What I've noticed (I have no stats or proof for this it's just anecdotal) is that transgender people have these highly rigid notions of gender. — dukkha

Most of your post that I'm pulling the above quote from is good; I agree with most of it.

I pulled that quote because I want to offer another angle on the same thing: it's always seemed to me that it basically amounts to kowtowing to contingent social conventions. I don't believe that the social conventions have significant biological roots. In short, whatever a particular biological male/female is like is a biological way that males/females can be, so one can't really be the opposite sex/gender "trapped in a female/male body." If one was born a male/female, then whatever one's dispositions, attitudes, behavior, etc., that IS a way that males/females are.

At that, I have no problem with people wanting to surgically alter their bodies in whatever way, or wanting to simply cosmetically alter their appearance with whatever relations to social conventions.

I just don't agree that as something like a "syndrome" that it's anything other than kowtowing to social conventions. ("Syndrome" is probably not the best word to use, but I couldn't offhand think of a better word. I don't want to imply that there's something wrong with it, but in this case I need a word that implies "taking it seriously" as a psychological state.)

No one with a mental condition should be pitied and helped unless either (a) they want help because they don't like the way they are, or (b) they're unable to function/take care of themselves re simple daily tasks--maintaining shelter, acquiring and ingesting food, etc. — Terrapin Station

I agree with this.

AND they (at least seem to) want to be able to achieve those daily tasks. — Terrapin Station

I disagree with this. If they don't want to eat, etc. then they are suffering psychologically, and require help until they get into more stable waters where they can manage for themselves. We're not going to let people die in the street because they are depressed and no one cares for them. Nobody will be dying in the streets. We will take care of them.

I don't think we should force people to live if they don't want to, however.

Nobody will be dying in the streets. We will take care of them. — Agustino

Would that we were so kind. We have come close to letting people die in the streets--literally, not figuratively. There are mentally ill homeless people who are (slowly, granted) dying in the streets. It took a long time for the northern city I live in (Minneapolis) to recognize that "public inebriates" need caring alochol-tolerant shelter, especially in the winter. (Most shelters here are rigidly alcohol-intolerant.) We finally have it, and it is a good thing.

In San Francisco there are thousands of homeless living on the streets. I've seen them there years past. They won't freeze, they're mostly not insane (crazy maybe, but that's a different story). They aren't cared for.

We will take care of the mentally ill, by distrusting psychologists and psychiatrists, therapists and doctors - makes perfect sense to me! Weeee!

We will take care of the mentally ill, by distrusting psychologists and psychiatrists, therapists and doctors - makes perfect sense to me! Weeee! — Heister Eggcart

Yeah, if these faggots were so good at treating patients, we'd have less mentally ill folk than we do today. As far as I'm concerned, these experts are part of the problem, not the solution. It's in their interest that people are sick and continue to suffer so that they keep coming for their expensive services, and pay them more and more dough.

Would that we were so kind. We have come close to letting people die in the streets--literally, not figuratively. There are mentally ill homeless people who are (slowly, granted) dying in the streets. It took a long time for the northern city I live in (Minneapolis) to recognize that "public inebriates" need caring alochol-tolerant shelter, especially in the winter. (Most shelters here are rigidly alcohol-intolerant.) We finally have it, and it is a good thing.

In San Francisco there are thousands of homeless living on the streets. I've seen them there years past. They won't freeze, they're mostly not insane (crazy maybe, but that's a different story). They aren't cared for. — Bitter Crank

Yes that unfortunately is true, even in the civilised world, and it's a big shame, that people are left to die in the streets.

Yeah, if these faggots were so good at treating patients, we'd have less mentally ill folk than we do today. — Agustino

Forgive me for asking for a little grace Agustino but your vocabulary is greater then to resort to using insulting words.

The sex/gender of other persons is one of the many things beyond our control. 'Nuff said.

Clearly not. GID/gender dysphoria is a terrible disorder to have, with an awful prognosis. Apparently 41 percent attempt suicide at some point. Being transgender is just the medical treatment for the disease (gender dyshporia, or Gender Identity Disorder). It's a shame this medical illness has been tacked onto LGB issues and causes/politicized. — dukkha

Not the type of "problem" the OP was referring to now was it?

Also, what percentage of attempted suicide is a consequence of the intolerance shown towards people with this disorder?

It's in their interest that people are sick and continue to suffer so that they keep coming for their expensive services, and pay them more and more dough. — Agustino

We have a saying in the Netherlands: "As the innkeeper is, does he trust his guests". Meaning people who expect the worst from others usually aren't very nice themselves.

You can question the efficacy of the profession but questioning their moral character says more about you than anything else.

We have a saying in the Netherlands: "As the innkeeper is, does he trust his guests". Meaning people who expect the worst from others usually aren't very nice themselves. — Benkei

That is quite possibly true, however -

I think, as I've explained before, that the very framework in which psychiatrists work makes them unable to help their patients in any way. They are broken off from the reality of mental trouble, and therefore the help they give, when push comes to shove, is worth nothing. My beef with them is that they accept to work as psychiatrists in these circumstances - that knowing that they can't do much for their patients, they accept to go to their jobs and do a half-hearted job. That's my moral problem with them.

"As the innkeeper is, does he trust his guests". — Benkei

Perhaps this is a problem peculiar to the Dutch?

My beef with them is that they accept to work as psychiatrists in these circumstances - that knowing that they can't do much for their patients, they accept to go to their jobs and do a half-hearted job. — Agustino

But isn't this true of many areas of professional work -- including several areas of medicine?

After all, physicians treating problems related to obesity can't follow their patients around and intervene in their dietary choices (they might, but then they could treat only 1 patient at a time). Some psychiatrists treat hospitalized patients and patients who are not, and do not need to be hospitalized. How can a good defense attorney, who has perhaps committed no worse crime than overstaying a parking meeter, possibly understand the circumstances of a first degree murderer?

Psychiatrists, like every other adult, have parents, childhood experiences, difficulties in adolescence, had crushes on favorite teachers, conflicting motivations in college, marriage problems, a long slog through medical school, and difficulties on the job prior to becoming a psychiatrist. All that saves them from irrelevance in their patient's lives.

You can question the efficacy of the profession but questioning their moral character says more about you than anything else. — Benkei

True, it says a lot about the Left.

Indeed I did read it, well parts of it anyway...

This is the bit that led me to question it's methodological robustness:

Over four months, our research team fielded its 70 question survey through direct contacts with more than 800 transgender-led or transgender-serving community-based organizations throughout the United States. We also contacted possible participants through 150 active online community listservs. The vast majority of respondents took the survey on-line, through a URL established at Pennsylvania State University.

Additionally, we distributed 2,000 paper surveys to organizations serving hard-to-reach populations – including rural, homeless, and low-income transgender and gender non-conforming people conducting phone follow-ups over three months. With only $3,000 in dedicated funding for outreach, we paid stipends to workers in homeless shelters, legal aid clinics, mobile health clinics, and other service settings to host “survey parties” to encourage respondents whose economic vulnerability, housing insecurity, or literacy level might pose particular barriers to participation. This effort resulted in the inclusion of 500 paper surveys in the final sample.

While over 7,000 people completed online and paper surveys, the final study sample includes 6,450 valid respondents from all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Our geographic distribution mirrors that of the general U.S. population.

I'm no statistician myself, but it seems like there is no clear method of sampling whatsoever, and I could not find anything detailing how they discriminated the raw data to ensure that their sample is a representative cross section of all transgender individuals.

But this was not my main criticism of the 41% statistic. My main criticism is that suicide is known to be caused by things like poverty and social isolation/ostracization, which in many contemporary social settings are direct results of "transitioning". Until a tranny is said to "pass" (believably pass for the gender they are trying to conform to) everyone knows that they are different, which leads to social difficulties of many kinds, while the actual cost of transitioning is high (possibly with no upper limit) which makes them at a greater risk of poverty. The point is that being transgender does not in and of itself make an individual 41% likely to have attempted suicide at least once, it has also largely (and perhaps primarily) to do with the accompanying difficulties and social ills which are typical of the average transgender experience in the western world. The study in question acknowledges this several times...

I'm sure right now you're thinking: "Oh this bleeding heart liberal is just making this argument to be PC and deny reality", but I urge you actually consider the position you're taking. You're saying that because the statistics of transgendered lives paints a bleak picture, that this therefore gives us easy and instant knowledge and insight into the true nature of the phenomenon behind these statistical realities.

Saying (essentially) that transgenderism is an intolerable disease because of statistical disparities is just like your average social justice warrior saying that western society is a white supremacist system because of statistical disparities between races. Yet still you inherently presume understanding of the gambit of psychological causes which mechanistically lead to the statistical realities of transgenders, just like how the average social justice warrior presumes that psychologically white males carry out oppression because of privilege preserving angry bigotry inherent to their culture/society/biology.

I know why you're trying to take no bull shit, as it were, and it's somewhat praiseworthy in the current cultural zietgiest where unsophisticated rhetoric is the most commonly accepted unit of intellectual currency, but you need to make sure that you don't tend toward symmetry with your opponents. It might be the easy route, but if you want to raise the standards of debate in the long run you will have failed.

The truth as I see it is that gender dysphoria is probably discomforting or even painful. Gender identity disorders surely are not desirable if pain and suffering or a deprivation of happiness accompany them, but when someone does turn up with a gender identity disorder (and they inevitably do and have done throughout history), what should we do to help them?

Should we not tolerate their their condition in the sense that we use therapy to repress their disordered feelings and thoughts? Should we forbid or hospitalize them from attempting to transition if transitioning in any form increases risks of unhappiness or self harm?

I wonder whether or not the risks of transitioning, even accounting for the poverty and social problems it causes, are not still outweighed by the harm that we might cause by preventing people from attempting to do so.

Surely everyone who gets it in their head that they want to be a different gender should not be instantly taken at their word and given a box of hormone pills, but evidently there are some for whom the decision to transition is the result of lengthy contemplation and exploration of alternatives. Transsexuals can in fact successfully transition, with or without an actual operation, and so I remain thoroughly convinced that your suggestion that their dangerous ailment should never be indulged is not at all universally sound medical advice.

We don't have that many examples of successful transsexuals from history (yet there are still many good examples) probably because the most successful transsexuals went completely undetected, as do thousands upon thousands in the modern world.

But isn't this true of many areas of professional work -- including several areas of medicine? — Bitter Crank

Perhaps. But there are many cases in medicine for example, when there's not much that a doctor can do. In that case their knowledge and expertise is limited and that's that. They're not really at fault for that. But I actually think that a large majority of mental illness sufferers could be helped and even cured, and they are not. And that is the fault of the therapists - it doesn't help that they have no skin in the game either.

After all, physicians treating problems related to obesity can't follow their patients around and intervene in their dietary choices (they might, but then they could treat only 1 patient at a time) — Bitter Crank

Yes but they wouldn't have to. It's sufficient for them to prepare a diet for their patient, discuss whether the patient has any particular objections/desires, and then ask them to keep to it, maybe get them to keep a journal and see how it goes. It's the patient's responsibility to follow the advice in that case. But the same cannot be said about mental illness - the thing with mental illness is precisely that the patient struggles to follow the advice or to apply it to particular situations. I don't know if you've ever gone through something similar yourself, but for example, hypochondria of which I suffered, the thought you're ill or will become ill and die can manifest in hundreds and millions of ways. Literarily every kind of symptom I can make myself actually feel. And the question always is how do you distinguish? Say I get a strong chest pain... Is that a heart attack? If you ask a doctor they tell you "if you have persistent chest pains, with other symptoms like shortness of breath, etc. you have to go to the hospital IMMEDIATELY" If you tell the psychiatrist you get chest pains, etc. they'll be like "ahh that's just your anxiety, you have to do something different, it's not real" but the whole question is how do you distinguish real from unreal, not in theory, but in practice?

So the psychiatrist can't help with that. If you ask the question they avoid it. They don't take it seriously. They think "ah must be just another avoidance symptom, just the continuance of the anxiety" - they don't say it, but you can see that that's what they think. You can see they don't give a fuck for real. Just makes you feel worse about yourself. Really someone like Aristotle could have helped. They teach you how to think in practice. Everywhere you look for example you see information about your health that is scary. Even the doctors scare you! It took me a long time until I made friends amongst doctors to understand that what doctors tell the public is very different from what doctors actually believe. For example they tell the public they need to go to the ER IMMEDIATELY in case of chest pain. They don't really believe that, but because the public is full of idiots who would otherwise be killed by their stupidity they prefer to scare them - better that they make more trips to the ER than they die and the doctor gets accused he hasn't done his job. It's the more intelligent folk out there who actually start researching and take these things for granted because it's all they can find.

And I mean most people's understanding of medicine is nonexistant. How can you not worry about your health if you don't even have a basic understanding of disease and how the body functions? So learning all these things took me a lot of time. But now I don't worry because I understand practically what could go wrong, how the body works, what OBJECTIVE signs to check for and so forth. I understand generally - so if there's a problem I would know, just that I would quite possibly not know what it is for sure or what to do. For example one time I got this disease called pilonidal cyst. i diagnosed myself with it, went to the doctor, and he wanted to do surgery on my ass - literarily! So I told him Im not going to do that, i went and researched, read a few medical research papers on it, and then went back and told him what antibiotic to prescribe me. He said ahh but antibiotic doesn't generally work, blah blah. So i told him i don't care, I want him to do it. So he did it, and I got cured. If I had listened to him, I would have been in bed changing bandages for 1-2months... Never trust doctors 100%. Always opt for conservative treatment first, only if it fails go to more extensive one. That's number one principle they teach in med school, only that doctors, by the time they get to practice, get lazy and want to get rid of patients quickly so they choose most certain treatment instead of most conservative.

It's really about learning to use your judgement in practice and trusting it. But you need some knowledge. That useless psychiatrist should teach you medicine instead of telling you that anxious person shouldn't learn medicine. It needs to be an over-arching approach that makes the patient POWERFUL - in the real sense of the term. The purpose of therapy isn't that you emerge out of there the same as you were before your illness - but rather that you emerge a stronger and greater man. That should be the aim.

Really if you ask me, the priest is actually better than the psychiatrist for mental illness. So are great philosophers. Hypochondria for me really was rational. If you don't know shit about the body, how can you not worry? That would be like being in the jungle with no survival skills and not being worried. If you can't distinguish mind-created feelings from actual, real feelings, how the hell can you know what to do? Goodluck finding real answers with those money hungry, greedy and immoral psychiatrists

Y'know, Agustino, you are the precise sort of person that keeps me from throwing my computer out the window and going to a monastery, because I fear if I meet someone like you outside my cell, and had the displeasure of having a conversation, I'd as quickly throw myself out the window in a final retreat.

Really if you ask me, the priest is actually better than the psychiatrist for mental illness. So are great philosophers. — Agustino

Perhaps your experience with psychiatrists has been unusually bad.

What psychiatrists spend most of their time doing is treating garden variety mental health problems. They see case after case of run-of-the-mill anxiety, depression, free-floating hostility, suicidal ideation, too much drinking, and so on. My experience is that what these millions of people need is not more medicine (except for acute symptom relief) but a significant change in the way they conduct their lives, and much, much more self knowledge.

Rather than an epidemic of depression and anxiety, what we have is an epidemic of bad work situations, bad relationships, totally unreasonable expectations of life, debt, frustrated aspirations, poor sleep (it's more destructive than most people think), insufficient exercise, too much alcohol and other recreational intoxicants, and (maybe most damaging) very disorganized lives.

None of the actual problems are medical. Tranquilizers and antidepressants can't cure the way people live their lives. That's where "therapy means change, not adjustment" comes in. If you are in a sick, debilitating work situation, then get out of it. if your partner is driving you crazy, then send the crazy-making person packing. Stop drinking so much. Not getting enough sleep? Go. To. Bed. Turn the television and the lights off. Turn off your phone. Etc.

Will this sort of advice solve everyone's problems? No, but it will solve a lot of the problems. A skilled social worker, pastor, or... philosopher could be useful in teaching people what good priorities are; how change can be brought about; what is really important in life. Now all we need to do is find a few million skilled social workers, pastors, and philosophers who aren't busy and find a few $billion to pay them with.]

Some psychiatric practices deal with major mental illness involving psychoses, schizophrenia, bi-polar disease, OCD, criminal sexual behavior, and the like. I have quite a bit of respect for these doctors. The major diseases can be as devastating as cancer, and are difficulty to treat successfully. The manifestations of major mental illnesses are ugly, some of the drugs have bad side effects, and it's all very hard on patients families.

what should we do to help them? — VagabondSpectre

By not indulging in their disorder. Like anorexic -- which someone else exampled here -- do not indulge them by telling them: "you are right, you are fat, stop eating". No, she is starving and needs to eat healthily. The dangers of her conditions should be clear, she in danger of dying.

Transsexuals can in fact successfully transition, with or without an actual operation, and so I remain thoroughly convinced that your suggestion that their dangerous ailment should never be indulged is not at all universally sound medical advice. — VagabondSpectre

Strawman. Nice of you to squeeze the words "all universally sound medical advice," which I never claimed. Given that we are dealing with someone who is obviously suffering from some kind of mental disorder, we can't indulge that person. For the same reason you do not indulge a suicidal person. But instead save them. The person in the video says: "I just want to die." According to you, you should indulge him.

How your Leftists mind can twist this is impressive. I will leave that to Haidt to explain. It may be just the tendencies of the Left to virtue signalling.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And I am not making things up, it is officially recognised as a mental disorder:

"The terms transsexualism, dual-role transvestism, gender identity disorder in adolescents or adults and gender identity disorder not otherwise specified are listed as such in the International Statistical Classification of Diseases (ICD) or the American Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) under codes F64.0, F64.1, 302.85 and 302.6 respectively."

Been to therapists three times, they all told me I was completely sane, charming, attractive and brilliant, and usually said that I lacked self-esteem, and needed to do more social things.

See, I can't be insane. Insane people are nonsensical, they say idiot things like most of you guys, not smart things like me.

Even that aside psychology is like an attempted formalization of morality, or religion. It holds to a developmental model, based on psychological maturity, and important milestone points that people can miss for various reasons, and need to be worked past. The most popular personality profiling system is hierarchical, leading to enlightenment. It's all moral language, stripped of connotation. It's how we continue to see demons, and never stopped.

I worked with a very social, extroverted and upbeat transgender. It was a job in marketing and sales. There are exceptions, but (anecdotal) exceptions are a red herring here.

I don't know what you mean, or you're responding to.

By not indulging in their disorder. Like anorexic -- which someone else exampled here -- do not indulge them by telling them: "you are right, you are fat, stop eating". No, she is starving and needs to eat healthily. The dangers of her conditions should be clear, she in danger of dying. — Emptyheady

You're comparing death by starvation to "behaving as the opposite gender". Obviously nutritional health is more cut and dried than psychological health; your comparison is poor.

Strawman. Nice of you to squeeze the words "all universally sound medical advice," which I never claimed. Given that we are dealing with someone who is obviously suffering from some kind of mental disorder, we can't indulge that person. For the same reason you do not indulge a suicidal person. But instead save them. The person in the video says: "I just want to die." According to you, you should indulge him. — Emptyheady

Who are we dealing with? ALL transgender people? We should never indulge anyone with a mental disorder, and transgenderism is a disorder, therefore never indulge any transgender people? What exactly is the straw man? That you're talking about all transgender people or just that your opinion might have been an attempt at medical advice in the first place?

It's pretty hilarious though that you would accuse me of misrepresenting your position (a strawman) and then go onto accuse me of advocating death by starvation or suicide.

Is transitioning actually analogous to suicide?

How your Leftists mind can twist this is impressive. I will leave that to Haidt to explain. It may be just the tendencies of the Left to virtue signalling. — Emptyheady

Did you know that accusing someone of virtue signaling is exactly the same kind of argument as virtue signaling? "I have virtue, therefore my arguments are correct" and "I virtue-signaled, therefore my arguments are incorrect.". They're both fallacious appeals to character that fail to address the relevant argument

What was the virtue to which I was signaling my allegiance by the way?

And I am not making things up, it is officially recognised as a mental disorder:

"The terms transsexualism, dual-role transvestism, gender identity disorder in adolescents or adults and gender identity disorder not otherwise specified are listed as such in the International Statistical Classification of Diseases (ICD) or the American Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) under codes F64.0, F64.1, 302.85 and 302.6 respectively." — Emptyheady

Kindly correct the flaws in the following representation of your argument:

P.1: Mental disorders should not be indulged
P.2 Transgenderism is a mental disorder
C.1: We should never indulge transgenderism

Not in the DSM-5, renamed to gender dysphoria, but it doesn't matter. Transition is expensive, and people want it covered under their medical coverage. The change in name also refocuses things on the psychological pain of the physical mismatch, and the effectiveness of transition in relieving this pain. Although social stigma of mental illness is bad, getting flipped off by your medical coverage is worse.

Y'know, Agustino, you are the precise sort of person that keeps me from throwing my computer out the window and going to a monastery, because I fear if I meet someone like you outside my cell, and had the displeasure of having a conversation, I'd as quickly throw myself out the window in a final retreat. — Heister Eggcart

Heister Feister perhaps you ought to actually contribute something to the discussion apart from actual insults. You like to sit on the side and throw snarky remarks at those who fight the good fight. With an attitude like yours I don't know what you'd do at a monastery - perhaps just eat the bread and consume the resources of the monks.

Some psychiatric practices deal with major mental illness involving psychoses, schizophrenia, bi-polar disease, OCD, criminal sexual behavior, and the like. I have quite a bit of respect for these doctors. — Bitter Crank

Anything that involves hallucinations is something that these doctors, or pretty much anyone else, can do little about. I'm not talking about those conditions, many of which are biological (OR THE RESULT OF THERAPY ITSELF). OCD though isn't among them. I was at one time officially diagnosed with OCD. By the big brain of these psychiatrists I should still have it today. I have absolutely zero symptoms of it today. I was given antipsychotics (those that are for things like schizophrenia), antidepressants, and benzodiazepines. It wasn't until I got off them - BY MYSELF (please note that, because if it was after the big brain of psychiatrists I wouldn't have gotten off the pills) - that my symptoms started to disappear.

Perhaps your experience with psychiatrists has been unusually bad. — Bitter Crank

It's not just my experience. It's a fact. It's only the lying books which say otherwise. They don't want you to know the truth. Experience speaks clearly for all those who have it. One of my friends was destroyed by psychiatry - they have actually made him sick. These folks are corrupt to the bone, and they will stop at nothing to destroy all signs of greatness and superiority. Their normal person is mediocrity personified. Bowing the head everywhere. That's "normal" for them. That's the "goal". Can you imagine... Alexander the Great going to a psychiatrist... "My goal in life is to conquer Persia and be the greatest conqueror that history will ever know!" My days, the psychiatrist would likely not even allow him to leave - straight to the special ward with him! How dare he have such a goal?? How dare he think of himself as GREAT and superior to others?? A person should have goals like - get a job as an accountant, have lots of sex, etc. Anything else is not permitted, and is a sign of disease. The psychiatrists are just as Nietzsche predicted, the weak, who because they are good for nothing and cannot do anything themselves, want to stop everyone else from doing. They want everyone else to be mediocre and sit down - not dance - because they themselves cannot dance.

Can you imagine Newton going to a psychiatrist? "Oh you stayed locked in your basement working on physics for years on end? You're sick, you're deformed, you need to socialise, you're wasting your life, you won't discover anything, you will destroy your mind, you need to do more productive things" and on it goes. These serpents will stop at nothing in order to destroy ALL greatness. Everything great about a person - for example, that one can sit without socialising for years on end - that great trait of genius, that is noticed in all men of note - Arthur Schopenhauer, Diogenes, etc. - they want to destroy it. They want to make man a slave to society - they want him to be dependent.

As an aside:
In fact, @Heister Eggcart- I have a suggestion for you. Get thee to a psychiatric ward and talk with them for a little. They'll tell you that you are SICK, that you need treatment, that you are on your way to insanity... and why? Because you believe that sex should be avoided. That alone - can you imagine it - that alone is sufficient to qualify you as deranged and in need of therapy.


Can you imagine - literarily ANY great historical figure - going to the psychiatrist and being told they are, well, great? If Socrates went in there, he would've been put on meds and locked up instantly! He is too dangerous to leave outside. As is Jesus. As was Mohammed. As was any great historical figure. Arthur Schopenhauer if he went in there - disaster! Napoleon! Julius Caesar! Beethoven! All of them! They would be relegated to the asylum!

What they consider insanity is part and parcel of greatness. You cannot be great if you are normal. If you are normal, you are mediocre. And so they use normality in order to keep people mediocre. They keep them in check, every time they aim to do something great, they're told they are sick, they require treatment, there's something wrong with them. And every time they do something small and petty, they are told they are great, they are told they are very smart, they are told all the good adjectives one can imagine.

I lacked self-esteem, and needed to do more social things. — Wosret

Yes if you don't do social things, you're sick, you're deformed, there's something wrong with you, according to these bastards. Psychotherapy is a lie.

Even that aside psychology is like an attempted formalization of morality, or religion. — Wosret

No. It's morality inverted. Morality has some sense for greatness. Psychiatry has none.

It's how we continue to see demons, and never stopped. — Wosret

Yes - the mechanism to keep man in check.

So, let's sum this up... it's a fact that psychiatrists are greedy, immoral and corrupt to the bone, not to mention at the same time hilariously stupid, and of course also a bunch of faggot cuckoos consulting lying books who want people to be sick and suffer and will stop at nothing to destroy all signs of greatness and mostly just want to enslave you to society? And that psychiatrists (probably pretty regularly) sending Alexander the Great, Jesus, Mohammed, Napoleon and Julius Caesar to the asylum is actually a really bad thing?

And you realized all this, plus the fact that progressives are actually Nazis trying to control your thoughts, after you quit seeing psychiatrists and taking your medication?

Kids, take heed. Take your meds and don't skip sessions.

Your sentiments on mental health are revolting to me, so I'm not going to tickle your fancy and indulge in fruitless conversation.

We have to go meta for a moment. First of all, you do not seem to understand the conversation we are having. I claim something, namely that trangenderism is a mental disorder and should be treated as a mental disorder, and you criticise my position. All of that is fine, but accusing me straw-manning you is absurd. The conversation is asymmetrical. We are discussing my position, not yours. I do not even know yours and do not pretend to.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You're comparing death by starvation to "behaving as the opposite gender". Obviously nutritional health is more cut and dried than psychological health; your comparison is poor. — VagabondSpectre

I am comparing different mental disorders, and pointing out the fact that because transgenders suffer from some kind of mental disorder, they should be treated as such.

This is my first serious comment here: http://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/36002

Who are we dealing with? — VagabondSpectre

We are dealing with a mental disorder, like anorexia. Not Yolanda from yoga lessons.

We should never indulge anyone with a mental disorder, and transgenderism is a disorder, therefore never indulge any transgender people? — VagabondSpectre

Let me explain what I mean with the word indulge. Their mental capacity is defective regarding judgements relevant to their own mental disorder. Therefore, another person with good judgement has the right to (and I would even say "ought to") intervene and override some important decisions that the person with mental disorder wishes to make -- a paternalistic approach. Suicide, starvation and surgery that permanently affect your life are what I consider important decisions. Decisions that someone with a mental disorder cannot make and no one should co-operate (i.e. indulge) as if that person has good judgement.

None of this is controversial, since there are already laws in place that override your autonomy. For example, you cannot just go to the surgeon and ask him/her to cut off your legs without any medical reasons. That surgeon has to refuse it by law, if he/she does not that surgeon will risk some serious lawsuits. You can consider those laws as paternalistic, but they are there to protect vulnerable people who are either temporarily or permanently incapable of making good judgements. Interestingly enough, those laws are there even for people who do not suffer from a mental disorder. People who do suffer from a mental disorder have to live an even more restrictive life. It is simply evil to indulge them in their mental disorder.

Let me add something to this conversation other than to share the platitude that everyone should do that which makes him/her happy and we should butt out of other's lives if it's only to make them less happy. I mean if a guy is happier dressing as a woman and carving up his body to look like a woman, why should I really care? So, hear hear to that sentiment.

What I will add is that there is some value in looking into whether transsexuals become happier when they transition. My understanding of the data is that they don't. That is, if we look at transgenders as those having a mismatch between their biological sex and their mentally perceived sex, then it would make sense to correct that problem by (1) changing their bodies (2) changing their minds or (3) having them simply accept the imbalance. If we choose to change their bodies and we end up with someone with all sorts of hormonal imbalances, depression, urological problems, and social interaction problems, it is important to ask ourselves whether our proposed cure is worse than the disease. That is to say, altering a human body in all sorts of ways to make it look like you want in the mirror may not be the way to go if your objective was to reduce the depression and suicidal tendencies. Sure, you have a really interesting looking body, but does it house a happier mind?

I also want to point out that not all transsexuals were born that way. The narrative we all hear of the little boy who always wanted to wear little girls' clothes, to play little girls' games, and to kiss the little boys is the rare exception to the transgender personality. Most transgenders acted like and felt like little boys and then as men up through their 20s, 30s, and even 40s. There is a very significant difference between gay transsexuals and hetero transsexuals, with the latter being considered a fetish because they are sexually aroused at the thought of being a female. That group comprises by far the largest category of transsexual men. In fact, if one looks at the stats, the numbers of M to F and F to M transsexuals are about the same if one discounts heterosexual transsexuals from the mix. Once those are added in, the M to F tremendously outnumbers the F to M. The point here being that transexualism among men cannot just be viewed as a gender identity issue, but it also needs to be looked at as something that is sought by men for sexual arousal. And there is a very dark side to that equation as well, with the feminization process being part of a masochistic expression.

And that's what I wish to add to this discussion. The idea that transsexuals are just women in men's bodies that need to be freed by surgery isn't a terribly accurate statement. The truth is that most transsexuals are men who find sexual arousal by acting and thinking of themselves as women, and the surgery to free them to do this is far from freeing.

Let's take a second then to not just celebrate every difference, but instead to realize the human sexuality is extremely complex and often its expression is evidence of all sorts of deep seated issues. It is possible that there are some transsexuals who are perfectly normal in every way other than their anatomy, but I fear that is the exception.