Cont: Trans women are not women (IX)

[Elaedith]

I'm guessing you're not very familiar with the scientific discipline of psychiatry, in which your vaunted yardsticks of measurability and falsifiability are seldom valid (oooh see what I did there!). If you're talking about microbiology or particle physics, then your definition of scientific rigour is in the right ballpark. But (unless you want to write off the whole of psychiatry and psychology as bogus pseudoscience), those rules simply don't apply to studies of the human psyche.

Given that I am an academic psychologist and have been specialising in the scientific status of psychological explanation for nearly 20 years, including teaching a course on critical analysis of diagnostic criteria for psychiatric disorder, focusing on the DSM), and that I am citing a science-oriented clinical psychologist with an extensive clinical and research background in assessing and treating gender dysphoria, and given that almost everything you have said about the DSM is demonstrably wrong, and that the lead author of the gender dysphoria chapter of the DSM5 that you seem to think validates your views does not agree with much of what you claim about gender identity, and that the arguments you have made here implying that transgender identity not being a mental disorder proves TWAW are so absurd they are Not Even Wrong and I would be shocked to find them in an essay from a first-year student - pardon me if I don't attach too much importance to your 'guesses'.

 

[theprestige]

And I was just letting you know how impressed I am that you have got all of this so right and those in the vanguard of the scientific, medical, political and judicial communities all over the western world have got it so wrong!

I might write to all those bodies myself and invite them to take a look at a discussion thread on a small internet forum, so that they might better understand how they are wrong and you are right. I'm sure society at large would be considerably better off if they could be made to see the error of their collective ways. The Daily Mail would be mighty pleased as well : D

Or you could just cite the vanguard publications that support your claim.

Just one citation of a mental health professional "in the vanguard" of their professional community, making a medical/scientific assessment of the validity of transgender identity, would change the whole course of my thinking on this issue.

No need to write to all those bodies. If you're correct in your claims, they must have already published everything you need to prove me wrong here. (Otherwise, how could you know what they think and that it contradicts me?)

 

[Paul2]

I'm guessing you're not very familiar with the scientific discipline of psychiatry, in which your vaunted yardsticks of measurability and falsifiability are seldom valid (oooh see what I did there!). If you're talking about microbiology or particle physics, then your definition of scientific rigour is in the right ballpark. But (unless you want to write off the whole of psychiatry and psychology as bogus pseudoscience), those rules simply don't apply to studies of the human psyche.

Here we have a contrary opinion from what looks to be an actual textbook:

Researchers in other medical disciplines sometimes criticise psychiatric measures for being vague or woolly, because they are not based on biological markers of pathology. For this very reason, psychiatry was among the first medical disciplines to develop internationally recognized operationalized diagnostic criteria. At the same time the research interview has become progressively refined, such that the processes of eliciting, recording, and distilling symptoms into diagnoses or scalable traits are now also highly standardized. These criticisms are therefore largely misplaced. Thanks to the careful construction and extensive validation of the better established measures in psychiatric research we can now afford to be slightly more confident of their appropriateness, accuracy, and stability than would be the case even for some biological measurements. This confidence is based on our understanding of the validity and reliability of our measures.

From Practical Psychiatric Epidemiology, Oxford University Press.

 

[Paul2]

Given that I am an academic psychologist and have been specialising in the scientific status of psychological explanation for nearly 20 years, including teaching a course on critical analysis of diagnostic criteria for psychiatric disorder, focusing on the DSM), and that I am citing a science-oriented clinical psychologist with an extensive clinical and research background in assessing and treating gender dysphoria, and given that almost everything you have said about the DSM is demonstrably wrong, and that the lead author of the gender dysphoria chapter of the DSM5 that you seem to think validates your views does not agree with much of what you claim about gender identity, and that the arguments you have made here implying that transgender identity not being a mental disorder proves TWAW are so absurd they are Not Even Wrong and I would be shocked to find them in an essay from a first-year student - pardon me if I don't attach too much importance to your 'guesses'.

Ouch.

 

[theprestige]

* In reality, however, I don't actually go in for voicing animus about any individual or group: I view it as an ugly and unpleasant character trait, but y'know, that's just me.....

... He said, voicing animus towards individuals and groups.

My brother in Christ, it is almost impossible to avoid expressing animus towards those for whom you harbor animus. You have not been nearly as successful at hiding your animosity as you seem to believe.

 

[LondonJohn]

Cool story, but it doesn't explain why you've been unable to come up with any citations of this concept of scientific rigor in psychiatry. No citations of scientifically valid gender identity, as understood by psychiatrists.

Cool response. You know what psychiatry is, right?

And I've already pointed out that while psychiatrists continue to believe that a female identifying as the late movie star Greta Garbo is suffering from a psychiatric disorder, they now no longer believe that a female identifying as the gender "man" is suffering from a psychiatric disorder.

The necessary conclusion is that psychiatrists currently hold that 1) for a female, the holding of the identity "Greta Garbo" is invalid; and 2) for a female, the holding of the identity "man gender" is valid.

In the same way, psychiatrists would hold that a male identifying as a lover of the game chess is not suffering from a psychiatric disorder - and this would necessarily entail that for this male, their love of chess is a valid condition.


And as I also said, the alternative is to consider that most or all of the discipline of psychiatry is bogus pseudoscience. Do you consider most or all of psychiatry to be bogus psudoscience?

 

[theprestige]

Here we have a contrary opinion from what looks to be an actual textbook:

From Practical Psychiatric Epidemiology, Oxford University Press.

And ouch again.

I like this bit:

"Researchers in other medical disciplines sometimes criticise psychiatric measures for being vague or woolly, because they are not based on biological markers of pathology."

It almost seems like LJ is venue shopping. Real science has nothing concrete to say about transgender identity, but psychiatry, being vague and wooly and not based on biological markers, could be just the thing our activism needs!

 

[Elaedith]

Here we have a contrary opinion from what looks to be an actual textbook:

From Practical Psychiatric Epidemiology, Oxford University Press.

The DSM itself does rely on observation and report, and I think there are lots of valid criticisms of its scientific status despite attempts to refine measurements of symptoms and validate them with statistical criteria. However, those criticisms are a reason to improve constructs and measurement criteria, not to given in and accept lower-quality evidence. The DSM is also supposed to be atheoretical by design, for historical reasons. However, behind the scenes there is a lot of research into areas such as neurology and other biological markers. It just isn't reliable enough at this point to incorporate into diagnostic criteria.

 

[LondonJohn]

Given that I am an academic psychologist and have been specialising in the scientific status of psychological explanation for nearly 20 years, including teaching a course on critical analysis of diagnostic criteria for psychiatric disorder, focusing on the DSM), and that I am citing a science-oriented clinical psychologist with an extensive clinical and research background in assessing and treating gender dysphoria, and given that almost everything you have said about the DSM is demonstrably wrong, and that the lead author of the gender dysphoria chapter of the DSM5 that you seem to think validates your views does not agree with much of what you claim about gender identity, and that the arguments you have made here implying that transgender identity not being a mental disorder proves TWAW are so absurd they are Not Even Wrong and I would be shocked to find them in an essay from a first-year student - pardon me if I don't attach too much importance to your 'guesses'.

Wait: DSM-V concludes that transgender identity is a psychiatric disorder? I must have missed that part......


(And how do you reconcile the fact that progressive governments all over the western world, acting predominantly on medical advice and wider consultations, are giving transgender people substantial rights and protections in law? Don't you think that if the medical community - at national and pan-national levels, were saying something like "actually, it's our view that people with transgender identity are suffering from a mental health disorder, and they need treatment rather than this degree of accommodation and rights-giving", the policies currently being enacted would be.... rather different?)

 

[LondonJohn]

And ouch again.

I like this bit:

"Researchers in other medical disciplines sometimes criticise psychiatric measures for being vague or woolly, because they are not based on biological markers of pathology."

It almost seems like LJ is venue shopping. Real science has nothing concrete to say about transgender identity, but psychiatry, being vague and wooly and not based on biological markers, could be just the thing our activism needs!

It almost seems like LJ understands full well that 1) the whole matter of transgender identity is (very obviously) one that is psychiatric rather than physiological at its source, and 2) the discipline of psychiatry - by necessity and by definition - does not and cannot be empirical or falsifiable in its approach.

But yeah, keep on demanding empirical proof all you like!

 

[LondonJohn]

Oh and in the spirit of having one's cake and eating it:

If there is a growing understanding that psychiatry is indeed more verifiable than it ever was.... well that's just adding more weight to the current prevalent opinion in psychiatry around transgender identity.

Either way, I'm happy

 

[theprestige]

Cool response. You know what psychiatry is, right?

And I've already pointed out that while psychiatrists continue to believe that a female identifying as the late movie star Greta Garbo is suffering from a psychiatric disorder, they now no longer believe that a female identifying as the gender "man" is suffering from a psychiatric disorder.

The necessary conclusion is that psychiatrists currently hold that 1) for a female, the holding of the identity "Greta Garbo" is invalid; and 2) for a female, the holding of the identity "man gender" is valid.

No, this entirely your inference from vaguely specified criteria.

The truth is, psychiatrists only consider the Garbo identity "invalid" (your word, not theirs) if the person claiming it reports distress from the experience.

And the truth is, psychiatrists consider transgender identity "valid" (your word, not theirs), only so long as the person claiming it reports no distress from the experience.

The moment a transwoman reports any distress from their sense of gender identity, their identity stops being "valid" and becomes a mental disorder, properly diagnosed by the DSM-V, and requiring treatment by the best available medicine, not enablement in public policy.

Nowhere has any reputable psychiatrist published any positive claim or reasoning that transgender identity is "valid" in the sense required for your arguments about transgender rights in public policy.

 

[Vixen]

How is stopping a cis man from entering the women’s restroom different than stopping a woman from entering a boardroom?

So many arguments in favor of “trans rights”, including this one, are logically indistinguishable from arguments against any form of sex segregation. But you aren’t actually opposed to sex segregation. Which is why we can conclude that the arguments are not actually based on principles, but merely convenience, and dismiss them outright.

Well, suppose the imaginary believer in 'biological sex' is taken to tribunal by the transgender/transexual job candidate under the Equality Act because Person A rejected his or her job application despite being the best qualified.

So you are the judge. Ceteris paribus, Person A argues they are protected as a person who believes in biological sex and they do not want Person B coming into the changing room, which the job would entail. Person A cites the Forstater finding as case law. You state that Person A is not allowed to discriminate against the transgender/transexual.

What is your ruling?

 

[Paul2]

. . . . the discipline of psychiatry - by necessity and by definition - does not and cannot be empirical or falsifiable in its approach. . . .

Why/how is that?

 

[Vixen]

Interesting. My trans-exclusionary belief is very much "an opinion or viewpoint based on the present state of information available" to us about biology in mammals. That seems like it would be unprotected in the UK, and if I expressed such a belief in public I'd run the risk of being done for hate speech or whatever the crime is called across the pond.

I see you have grasped the defect in law straight away. You are a believer in biological sex but you can objectively see that your belief is only based on 'current information', which the wording of the Equality Act excludes.

 

[LondonJohn]

No, this entirely your inference from vaguely specified criteria.

The truth is, psychiatrists only consider the Garbo identity "invalid" (your word, not theirs) if the person claiming it reports distress from the experience.

And the truth is, psychiatrists consider transgender identity "valid" (your word, not theirs), only so long as the person claiming it reports no distress from the experience.

The moment a transwoman reports any distress from their sense of gender identity, their identity stops being "valid" and becomes a mental disorder, properly diagnosed by the DSM-V, and requiring treatment by the best available medicine, not enablement in public policy.

Nowhere has any reputable psychiatrist published any positive claim or reasoning that transgender identity is "valid" in the sense required for your arguments about transgender rights in public policy.

I think you'll find that many psychopaths don't suffer much distress from their psychopathy. So, per your "reasoning", is psychopathy a valid condition or not?

And likewise, plenty of homosexual people struggle for years (often through adolescence and young adulthood in particular) with their sexuality. Does this render their homosexuality invalid?

 

[theprestige]

Wait: DSM-V concludes that transgender identity is a psychiatric disorder? I must have missed that part......

Gender dysphoria - distress caused by believing one is transgender - is a psychiatric disorder, according to the DSM-V.

I stipulate it's possible to have a transgender identity without experiencing any distress. Drag queens, for example. Or performative androgynes like Twiggy, and David Bowie. But they need not concern us here.

On the other hand, having a transgender identity is of course necessary to have the medical disorder of gender dysphoria. And that's what the discussion here is about: What accommodations in public policy should be made for people whose transgender identity rises to the level of dysphoria? Especially those people whose gender dysphoria is exacerbated by anyone who does not recognize or enable their transgender identity?

ETA:

We know that believing you are Greta Garbo when you are not is a delusion. We know that becoming distressed when people refuse to play along with that belief is a sign of mental unhealth, not a claim of entitlement to be recognized as Greta Garbo.

We know that believing you are female when you are not is a delusion. We know that becoming distressed when people refuse to play along with that belief is a sign of mental unhealth, not a claim of entitlement to be recognized as female.

Do we know that believing you are a woman when you are not is a delusion? Do we know that becoming distressed when people refuse to play along with that belief is a sign of mental unhealth, not a claim of entitlement to be recognized as a woman?

 

[Vixen]

See the Forstater judgement

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Forstater-JR-AG.pdf

where her belief was stated as:


Quote:
“The Claimant holds the belief that biological sex is real, important, immutable and not to be conflated with gender identity. She considers that statements such as “woman means adult human female” or “trans women are male” are statements of neutral fact and are not expressions of antipathy towards trans people or “transphobic”.

and was judged to be protected.

So, in effect, as Judge Taylor points out, she is protected from calling a transgender woman a 'man' because it is the claimant's belief that he or she is entitled to insist that a transgender woman is a man. This obviously causes a hostile environment for a transgender/ transexual colleague.

 

[Elaedith]

No, this entirely your inference from vaguely specified criteria.

The truth is, psychiatrists only consider the Garbo identity "invalid" (your word, not theirs) if the person claiming it reports distress from the experience.

And the truth is, psychiatrists consider transgender identity "valid" (your word, not theirs), only so long as the person claiming it reports no distress from the experience.

The moment a transwoman reports any distress from their sense of gender identity, their identity stops being "valid" and becomes a mental disorder, properly diagnosed by the DSM-V, and requiring treatment by the best available medicine, not enablement in public policy.

Nowhere has any reputable psychiatrist published any positive claim or reasoning that transgender identity is "valid" in the sense required for your arguments about transgender rights in public policy.

I have never heard anyone in the field of clinical psychology or psychiatry use the phrase 'validity of X identity' except in relation to gender identity by a few ideologically-motivated clinicians and doctors (the narcissistic 'celebrity' type who like to engage in self-promotion). It is totally meaningless.

 

[LondonJohn]

Why/how is that?

Because there are no axioms, and there are few-to-no observable elements of the condition itself - only the symptoms/effects of the condition. In a few centuries from now, it may well be possible for us to understand the human brain well enough to correlate physiology with psyche. But we can't do so today (at least, not with anywhere near sufficient granularity or clarity) for matters related to deep inner identity.

Yes, there is increasing rigour, and there are also ever-improving ways of identifying certain aspects and grading their extent/severity. Plus psychiatry is easily the most fluid of the medical sciences - new research and new theories supplant old ones relatively frequently (viz the decline in Freudian analysis).