|
Mr. Nice! posted:They don't have to do anything to dismantle them. The guidance documents that extend those protections will just be nullified in the Pence administration. Was it in this thread that somebody was crowing about how courts are now required to give deference to executive agency interpretations of the law?
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2017 18:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 23:52 |
|
|
After listening to Bernie Bros rant yesterday about how Assange & Snowden are freedom fighters, that the US intel apparatus is lying to us just like the WMDs in saudi arabia, and only Russia and Trump are telling the truth I've been in a stupor and my memory is hazy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2017 18:08
|
|
|
Im not sure where you all keep getting swarmed by these hordes of bernie bros for trump. is it facebook? stop reading facebook.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2017 18:19
|
|
|
Control Volume posted:Im not sure where you all keep getting swarmed by these hordes of bernie bros for trump. is it facebook? stop reading facebook. Its friends and family of mine via facebook. They're good people that I know and enjoy interacting with but for any discussion that might have something to do with Clinton.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2017 18:35
|
|
|
I don't think I've ever met one Bernie person with a single kind word for cheeto golem thankfully, facebook sounds bad.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2017 21:01
|
|
|
Control Volume posted:Im not sure where you all keep getting swarmed by these hordes of bernie bros for trump. is it facebook? stop reading facebook. county Democratic Party meeting 
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2017 22:18
|
|
|
Yardbomb posted:I don't think I've ever met one Bernie person with a single kind word for cheeto golem thankfully, facebook sounds bad. I heard a lot of it after he lost the primary. Now it seems to be "Bernie would have won".
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2017 09:50
|
|
|
Aleph Null posted:Transitioning cured my depression. The anxiety on the other hand? Through the roof! Uhh, no. Dysphoria does not indicate an impairment of cognitive function. The consequences of not alleviating dysphoria can lead to issues relating to anxiety or depression, but the same could be said of practically any stressors that are left unaddressed. You're conflating the symptoms of untreated dysphoria with the dysphoria itself, and that's no more accurate than arguing that any significant and extended exposure to stressors is, in itself, mental illness.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2017 19:29
|
|
|
Vindicator posted:Uhh, no. Dysphoria does not indicate an impairment of cognitive function. The consequences of not alleviating dysphoria can lead to issues relating to anxiety or depression, but the same could be said of practically any stressors that are left unaddressed. You're conflating the symptoms of untreated dysphoria with the dysphoria itself, and that's no more accurate than arguing that any significant and extended exposure to stressors is, in itself, mental illness. The diagnostic criteria for gender dysphoria in the DSM5 contains: quote:B. The condition is associated with clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2017 03:25
|
|
|
And another state sees the introduction of a bathroom bill. http://thecolu.mn/24182/mn-gopers-introduce-anti-transgender-bill-targets-schools
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2017 10:55
|
|
|
John Kerry just apologized, on behalf of the State Department, for the Lavender Scare: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavender_scare
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2017 19:32
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:John Kerry just apologized, on behalf of the State Department, for the Lavender Scare: Well they weren't wrong about us being Commies. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2017 19:49
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:John Kerry just apologized, on behalf of the State Department, for the Lavender Scare: recognizing something was wrong and apologizing for it is always cool, but i can't feel like some of the effect is blunted by waiting until you're walking out the door to do so added bonus of knowing the team coming in would be happy to bring it back if they could
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2017 19:50
|
|
|
Eimi posted:Well they weren't wrong about us being Commies. Right, the misunderstanding there was that more Commies in the State Department was actually a good thing fully automated luxury gay space communism and all that jazz
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2017 19:51
|
|
|
Taitale posted:The diagnostic criteria for gender dysphoria in the DSM5 contains: Stress, anxiety and depression are potential consequences of unaddressed dysphoria. The excerpt you've provided refers to the diagnosis of patients whose already-existing gender dysphoria has led to the development of co-morbid conditions - thus necessitating a professional diagnosis. A trans person who has either partially or wholly alleviated their gender dysphoria (to whatever degree they feel necessary, whether that's occasional cross-dressing, up to social and/or medical transition), and who is largely unimpacted by social ostracism or prejudice, is highly unlikely to be dealing with such co-morbid factors. A fairly recent study in Pediatrics lends support to this - children who socially transition with family support have mental health outcomes almost in line with control groups, with no elevated rates of depression and marginally elevated rates of anxiety. Gender nonconformity is not a mental illness - it is specifically the stressors associated with not addressing one's gender nonconformity that lead to such impairments. To say that being transgender is a mental illness is akin to saying that living in crippling poverty is a mental illness - it fails to address the external factors involved.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2017 23:48
|
|
|
But....conservatives DO think being poor is a mental illness
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2017 23:54
|
|
|
Conservatives think a lot of poo poo awful things. I'm pretty sure the idea is not to accept their framing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 00:16
|
|
|
Vindicator posted:Stress, anxiety and depression are potential consequences of unaddressed dysphoria. The excerpt you've provided refers to the diagnosis of patients whose already-existing gender dysphoria has led to the development of co-morbid conditions - thus necessitating a professional diagnosis. A trans person who has either partially or wholly alleviated their gender dysphoria (to whatever degree they feel necessary, whether that's occasional cross-dressing, up to social and/or medical transition), and who is largely unimpacted by social ostracism or prejudice, is highly unlikely to be dealing with such co-morbid factors. A fairly recent study in Pediatrics lends support to this - children who socially transition with family support have mental health outcomes almost in line with control groups, with no elevated rates of depression and marginally elevated rates of anxiety. That excerpt has nothing to do with co-morbid conditions and I think you are confusing the generic descriptor of gender dysphoria with the clinical diagnosis of gender dysphoria. The DSM5 diagnosis of gender dysphoria treats the distress/impairment as the critical element. If there is no distress/impairment as a result of transition (whether that's social/medical transition or surgery etc) then that person doesn't meet the diagnosis of gender dysphoria anymore. For those who are still experiencing distress/impairment regardless of transition (it may be they haven't got HRT or surgery, or they have but it hasn't resolved the problem entirely) they will still meet the diagnosis. Either of those people can present with or without co-morbid conditions without any impact on the diagnosis of gender dysphoria. Vindicator posted:Gender nonconformity is not a mental illness - it is specifically the stressors associated with not addressing one's gender nonconformity that lead to such impairments. To say that being transgender is a mental illness is akin to saying that living in crippling poverty is a mental illness - it fails to address the external factors involved. No one is saying it is. One of the reasons for replacing gender identity disorder with gender dysphoria was to shift the illness from the identity to the actual distress/impairment.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 04:20
|
|
|
Vulpes Vvardenfell posted:And another state sees the introduction of a bathroom bill. And the same bunch as last year just filed a bathroom initiative in WA. loving hell, every year I've been here it's just been an endless stream of this poo poo. http://www.thestranger.com/slog/201...ls-in-bathrooms
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 04:47
|
|
|
Taitale posted:That excerpt has nothing to do with co-morbid conditions and I think you are confusing the generic descriptor of gender dysphoria with the clinical diagnosis of gender dysphoria. The DSM5 diagnosis of gender dysphoria treats the distress/impairment as the critical element. If there is no distress/impairment as a result of transition (whether that's social/medical transition or surgery etc) then that person doesn't meet the diagnosis of gender dysphoria anymore. For those who are still experiencing distress/impairment regardless of transition (it may be they haven't got HRT or surgery, or they have but it hasn't resolved the problem entirely) they will still meet the diagnosis. Either of those people can present with or without co-morbid conditions without any impact on the diagnosis of gender dysphoria. So you're saying that someone who is distressed enough to have their ability to function in social or occupational areas impaired to a clinically significant degree is NOT dealing with co-morbid issues such as anxiety or depressive disorders? I mean, you quoted the section labelled B. Are you suggesting that patients that exhibit some or all of the behaviors listed in section A, but not B, don't meet the diagnosis for gender dysphoria? The text even makes it clear that clinically significant distress is not a mandatory factor in establishing a positive diagnosis: DSM-V posted:Gender dysphoria refers to the distress that may accompany the incongruence between one's experienced or expressed gender and one's assigned gender. Although not all individuals will experience distress as a result of such incongruence, many are distressed if the desired physical interventions by means of hormones and/or surgery are not available. Taitale posted:No one is saying it is. One of the reasons for replacing gender identity disorder with gender dysphoria was to shift the illness from the identity to the actual distress/impairment. Aleph Null posted:And gender dysphoria is a mental illness. This is textbook pathologization - you have this condition > you are suffering from a mental disorder. That's not the case, and it means every trans person who feels an incongruence with their assigned gender, and who is functioning in their day-to-day lives with no severe distress, is mentally ill. Like, the implications of pushing that view are just reinforcing the socio-cultural status-quo surrounding trans experiences. From a purely personal perspective, I'm dealing with gender dysphoria. I'm also living my life, holding down a job etc etc - my dysphoria is not impacting my ability to do those things. I'm not mentally ill. I have been diagnosed as mentally ill, back before my transition when I was dealing with clinical depression as a result of my unwillingness/denial of my trans status. That's a clear delineation for me, where I know I was clinically depressed, and I know now that I'm not. If the implication is that because I'm still in the process of transitioning to alleviate my dysphoria, I am therefore dealing with mental illness, I would dispute that implication.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 08:46
|
|
|
Vindicator posted:So you're saying that someone who is distressed enough to have their ability to function in social or occupational areas impaired to a clinically significant degree is NOT dealing with co-morbid issues such as anxiety or depressive disorders? They might be, but they also might not meet all the diagnostic criteria for those disorders. It also doesn't matter if they are or not. Vindicator posted:I mean, you quoted the section labelled B. Are you suggesting that patients that exhibit some or all of the behaviors listed in section A, but not B, don't meet the diagnosis for gender dysphoria? Yes, they do not meet the diagnostic criteria for clinical gender dysphoria. You have to meet all the sections in the criteria. Vindicator posted:The text even makes it clear that clinically significant distress is not a mandatory factor in establishing a positive diagnosis: You are misinterpreting that. As it notes, gender dysphoria refers to the distress. That distress may accompany the incongruence. Not everyone will experience that distress (and it's exasperated by lack of access to healthcare/treatment). Therefore not everyone who has that incongruence will meet the diagnosis. That doesn't mean they aren't trans or invalidate their identity, it just means they don't meet the diagnosis. Vindicator posted:This is textbook pathologization - you have this condition > you are suffering from a mental disorder. That's not the case, and it means every trans person who feels an incongruence with their assigned gender, and who is functioning in their day-to-day lives with no severe distress, is mentally ill. No it doesn't, because if there is no distress, they don't meet the diagnosis. Vindicator posted:Like, the implications of pushing that view are just reinforcing the socio-cultural status-quo surrounding trans experiences. From a purely personal perspective, I'm dealing with gender dysphoria. I'm also living my life, holding down a job etc etc - my dysphoria is not impacting my ability to do those things. I'm not mentally ill. I have been diagnosed as mentally ill, back before my transition when I was dealing with clinical depression as a result of my unwillingness/denial of my trans status. That's a clear delineation for me, where I know I was clinically depressed, and I know now that I'm not. If the implication is that because I'm still in the process of transitioning to alleviate my dysphoria, I am therefore dealing with mental illness, I would dispute that implication. Again, if you don't have the distress, you don't meet the diagnosis. If you classify dealing with gender dysphoria as having a trans identity then you need to go and read the statement they put out when they changed it from GID. The whole point now is that being trans/having a different gender from what was assigned at birth/gender incongruence is not a disorder. The diagnosis literally revolves around the issues it causes for ones mental health. That is still a mental illness. If you don't have mental health issues caused by your identity, then you don't meet the criteria and are mentally healthy (assuming no other mental health issues).
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 09:21
|
|
|
I don't think all trans folks suffer from gender dysphoria, and I don't 'classify gender dysphoria as having a trans identity' - that's clearly not my argument. The problem is that 'clinically significant distress' rules out a significant proportion of people who are transitioning to alleviate some incongruence with their assigned birth gender. To set the bar at "this individual needs to be impaired to the point where their ability to live/work/socialize etc has been drastically compromised" is setting up some sort of binary state where you either can't function, or you can and therefore you don't have gender dysphoria. There is clearly some middle ground here that isn't being represented, that still requires access to medical intervention, discrimination protections, all that jazz. If the requirement for access to those things is a clinical diagnosis, which is not at all unusual in a lot of jurisdictions, then that's exposing a lot of trans folks to harm. There's a fundamental flaw with the diagnostic criteria if it's going to result in a lot of people being restricted from access to the tools and methods they need to avoid the problem the diagnosis seeks to address. "You have to suffer THIS much to access care" is pretty hosed up.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 10:40
|
|
|
Vindicator posted:I don't think all trans folks suffer from gender dysphoria, and I don't 'classify gender dysphoria as having a trans identity' - that's clearly not my argument. Sure seems like it is when you start talking about how treating gender dysphoria as a mental illness means all trans people are mentally ill. Vindicator posted:The problem is that 'clinically significant distress' rules out a significant proportion of people who are transitioning to alleviate some incongruence with their assigned birth gender. To set the bar at "this individual needs to be impaired to the point where their ability to live/work/socialize etc has been drastically compromised" is setting up some sort of binary state where you either can't function, or you can and therefore you don't have gender dysphoria. There is clearly some middle ground here that isn't being represented, that still requires access to medical intervention, discrimination protections, all that jazz. If the requirement for access to those things is a clinical diagnosis, which is not at all unusual in a lot of jurisdictions, then that's exposing a lot of trans folks to harm. There's a fundamental flaw with the diagnostic criteria if it's going to result in a lot of people being restricted from access to the tools and methods they need to avoid the problem the diagnosis seeks to address. "You have to suffer THIS much to access care" is pretty hosed up. First of all it's clinically significant distress or impairment so that binary state you talk about doesn't exist. While there are definitely potential issues around what constitutes clinical distress the fact that the DSM recognises that lack of access to medical interventions can cause that level of distress it doesn't seem the bar is set very high. The biggest group who I think would have an issue with the current diagnosis are people who don't seek all the stereotypical medical interventions/have a non-binary identity and get stuck with doctors who decide that it means they aren't trans enough for any treatment at all. Even then that is more a problem with outdated thinking than the diagnosis itself.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 11:54
|
|
|
Taitale posted:First of all it's clinically significant distress or impairment so that binary state you talk about doesn't exist. While there are definitely potential issues around what constitutes clinical distress the fact that the DSM recognises that lack of access to medical interventions can cause that level of distress it doesn't seem the bar is set very high. The biggest group who I think would have an issue with the current diagnosis are people who don't seek all the stereotypical medical interventions/have a non-binary identity and get stuck with doctors who decide that it means they aren't trans enough for any treatment at all. Even then that is more a problem with outdated thinking than the diagnosis itself. Yeah, Vindicator's failing the Psych 101 test here and seeing the existence of symptoms as the existence of the entire disorder. I say Psych 101 because this is exactly what almost everyone who ever takes any abnormal psych courses does before they learn to consider symptoms in the context of how they affect the patient. Many people express symptoms and tendencies that are in congruence with a possible diagnosis based on the DSM's criteria. However, if those symptoms are not causing them distress or impairment, they are not diagnosed as disorders, but normal quirks of the function of human consciousness.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 13:05
|
|
|
Taitale posted:Sure seems like it is when you start talking about how treating gender dysphoria as a mental illness means all trans people are mentally ill. Well, if you're going to presume that despite me directly telling you that isn't the case, and moreover by the fact that I've never made anything approaching that assertion - in fact my entire position has been to dispute that, I guess you can take any position you choose. Feel free to argue with yourself. I'm going to stick to my actual position. quote:First of all it's clinically significant distress or impairment so that binary state you talk about doesn't exist. While there are definitely potential issues around what constitutes clinical distress the fact that the DSM recognises that lack of access to medical interventions can cause that level of distress it doesn't seem the bar is set very high. The biggest group who I think would have an issue with the current diagnosis are people who don't seek all the stereotypical medical interventions/have a non-binary identity and get stuck with doctors who decide that it means they aren't trans enough for any treatment at all. Even then that is more a problem with outdated thinking than the diagnosis itself. Or people wrestling with their health insurance providers, who are known for complicating access to treatment for trans people. Or people currently living in locations where a formal diagnosis is required to qualify for legal protections. Where I live, genital surgery is a requirement for a change in one's legal gender status. Not many surgeons are going to accept a patient without a formal diagnosis. That's not nothing, that's a requirement of the diagnosis of a mental disorder as a prerequisite for GRS. Does that mean every trans person who chooses to pursue GRS is mentally ill? Just to head off any accusations to the contrary, my position on this is "no". Hell, my current GP, without fail, asks me whether I'm intending to undergo genital surgery every six months when I get repeats of my prescriptions, and there's a reason I always feel compelled to answer that I'm not in the financial position to think about that right now. Like it or not, people are conflating being transgender with gender dysphoria, and even if they're completely mistaken, we still have to deal with the implications of that - and those don't become easier if we're labelling gender dysphoria as a mental illness. That's not even going into the continuing references to transvestic fetishism and autogynephilia, mentioned in the prognostic factors. Liquid Communism posted:normal quirks of the function of human consciousness. Like I said, try to find a surgeon willing to perform GRS based on a 'normal quirk of the function of human consciousness.' fake edit: I accidentally typed 'medical' in place of 'mental'. Whoops. Vindicator fucked around with this message at 13:47 on Jan 10, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 13:36
|
|
|
Bit of good news, the state senator that has been responsible for pushing "religious liberty" bills the past few years got demoted by his own party, scuttlebutt is this is because he kept on pushing for it the past few years. I guess be glad the Georgia republicans are more of the big business than religious right type?
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 14:01
|
|
|
e: wrong tab
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2017 02:21
|
|
|
Vindicator posted:Like I said, try to find a surgeon willing to perform GRS based on a 'normal quirk of the function of human consciousness.' You're still not getting it. If dysphoria did not rise to the level of distress or impairment, then a patient would have no reason to seek GRS. To give an analogy, cross dressing can be seen as a coping mechanism and symptom of gender dysphoria, however not all cross dressers are trans.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2017 03:47
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:You're still not getting it. If dysphoria did not rise to the level of distress or impairment, then a patient would have no reason to seek GRS. This is a bad example because if you are trans it is not cross dressing. People ignorant of trans people might see it that way, but it's not. A better example is cochlear implants. Being deaf is something that just happens sometimes and a deaf person who experiences distress from not hearing can get surgery to alleviate this. It's totally voluntary, though, because bit all deaf people have distress from bit hearing. Some prefer it that way. Much as not all trans people have distress from genital dysphoria and don't want grs.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2017 04:14
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:You're still not getting it. If dysphoria did not rise to the level of distress or impairment, then a patient would have no reason to seek GRS. I'm getting it, believe me. Your position is that trans folks who pursue GRS are distressed/impaired to such an extent that they can be diagnosed as mentally ill. Do you think that all trans folks who pursue gender confirmation surgeries are mentally ill? Do you think that trans folks whose dysphoria does not rise to the level of significant distress or impairment should be barred from pursuing medical transition options, including surgery? I have deep concerns about labelling all trans folks with the intention of undergoing gender confirmation surgeries as mentally ill. I mean, you can't conceive of any other possible motivations a trans person might wish to undergo confirmation surgeries? Personal example again - I intend to pursue GRS. Does my intention to do so indicate that I am mentally ill, because 'the only people who would want to undergo such a surgery must have distress or impairment sufficient to meet a diagnosis of gender dysphoria?' Vindicator fucked around with this message at 08:29 on Jan 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2017 08:21
|
|
|
Mental illness is not something to be afraid of or ashamed of. It can be treated and managed. I feel like you guys are running from terminology. "Mental illness" is nothing to be ashamed of. Just like diabetes or cancer or the common cold; it just happens. It isn't a moral failing. I am mentally ill, but it is being managed and treated by HRT, therapy, and living a life congruent with my self-image. The only dysphoria that remains can be assessed by GCS once I can afford it. Dysphoria is environmental. My birth certificate can never be updated or amended because of the state I was born in. Some states require surgery to get a gender market changed. Sometimes, if they are vague enough in their wording, your doctor can write a letter that makes it sound like you've had GCS, but that depends entirely on the person you present it to. Live in Mississippi and you may have trouble finding a sympathetic ear; live in Seattle, and you have a much better chance. What if you are the only LGBT person you know? Nobody around to show you anything other than everything you are not. Mental illness doesn't mean you are defective, doesn't necessarily mean something is fundamentally wrong with you. It just means you need help. At least, that's how my therapist put it. Recognize and manage the disordered thinking, retrain your brain, and reduce your symptoms (CBT stuff). Edit: are we just arguing connotation vs denotation, clinical definition vs public perception?
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2017 16:28
|
|
|
Public perception can be individual perception as well, it's not very nice to tell people they're mentally ill regardless of how it should not be a stigmatized thing. Even less so when you're essentially telling them how they feel about a thing. To some people, clinical recognition for the distress their condition causes can be a good thing, for others it may be dehumanizing. Being prescriptive about it either way is probably not going to do much good. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 18:42 on Jan 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2017 18:39
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Public perception can be individual perception as well, it's not very nice to tell people they're mentally ill regardless of how it should not be a stigmatized thing. Even less so when you're essentially telling them how they feel about a thing. Which is more important: public perception or what insurance companies, lawyers, the government, and doctors will use to determine if you get to have certain treatment? I know the answer is "both" but that doesn't help anybody decide what the best move is. Just keep limping along where it wavers back and forth until public perception and state or federal law catches up, I guess.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2017 19:01
|
|
|
If I had to make a suggestion, fight for the clinical recognition of the disorder but avoid telling people they definitely have it and are definitely mentally ill. Care and support must be available to those in need or want of it but there's not really a need to tell people outside of the context of that legislation/medical categorization that there's something wrong with them, which is unfortunately what you risk saying by pushing it individually on people. There's an obvious dichotomy between being mental health-positive and avoiding sticking people with the extant stigma associated with it, but individual people going through rough poo poo probably don't need to be on the firing line of that debate. If people want to participate then good on them but I wouldn't shove people into it. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 19:08 on Jan 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2017 19:03
|
|
|
When I got my disability for a mental illness, I felt really crappy for a week or two because I was "disabled", but I've gotten a bit better at accepting it and realizing its part of who I am and owning it. It can be hard to work through having a social stigma.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2017 20:19
|
|
|
Vindicator posted:I'm getting it, believe me. Your position is that trans folks who pursue GRS are distressed/impaired to such an extent that they can be diagnosed as mentally ill. Do you think that all trans folks who pursue gender confirmation surgeries are mentally ill? Do you think that trans folks whose dysphoria does not rise to the level of significant distress or impairment should be barred from pursuing medical transition options, including surgery? I have deep concerns about labelling all trans folks with the intention of undergoing gender confirmation surgeries as mentally ill. I mean, you can't conceive of any other possible motivations a trans person might wish to undergo confirmation surgeries? My standpoint is that people suffering significant distress and/or impairment are suffering from mental illness, yes. The same as are those suffering depression, anxiety, or PTSD issues, to name the most common issues currently in the wild. De-stigmatization of mental illness and treating it like any other medical condition that requires treatment is the goal here, not trying to generate new euphemisms that do not accurately reflect the problem and how it can be approached to better the patient's life. Mental illness is, for the vast majority of cases, no more the fault of the person suffering it than Type 1 diabetes would be.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 00:11
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:My standpoint is that people suffering significant distress and/or impairment are suffering from mental illness, yes. The same as are those suffering depression, anxiety, or PTSD issues, to name the most common issues currently in the wild. What you are simply not getting is that in your model a trans-person can be denied necessary medical care until their Dysphoria reaches the point where it can be diagnosed as a mental illness. Also, there is a strong stigma attached to mental illness and while it would be nice for society to overcome that we do not yet live in that world. By forcing trans people to accept the label of mental illness you are just stacking social stigma on top of social stigma. You are also giving ammunition to the bigots who often refer to the presence of gender dysphoria in the DSM as "proof" that trans people are deluded/dangerous and should be treated as a threat to society. Yeah, it would be great if the stigma around being trans or being mentally ill would suddenly disappear from society. But we do not live in that world right now, and we are not going to be living it anytime in the near future either.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 00:55
|
|
|
What's your better option? Without a viable diagnosis, insurance companies are going to continue to find ways to deny treatment.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 01:16
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:What's your better option? Without a viable diagnosis, insurance companies are going to continue to find ways to deny treatment. Make it a medically recognized condition that requires treatment but is not considered in and of itself a mental illness.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 02:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 23:52 |
|
|
What exactly is gained by doing so? It seems to me that you're just creating unclear definitions and generating a new edge case for the sake of avoiding a label.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 12:11
|
|