Cont: Trans Women are not Women 4

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Gender Identity Disorder was reclassified as Gender Dysphoria because the writers of DSM-5 wanted to get rid of the stigma attached to GID, not because they had done some amazing scientific work that meant they had a different view of what it involved. Getting rid of the stigma was the stated reason for the reclassification, not some new insight into the condition or, if you will, "disorder" itself.

Clearly they gained the insight that calling it a disorder was not helpful, just as with homosexuality being similarly reclassified decades earlier.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Also "gender dysphoria" is in the DSM-5. I don't know if they use the word "disorder" to describe it. However, it has symptoms, diagnosis methods, and a code. I think the definitive characteristic of a disorder, from a psychologist's perspective, is whether or not they can be reimbursed by an insurance company for treating it.

Disease, disorder, condition, syndrome – what’s the difference?

• A disease is a pathophysiological response to internal or external factors.
• A disorder is a disruption to regular bodily structure and function.
• A syndrome is a collection of signs and symptoms associated with a specific health-related cause.
• A condition is an abnormal state of health that interferes with normal or regular feelings of wellbeing.

In addition, DSM-V didn't "downgrade" the disorder, it renamed it in response to pressure to remove stigmatization. It was not a decision made because of a change in how it is viewed by the medical profession.

In the words of the APA:

DSM not only determines how mental disorders are defined and diagnosed, it also impacts how people see themselves and how we see each other. While diagnostic terms facilitate clinical care and access to insurance coverage that supports mental health, these terms can also have a stigmatizing effect.

DSM-5 aims to avoid stigma and ensure clinical care for individuals who see and feel themselves to be a different gender than their assigned gender. It replaces the diagnostic name “gender identity disorder” with “gender dysphoria,” as well as makes other important clarifications in the criteria. It is important to note that gender nonconformity is not in itself a mental disorder. The critical element of gender dysphoria is the presence of clinically significant distress associated with the condition.

 

[theprestige]

It's just an acknowledgement that nobody gets everything they want because there are always going to be practical or societal limitations. That doesn't mean we aren't harming that individual it just means we have taken the societal decision that the harm done is outweighed by a greater good.

Governments harm people every day. Sometimes for their own good, sometimes for the good of others. What I hope for is that they don't harm people unnecessarily.

Makes sense.

In US constitutional jurisprudence, there's a concept called "strict scrutiny". It says that before the government infringes on a right, it must show that the infringement meets three criteria:

1. There's a real problem in society that the government needs to address.
2. The infringement doesn't extend any further than necessary to address that real problem.
3. There is no lesser infringement that also addresses the problem.

I like the principle of strict scrutiny. I'm very glad that the Supreme Court has adopted it as part of American jurisprudence. I think it is widely applicable in any context where rights, privileges, and entitlements are being discussed.

I'm much more likely to consider public policy proposals, where infringement on rights are concerned, when those proposals include an argument that attempts to pass strict scrutiny.

I realise people don't like their arguments being compared to those of bigots of the past, but if there is a real difference it should be reasonably easy to show that there is a real difference rather than just say 'you know those things aren't the same' or 'dont call me a bigot'

This reverses the burden of proof. You're the one making the comparison to bigotry. You're the one responsible for proving it. You don't get to escape that responsibility by saying, "it should be easy to disprove me". Nobody is obligated to defend their position by taking you up on such an offer. Nor should they, in my opinion.

If you're calling someone a bigot, whether by analogy or any other argument, own it. Own it, and defend it if you can. Otherwise, don't do it.

 

[theprestige]

The experts say transgenderism is not a disorder. A transperson can lead a 100% happy fulfilled healthy life without any issues.

Can you provide a citation for this claim?

How are these experts defining a transperson?

I can see a transvestite leading a happy fulfilled life (other than dealing with social stigma, similar to homosexuals). But someone suffering from gender dysphoria? Not really seeing it so much.

 

[Meadmaker]

DSM not only determines how mental disorders are defined and diagnosed, it also impacts how people see themselves and how we see each other. While diagnostic terms facilitate clinical care and access to insurance coverage that supports mental health, these terms can also have a stigmatizing effect.

When I said that the definitive characteristic of a disorder was the ability to get reimbursed by insurance companies, I thought I was joking.

 

[Emily's Cat]

It's just an acknowledgement that nobody gets everything they want because there are always going to be practical or societal limitations. That doesn't mean we aren't harming that individual it just means we have taken the societal decision that the harm done is outweighed by a greater good.

And there is disagreement from the people who are actually affected by this issue as to whether the good is actually for the greater, and whether or not that lesser good outweighs the harm.

Does the increased harm to ~50% of the population come out to a lesser value than the increased good of ~0.5% of the population?

 

[Elaedith]

Gender Identity Disorder was reclassified as Gender Dysphoria because the writers of DSM-5 wanted to get rid of the stigma attached to GID, not because they had done some amazing scientific work that meant they had a different view of what it involved. Getting rid of the stigma was the stated reason for the reclassification, not some new insight into the condition or, if you will, "disorder" itself.

Yes. And it was part of a general review of the DSM-5, in which the entire manual was restructured.

Here is a short article by Zucker, the Chair of the working group, outlining the rationale for the changes.

As stated in the article, many activists did not want any diagnosis retained at all. The revisions were a compromise, although the retention of a diagnosis left many angry. Zucker is also hated by many activists for going against current trans orthodoxy in treating children with gender dysphoria. Activists have for some time pushed the idea that 'gender identity' is analogous to sexual orientation, stable from early childhood (in spite of all available evidence not supporting this), and that trying to reconcile the child to their biological sex is equivalent to gay conversion therapy.

A couple of years after the DSM revisions activists managed to get Zucker fired on false charges . (Note: this site has a limited number of free views per month).

 

[Emily's Cat]

I think what's actually happening is that in some writings, people are conflating trangenderism with gender dysphoria. (I've done that myself, so it isn't a one sided thing.) Any sort of dysphoria is a mental disorder. "Transgender identity" isn't the same thing, but as it turns out, the DSM-V doesn't really address exactly what that means. They do, on the other hand, give a definition of "gender identity".

You know what I find interesting (and troubling)? The DSM is pretty clear at saying that gender nonconformity is NOT a mental disorder of any sort, it's not pathologized at all.

But the criteria for Gender Dysphoria in children, as outlined by the DSM-V are heavily weighted toward gender nonconformity:

Signs and symptoms, as outlined by the DSM-5, include a marked incongruence between experienced/expressed gender and assigned gender, of at least six months duration, as manifested by at least six of the following (one of which must be criterion A1):[10]

• A strong desire to be of the other gender or an insistence that one is the other gender
• A strong preference for wearing clothes typical of the opposite gender
• A strong preference for cross-gender roles in make-believe play or fantasy play
• A strong preference for the toys, games or activities stereotypically used or engaged in by the other gender
• A strong preference for playmates of the other gender
• A strong rejection of toys, games and activities typical of one's assigned gender
• A strong dislike of one's sexual anatomy
• A strong desire for the physical sex characteristics that match one's experienced gender

I hit most of those as a child. Because being a "girl" as society defined it was boring and confining and stupid as far as I was concerned. Girl toys were boring and vapid, legos, lincoln logs, and hot wheels was where it was at. Barbie was far less interesting than superhero action figures. Playing house was dull and mostly involved chores whereas playing cowboys & indians or cops & robbers was engaging, tactical, and exciting!. Dresses were dumb and you had to worry about your panties showing - pants, especially overalls - were way better for climbing trees and playing chase and vaulting though the monkey bars. And boy oh boy did I wish I had a penis when I was a kid, because seriously - having to stop playing and go all the way home so you can pee was really annoying. And I liked playing with boys because boys did all the fun stuff that I wanted to do!

So... I think if I were a kid today, there'd be some pressure to decide that I was experiencing gender dysphoria. Not because I was, but because society's roles and expectations of the two sexes are stupid beyond repair.

Being a tomboy does not in any way mean that you're actually a boy.

 

[Meadmaker]

Clearly they gained the insight that calling it a disorder was not helpful, just as with homosexuality being similarly reclassified decades earlier.

I think that's close, but not exactly true.

I wasn't exactly on the committee that made the decision, so this isn't authoritative, but here's my impression.

It seems like what they did was got rid of the concept of "Gender Identity Disorder". They no longer treat having a gender identity which does not match your biological sex as a disorder. They replaced that entry with "gender dysphoria". The "dysphoria" refers to the anxiety that is caused by or correlated with the mismatch between gender identity and biological sex.

So, under the old system, a biological female who had a masculine gender idenity was suffering from Gender Identity Disorder.

Under the new system, a biological female who has a masculine gender identity, and hates her body because of it, or who really, really, wants to get an artificial penis and be rid of her natural vagina is suffering from gender dysphoria. On the other hand, a biological female with a masculine gender identy who is perfectly ok with the situation, and just acts like a guy, whatever she thinks that means, because that's how she feels like acting, is a person who is getting along just fine, and has no disorders.

 

[Matthew Best]

Clearly they gained the insight that calling it a disorder was not helpful, just as with homosexuality being similarly reclassified decades earlier.

"they've rebadged it, you ****!"

 

[Emily's Cat]

Clearly they gained the insight that calling it a disorder was not helpful, just as with homosexuality being similarly reclassified decades earlier.

No, this isn't quite accurate.

Calling it a disorder is unhelpful from a social aspect, because it causes stigmatization that is unnecessary.

Homosexuality wasn't reclassified - it was entirely de-pathologized. It was determined to not be a medical or psychiatric issue at all, no more so than being left-handed was.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

I think what's actually happening is that in some writings, people are conflating trangenderism with gender dysphoria. (I've done that myself, so it isn't a one sided thing.) Any sort of dysphoria is a mental disorder. "Transgender identity" isn't the same thing, but as it turns out, the DSM-V doesn't really address exactly what that means. They do, on the other hand, give a definition of "gender identity".

"Gender identity - is a category of social identity and refers to an individual’s identification as male, female or, occasionally, some category other than male or female. It is one’s deeply held core sense of being male, female, some of both or neither, and does not always correspond to biological sex."

So, in the view of the experts (assuming the compilers of DSM-5 are experts), your gender identity is a "deeply held core sense". Is that different from "belief"? It is my opinion that if your argument rests on such fine distinctions, it probably isn't a very strong argument. i.e. "It isn't a belief. It's a deeply held core sense. Therefore.....", whatever follows the "therefore" isn't likely to be accepted on the basis of that argument.

I think we all have to acknowledge that we are laypeople and so we might make mistakes on technicalities of what the DSM says and means. It's not designed for us as laypeople anyway really, is it?

We are also limited because we can't see into other people's minds and know exactly what they think and feel but we do our best, and generally I trust those who are experts in the field to have the best view on what the 'best' answer that we have is.

There are many things in life which other people think, feel and believe that I have no understanding, experience or comprehension of. But I take people at their word when they tell me it's true. Especially when it's validated by experts as being a real thing.

It seems to be that the distinction between belief and deeply held core sense is not what the argument rests on at all but even if it is I think there is a genuine difference.

To take a trivial example I don't believe that I prefer strawberry ice-cream to chocolate ice-cream, I know it in my deepest core senses.

It does feel a lot like this post is getting close to 'I don't agree with the experts so i can dismiss it'

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

"they've rebadged it, you ****!"

I'm not driving a Mini Metro.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I'd like to bring this up again, since it has been ignored:

Nonsense. The subset of "all males" which is labelled "those males who identify as women" is clearly radically different from, say, a subset labelled "those males who support the Chicago Bears", when it comes to an analysis of the propensity to launch sexual (especially) or physical assaults upon females.

Based on what? You've just made a declarative assertion, with no evidence to support it. Not just that it's different, but that it's clearly radically different.

My starting position is that males are males, that the aggressive correlation of testosterone is fairly well established, and that the social aspect of having been raised and conditioned as male is not insignificant. I start from the null hypothesis. What information I've found suggests that transwomen are no less violent in general than cismen are, and thus, I find it reasonable to assume that such violence does not demonstrate a material difference in distribution than it would by any other male.

You, on the other hand, are making the assumption that a specific subset of males have a dramatically different rate of violence, in particular sexual violence, than other males do.

I suggest that you go find some evidence to support your assumption, given that your assumption is the one that is significantly different from the null hypothesis.

 

[Meadmaker]

Being a tomboy does not in any way mean that you're actually a boy.

Not to mention that the grown up versions of tomboys are really sexy.

Female fighter pilots? Yeah. There's a reason that modern science fiction and fantasy adventures always include female warriors, even if their armor isn't practical. It isn't because they have a deep commitment to women's equality.

 

[Matthew Best]

I'm not driving a Mini Metro.

You bigot!

 

[Emily's Cat]

As a general note, I'm also getting really irritated by the observation that the male transgender activists in this thread have almost entirely quit engaging with any of the biologically female posters. When they do engage with the biologically female posters, they are curt, dismissive, insulting, and demeaning.

But they continue to engage, quite civilly at that, with the male posters who oppose some elements of transgender activism.

 

[Meadmaker]

To take a trivial example I don't believe that I prefer strawberry ice-cream to chocolate ice-cream, I know it in my deepest core senses.

So, you have a disorder then? That's just unnatural.

Although, I confess, there are times I would rather have strawberry than chocolate, depending on my mood. I guess my ice-cream preference identity is fluid.

 

[Meadmaker]

Not to mention that the grown up versions of tomboys are really sexy.

Female fighter pilots? Yeah. There's a reason that modern science fiction and fantasy adventures always include female warriors, even if their armor isn't practical. It isn't because they have a deep commitment to women's equality.

But to the point of the post previous to this, I think the DSM can be forgiven for it's use of gender stereotypes in the children's diagnosis of gender dysphoria. It required six of those categories, and I think the overall sense was that if your kid is constantly doing only boy things or only girl things, along with saying "I'm a boy", and whatever else was in those other categories, the favoritism to stereotypically boy things is just another element confirming that this person is really trying to fit in with the boys.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

I think that's close, but not exactly true.

I wasn't exactly on the committee that made the decision, so this isn't authoritative, but here's my impression.

It seems like what they did was got rid of the concept of "Gender Identity Disorder". They no longer treat having a gender identity which does not match your biological sex as a disorder. They replaced that entry with "gender dysphoria". The "dysphoria" refers to the anxiety that is caused by or correlated with the mismatch between gender identity and biological sex.

So, under the old system, a biological female who had a masculine gender idenity was suffering from Gender Identity Disorder.

Under the new system, a biological female who has a masculine gender identity, and hates her body because of it, or who really, really, wants to get an artificial penis and be rid of her natural vagina is suffering from gender dysphoria. On the other hand, a biological female with a masculine gender identy who is perfectly ok with the situation, and just acts like a guy, whatever she thinks that means, because that's how she feels like acting, is a person who is getting along just fine, and has no disorders.

I think that's more or less right. My understanding is that, in laymans terms, what I call 'transgenderism' is basically having a gender identity that doesn't fit your bits. So you are/feel like (delete as appropriate) a woman who has a penis and balls. But you don't mind. You live as a woman and everything is hunky dory (until you get arrested for unpaid parking fines, and thrown in jail with 8 rapey men)

Beyond that there is gender dysphoria which is having a gender identity that doesn't fit your bits and it causing you a problem. So you then need/want/have foisted upon you by hateful misogynists medical intervention to varying degrees. And then you live as a women with whatever bits you have/don't have and everything is hunky dory (until you turn up at a domestic abuse shelter because your husband tried to murder you and you are refused entry and forced to live on the streets)

I don't know quite where one crosses to the other - if for example you take hormones but don't have surgery I'm not sure where you fall on that distinction.