That is a question for the ex-psychologist, not the psychiatrist. Any medical doctor would know whose domain is correct.

Your question is silly. The male frontal lobe reaches, on average, with large standard deviation, maximum development around the age of 25. This is why it is ok to presume that males under the age of 25 should be kept in cages and those over the age of 25 should not even attempt to have an idea.

I'm adding in an additional r/o. Try to guess what it is: JPFN NOS

(I got in trouble during a clinic rotation for putting this r/o on the chart)

Lol!

I actually have no idea what argument you're trying to make by asking me to name someone. If you'd like to make the argument at some point, I think this thread could take a productive turn instead of continuing to be the trash that it currently is.

Can you actually show posts here where I backpedalled? Just two side by side posts, one in which I say something and then the following where I say the opposite or deny having made the original claim. Because if not, I'd like to ask you to stop mistepresenting what I've said. One of the rules of this form is to engage with others in good faith, and repeated misrepresentations of other posters makes this impossible.

Best way for that to happen is for you to see yourself out since you contribute nothing of value anyway.

Did you or did you not say that you have no doubts that I am a physician?

A psychiatrist would know that as well. However, he may dodge answer the question when he knows the answer will weaken his agenda.

Your examples were of a complete nutter who needed near 24-hour care from a loved one when he was out of treatment and a person who attributes her ability to function on medication, intensive talk therapy and social support.

Adding additional r/o, and definitely considering multiple diagnoses. I'm behind the times by a bit, so not sure if there is a DSM-5 one that subsumes the DSM-IV ones.

I’m not a psychiatrist, but I’m assuming nutter is a medical term? Certainly you would not be mocking a person who is/was suffering.

I did, but at the same time I said that you didn't prove it to me. Since then you have stated multiple times that I had confirmed you were a doctor, which is very much not what I said. So, no backpedaling.

Well, that sounds like it was a terrible mistake on your point, especially as you seem to imply that you really weren't an athlete. If even educated intelligent adults can make such mistakes, I really don't think we should be allowing minors to do similar things which they may regret later.

I don't regret it. Your point seems to rely on that, so it poofs away in a mist.

I'm looking right now at my right leg and I'm pretty happy with it

Hmm, well maybe I don't know what you meant by a "sense of self". I don't feel like I have one, but I certainly can distinguish between the body that I (mostly) control and the bodies of others (or inanimate objects).

However, I definitely have no sense/identity of being a man. I have no idea what it feels like to be a man (or a woman). I don't feel like either, I just feel like myself.
Maybe this means I am non-binary?

HPD. That is still a thing, right gangsta?

That is my working diagnosis

That generally means that you are the default. I have a sinking feeling that we've already covered this.

What is the default?

Should the people who never introspect even be considered alive? Good example right here.

I am. I am literally the default emoji

To be fair, most people are like this. It’s a problem.

Hmm, ok, that's certainly good for you. If you had known before that there was no possibility of you being an athlete (professional, or whatever you thought you could be), do you think you still would have wanted to go through all that?

Do you agree that there are a significant number of people who underwent various sex/gender changing treatments who later regretted it?

Just another thing to consider. I live in Portland, Oregon, which is widely known as being the place to be "weird", has more strip clubs per capita than any other major city, Oregon has a higher percentage LGBTQ residents than any other state. There are marijuana stores everywhere, and drug possession of all kinds has been decriminalized. Basically it's at least one of the most liberal, anything-goes jurisdiction in the country. I interact with trans adults the majority of times I leave the house. I have no problem with any of these things; I moved to Portland voluntarily as an adult, knowing the character of the city.

However, Oregon does no allow minors to have their genitals or nipples pierced, even if they have the consent of their parents. That kind of thing is pretty serious body modification, and is where Oregon decided to draw the line (for minors). I think actually getting your genitals and/or breasts removed/replaced is certainly a bigger deal than getting them pierced, and this seems unarguably true. While this is arguable, I also believe taking drugs or hormones to stop/delay/change the results of puberty is also a bigger deal than getting one's genitals or nipples pierced. It makes no sense to me that children (even with parental/medical consent) should be allowed to do something this serious to their bodies.

I'm not in any way a cultural conservative, and I am as anti-religious as one can be. All my concerns and beliefs in this matter are based on protecting the well-being of children. I understand that some people who are also concerned about the well-being of children have very different views on this subject than I do, and that's fine. But surely they (you) must admit that allowing children to undergo any type of gender reassignment does not really fit with the medical and legal traditions of the country (nor any country that I know of). You can see the contradiction in my example of laws regarding piercings. Of course medicine and law changes, and rightfully so. But this has not been something gradual, or even something generally accepted by the majority of the populace. It seems to have been pushed by a certain small segment of the population for reasons other than the well-being of children. While I can't read their minds, I think the most likely reason is they want to increase the numbers of trans people as rapidly as possible in order to further the general societal acceptance of trans individuals. I even agree with their goal here, but I think that trying to get as many children as possible to identify as trans is not a good means to that end.

Actually I told you I didn't understand what you meant by "the default" but you didn't clarify.

Sorry, bud. The concept is that "When you are in the favored majority (not the numerical majority), you don't notice you."

He likely means the so-called-cis-people but I was confused too.

But if that's the case then I think it's a tricky spot (theoretically) where only trans have a sense of gender.

But perhaps there are some others here who do feel their gender and they can enlighten me and Chill and anyone else confused on what it feels like.

It’s to your benefit if you don’t have a strong gender identity.

It’s a problem to not have a sense of self.

I bet feeling gender is like when women see all the guys breezing through the line to pee and they are still standing in line about to pee their pants. I bet it really upsets them. I think Freud talks about this.