|
joat mon posted:If the Supremes rule for the kid they will necessarily be making gender identification a protected class, but only where Title IX applies. They're not technically ruling that gender identification is a protected class, as far as the legal arguments I've seen go they're actually arguing that sex discrimination is taking place when trans people are being discriminated against (as in, people are discriminating against their appearance/behaviour on the basis of their biological sex characteristics, not their expressed gender identity).
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2016 00:58
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 03:10 |
|
|
OwlFancier posted:The hell is with these goddamn freaks who can't be bothered to look after their kids but sure as gently caress want a legal say over their ability to look after themselves. It's a power and control thing. Clearly throwing her daughter out of the house didn't get the results she wanted, so she's trying to gently caress with her another way. And hey, look, it's fundie organizations who have no qualms about supporting a clearly abusive parent, yet again.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2016 20:27
|
|
|
There's also a ton of social stigma for being openly bi. Gay folks are coming around to the point where there's some borderline of acceptance in a fair proportion of people, but bi folks get all the "make up your mind" and accusations of cheating. I can't remember where I read it, but I'm sure I read something about how bi people face greater rates of partner abuse than any other orientation. Those aren't nothing. That's pretty hosed, and it's all because we have transitioned from "there is only one normal and it is man/lady" to "okay, you can get with someone like you... but once you pick one, that's it, no takebacks" instead of "it doesn't loving matter, just be excellent to each other". edit: I think this is it, it seems to be just about women, but bi women have significantly higher rates of abuse and rape. http://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/pdf/NISVS_SOfindings.pdf Vindicator fucked around with this message at 17:16 on Dec 30, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2016 17:14
|
|
|
I don't get the incessant "we need to split the t from lgbt, THEY'RE NOT LIKE US" thing. Oh, wait, yes I do. Transphobia.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2016 17:38
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 03:10 |
|
|
BigRed0427 posted:Reposting this from another thread. Well, that's grim. I suppose you'd have to hit on some typical anti-trans tactics, like brigading, misrepresentation, and the like. It might be an idea to frame it around someone like Riley J Dennis or Zinnia Jones. They've had history with bigots flooding them with harassment or abuse for what are pretty innocuous comments about dating. It seems relevant to underline the fact that most of their detractors don't even watch their content; the harassment tends to arrive after someone, or a whole bundle of someones, released a disingenuous video that misrepresents their position.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2017 19:54
|
|