|
metalloid posted:Not trans, but as a bisexual, if you were able to get rid of any aspect of my sexuality I'd hate you forever. I suspect a similar response from trans* people when it comes to the stuff that's important to them. It's a bit different, at least for me. Coming out and transitioning sucked, and even though I think it has and continues to get better, I wouldn't wish that on anyone. It would be nice to simply skip the whole transition and get on with my life. So maybe I can rephrase metalloid's comment a bit: if you were able to get rid of any aspect of my gender identity I'd hate you forever, but anything you can do to make the transition less painful helps immensely.
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2016 23:53
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 6, 2024 00:50 |
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Aleph Null posted:If you want to pay for it, all you have to do is find a doctor. Is this actually true? I don't think I could get treatment without some sort of diagnosis, even paying cash.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2017 21:17
|
|
|
Thalantos posted:No one with power actually gives a gently caress about helping trans folk. I have an irrational soft spot for Hillary Clinton because she made it easier for me to change my passport when she was Secretary of State.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2017 07:05
|
|
|
Agnosticnixie posted:I half expect we'll find out it was Obama or Biden leaning on State to adopt the policy, cause her actual campaign had a lot of trouble remembering gender identity was even a thing well before the primaries. I don't think so. There's a nice writeup with a bit more details on Politico http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/07/hillary-clinton-2016-transgender-rights-passport-policy-state-department-lgbt-equality-214007 Frankly, I never got the impression Obama or Biden gave much of a poo poo about trans people beyond general LGBT support. This passport thing was the biggest trans-specific thing I can think of that happened over those 8 years, and everything I've read says it was Clinton.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2017 09:20
|
|
|
Thalantos posted:I'll point out like I have elsewhere that I can't afford a passport, sure in part to policies Clinton supported, so that's really irrelevant for me That sucks. I always thought the "more expensive passports" part of her platform didn't make much sense. I'm sure Bernie would've fixed it. Schizotek posted:Nah. I know the whole "Clintons are Republicans" meme is swallowed hook line and sinker by most of the forum, but they're pretty much the only people outside of the supreme court who have every gotten anything done for the LGBT crowd. I probably should've expected this response after posting something remotely positive about Hillary Clinton.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2017 00:08
|
|
|
Prester Jane posted:40 years from now all anyone will remember of Hillary Clinton is that she is the fuckup that got Donald Trump elected. Will that be an accurate assessment of her long career? Of course not. Will it be a fair one? Considering the magnitude of damage that her incompetence has wrought on the country I would answer in the affirmative* Do you realize you're essentially saying "how angry and hurt I feel matters more than actual facts"? My fervent hope is that 40 years from now having voted for Donald Trump will be a source of great embarrassment and shame. I'd like kids to react to learning their parents voted for Trump like they would if they found a hooded white robe in the closet. But we live in the present, and we should be operating based on facts rather than your hurt feelings. I get it, I feel hurt and betrayed too, but it makes my skin crawl to see casual denial of facts given easy approval.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2017 00:54
|
|
|
Prester Jane posted:The fact is that right now the sole remaining public service that Hillary Clinton can perform for the United States is to be remembered as a public example of the price of arrogance and ambition. Reducing her career to a morality tale serves this goal and is fully warranted IMO. Arrogance, sure. But ambition? You're upset about ambition from someone running for President? Do you think there has been a single President (or, for that matter non-hereditary head-of-state) who was not a font of ambition? You are far too willing to paint the world the way you want it to be for your morality tales rather than look at things with uncovered eyes. Shbobdb posted:Hillary will go down in history like William Jennings Bryan. Where do I recognize that avatar from? Oh, right. Shbobdb posted:When I would go to Edmonton for work, I used to like to use a lighter to heat the coins up. It would really make the girls jump!
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2017 01:38
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:These are two of the dumbest statements I've read on SA. I don't doubt the emails are real, but I'd love to see the one that you think indicates Hillary rigged the primary against Bernie. Were there a lot of emails that showed DNC staffers preferred Hillary? Hell yes. Is that really a surprise given her long history in the party, in the then-current administration versus someone who literally joined the party for that election (and promptly left afterwards)? The DNC is made up of people who have political opinions. Shocking. https://www.washingtonpost.com/amph...-about-clinton/
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2017 02:53
|
|
|
Senju Kannon posted:the dnc asserted they were not making a choice of candidates while higherups mocked sanders in private, that's still bad But should hardly be unexpected, nor is it anything remotely like the rigging that is being alleged.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2017 03:06
|
|
|
Senju Kannon posted:well I'd like party officials to not mock a popular candidate during a tense primary and his supporters. i don't think that can be considered the same as "having opinions" even if you can guarantee that hillary never got preferential treatment as a result They were doing it in a forum that they did not think would ever become public. If I were to go though someone's work emails I expect I would be able to see their candid opinions about customers or suppliers. Senju Kannon posted:and to quote a theologian, you can read the bible as supporting most things but you can create a german philosophy supporting anything. clinton had a lot of problems as a candidate and i think it's dumb to dismiss them as bernout or republican propaganda. the e-mails turned out to be important. would bernie have had that problem? they'd say "socialism" over and over but that's not the same as OUR TROOPS Nobody is saying Hillary Clinton had no problems. She had a lot. What people in this thread are literally saying is that anything positive she has done in her career should be forgotten, and she should become a morality tale about arrogance and ambition. I think that is a gross simplification, in every sense of the word. Edit: and yeah, the "DNC rigged the primary against Sanders, the proof is in the emails" is propaganda. Show me which email. DeadlyMuffin fucked around with this message at 03:24 on Apr 9, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2017 03:22
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 6, 2024 00:50 |
|
|
Senju Kannon posted:and for hillary shills to insist she has done nothing wrong, ever, and that they know this Except literally no one in this thread is doing that.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2017 04:13
|
|