|
Liquid Communism posted: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. What is gained by doing so? Improved access to medical care for transpersons without needing to go through the gatekeeper of being diagnosed with a mental illness in order to get care. And if I am generating an edge case for the sake of avoiding a label, so what? Improving real world outcomes for transpersons is the goal here, not having a tidy conceptual box to put transpersons in. If we need to create a special edge case in order to avoid adding the stigma of mental illness to the stigma that transpersons already face then why the hell should we not exactly? Is simpler paperwork and a simple definition a good enough reason to add gatekeepers and increase the stigma that transpersons face? Edit: From my perspective you are arguing from a place of privilege without really realizing it. You are arguing that transpersons should have to accept a mental illness diagnosis in order to receive treatment, and when transpeople object your reaction has been to not listen to a thing that anyone said while implying that us transpeople don't understand our own medical needs and are just trying to over-complicate matters by wishing to avoid a label of mental illness. It seems like to you this debate is about an abstract concept of how to properly label something on paperwork, and I am trying to avoid giving society more fuel to harass/oppress/murder transpeople. Do you really think that in the middle of a massive spike of anti-trans hate crimes (to say nothing of a massive and organized anti-trans political campaign) is the right time to argue that transpeople should have to accept a label of mental illness in order to receive medical care? Can you not see how a transperson who is just coming to grips with their condition might opt to not seek treatment because of the mental illness diagnosis? Can you not understand that forcing transpeople to accept the label of mental illness will only increase the anxiety and stress we already have to deal with? Prester Jane fucked around with this message at 16:43 on Jan 12, 2017 |
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 15:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 00:21 |
|
|
Liquid Communism posted: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. "Avoiding a label" is a quite significant thing when dealing with gender. Labels can be quite deleterious to people's wellbeing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 16:09
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:"Avoiding a label" is a quite significant thing when dealing with gender. Seriously. "It's a mental illness" is the excuse my grandmother used when she told me she will never accept me or acknowledge my identity. Taking away that language takes away a tool for bigots to hide their prejudice behind. As somebody said earlier, gender dysphoria has a lot of the same symptoms as poverty (or any other extreme stressor in one's life). Would you call poverty a mental illness? gently caress no. Stress isn't even a mental illness. Stress can have mental symptoms, but it has an external cause. It's not an inherent property of the person. For trans people that external cause is partially the incongruity between body and mind, but also the treatment they receive from others due to their identity.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 16:44
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:"Avoiding a label" is a quite significant thing when dealing with gender. But how can you remove the label without removing access to appropriate care? Especially considering the incoming administration. I agree that it is a fine goal and should be what we eventually push for. But what can we do right now? It took me until I was in my late 20s to admit I needed help because I was afraid of being mentally ill. It was a "bad" thing not to be talked about or acknowledged. My family just accepted and enabled any mental illness as personality quirks, and I don't mean just for me; it was for anyone in the family with obvious issues. How can we destigmatize mental illness? How can we get families and communities to address mental illness positively instead of ignoring it and enabling it? I was optimistic about the future of transgender care. Biden called it a human rights' issue. More insurance companies are covering trans-related care. There are high profile transgender people who aren't seen by most people as freaks or jokes. But the backlash and pushback is massive. Bathroom bills everywhere. A new VP that support conversion therapy. A new administration completely full of people who have to hate us because of their vocal base. What do we do?
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 16:56
|
|
|
Aleph Null posted:But how can you remove the label without removing access to appropriate care? Especially considering the incoming administration. I agree that it is a fine goal and should be what we eventually push for. But what can we do right now? As I said, you can fight for whatever practical tools you can to make sure people have care as available as it can be, but there's no reason to go around telling people who are already having a rough time "yo you're hosed in the head lol" because that's not going to do much good. Mental health positivity is something you can direct primarily at people who don't actually suffer from mental illness, because it's not primarily mentally ill people who are responsible for the stigma attached to it and seeking care for it. The first target should not be to get everyone struggling with their own thoughts and feelings to embrace the mental illness label, even if they did, what difference do you think that would make? OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 17:06 on Jan 12, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 17:04
|
|
|
A few years ago (when I was still closeted to myself and still posing as a cishet male) I lived for over half a year in an in-patient treatment program for people suffering from mental illness. (I have a formal diagnosis of Schizoaffective disoreder that is not related to my gender identity) Part of this program was an endless parade of lifeskills classes that we all had to attend. One of those classes focused specifically on legal ways that we residents could obscure both our mental illness diagnosis as well as our time living at that facility from future employers/landlords/anyone else. The point was to help us avoid having the stigma of mental illness attached to us so that we would be less likely to wind up unemployed/homeless in the future. The general gist of the class was "don't tell anyone who doesn't have a good reason to know", and the facility in question lived by that motto and took pains to hide our residency there from inquiring eyes.
Prester Jane fucked around with this message at 17:12 on Jan 12, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 17:05
|
|
|
Prester Jane posted:A few years ago (when I was still closeted to myself and still posing as a cishet male) I lived for over half a year in an in-patient treatment program for people suffering from mental illness. (I have a formal diagnosis of Schizoaffective disoreder that is not related to my gender identity) Part of this program was an endless parade of lifeskills classes that we all had to attend. One of those classes focused specifically on legal ways that we residents could obscure both our mental illness diagnosis as well as our time living at that facility from future employers/landlords/anyone else. The point was to help us avoid having the stigma of mental illness attached to us so that we would be less likely to wind up unemployed/homeless in the future. The general gist of the class was "don't tell anyone who doesn't have a good reason to know", and the facility in question lived by that motto and took pains to hide our residency there from inquiring eyes. This is not that far from the trans community concept of going stealth (aka, doing what is necessary to pass and then pretending to be cis to everyone except your most deeply trusted circle). I'm borderline ready to change jobs because I transitioned while working here and even though it's an accepting environment it's still clear that it colors people's interactions with me. For example, HR being more impatient with me when I challenge internal policies than they were pre-transition.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 17:16
|
|
|
I'm wondering how many arguments there would have been, telling queers back in 1972 not to worry about their mental illness diagnosis, because there's nothing to be ashamed of when the doctor tells you your brain doesn't work right because you don't conform to heteronormative societal standards. But the problem is that it isn't 'disordered thinking' in the first place. If this is, as people in this thread have stated, a natural element of the human condition, then why are we tacitly accepting that in order to validate our access treatment, we must self-identify as mentally disordered? Now, look, you can make the argument that gender dysphoria represents divorcing the distress from the nonconformity with assigned gender, but there are steps further that we can advocate for. Why are stress, trauma, anxiety, and depression all fundamentally distinguishable when they are the product of one's gender nonconformity, rather than of other stressors? Why aren't we talking about how we develop treatment pathways that require the informed consent of the patient, rather than gating treatment behind a diagnosis of mental impairment? Isn't it possible that a mental health professional can make a statement to the effect of "Upon consultation with the patient, we have mutually recognized that this treatment will significantly improve the patient's quality of life", without having to add "this patient is mentally ill" in order to justify such a statement? I think what I'm running up against is the idea that a trans person can't express a conscious choice to alter their body in a manner that conforms more with their personal sense of self, without also being required to show evidence of significant distress/impairment with the physical configuration of their body. Obviously people who have neither exist, and clearly we have people who have both. But what about one or the other? Can't someone experience sufficient distress in order to meet a diagnosis of gender dysphoria, yet not desire surgical transition for any number of reasons? Can't someone not experience that distress and STILL express a desire for surgical transition for any number of reasons? Aren't those all conceivable possibilities? Informed consent as a prerequisite for HRT is definitely more accepted than it has been in the past. Is the concept of an informed consent model for surgical treatments not also justifiable, particularly when the goal is to avoid the patient developing the distress that would validate the treatment after the fact? Vindicator fucked around with this message at 21:51 on Jan 12, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 21:49
|
|
|
I think we're gonna find out in the future that transgenderism is basically going to be a variant of intersexuality that only affects the brain. That's my hot take.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 23:00
|
|
|
Maybe its because we live in a country where places like Johns Hopkins still tolerate assholes like this publicly representing them. http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/michael-w-chapman/johns-hopkins-psychiatrist-transgender-mental-disorder-sex-change quote:Dr. Paul R. McHugh, the former psychiatrist-in-chief for Johns Hopkins Hospital and its current Distinguished Service Professor of Psychiatry, said that transgenderism is a “mental disorder” that merits treatment, that sex change is “biologically impossible,” and that people who promote sexual reassignment surgery are collaborating with and promoting a mental disorder. Edit: and the Wall Street Journal gladly prints his op eds without contradiction.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 23:05
|
|
|
Thalantos posted:I think we're gonna find out in the future that transgenderism is basically going to be a variant of intersexuality that only affects the brain. i dont understand what you're trying to say with this post, and a lot of other posts but this one is short so hopefully easier to explain
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 23:46
|
|
|
mandatory lesbian posted:i dont understand what you're trying to say with this post, and a lot of other posts but this one is short so hopefully easier to explain I was going to try and explain, but then I realized I don't understand what they're trying to say either
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 00:14
|
|
|
Aleph Null posted:Maybe its because we live in a country where places like Johns Hopkins still tolerate assholes like this publicly representing them. To their credit, Johns Hopkins has reversed their prohibition on offering gender confirmation surgery, and have offered admittedly indirect statements that suggest anything McHugh says is not the position of the institution.What they really should do is lean on any newspaper or journal that publishes his nonsense and issue a counter-statement, but small mercies. mandatory lesbian posted:i dont understand what you're trying to say with this post, and a lot of other posts but this one is short so hopefully easier to explain Thalantos thinks that being transgender will be found to have a biological basis, and transgenderism will be recognized as another intersex condition. Vindicator fucked around with this message at 00:43 on Jan 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 00:40
|
|
|
Vindicator posted:Thalantos thinks that being transgender will be found to have a biological basis, and transgenderism will be recognized as another intersex condition. ah okay, so like an equivalent of the gay gene, alright thank you
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 01:09
|
|
|
Vindicator posted:I'm wondering how many arguments there would have been, telling queers back in 1972 not to worry about their mental illness diagnosis, because there's nothing to be ashamed of when the doctor tells you your brain doesn't work right because you don't conform to heteronormative societal standards. But the problem is that it isn't 'disordered thinking' in the first place. I at least am tacitly accepting that as a calculated policy position. The primary author of policy for the incoming administration is, due to the President's lack of interest and general unfitness, going to be Mike Pence. Mike Pence is a hardline believer in conversion therapy who despises all things LGBT. The process of gutting the ACA is already well under way. In this political climate, maintaining gender dysphoria as a diagnosis and SRS among the effective treatments for it is vital. The biggest gift you could possibly give Pence and insurance companies is being able to classify gender as a personally held choice and declare all treatments to change it as elective and cosmetic and therefore not required to be covered by insurers. Is that the most feel-good of answers? gently caress no, but it's more likely to have positive results than 'Oh, you wanna be a ~lady~? Hope you have a couple hundred grand saved up, otherwise go gently caress yourself.'
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 02:08
|
|
|
LeftistMuslimObama posted:Seriously. "It's a mental illness" is the excuse my grandmother used when she told me she will never accept me or acknowledge my identity. Taking away that language takes away a tool for bigots to hide their prejudice behind. It clearly won't stop bigots because they still use that bullshit excuse even though being trans isn't classified as a mental illness. It also hasn't stopped bigots calling gay people mentally ill. Vindicator posted:I'm wondering how many arguments there would have been, telling queers back in 1972 not to worry about their mental illness diagnosis, because there's nothing to be ashamed of when the doctor tells you your brain doesn't work right because you don't conform to heteronormative societal standards. But the problem is that it isn't 'disordered thinking' in the first place. False equivalence. In that case being gay was the mental illness. Here distress/impairment is. That isn't the same at all. Vindicator posted:If this is, as people in this thread have stated, a natural element of the human condition, then why are we tacitly accepting that in order to validate our access treatment, we must self-identify as mentally disordered? Now, look, you can make the argument that gender dysphoria represents divorcing the distress from the nonconformity with assigned gender, but there are steps further that we can advocate for. Why are stress, trauma, anxiety, and depression all fundamentally distinguishable when they are the product of one's gender nonconformity, rather than of other stressors? Why aren't we talking about how we develop treatment pathways that require the informed consent of the patient, rather than gating treatment behind a diagnosis of mental impairment? Isn't it possible that a mental health professional can make a statement to the effect of "Upon consultation with the patient, we have mutually recognized that this treatment will significantly improve the patient's quality of life", without having to add "this patient is mentally ill" in order to justify such a statement? My problem with that all is that if your goal is increased access to healthcare then somewhere along the line there has to be a justification to fund treatment for people, or else it doesn't matter that anyone can get treatment since most can't afford treatment. Physical and mental illness have that justification. But a system where anybody can opt in to medical care with no basis for actually requiring it will almost inevitably result in a situation where it isn't funded through insurance/public healthcare. edit: I totally accept that all of this isn't ideal. I just think there are better things to work on at the moment, like getting the updated ICD to drop GID as well, fighting bathroom bills or (in my country) actually providing adequate treatment under our public healthcare system.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 02:36
|
|
|
Vindicator posted:I'm wondering how many arguments there would have been, telling queers back in 1972 not to worry about their mental illness diagnosis, because there's nothing to be ashamed of when the doctor tells you your brain doesn't work right because you don't conform to heteronormative societal standards. It's already been pointed out that this is a false equivalence. So is your answer to make things like hormones available over the counter and do surgery on an advised consent basis? If so, transition at least partially covered by insurance will disappear. DeadlyMuffin fucked around with this message at 03:49 on Jan 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 03:45
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:So is your answer to make things like hormones available over the counter and do surgery on an advised consent basis? Well ideally my suggestion would be to universalize healthcare and have it include reassignment treatments but obviously the US isn't going to do that. Medication in general should be used under medical supervision.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 03:49
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Well ideally my suggestion would be to universalize healthcare and have it include reassignment treatments but obviously the US isn't going to do that. I agree, but acknowledging that the US won't do that, I think removing gender dysphoria entirely would hurt far more than it helps. For whatever it's worth, it would have made my transition far harder than it already was
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 03:52
|
|
|
I concur, as long as medical care is privately funded a key priority of any initiative to facilitate access to it must have a pragmatic approach until the problem can be addressed at the source.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 03:59
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Well ideally my suggestion would be to universalize healthcare and have it include reassignment treatments but obviously the US isn't going to do that. OwlFancier posted:I concur, as long as medical care is privately funded a key priority of any initiative to facilitate access to it must have a pragmatic approach until the problem can be addressed at the source. Even public systems need the medical justification to fund treatments. It just shifts the problem from insurance companies to the government departments that determine what is funded. It's why New Zealand funds virtually no bottom surgery for trans people, they determined it wasn't a significant enough issue, both in terms of severity and then number of people seeking it, to fund it properly.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 04:52
|
|
|
So, if I'm reading this right, wouldn't removing gender dysphoria from the DSM be one step forward and two back, at least in the US?
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 05:11
|
|
|
Taitale posted:False equivalence. In that case being gay was the mental illness. Here distress/impairment is. That isn't the same at all. It is at least a little bit funny that like, four years ago, you couldn't have made that argument. But regardless, necessitating that you jump through the hoop of a GD diagnosis that labels you as mentally ill in order to justify treatment is pathologization, plain and simple. Trans folks had a mental illness up until May 2013. Then the DSM-V was published, and it now wasn't that they experienced feelings of gender nonconformity, it was that they were distressed about it. This is a problem of classification, not a matter of functionality at all. quote:My problem with that all is that if your goal is increased access to healthcare then somewhere along the line there has to be a justification to fund treatment for people, or else it doesn't matter that anyone can get treatment since most can't afford treatment. Physical and mental illness have that justification. But a system where anybody can opt in to medical care with no basis for actually requiring it will almost inevitably result in a situation where it isn't funded through insurance/public healthcare. The closest example that immediately occurs to me is breast reduction surgery. Plenty of people have required such surgical intervention, the procedure is carried out by cosmetic surgeons, there are a myriad of reasons for it, functional, social and psychological, and there is a quality-of-life aspect to the procedure. Health insurers certainly have denied people reduction surgeries, despite their doctors recommending the procedure. People have absolutely experienced significant detrimental effects on their mental health as a result of being knocked back by their insurance company. Are all patients who wish to pursue breast reduction surgery mentally disordered? I think the answer to that is obvious - of course they aren't. quote:edit: I totally accept that all of this isn't ideal. I just think there are better things to work on at the moment, like getting the updated ICD to drop GID as well, fighting bathroom bills or (in my country) actually providing adequate treatment under our public healthcare system. So is your argument a matter of priorities? Because I'm on your side on all of those issues as well. I'm one country over from you, I'm in pretty much exactly the same boat when it comes to availability of treatment.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 08:39
|
|
|
Vindicator posted:It is at least a little bit funny that like, four years ago, you couldn't have made that argument. It's not funny, it's awesome. It got fixed. Vindicator posted:But regardless, necessitating that you jump through the hoop of a GD diagnosis that labels you as mentally ill in order to justify treatment is pathologization, plain and simple. Trans folks had a mental illness up until May 2013. Then the DSM-V was published, and it now wasn't that they experienced feelings of gender nonconformity, it was that they were distressed about it. This is a problem of classification, not a matter of functionality at all. There's a huge distinction: trans people who aren't distressed about it no longer apply. Vindicator posted:The closest example that immediately occurs to me is breast reduction surgery. Plenty of people have required such surgical intervention, the procedure is carried out by cosmetic surgeons, there are a myriad of reasons for it, functional, social and psychological, and there is a quality-of-life aspect to the procedure. Health insurers certainly have denied people reduction surgeries, despite their doctors recommending the procedure. People have absolutely experienced significant detrimental effects on their mental health as a result of being knocked back by their insurance company. Are all patients who wish to pursue breast reduction surgery mentally disordered? I think the answer to that is obvious - of course they aren't. To get breast reduction surgery are you not required to get a diagnosis from a doctor?
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 09:25
|
|
|
I guess even if trans identity turns out to be an intersex condition only affecting the brain( whatever that means!) we should still let people choose the body they'll be most comfortable in. Also: Hello queer goons! I used to post in one of the prior incarnations of this thread, but then I fell off when it closed. I'm a 32 yr old bigoon from Denmark, glad to be back 
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 09:26
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:It's not funny, it's awesome. It got fixed. How is it 'fixed' to assert that only trans people who suffer should be granted access to treatment? No one's actually bothered to answer me straight out, so I'll ask again: do you feel that a trans person who desires medical transition must be recognized to be mentally ill in order to access it? quote:There's a huge distinction: trans people who aren't distressed about it no longer apply. Liquid Communism already asserted this in exactly the same snooty way. Liquid Communism posted:If dysphoria did not rise to the level of distress or impairment, then a patient would have no reason to seek GRS. So are there any other medical treatments you feel trans people should be prohibited from accessing if they are not deemed to be significantly distressed by their gender nonconformity or the societal blowback they are subjected to as a result of their gender nonconformity? If we're divorcing the distress from the identity, but we're also barring those with a non-conforming gender identity from treatment unless they also experience distress, exactly what have we gained? Are you asserting that trans people MUST have gender dysphoria in order to access medical transition? I cop a fair amount of poo poo from people in my workplace - if that bothers me, is that a symptom of my mental illness, or is it that people are assholes and assholes are stress-inducing? quote:To get breast reduction surgery are you not required to get a diagnosis from a doctor? Yes, it's a medical procedure, but you're deliberately avoiding the point - does a diagnosis from a doctor recommending breast reduction surgery label the patient as mentally disordered?
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 11:54
|
|
|
Taitale posted:Even public systems need the medical justification to fund treatments. It just shifts the problem from insurance companies to the government departments that determine what is funded. It's why New Zealand funds virtually no bottom surgery for trans people, they determined it wasn't a significant enough issue, both in terms of severity and then number of people seeking it, to fund it properly. I know, I live in a country with one, but generally for a lot of things you can go to the doctor and say "I'm having problems with this" and they go "Ok we'll send you for treatment" They don't generally spend a lot of time trying to prove you aren't lying about your condition before they treat you. Because the doctor isn't paying for it. With an insurance company, they are, so they will try to avoid paying for it if they can.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 17:52
|
|
|
Vindicator posted:How is it 'fixed' to assert that only trans people who suffer should be granted access to treatment? No one's actually bothered to answer me straight out, so I'll ask again: do you feel that a trans person who desires medical transition must be recognized to be mentally ill in order to access it? I think a medical transition should have a medical diagnosis. I get that any sort of mental health diagnosis has a stigma, but I think some diagnosis is important. Call it something else if you like. When I said it's fixed I mean that a happy transitioned trans person isn't considered mentally ill. That's a gigantic step forward, comparable to removing homosexuality from the DSM. But shouldn't you be happy that trans people who aren't suffering aren't considered ill? It sounds like that's what you're pushing for for everyone. Is it a positive or a negative? You're taking a contradictory stance here. Vindicator posted:Liquid Communism already asserted this in exactly the same snooty way. Do you have a response, or do you just not like my tone? Vindicator posted:So are any other medical treatments you feel trans people should be prohibited from accessing if they are not deemed to be significantly distressed by their gender nonconformity or the societal blowback they are subjected to as a result of their gender nonconformity? I think the best solution is to remove the "significantly stressed" part, so it covers everyone who feels they need to transition, not to remove gender dysphoria from the DSM. Vindicator posted:Are you asserting that trans people MUST have gender dysphoria in order to access medical transition? I cop a fair amount of poo poo from people in my workplace - if that bothers me, is that a symptom of my mental illness, or is it that people are assholes and assholes are stress-inducing? I think a medical transition should have a medical diagnosis. Vindicator posted:does a diagnosis from a doctor recommending breast reduction surgery label the patient as mentally disordered? The problem solved by a breast reduction is not a mental one. The problem solved by medical gender transition arguably is. If you want to call it a physical disorder not a mental one then be my guest, I think the distinction is pretty meaningless.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 21:32
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:I think a medical transition should have a medical diagnosis. I get that any sort of mental health diagnosis has a stigma, but I think some diagnosis is important. I don't believe I am, no. I am saying that a trans person who is not distressed is just as entitled to access medical treatments which they believe will improve their quality of life, with appropriate medical supervision. I am objecting to the fact that the diagnosis of gender dysphoria requires trans people to be in significant distress before avenues to treatment are made available to them, and are withheld from them if they fail to demonstrate such distress. quote:Do you have a response, or do you just not like my tone? Well, no, I don't, but it bothers me more that I addressed this immediately after quoting Liquid Communism, and as such, this is an incredibly disingenuous swipe on your part. quote:I think the best solution is to remove the "significantly stressed" part, so it covers everyone who feels they need to transition, not to remove gender dysphoria from the DSM. Congratulations, we are in full agreement. My problem with gender dysphoria is not that it is a diagnosis, but that the nature of this particular diagnosis is pathologizing and stigmatizing. The word dysphoria is the opposite of euphoria; removing the requirement of distress would render the name of the condition completely nonsensical. But then I'm wondering why perfectly good, adequate words like stress, anxiety, depression etc already exist, and yet acquire some intangible and unique characteristic when they are suffered by transgender people. Like I've said from the beginning, poverty causes people stress, but we don't say people living in poverty have a mental disorder called 'poverty dysphoria'. quote:The problem solved by a breast reduction is not a mental one. The problem solved by medical gender transition arguably is. If you want to call it a physical disorder not a mental one then be my guest, I think the distinction is pretty meaningless. From all this I gather that the very nature of the dispute is trivial to you, but I have two objections to that. One, you don't live in a world that trivialises the distinction - a frequent and widespread denial of transgender people rests on the presumption that our experiences are the product of a twisted and ill-functioning mind. This belief has an incredibly negative impact on practically every trans person who dares to live honestly, no matter where you go on this planet. It concerns me when we literally invite the presumption onto ourselves, a presumption that was formulated by the very culture that sought to denigrate us for it. Two, you assert that the problem solved by a breast reduction is not a mental one. Notwithstanding the many people out there who have undergone the surgery due to concerns about self-image or social harassment, who have developed anxiety issues and withdrawn from life as a result, not to mention people who have self-harmed or even taken their own life due to the mental toll it has had on them (Here, if you want a study as evidence) - would you ever argue that the only justifiable means by which the medical community could act to treat the problem would be if it were evidenced that the size of one's breasts caused 'clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational or other important areas of functioning'? Would it ever be justifiable to make that a requirement for treatment, maybe label it as 'mammary dysphoria'? Do you understand why I'm continuing to elaborate on this analogy, and if not, can you explain why gender nonconformity is just different, somehow? Vindicator fucked around with this message at 23:11 on Jan 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 23:04
|
|
|
Edit : You know what? Nobody is going to have a positive result from continuing this argument.
Liquid Communism fucked around with this message at 01:58 on Jan 14, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2017 01:47
|
|
|
There is no such thing as "minor" surgery and drugs have lots of side effects. That's why the basic order is: 0) If you are basically happy with how your sex and gender identities line up, don't worry about it. People have quirks, that's OK. 1) If you think you need help  2) If you and your therapist decided that the degree of dysphoria is sufficiently severe, then you can escalate to hormones and possibly surgery. Treating seriously powerful drugs and invasive surgery as purely elective relying on "rational actors" is a recipe for disaster. That's not to say that there aren't serious problems with the gatekeepers in this scenario. Bad gatekeepers leads to people cheating the system which can create a lot of problems down the road.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2017 02:01
|
|
|
Vindicator posted:I don't believe I am, no. I am saying that a trans person who is not distressed is just as entitled to access medical treatments which they believe will improve their quality of life, with appropriate medical supervision. I frankly find it kind of unlikely that a trans person who has no access to medical treatments they want has zero distress about it. Is your argument about how distressed the person has to be? Vindicator posted:I am objecting to the fact that the diagnosis of gender dysphoria requires trans people to be in significant distress before avenues to treatment are made available to them, and are withheld from them if they fail to demonstrate such distress. I am not making the argument that only seriously distressed to the point of being non-functional trans people should get treatment. I don't think anyone is making that argument, but even if they are: I'm not. I am arguing that medical treatments get a medical diagnosis, and that gender dysphoria (or whatever you would like to rename it to) makes that possible. That's why I keep saying I think removing it from the DSM would be a mistake. Vindicator posted:Well, no, I don't, but it bothers me more that I addressed this immediately after quoting Liquid Communism, and as such, this is an incredibly disingenuous swipe on your part. You're reading malice that isn't there, I promise. I get that you're passionate about this and I am too, but I'm not trying to take a swipe at you. Vindicator posted:The word dysphoria is the opposite of euphoria; removing the requirement of distress would render the name of the condition completely nonsensical. But then I'm wondering why perfectly good, adequate words like stress, anxiety, depression etc already exist, and yet acquire some intangible and unique characteristic when they are suffered by transgender people. Like I've said from the beginning, poverty causes people stress, but we don't say people living in poverty have a mental disorder called 'poverty dysphoria'. This particular form of stress has a particular set of medical treatments, much more so than stress from poverty or whatever else does. Vindicator posted:From all this I gather that the very nature of the dispute is trivial to you, but I have two objections to that. One, you don't live in a world that trivialises the distinction - a frequent and widespread denial of transgender people rests on the presumption that our experiences are the product of a twisted and ill-functioning mind. This belief has an incredibly negative impact on practically every trans person who dares to live honestly, no matter where you go on this planet. It concerns me when we literally invite the presumption onto ourselves, a presumption that was formulated by the very culture that sought to denigrate us for it. If I thought the nature of this dispute was trivial I wouldn't bother responding to you, so you're wrong. I'm also trans, and have had to wade through the raft of poo poo from other people that being trans entails. What I do think is trivial is whether we lump in the medical diagnosis for being trans (whatever you'd like to call it) as a physical disorder or a mental one. A medical transition is definitely a physical thing, one could argue that the motivation for it is entirely mental. I lean the second direction, but I think it's largely academic. What I do find objectionable is changing how we categorize things because one category has a stigma. That defeats the purpose of the differentiation entirely, which is fine, but if you'd like to do that at least make it general and not just for this. Vindicator posted:Two, you assert that the problem solved by a breast reduction is not a mental one. Notwithstanding the many people out there who have undergone the surgery due to concerns about self-image or social harassment, who have developed anxiety issues and withdrawn from life as a result, not to mention people who have self-harmed or even taken their own life due to the mental toll it has had on them (Here, if you want a study as evidence) Your evidence is a study on the psychological impact of breast asymmetry. My understanding is that the majority of breast reductions are done because they cause discomfort (back aches, neck problems, etc.) rather than psychological ones. That is what I was referring to. I can't find a good study listing the reasons breast reduction surgery is done as a % of surgeries performed, but that is my understanding. So let me rephrase: "As I understand it, the problem solved by a breast reduction is typically not a mental one. The problem solved by medical gender transition arguably is." But, even presuming you're right and to answer your original question: if someone is getting a breast reduction because their asymmetric breasts are distressing them, causing anxiety issues, etc, then yes I think they should have a diagnosis of that before they have surgery. Vindicator posted:- would you ever argue that the only justifiable means by which the medical community could act to treat the problem would be if it were evidenced that the size of one's breasts caused 'clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational or other important areas of functioning'? Would it ever be justifiable to make that a requirement for treatment, maybe label it as 'mammary dysphoria'? If there were a significant number of people pursuing medical care for this kind of stress, treated this particular way, then absolutely, give it a label. Vindicator posted:Do you understand why I'm continuing to elaborate on this analogy, and if not, can you explain why gender nonconformity is just different, somehow? I think I do: you don't like trans people being labeled as mentally ill because that label carries a stigma and you don't like being pathologized. Here's my issue: if you are pursuing medical transition then you are trying to fix something, there is a problem that you are trying to solve. You are suffering from something that you are trying to address. That is basically the definitely of pathologization: The treatment of a health or behaviour condition as if it were a medical condition. Frankly, I think you should be targeting the stigma rather than the categorization. DeadlyMuffin fucked around with this message at 04:36 on Jan 14, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2017 04:24
|
|
|
That is a much calmer and more reasonable way of saying what I wanted to. Props, Muffin.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2017 06:30
|
|
|
The Indiana bill to prevent people from changing their birth certificates, looks to be dead. The committee chair isn't going to give it a hearing at all. Glad to hear some good news for a change.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2017 08:18
|
|
|
Why should other people have the right to decide how, why, and when you can or cannot alter your own body?
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2017 17:22
|
|
|
Shukaro posted:Why should other people have the right to decide how, why, and when you can or cannot alter your own body? If you want to pay for it, all you have to do is find a doctor. But this is insurance. People would abuse any system that didn't require proof. Hell, they abuse it now with fake proof. So, there's your answer. Why? Because of assholes scammers.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2017 19:22
|
|
|
Aleph Null posted:If you want to pay for it, all you have to do is find a doctor. But this is insurance. People would abuse any system that didn't require proof. Hell, they abuse it now with fake proof. I agree with the gist of what you're saying, but I'd argue that it's more that it's in the interest of insurers to not pay for anything, regardless, because it cuts into their bottom line. The problem isn't fraud, it's capitalism. Health care should never be comodified.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2017 19:32
|
|
|
Octatonic posted:I agree with the gist of what you're saying, but I'd argue that it's more that it's in the interest of insurers to not pay for anything, regardless, because it cuts into their bottom line. The problem isn't fraud, it's capitalism. Health care should never be comodified. I agree. But it is. And if the incoming administration is any indication, it will get so much worse before it gets better.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2017 19:38
|
|
|
Aleph Null posted:I agree. But it is. And if the incoming administration is any indication, it will get so much worse before it gets better.  
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2017 19:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 00:21 |
|
|
Octatonic posted:I agree with the gist of what you're saying, but I'd argue that it's more that it's in the interest of insurers to not pay for anything, regardless, because it cuts into their bottom line. The problem isn't fraud, it's capitalism. Health care should never be comodified. Even in a non-capitalist system medical care costs resources. There would still need to be some limitations on what procedures and treatments are performed for that reason alone.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2017 21:11
|
|