to portray what a transgendered person believes, it's best to use their terminology. They don't typically say that they are "trapped" in a different body but that they identify as the opposite gender. In fact, many are not interested in altering their bodies to match their gender identity so I wouldn't say that they feel particularly trapped in a body.

I'm going to consider my argument unrebutted as you have yet to address it. You are attacking some semantic argument which is a straw-man. .. but it makes sense as your argument is semantic in nature and lacks any real substance.

Well, maybe we are arguing at cross purposes a bit. So I'm going to make a statement, which is my point here, and you can either challenge it or not challenge it. If you think it's not relevant to your argument, then of course not challenging it is fine. So here is my statement.

You have identified no objective fact that transgendered people routinely deny.

If you do challenge that statement, then please identify the objective fact that you hold that the transgendered deny. And state it clearly like "The transgendered community routinely deny the objective fact that..." If you don't challenge it, then you do not challenge my assertion that you provided no objective fact that the transgendered routinely deny,

[MindTrap028]

Support or retract this assertion.

To be clear on my objection, I think, and therefore believe that a transgendered person would think, that the reason they identify as a particular gender is an in-born trait and not just a "thought" as in one can just think that they are a different gender. I personally can't change my gender identify just by thinking about it - I imagine that it would actually be impossible for me to actually change my gender identity no matter what. I mean I can say I'm a girl and dress like a girl and act like a girl, but I will never be able to think of myself as anything other than male.

I'm confused by this challenge. They are arguing that their thoughts are what dictate their true gender, as opposed to expressed biology.
That is in the definition of transgender.

denoting or relating to a person whose sense of personal identity and gender does not correspond with their birth sex.

What about "sense of self" is immune to change over time? Seems that there is nothing that tethers that to some objective truth, even if people tend to not change(which I don't think is the case) I mean, it seems there are certain senses of our selves that naturally change over time. The sense of self as a child vs adult. (which isn't connected to any specific age... and varies from person to person). The sense of self as dependent or independent. Free or in bondage (think of personal tragedies). Also, this is specifically referring to a "thought" this "sense" is firmly in the realm of thought. So my use is not incorrect or out of context. While you may not personally see it, the idea that people can change their own thoughts seems to be pretty central to all sorts of typical human experiences.

To be clear on my objection, I think, and therefore believe that a transgendered person would think, that the reason they identify as a particular gender is an in-born trait and not just a "thought" as in one can just think that they are a different gender. I personally can't change my gender identify just by thinking about it - I imagine that it would actually be impossible for me to actually change my gender identity no matter what. I mean I can say I'm a girl and dress like a girl and act like a girl, but I will never be able to think of myself as anything other than male.

This is not an argument. This is a statement of your personal state of mind, which is irrelevant.
I see no reason to accept it, I have however offered above how it contradicts typical human experience, and thus should be rejected.

Come on man, yourself. You said:

"That is the problem with semantic arguments, they destroy meaning, and seek to win arguments by destroying language used to describe the opposing position."

And as I said in my last post, that argument is incorrect - semantic arguments do not destroy meaning. I won't repeat my reasoning since you can go back to my post and read it yourself.

I'm confused by the relevance of this post. It doesn't seem to contradict anything I said. I was not making an argument on semantics.
What you quote does not contradict that point.

Actually, it looks like if we stick with common definitions of "male" and "female", your argument doesn't work.

I believe you forwarded earlier that a male:

1. has XY chromosome
2. born with "boy parts".

So let's apply that to your argument, which is:


"This is the proof of the fact they are denying, they say they are really a man in a woman body. they don't deny that they have a womans body, that is correct but they deny the reality of their own selves. They are in fact, a woman who things they are a man trapped in a woman's body. Re- body dismorphia arguments."

And if apply the chromosome descriptor with the words "man" and "Woman" we get.

"This is the proof of the fact they are denying, they say they are really an XY in an XX's body. they don't deny that they have a XX body, that is correct but they deny the reality of their own selves. They are in fact, a XX who things they are a XY trapped in an XX body."

And that's not true. A transgendered female does not think that she has the XY chromosome. And if we replace it with "boy parts" and "girl parts", it's also not true as a transgendered female does not think that she is a person with a penis trapped in a body with a vagina.

What a transgendered female thinks is that despite the fact that she has XX chromosome and was born with girl parts, the term "male" should apply to her. And to disagree with her and hold that because she has XX chromosome and was born with girl parts, the term "female" should apply is indeed a semantic argument.

And really, if you are going to portray what a transgendered person believes, it's best to use their terminology. They don't typically say that they are "trapped" in a different body but that they identify as the opposite gender. In fact, many are not interested in altering their bodies to match their gender identity so I wouldn't say that they feel particularly trapped in a body.

Semantic inconsistency. the term "boy/male" and "girl/femaile" as well as "she/he" is undefined as you have used it. Making it meaningless statements.
Hence the problem with the semantic argument. Sure, you have accurately translated my use, but you have not given any recognizable meaning to the new use of the words.
So your argument is gibberish.

Here is what you would have to say to be consistent.
Boy = XY
Girl = XX

A transgender person believes that their sense of self XY does not correspond with their birth sex of XX.

.. and that is a denial of the reality. In order for the sense of self to deny the birth designation they must assert that there is a mistake or inconsistency where there is non in reality (this is the "does not correspond" part of the definition)

If you wish to say that this "sense of self" is not a denial of reality, you will need to define it in a way that is coherent and not contradictory.

Well, maybe we are arguing at cross purposes a bit. So I'm going to make a statement, which is my point here, and you can either challenge it or not challenge it. If you think it's not relevant to your argument, then of course not challenging it is fine. So here is my statement.

You have identified no objective fact that transgendered people routinely deny.

If you do challenge that statement, then please identify the objective fact that you hold that the transgendered deny. And state it clearly like "The transgendered community routinely deny the objective fact that..." If you don't challenge it, then you do not challenge my assertion that you provided no objective fact that the transgendered routinely deny,

While I appreciate the repetition.
The answer is the same.
They deny that the fact that they are in total a male or female. Their biology is not wrong the XY or XX is what defines them, not their "sense" of something that doesn't correspond to reality (IE birth gender). Their thoughts (Ie sense of self) are simply incorrect, and incoherent.

The trans gender female, thinks that their XX is incorrect(IE doesn't correspond), and that their thoughts are in fact belonging to an xy. Even if they do not have a problem living in that inconsistency(body dismorphia), they still claim an inconsistency exists, where non does.


Questions about the position you are defending.

1) What does it mean to have a sense of self being a man(XY), if they are in fact a woman (XX) by birth. Please give that sentence some meaning even if you have to redefine terms. Just be clear.

2) How would a XY know what an XX feels like to begin with so as to accurately distinguished between the two and assert correctly that their sense does not correspond with their actual body?

In other words, if a turtle thinks it is really a lion, how would it even know what it is like to be a lion or what the thoughts of a lion are? How can it know that it is not simply feeling what a turtle feels when it thinks it is a lion?

I mean, men everywhere have been trying to understand the thoughts of a woman. to suggest that transgender have not only solved that riddle, but actually have achieved a state of substituting female thoughts for male ones.. is quite a claim. I would say an EXTRAORDINARY claim, that requires some extraordinary evidence.

[Ibelsd]

Well in post #225 all you asked for was support the Dr's critique of grief specifically in DSM-V. But no worries:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...-worst-changes
"Brief background. DSM 5 got off to a bad start and was never able to establish sure footing. Its leaders initially articulated a premature and unrealizable goal- to produce a paradigm shift in psychiatry. Excessive ambition combined with disorganized execution led inevitably to many ill conceived and risky proposals."
"These were vigorously opposed. More than fifty mental health professional associations petitioned for an outside review of DSM 5 to provide an independent judgment of its supporting evidence and to evaluate the balance between its risks and benefits. Professional journals, the press, and the public also weighed in- expressing widespread astonishment about decisions that sometimes seemed not only to lack scientific support but also to defy common sense."

https://www.socialworkhelper.com/201...allen-frances/
"Dr. Frances stated one of the major issues with the DSM series is that its primary authors are research academics who are making suggestions and recommendations based on controlled research studies conducted in University clinics which are not helpful in everyday practice. By expanding the DSM 5 to cover challenges of everyday living, it will mislabel medical illness as a psychiatric disorder."

https://dxrevisionwatch.com/2010/01/...ision-process/
"…The research community has a central role and a great responsibility in taking advantage of this precious opportunity to carefully review and identify the problems in the DSM-V drafts and to suggest solutions…"

---------- Post added at 05:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:02 PM ----------



Dr Frances' mention of time frame was basically grief can not be diagnosed as pathological in two weeks (from time of the event), and the doctors that are prescribing the most drugs have the least training and limited time with the patient (I believe he mentions 7 minutes).
I made no mistake on this point.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...-worst-changes
"This is the saddest moment in my 45 year career of studying, practicing, and teaching psychiatry. The Board of Trustees of the American Psychiatric Association has given its final approval to a deeply flawed DSM 5 containing many changes that seem clearly unsafe and scientifically unsound."

CLEARLY Dr Frances is not on board with DSM-V.

I didn't realize you had other links of this guy criticizing the DSM. So, after reading his 10 things to avoid, I do not see him disagree with anything regarding tg or sexual identity. He obviously has problems with the DSM-V. He says it is flawed. However, none of it is relevant in the debate in this thread. We can expect that he is ok with the DSM-V as it relates to gender and identity since he has not said otherwise and he appears plenty vocal when he finds things disagreeable. The guide ins't a bible and he lists the 10 worst changes. Fine. He disagrees with many steps they have taken and notes that the APA rushed publication. Ok. He still isn't saying to not use it. There will be field studies done and there will be amendments made. He is correct that the field studies should have occurred prior to publication. His opposition to the definition of grief was exactly as I presented it. I think you are conflating his critique of some aspects of the DSM and a belief that the whole manual is to be disregarded. This is false.