Oh no, it's a thread about trans issues made by John Dule

[Kingpoleon]

Fundamentally flawed, and I will respond. Before I begin, however, I want to make the terms of this discussion quite clear. I reject, in whole and without hesitation, the sort of dirtbag rhetoric that has become increasingly mainstream. It is the politics of a decaying heart and soul, and indicative of the social fabric ripped asunder by culture wars. If at any point I feel as though you pluck away at people without mercy, I will be forced to abandon this topic with you going forwards.

On the first point: yes, obviously trans people are not neurotypical. Neither are gay people, yet homosexuality was delisted in the 1970s from mental illnesses. There is wide debate about classifying all sorts of things, such as ADHD, as disorders. To weigh in, without any sort of medical or ethicist background, on what should or should not be listed as disorders because of your personal feelings, is obtuse at best.

To the third point: when medical professionals recommend puberty blockers, at the age of 12 when some form of consent can be ascertained, it ought to be done. The law must show some form of deference to medical advice. As far as intensive surgery, I advise against elective surgery until the age of eighteen. It is possible, in limited circumstances, that a 16 or 17 year old could reasonably consent to such surgeries, but it’s not a road to go too far down.

To the fourth point: Trans people can change their sex. There are four primary indicators: genitalia, chromosomes, hormonal system, and gonads. By changing 2-3 of these, trans people’s sex becomes intersex.

To the fifth point: I understand that Yankees lack manners and reject them as some sort of oppressive Dixie system. However, when talking to and about people, it is indicative of a minimal amount of mutual respect that you call them what they ask you to. Failure to do so is impolite at best, and downright nasty if we’re being honest.

[Kingpoleon]

Whether or not gender dysphoria is classified as a disorder is immaterial to what I was saying. My point was that the reasoning given for its declassification was unscientific.


This is factually untrue. An intersex person is a person who is born with any of several variations in sex characteristics. For example, a man who loses his genitals in some sort of factory accident is still a member of the male sex, regardless of whether or not he can reproduce. Saying that a person can change their biological sex is a lie.

To the contrary. The APA can and has cited stigma as the reason for delisting homosexuality as a mental illness in the 1970s.

I apologize and stand corrected on the fact that people must be born intersex. Yes, trans people obviously cannot change their chromosomes. But when genital reconstruction surgery and hormonal therapy comes highly recommended from doctors, including Johns Hopkins since the 1960s, I find it difficult to pretend that people should not undergo medical treatment recommended by modern medicine.

This is unnecessarily rude and frankly uncalled for. I think you should take your own advice and decide not to engage with me on this topic any further. Unlike Nathan, Alcibiades, and others, I do not think that you are attempting to engage in a constructive dialogue.

I suggested that it’s nasty to purposefully call people something they don’t want to be called. If it’s rude to ask for manners along those lines, I apologize.

[Kingpoleon]

Fair enough, but I would make the same argument with regards to that case. If homosexuality isn't a mental disorder, it should have been declassified for that reason. But declassifying something as a mental disorder in order to "remove stigma" implies that everything else in the category of "disorder" does deserve that stigma.

For the record, I think homosexuality could be classified as a disorder. But I also think that homophobia could be classified as a disorder as well.

As far as mental disorders go, it is relatively harmless. Most research focused on gay men does indicate some higher rates of additional mental issues - the primary cause of which is not difficult to guess. However, there are also (probably) lower divorce rates, higher incomes, and higher average intelligence. This is extremely unusual because even disorders which are generally associated with intelligence - such as ADHD - indicate lower intelligence scores than the total population. A mental disorder which results in a heightened general intelligence could hardly be classified as a normative mental disorder. Milo Yiannopolis has said some stuff about this research which makes further studies rather difficult - linking a group of people to higher/lower average intelligence is, by its very nature, highly controversial. It is this avoidance of controversy attempted by the APA in such delistings.

Tbh, I was more annoyed by the implication that Southerners have better manners than Yankees.

Yankees have a very different set of manners. For one thing, men, especially fathers, are far more powerful. Southern women are in charge of most families, which is why, as I’ve explained to several sociologists, the South is a matriarchal society. There is a certain deference to mothers as the ultimate authority that an outsider cannot easily spot. This is most notable not just in the stereotypes of a hick talking about his ma, but also in the matriarchal nature of African-American families, which stem from the South.

[Kingpoleon]

This is entirely a product of African-American culture (which originated in the South but has now diffused all over the U.S. thanks to the Great Migration); Southern Whites are no more "matriarchial" than White people in other parts of the Anglosphere.

This is not really that accurate. Women, especially old women, are still seen as family leaders in most rural parts and even some suburbs in the South. Most don't consider themselves in charge, but their husbands know they are.

The recent Hispanic immigrants to the region, alongside the large black population, may reinforce this, especially considering the heightened rates of interracial marriage.

https://www.al.com/opinion/2015/05/lessons_from_a_southern_matria.html
https://networks.h-net.org/node/73374/announcements/910535/through-mama%E2%80%99s-eyes-unique-perspectives-southern-matriarchy

[Kingpoleon]

There isn't any intrinsic reason why a mental disorder couldn't be correlated with higher intelligence.  Something that may be adaptive in one way often has a cost in another.  The evidence on mood and anxiety disorders are mixed w/ respect to iq, and the correlation seems it may go in different directions at different points on the spectrum -  but it's possible that high intelligence leads for some people to a hyper-perception of negative or threatening possibilities.

Standing alone, obviously not. But a mental disorder requires significant distress or impairment of personal functioning. Minority stress is typically not consider a stand alone mental illness, in part because it is less dependent upon genetics and familial environment than societal environment. Considering the lack of evidence of significant distress or functional impairment inherent to homosexuality, I find its categorization as a mental illness seriously harmful.