Myths About Transition Regrets

[*bfine32*]

(10-03-2017, 03:03 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I guess I'd ask how you define it as such using the DSM criteria. You're comparing it to a very severe mental illness, schizophrenia, which is different from the schizotypal and schizoid personality disorders. Not sure if you meant those or not as I can't see the commonality between being trans and having schizophrenia. 

Something certainly is wired different in their brains, but I'm not sure hormone therapy or clinical therapy should be called "blissful ignorance" and not a form of "treatment". 

Yeah, compare it to those things. Anything used to treat the malady is a positive as I am concerned. Perhaps my wording was abrasive.  

[Belsnickel]

(10-03-2017, 05:15 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I'm not sure what the first guy is arguing?  Just the general label and definition mental illness?  Does he think the specific illnesses don't even exist?  

He's arguing that mental illnesses aren't really things, and that what we are observing in people are just individual phenomena that we, at least to him, arbitrarily and fraudulently group together and apply the term disorder to certain ones of.

[*michaelsean*]

(10-03-2017, 05:28 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: He's arguing that mental illnesses aren't really things, and that what we are observing in people are just individual phenomena that we, at least to him, arbitrarily and fraudulently group together and apply the term disorder to certain ones of.

I can get some of that, but calling it something or not calling it something, doesn't change it.   I think it helps give guidelines for treatment.  If someone is displaying traits of a certain psychosis, then a doctor can see what the current best treatments are.  If we just pretend people have their own individual eccentricities, then it would be much harder to treat them as there would be no established protocol to test to see if it's effective.  

It's not like psychiatrists are saying they are able to diagnose something with 100% accuracy, or that treatments work equally across the board.  They don't even know exactly how half the medications actually work, and will tell you that.  It doesn't seem like anyone is trying to invent something, but rather understand it.

[Belsnickel]

(10-03-2017, 05:41 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I can get some of that, but calling it something or not calling it something, doesn't change it.   I think it helps give guidelines for treatment.  If someone is displaying traits of a certain psychosis, then a doctor can see what the current best treatments are.  If we just pretend people have their own individual eccentricities, then it would be much harder to treat them as there would be no established protocol to test to see if it's effective.  

It's not like psychiatrists are saying they are able to diagnose something with 100% accuracy, or that treatments work equally across the board.  They don't even know exactly how half the medications actually work, and will tell you that.  It doesn't seem like anyone is trying to invent something, but rather understand it.

I don't disagree with you. I just found his take interesting when searching for a source on psychology for a definition of "disorder". I end up going down rabbit holes when I look things up. It's especially bad when I am at work because I have more access to scholarly articles (at home I have to sign on to the VPN).

[StLucieBengal]

(10-03-2017, 05:08 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: First, not all trans people seek out surgical options. Second, using language that dismisses the situation as trivial is being intentionally derogatory. It would be appreciated if that was refrained from, and until the disparagement of the trans community ceases I am going to cease responding to your posts on the topic.

How is bringing up an actual question disparaging the transvestites? Seriously man you need to have thicker skin especially when discussing a topic that has a lot of questions and a lot of people rightfully questioning.

You care about these people's emotional well being. I could honestly care less and really emotion has no place when discussing matters like these. They only get in the way of getting these people the help they need.

Does that make me an ahole? Probably. Am I concerned in the slightest of looking like one? Not at all. I just want to help these people and my emotions do not help them at all.

[BmorePat87]

(10-03-2017, 05:27 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Yeah, compare it to those things. Anything used to treat the malady is a positive as I am concerned. Perhaps my wording was abrasive.  

I wouldn't compare it to any personality disorder as it doesn't hit the criteria established in the DSM V. It comes down to whether or not it adversely affects the person's ability to function in everyday life, which clearly isn't the case. 

[Belsnickel]

(10-03-2017, 06:08 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: How is bringing up an actual question disparaging the transvestites? Seriously man you need to have thicker skin especially when discussing a topic that has a lot of questions and a lot of people rightfully questioning.

You care about these people's emotional well being. I could honestly care less and really emotion has no place when discussing matters like these. They only get in the way of getting these people the help they need.

Does that make me an ahole? Probably. Am I concerned in the slightest of looking like one? Not at all. I just want to help these people and my emotions do not help them at all.

What is interesting is that between the two of us, I am the one using more clinical and detached language. One of us is using a more emotional position, and the language being used is a big indicator of the culprit.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(10-03-2017, 06:08 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: How is bringing up an actual question disparaging the transvestites? Seriously man you need to have thicker skin especially when discussing a topic that has a lot of questions and a lot of people rightfully questioning.

You care about these people's emotional well being. I could honestly care less and really emotion has no place when discussing matters like these. They only get in the way of getting these people the help they need.

Does that make me an ahole? Probably. Am I concerned in the slightest of looking like one? Not at all. I just want to help these people and my emotions do not help them at all.

Note to all: according to Lucie, emotions have no place in the fields of psychiatry, psychology, or medicine in general. If your doctor has emotions they will only interfere with his ability to provide you care.

What a crock of horseshit.

Medical care actually has the word care in the term.

[StLucieBengal]

(10-03-2017, 06:15 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: What is interesting is that between the two of us, I am the one using more clinical and detached language. One of us is using a more emotional position, and the language being used is a big indicator of the culprit.

I am using causal language because this is a casual setting.

[Belsnickel]

(10-03-2017, 07:39 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: I am using causal language because this is a casual setting.

There is a difference between casual language and language that has indicators of a subjective argument based on emotion rather than reason.

[StLucieBengal]

(10-03-2017, 07:59 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: There is a difference between casual language and language that has indicators of a subjective argument based on emotion rather than reason.

The only people getting emotional are the ones calling for words to be banned or censored.

Why should the rest of us have to love by your vocabulary? We are able to have a discussion with any type of language. If not we just walk away.

[Belsnickel]

(10-03-2017, 09:27 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: The only people getting emotional are the ones calling for words to be banned or censored.

Why should the rest of us have to love by your vocabulary? We are able to have a discussion with any type of language. If not we just walk away.

Point out where I have called for either of those things to occur. My explanation of how your continued use of words after having it explained that they are disparaging in nature does not constitute a call for them to be banned or censored, it is just calling you out for behavior that many people deem socially unacceptable, myself included.

[StLucieBengal]

(10-03-2017, 09:34 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Point out where I have called for either of those things to occur. My explanation of how your continued use of words after having it explained that they are disparaging in nature does not constitute a call for them to be banned or censored, it is just calling you out for behavior that many people deem socially unacceptable, myself included.

You advocated for ***** to be banned. Now we can't discuss auto repairs unless we type out the whole word. Which btw others tried to get banned as well.

You claimed it's disparaging. The problem is that not everyone thinks these words are disparaging. They may think it's out of place and sometimes inappropriate in certain context but as far as banning ...... that's not a consensus. Heck you have Some trying to get the use of ****** banned. It's madness man.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

I have a lot of sympathy for truly transgendered people.  I also think that the transgendered issue is being badly handled by some on the side of the transgendered.  I've read numerous opinion pieces, backed up by hundreds, if not thousands of comments, about a man who would not want to sleep with a transgendered woman because they are transgendered being a bigoted transphobe.  In a similar vein they claim that sexual activity with a non surgically transitioned transgender person cannot, and should not, be considered homosexual activity because the partner does not identify as the gender of their biology.  This, of course totally ignores that the perception of the non trans partner is equally valid as that of the trans person. 

My biggest issue though, by far, is irreversible hormone treatments for minors who identify as transgender.  This is relatively new, but done before puberty they cause permanent changes to a person's physiology and development.  You can't vote, get a tattoo or even not go to school if you are under eighteen, but you can engage in voluntary medical treatment with permanent effects?  We have a juvenile justice system solely because we've, correctly, determined that the brains of young people are not fully developed and their decision making cannot be held to the same level of accountability as an adult.  Plus, who doesn't look back at how they thought or felt at 8, 10 or 12 and smiled about how naïve or immature we were to have the thoughts and beliefs we did at that age?  Personally, I think any parent allowing these kind of treatments is engaging in a horrific form of child abuse.  If the now minor becomes an adult and still feels the same way they have access to the ever improving medical means of transitioning.  Allowing a child to undergo such radical, voluntary medical procedures is disturbing to me.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(10-03-2017, 09:27 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: The only people getting emotional are the ones calling for words to be banned or censored.

Why should the rest of us have to love by your vocabulary? We are able to have a discussion with any type of language. If not we just walk away.

You asked words to be censored right here . . .

(10-03-2017, 06:22 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: We shouldn't have any words blocked. Except swear words ofc. Let the speech stand for itself and we can all react accordingly.

. . . because they bother your delicate sensibilities.

If crap and shit both mean excrement why should shit be blocked because you get emotional about its use?

[StLucieBengal]

(10-03-2017, 10:28 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: You asked words to be censored right here . . .


. . . because they bother your delicate sensibilities.

If crap and shit both mean excrement why should shit be blocked because you get emotional about its use?

What a shock you are in my alerts.

You should be charging me rent for how much I am in your head.

[Belsnickel]

(10-03-2017, 10:21 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: You advocated for ***** to be banned. Now we can't discuss auto repairs unless we type out the whole word. Which btw others tried to get banned as well.

Put up or shut up. Show evidence of my advocating for that, or any other word, to be banned/censored. I recall pointing out that it is a slur, but I don't recall ever advocating it be a banned word.

(10-03-2017, 10:21 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: You claimed it's disparaging. The problem is that not everyone thinks these words are disparaging. They may think it's out of place and sometimes inappropriate in certain context but as far as banning ...... that's not a consensus. Heck you have Some trying to get the use of ****** banned. It's madness man.

I will point something out here that I think is important to state, but I have a feeling will be ignored. When you use these words that are slurs and are not considered socially acceptable there are different reactions that you will garner. Those of us that pay attention to these things actually look at the context of their use to guide our reaction to this.

If someone uses a word that in years gone by may have been more acceptable in general conversation, we often tend to just discuss the use of the word not being deemed as appropriate in "polite conversation" anymore. We will even explain the reason why if it is asked because education is the tool to fight ignorance, and ignorance is the root of prejudice and discrimination.

Now, after having that happen there is continued whining, use of the words, use of the words in conjunction with other language that is disparaging, then there is no other way to take it but for it to be intended as derogatory. That is where we are at with you. Whether you choose to accept that or not, I don't really care at this point. You've made your biases clear, you have exhibited clear evidence that you consider people of the LGBT community as second-class. I can have discussions with other people that may disagree with me on the topic just fine because they do not choose to continually use disparaging terms.

That's why you get involved in these discussions. Words are just words, but contextually it is clear that your intent behind them is derogatory.

[BmorePat87]

(10-04-2017, 09:33 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Put up or shut up. Show evidence of my advocating for that, or any other word, to be banned/censored. I recall pointing out that it is a slur, but I don't recall ever advocating it be a banned word.

Not once did he ever use the word in the context of auto care. You're wasting your time on him. 

[Belsnickel]

(10-04-2017, 09:42 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Not once did he ever use the word in the context of auto care. You're wasting your time on him. 

I know, and I would like to say that post will be my last on him about this. I just had to lay it all out there.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(10-04-2017, 09:29 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: What a shock you are in my alerts.

You should be charging me rent for how much I am in your head.

This is exactly the response I expect from you when shown your hypocrisy.

Would you care to answer my question? Why do you think crap is offensive, but you want shit banned because it offends you? There both just words, right?

I know you understand my point. So my real question is why do you intentionally try to antagonize people for your own personal enjoyment?