Non-binary identities are valid

[cullennz]

Actually is the accused of using the wrong current pronoun given a bit of lee way if they use the last pronoun they were notified about after the first person changed them, but the wrong ones after the person changed them again after their gender fuidity meant a rejig.

 

[Roboramma]

Cullenz, I think you got lost.

Arthwollipot hasn't suggested misgendering should be a crime.

 

[cullennz]

Cullenz, I think you got lost.

Arthwollipot hasn't suggested misgendering should be a crime.

Apologies for miss-reading!

 

[LondonJohn]

Wait, so basically you're saying that self-identity is only OK if it's the kind that you decided to support? In fact, that you CAN tell some people that you know better than them what's in their head, and they don't REALLY identify as what they say they do?

Based on... what? That one is in the list of currently fashionable things to accept, if you want to bark together the cool pack, while the other isn't?

I recommend that you read DSM-5. Slowly and carefully. Then maybe read some cogent commentary on it if that'll help further.

It may then become clear (though judging by your post above, possibly not). So I'll give you a pointer to help you on your journey to understanding:

DSM-5 considers transgender identity (including non-binary transidentity) to be a valid condition in its own right - as opposed to a mental health disorder (or the product of a mental health disorder).

By contrast, DSM-5 does not consider the likes of a) self-identifying as a different mammal or b) self-identifying as an attack helicopter... to be valid conditions in their own right: it would place these types of thing clearly into the general bracket of delusions and disorders.

Hope that helps!

 

[LondonJohn]

Except that's EXACTLY what YOU do, if I told you that my old classmate identified as a cat. Then what YOU do is exactly decide that no, it's no longer a problem to tell her that she's just making it up. And in fact, that it's not just invalid, but outright offensive somehow to even entertain the thought. Then not only you "know" she's lying about what's in her head, but even WHY she's making that up. Then it's apparently no longer the same problem you argue against above, or even a problem at all, but the self-righteous thing to do if you want to feel all "progressive".

So... hypocrisy much?

No: DSM-5 much.

(And, for that matter, US Federal Government much. And UK Government much.)

 

[HansMustermann]

1. None of your examples supposed to illustrate the "problem" in your message #1136 had anything to do with the DSM5 or with government policy. There is no recognized condition of liking a certain kind of DVDs, nor a government policy about agreeing with a roommate's choice of DVDs, or anything. Seems to me like you're just flipping between needing or not needing the DSM-5 on the fly. One moment it's wrong to question whether someone is really meaning something, without needing the DSM-5, the next you can do exactly that because something is under symptom not disorder in the DSM-5. I.e., you're just making up BS rationalizations as you go.

2. You still don't seem to understand that it being government policy doesn't make something right or wrong. And it sure as f-word doesn't settle a medical question, if you want to go that route.

If it worked that way, then it would have been settled that homosexuality is wrong, back when THAT was the UK government policy. (See, Alan Turing.)

 

[HansMustermann]

Additionally, you don't seem to understand what the DSM-5 says, and frankly I doubt that you even ever had more interest in the DSM-5 than hearing other clueless puppies name-drop it.

Gender dysphoria is no longer a disorder, it's a condition, i.e., pretty much just a symptom. I.e., saying you've been diagnosed with it, is exactly like saying that you've been diagnosed with a cough or with chronic back pain. It's a condition, not something that tells you what's wrong or if there's anything wrong.

The official stance is in fact that we have no clue as to what causes it, i.e., what is it a symptom OF.

So saying it's different from otherkin because that one is just a symptom... it's exactly as flippin' stupid as saying that this rooster is different from the other ones, because this one doesn't lay eggs. Unlike the others which also don't lay eggs.

 

[LondonJohn]

Am I? I don't think I am. In the situation theprestige described (of two people about to engage in sexual intercourse), whether or not both parties are interested in that sexual intercourse seems important to both of them, not the "the observer".

Do you think you could answer the questions I posed in the post you quoted?

The answer - as I've already said - is that it's reductive and nonsensical to delineate along the lines of "this one has biological sex as the important factor" and "this one has gender identity as the important factor" and so on. The actual reality is this: any interaction between two or more people is influenced by myriad complex factors, including (but certainly not limited to) biological sex and gender identity.

For example - to use the "one person wanting to have sex with another person" instance - a cishetero male might be in this undressing situation with a female. But suppose that once the female had undressed, the male saw that she had excessive body hair. Our male happens to find excessive body hair a complete turn-off, and suddenly his sexual attraction towards the female ends. Where does that fit into your categorisation?

I didn't suggest it was. I did suggest that there are things other than a person's "internalized identity" that matter in various situations. Are you disagreeing with that?

No, that's not what was happening. What was happening was that you were suggesting to me that there was nothing wrong with theprestige's "philosophy", which kicked off this little line of discussion with the banger that "in the bedroom, it's entirely up to your partner to decide what gender you are"

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=13434075#post13434075


I believe it's generally recommended practice to understand what it is one is defending before one decides to defend it.

 

[cullennz]

Additionally, you don't seem to understand what the DSM-5 says, and frankly I doubt that you even ever had more interest in the DSM-5 than hearing other clueless puppies name-drop it.

Gender dysphoria is no longer a disorder, it's a condition, i.e., pretty much just a symptom. I.e., saying you've been diagnosed with it, is exactly like saying that you've been diagnosed with a cough or with chronic back pain. It's a condition, not something that tells you what's wrong or if there's anything wrong.

The official stance is in fact that we have no clue as to what causes it, i.e., what is it a symptom OF.

So saying it's different from otherkin because that one is just a symptom... it's exactly as flippin' stupid as saying that this rooster is different from the other ones, because this one doesn't lay eggs. Unlike the others which also don't lay eggs.

Might be wrong, but thought gender dysphoria e=was still a disorder

 

[LondonJohn]

1. None of your examples supposed to illustrate the "problem" in your message #1136 had anything to do with the DSM5 or with government policy. There is no recognized condition of liking a certain kind of DVDs, nor a government policy about agreeing with a roommate's choice of DVDs, or anything. Seems to me like you're just flipping between needing or not needing the DSM-5 on the fly. One moment it's wrong to question whether someone is really meaning something, without needing the DSM-5, the next you can do exactly that because something is under symptom not disorder in the DSM-5. I.e., you're just making up BS rationalizations as you go.

2. You still don't seem to understand that it being government policy doesn't make something right or wrong. And it sure as f-word doesn't settle a medical question, if you want to go that route.

If it worked that way, then it would have been settled that homosexuality is wrong, back when THAT was the UK government policy. (See, Alan Turing.)

Thinking and understanding evolves over time. Were you not aware of that? Nobody (except you) is talking in terms of "settled" policy (or thinking). Rather, the correct methodology and practice is to accept current thinking - and policy related to that thinking - unless & until further advances either modify, negate or contradict the current position. In fact, this is the working basis of the scientific method in general*.

And with that in mind, your attempt to defend your position on transgender identity by pointing out that homosexuality was once illegal in jurisdictions such as the UK is..... well..... let's just suggest *unfortunate*



* For example, it used to be scientific "truth" that the Sun orbited around the Earth. Until, that is, Kopernik (Copernicus) proposed the heliocentric model, and Galileo provided elements of proof supporting Kopernik's theory. So this caused the scientific "truth" to change accordingly. And that is why, as of today, it's correct to say that the Earth orbits around the Sun. But it's well worth noting that if, at any point in the future, strong scientific evidence were to be found supporting a different model of the Solar System (it won't, but speaking hypothetically for the sake of the underlying logic), then we would abandon our current "truth" in favour of the new, improved one.

 

[LondonJohn]

Might be wrong, but thought gender dysphoria e=was still a disorder

Yep, it is (though I fell foul of this one for a while, I admit).

The critical thing is that transgender identity is no longer considered a disorder of any kind.


(To take a parallel with homosexuality: it'd be the same as saying that sexuality dysphoria - the conflict between a) one's own internalised understanding of one's sexuality and b) any societal/familial expectations/pressures around heterosexuality - is a disorder; but homosexuality itself is not.)

 

[HansMustermann]

Unless I missed something, no. In fact, it's explicitly not considered to be a mental disorder by itself. It was moved out of the disorders category, and renamed from "gender identity disorder", specifically to emphasize that it's not one.

Additionally, what the clueless puppies also miss when they name-drop it as some synonym for being trans, is that it's specifically not. It's a certain distress condition, and just like any other psychiatric condition, it needs to pass the threshold of significantly impairing your ability to function, before you're eligible for that diagnostic.

Also that it's an exceedingly RARE condition. According to the DSM-5, it only affects about 0.005% to 0.014% of people assigned male at birth and 0.002% to 0.003% of people assigned female at birth.

When you compare it to the number of people declaring themselves trans, actually even out of those only a tiny minority actually qualify as Gender Dysphoria. So saying that that one condition is some blanket explanation for every single trans or third gender person is rather daft. It's like saying that Corona explains every single person sneezing this spring.

 

[HansMustermann]

Thinking and understanding evolves over time. Were you not aware of that? Nobody (except you) is talking in terms of "settled" policy (or thinking). Rather, the correct methodology and practice is to accept current thinking - and policy related to that thinking - unless & until further advances either modify, negate or contradict the current position.

*whoosh* That's the sound of the point going right over your head.

Yes, the whole POINT is that it's an evolving and changing thing. Saying that something is absolutely right because it matches the CURRENT government policy is just as stupid in 2020 as it was in 1920.

In fact, this is the working basis of the scientific method in general*.

The scientific method is not the same as government policy. If you want to argue science, argue science, not what the current US government policy is.

And with that in mind, your attempt to defend your position on transgender identity by pointing out that homosexuality was once illegal in jurisdictions such as the UK is..... well..... let's just suggest *unfortunate*

Considering that it's still your just trying to distort things into your own strawman, well, yeah, the only unfortunate thing is your comprehension skill

* For example, it used to be scientific "truth" that the Sun orbited around the Earth. Until, that is, Kopernik (Copernicus) proposed the heliocentric model, and Galileo provided elements of proof of the heliocentric model. So this caused the scientific "truth" to change accordingly. And that is why, as of today, it's correct to say that the Earth orbits around the Sun. But it's well worth noting that if, at any point in the future, strong scientific evidence were to be found supporting a different model of the Solar System (it won't, but speaking hypothetically for the sake of the underlying logic), then we would abandon our current "truth" in favour of the new, improved one.

And the whole point is that that was solved by scientists, not by government policy. Galileo's model didn't become right when the government at the time (i.e., the Pope) officially approved it... oh wait, no the pope didn't.

Appealing to government policy as if it meant something is scientifically correct, is just stonking stupid.

 

[LondonJohn]

*whoosh* That's the sound of the point going right over your head.

Yes, the whole POINT is that it's an evolving and changing thing. Saying that something is absolutely right because it matches the CURRENT government policy is just as stupid in 2020 as it was in 1920.



The scientific method is not the same as government policy. If you want to argue science, argue science, not what the current US government policy is.



Considering that it's still your just trying to distort things into your own strawman, well, yeah, the only unfortunate thing is your comprehension skill



And the whole point is that that was solved by scientists, not by government policy. Galileo's model didn't become right when the government at the time (i.e., the Pope) officially approved it... oh wait, no the pope didn't.

Appealing to government policy as if it meant something is scientifically correct, is just stonking stupid.

Uhhhhhhhhhhhhh

1) Do you, or do you not, think it relevant to your... "argument" that - currently - experts in the field consider transgender identity and homosexuality to be valid conditions, but that they currently consider identification as a fox or as an attack helicopter to be invalid and a disorder?


2) And do you further consider it relevant (or not) that many major world governments - as a direct consequence of current expert assessments - are currently seeking to enshrine transgender rights and gay rights in law, while they are not currently seeking to enshrine "person identifying as a fox" rights or "person identifying as an attack helicopter" in law?


3) With both (1) and (2) in mind..... do you still consider (or not) that there's no difference in terms of current scientific or legislative acceptance between:

a) Someone declaring they identify as non-binary gender (or declaring they identify as gay)

and

b) Someone declaring they identify as a fox or as an attack helicopter?


4) Do you propose (or not) that current scientific thinking is the best (or indeed the only) basis currently to consider any particular science-based issue (such as whether each of transidentity, homosexuality, or "identification as an attack helicopter" should be considered as real, valid conditions or not)? And if not, what basis do you instead propose? Should it, perhaps, be whatever you personally wish it to be?

 

[d4m10n]

"She tells me she loves me, but does she really mean it or is she making it up?"



"My housemate tells me he enjoys my choices of DVD on our movie nights, but does he really mean it or is he making it up?"



"My best friend tells me they have a non-binary gender identity, but do they really mean it or are they making it up?"

If you've never known someone who really ought to have asked whether their lover was truly in love or just going along with social expectations, well, good for you. (I can think of a handful offhand.)

Oddly enough, I've seen the housemate example as well, though the individual being overly agreeable may have been subjected to VHS tapes at the time. (I'll ask.)

As to the last example, well, your other two examples doesn't exactly make it feel any less plausible. People say things all the time for the sake of making others think well of them, or for the sake of trying to speak something into being, or for any number of other reasons aside from revealing their true states of mind.

I have an example of my own. My friend [redacted] goes to church and worships Jesus with his family every Wednesday night and Sunday morning. Does he really believe Jesus is the Son of God or is he just playing along to make everyone else think he's a righteous dude? (The answer may surprise you.)

 

[Olmstead]

You are way to hung up on the word disorder:


https://www.psychiatry.org/File Library/Psychiatrists/Practice/DSM/APA_DSM-5-Gender-Dysphoria.pdf

"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 dys-phoria is the presence of clinically significant distress associated with the condition."

 

[LondonJohn]

Unless I missed something, no. In fact, it's explicitly not considered to be a mental disorder by itself. It was moved out of the disorders category, and renamed from "gender identity disorder", specifically to emphasize that it's not one.

Additionally, what the clueless puppies also miss when they name-drop it as some synonym for being trans, is that it's specifically not. It's a certain distress condition, and just like any other psychiatric condition, it needs to pass the threshold of significantly impairing your ability to function, before you're eligible for that diagnostic.

Also that it's an exceedingly RARE condition. According to the DSM-5, it only affects about 0.005% to 0.014% of people assigned male at birth and 0.002% to 0.003% of people assigned female at birth.

When you compare it to the number of people declaring themselves trans, actually even out of those only a tiny minority actually qualify as Gender Dysphoria. So saying that that one condition is some blanket explanation for every single trans or third gender person is rather daft. It's like saying that Corona explains every single person sneezing this spring.

Gender dysphoria isn't an "explanation" for transgender identity. Quite the opposite: transgender identity is an explanation for gender dysphoria.

And there's zero contradiction in the observation that only a proportion of people identifying as transgender are afflicted by gender dysphoria.


It may become easier to understand if again we switch to homosexuality as a comparator. So: for "transgender identity", substitute "homosexuality"; and for "gender dysphoria", substitute "sexuality dysphoria" (which we will define as the internal conflict between a) one's own understanding of one's sexuality, and b) the levels of expectation that one "ought" to be heterosexual).

So.... supposing we take 100 people who identify as homosexual.

Now, let's suppose that of those 100 people, 75 might have always been comfortable, happy and proud with their sexual orientation. The other 25 might have been afflicted at some time by a destructive internalised disorder based upon the conflict between a) their knowledge that they were homosexual and b) the fact that society at large and/or family/friends/work colleagues might "expect" them to be heterosexual.

Therefore:

100 people identifying as homosexual

25 of those people having been afflicted with sexuality dysphoria.

 

[LondonJohn]

If you've never known someone who really ought to have asked whether their lover was truly in love or just going along with social expectations, well, good for you. (I can think of a handful offhand.)

Oddly enough, I've seen the housemate example as well, though the individual being overly agreeable may have been subjected to VHS tapes at the time. (I'll ask.)

As to the last example, well, your other two examples doesn't exactly make it feel any less plausible. People say things all the time for the sake of making others think well of them, or for the sake of trying to speak something into being, or for any number of other reasons aside from revealing their true states of mind.

I have an example of my own. My friend [redacted] goes to church and worships Jesus with his family every Wednesday night and Sunday morning. Does he really believe Jesus is the Son of God or is he just playing along to make everyone else think he's a righteous dude? (The answer may surprise you.)

You've entirely missed the point here.

The point is this: whether or not Person A loves Person B is not a matter for Person B to decide.

(And I suggest that in order to understand properly what the salient point is wrt this thread, you read back in this little nested batch of posts to the original post by theprestige which started all this off, in which he stated that "in the bedroom, it's entirely up to your partner to decide what gender you are")

 

[Belz...]

Baloney, you do.

In the other thread, I tried my damnedest to find some middle ground to build on and you literally refused to discuss it because would mean the possibility of understanding that genders can be, but aren't necessarily, sex-based.

​

In order to understand something, you have to be willing to question your own assumptions. There is, at least, one assumption you are unwilling to question.

In other words, he disagreed with you. That doesn't mean he's unwilling to question his conclusions, only that your argument didn't convince him.

Once again: if "gender" cannot be defined under a particular viewpoint, it's a useless word. But it can't be useless because it's said to be very important. So why isn't the other viewpoint, the one that can define "gender", not take precedence?

I think this is a legit "check your privilege" scenario. It's easy to shrug off the occasional misgendering when you're not experiencing any distress about your gender self-ID, and you don't have to deal with misgendering issues all day every day.

I don't think normality is a privilege. It's a condition.

Done...it doesn't work. We all know what a married woman is and what the status of "married" vs "unmarried" is supposed to represent in society.

Not so with "non-binary gender identity."

You're either currently married or not. You can't be nuptial-fluid.

 

[Belz...]

If you haven't figured out that humanity is complicated, you're over-simplifying.

This is why I called baloney. You aren't at all interested in understanding other perspectives or points of view.

And you are? You don't seem particularily ready to accept the opposing viewpoint, so what's the value in the above post?

No because that level of acceptance means nobody is a special exception and more and more I'm thinking that's what this is.

That's been obvious from the get-go, a consequence of the "everybody gets a trophy" ideology.

You've just adequately demonstrated your continuing ignorance/misinterpretation/misrepresentation of transgender identity.

Oh and your breezy comparison between a) a person stating that they have a non-binary gender identity and b) a person stating that they identify as an attack helicopter.... is pretty much as offensive to people identifying as transgender as it is ignorant. But at the same time, at least it serves as a useful ready-reckoner wrt your belief system around this issue. So, thanks for that.... I guess.

Why do you claim to speak for trans people, here?

Is it or is it not determined by body dysphoria?

Wow.

Out of curiosity, does anyone else think that there's anything wrong with theprestige's post?

Arthwollipot? Upchurch?

I'd be interested in other people's takes here.

Personally theprestige's post seems entirely reasonable to me.

"You're a bigot if you're not atrracted to me" sure sounds like a narcissistic thing to say.