Ah no, you misunderstood. I just stopped by to remind you that Linehan - whom you were demonstrably happy to see back on Twitter - is living up to form as an out-and-out nutjob who (from the minute he was allowed back on twitter) has resumed obsessively tweeting anti-trans screeds at a rate of well over 18 hours per day every day*, and who has lost his wife, his family, his home, almost all of his friends & (former) colleagues and his career in the process. I was wondering what it was about him you admire so much, and what your admiration of him says about you. That's all.
Yes, I understood. You consistently resort to personal attacks, misrepresentations, smears, guilt by association, and applauding silencing and punishment (eg. firing, ostracism) of people you disagree with. There was once a time when most people who regarded themselves as sceptics seemed to understand that people do this because they are intolerant of dissent and cannot advance their position by debate because they have no argument (e.g. scientologists). This was before a large chunk of the sceptic movement abandoned scientific scepticism for ideological fundamentalism and apparently decided that scientologists are great role models and champions of free speech.
Oh and BTW, please could you kindly inform me what evidence there is that homosexuality is a valid condition and not a mental health disorder
Human characteristics do not divide into ‘disorders’ or ‘valid conditions’. If somebody advocates that a condition should be classified as a disorder, the accepted requirements today are that it causes clinically significant distress, functional impairment and/or harm to others, and therefore may require diagnosis, treatment/management, or accommodation. Accordingly, there is no reason for homosexuality to be classified as a disorder. It was classified as such because it was socially stigmatized and illegal, and that was considered sufficient at the time the first DSM was published in the 1950s.
The distress requirement was added to the diagnostic criteria for gender identity disorder in 1987, 26 years before it was renamed gender dysphoria in DSM-5 and 'trans identity' without dysphoria has not been considered a disorder for about 35 years and has never been illegal.
You're welcome.
(I am perhaps over-assuming that you actually don't consider homosexual people to be mentally ill on account of their homosexuality.... or I dunno, maybe your view on the validity of homosexuality is in line with your view on the validity of transgender identity?).
'Validity of homosexuality’ and ‘validity of transgender identity’ are both equally meaningless expressions, apart from the fact that ‘homosexuality’ has a clear, non-ideological and non-circular definition and objective markers, whereas ‘transgender identity’ does not.
And when you answer that question, go ahead and replace "homosexuality" with "transgender identity". The penny might drop.
Gender:
Everyone has an immutable sex (male or female). ‘Man’ is the traditional term for adult human male and ‘woman’ for adult human female. Society has traditionally had gender expectations based on sex such as men being masculine and women being feminine, or men and women having stereotypical preferences in gender expression and social roles. Some males and females do not identify with the gender expectations associated with their sex, for example, feminine men and masculine women. If all that is required to be a woman is to be female, a woman can reject gender expectations and still be a woman (and likewise for men). If ‘woman’ is redefined to mean somebody who identifies with a gender, this implies that females who are gender nonconforming are not women (and likewise for GNC men). We should not rename the terms ‘man/woman’ and ‘boy/girl’ to refer to identification with a 'gender' because this is sexist and regressive. We should especially not encourage children to think that whether they are a boy or girl is based on how they feel rather than biology, encouraging a boy who feels different from other boys because he is gender non-conforming thinking he must be a girl and have the ‘wrong body’ (and likewise for girls). Instead, we should encourage them to think that it’s ok to be gender non-conforming and this does not conflict with their sex.
Sexual orientation:
Everyone has an immutable sex (male or female). ‘Man’ is the traditional term for adult human male and ‘woman’ for adult human female. Society has traditionally had
gender sexual orientation expectations based on sex such as men being
masculine gynephilic and women being
feminine androphilic, or men and women having stereotypical preferences in
gender expression and social roles expression of sexuality and attraction to the opposite sex. Some males and females do not identify with the
gender sexual orientation expectations associated with their sex, for example,
feminine androphilic men and
masculine gynephilic women. If all that is required to be a woman is to be female, a woman can reject
gender sexual orientation expectations and still be a woman (and likewise for men). If ‘woman’ is redefined to mean somebody who
identifies with a gender is androphilic, this implies that
females who are gender nonconforming lesbians are not women (and likewise for gay men). We should not rename the terms ‘man/woman’ and ‘boy/girl’ to refer to
identification with a 'gender' identification of an expected sexual orientation because this is
sexist homophobic and regressive. We should especially not encourage children to think that whether they are a boy or girl is based on how they feel rather than biology, encouraging a boy who feels different from other boys because he
is gender non-conforming will be gay in adulthood thinking he must be a girl and have the ‘wrong body’ (and likewise for girls). Instead, we should encourage them to think that it’s ok to be
gender non-conforming gay and this does not conflict with their sex.
Nope, don't see the problem.
