To correctly alleviate that distress you need to have a criteria for identifying it, which is how things end up in the DSM. It also might matter for insurance coverage.

Hey if trans people are in distress maybe we should stop relentlessly shitting on them every single day ITT and develop a bit of empathy.

While there might well be an appropriate place among mental health professionals for discussion on appropriate classifications, none of us except it sounds like gangstaman are that. A bunch of cis guys on the internet don't need to debate whether being trans is a mental disorder or not or become experts in how the DSM5 classifications work. It just fits right in with so many right wing tropes about trans people that are constantly dehumanizing them.

So what makes you think the institution has it right this time, in light of their literally never being right, ever, about the same issue?

Also, the objective of the sciences isn't to 'stop (x)isms', yet we now see that openly stated as the driving force behind a TON of academia, which starts out with a conclusion then does elaborate mental gymnastics to justify it... with the idea that its all for the 'good' so long as stopping an (x)ism is the objective.

Your field is a step below religion, IMO. At least they'll admit the gaps in their beliefs and write it off to 'god' without wasting 500 sheets of paper on specious gibberish that is mocked everywhere outside its own bubble.

This debate might help people who are inclined to think of transgenderism as a mental disorder reevaluate their position. You're not going to drop your prejudice if its logic is never challenged.

Present compelling information other than SHUT UP RACIST SEXIST TRANSPHOBE HEY HEY HEY RACIST SEXIST KKK! (or whatever form a typical post-modern left wing 'argument' takes on a Thursday) and I'm totally open to changing my mind.

My position: I think the change from mental disorder to suddenly "not a mental disorder" is 100% political and 100% not scientific.

It’s weird, because for most functional people, “this guy has a mental health problem” ought to be a humanizing thing! We help people like that in the 21st century! For our transphobic friends, though, it’s just another excuse to **** on people who are different. Better lock them up in a Victorian-style asylum or whatever. Of course they did the same thing with gays back in the day, but this time I’m sure they’re on the right side of history.

After all this time can you take the time and give the proper respect for the username, 'ganstaman'.

Kthxbye.

(just joking, as I am not uke)

I'd need to know what you're referring to exactly to give you my opinion. Never being right is a pretty gross exaggeration. Plenty of people have been helped with a range of issues by psychiatry.



I think it would be more correct to say there's an effort to not let isms impede science, as they have in the past.



I'm not in the field but a discipline whose evidence is dictated by the scientific method could not be further from religion.

Based on what evidence?

What makes you think the change was sudden?

Is it not possible the change was a correction of a decision that had been influenced by non-scientific elements in the first place?

Over time things tend towards a better insight, its why we dont still think the world is flat.

Refinement of understanding is a clear trend and off the top of my head I cant think of a single intellectual phenomenon where a disciple has concluded shucks our theories were better 20 years ago.

It just a weird take to argue yea well you had it wrong in the past, so your wrong now, but the past is um right.

I'm talking about this issue.
The official position was (x), now, the official position is (the opposite of X).

That might be true in some arenas, but definitely not in the social sciences.
I mean, the race and IQ debate got so ridiculously tortured and anti-intellectual from the academy itself in the 80s and 90s that the goalposts were moved to 'race doesn't even exist' since it was the only curative position they could take in light of the facts speaking for themselves. Also, the gatekeeping on issues that might even slightly broach taboos is insane. Good luck getting cleared from the 'research ethics committee' if you even propose to examine certain things.

Social sciences aren't governed by 'scientific method', in many cases. This is not a novel observation that I'm just making up here.
Would you like me to provide some examples?
Anyway, no. 'Evidence' often accepted in social sciences is usually a-scientific, if not entirely non-scientific.

IF that were true, you'd have to make the case and show evidence, rather than just posit the theory since what I said is true (they held transgenderism was a mental illness) and gravely indicts the credibility of the institution you're appealing to.

"Yeh yeah yeah well, see, what if maybe they..." is the long and short of what you said there.

That's because we gained a better understanding of reality.
Nobody credible argues against the world being round. The Hungarians agree, the Russians agree, the Ukrainians agree, the Chinese agree, we agree.

If tomorrow, the National Academy of the Sciences reverses course and says "ya know, we got it all wrong, earth shape is socially constructed and varies depending on perceptions rooted in cultural norms, which often times are influenced by slavery and colonialism", would you support that?

What you're describing is as addiction.

Some disorders can be treated, some cannot. Eating disorder, bipolar disorder, non-suicidal self-injury disorder, and so on, the common theme is poor mental health which is frequently acknowledged as a symptom in rapid onset gender dysphoria.

So, poor mental health leads to starving yourself, harming yourself or trying to kill yourself. These actions are not too dissimilar to suddenly deciding you want to physically change your sex.

casually comparing being trans with committing suicide…..**** man, not a good look.

First, I did not compare being trans with committing suicide.

Second, Suicide in trans populations: A systematic review of prevalence and correlates.

There is no longer a middle ground in discourse. It's either you're with me, and if I don't agree with you, you're against me. People can't quote fox news on some forums and cnn on others. Without reading much of this last page I will say trans people really piss me off the way they're totally interfering with my life and making things uncomfortable for the women around me. I'm also into saving the steal btw.

The fact that little Billy can now become little Annie, and vise versa, really freaks me tf out. Even tho it's literally never been an issue until I heard it was supposed to be an issue

Psychiatry is not a social science??



This is not what you said and not what I was replying to. You said:



which is your unsupported opinion about why the change was made. I only need to offer another plausible explanation to counter your opinion.

I think that most people's definition of the word "disorder" would include the implication that it would be a good thing if it was eliminated. If society decides that there is no reason to desire to eliminate that trait in those that have it, then it should no longer be called a disorder even if there is no new medical information.

Oh boy, we’ve moved on to “eliminating” the Trans Menace.

Perhaps you did not realize that my post was merely pointing out that even if the decision to remove the word "disorder" was done for political rather than medical reasons, it could still be the correct decision. Mild Asperger's should probably be in that category as well since those with that trait need not think it is preferable to not have it.

Yes, your logic for eliminating trans people is impeccable.

I think what you are speaking to is the perception of the word and how many will use but not the way it should be viewed.

A comparison would be how now a word like "discrimination' is taken as 'proof of wrong' when discrimination is not wrong and is something all of us do each and every day. Yet if you get into certain debates people will try to get you to admit 'that is discrimination, right'. They clearly believe those words alone equal bad or good and if you say them they feel they have a checkmate, ...you are bad, wrong, etc. When what they need to do is look at the application of those words.

I do think you are correct in thinking 'disorder' would be viewed the way you say by many but it should not be. Order and disorder on a case by case basis need to be discussed, understood and not just labeled.

And David, I hope you do not allow uke and Trolly to bully you out of the conversation.

You will see on these topics how they both resort almost instantly to the usual cancel culture tactics of trying to make it toxic for certain people to engage in these discussions. First is to present of a hierarchy of people who are 'allowed' to discuss or should be discussing it. I get slightly more latitude than you to engage, in that world as a POC but I lose on being cis and male, you as both a white male and being cis, really have no value in almost any discussion.

it is so predictable and template you can set a clock to it now.

On twitter you constantly see certain people being told they 'should not be opining and need to shut up and listen' or other versions of that with this meme constantly posted as the retort mocking that view, as it is so commonly shouted at people, as if skin colour and gender identification are what should dictate who gets to speak on a topic.



uke's next phase is always to try and draw casual associations or comparisons of your views to the worst things he can (racism, naism, etc), whereas Trolly just engages in pure bad faith misstatements of what people say to associate with worse things.

Anyway, we cannot let those tactics win and dictate discussions or cancel people from them.