…a sexual fetish for some that involves role-playing a regression to an infant-like state.[3][4] Behaviors may include drinking from a bottle or wearing diapers.
Nothing wrong with that right? No mental illness there. I’d be proud to have someone like that teach at a kindergarten dressed in a diaper.
[/quote]
I’m just going to take this as an example.
What are you talking about?
None of this has anything to do with what we are discussing.
I have recently come to the conclusion that most of the bad thinking around here is a product of the emotional-intellectual inability to analyze specific ideas on their particulars and without lashing out at some indiscriminately-grouped collection of “things I really don’t like omg!!!”
Debate is simpler than most people care to understand. We are talking about whether or not transgender people are mentally ill. Any evidence you provide should be evidence that transgender people are mentally ill. A few lines of sarcasm on an entirely different topic have literally no bearing on anything about our discussion.
I will reiterate for a last time–in the hope that you will address this–that the situation that I am looking at is fairly straight-forward: The people who study, constitute, and determine the field of professional psychology say that L’s and G’s and T’s and Q’s are not ipso facto sufferers of any mental illness. You say otherwise. They are experts, and you are not. Does it get simpler?
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Psychologists considered homosexuality a mental illness from the start.
[/quote]
And doctors once removed teeth to let the bad spirits our when people had headaches.
But neither of those things is true anymore, right?
Because if I walked into a meeting among the research faculty of Harvard’s psychology department and asked them if homosexuality is a mental disorder, they would tell me no.
Frankly I don’t give a shit what some quack says about transsexuals. Especially when it’s at odds with what his colleagues were saying for over a century prior to the 1970’s when homosexuals pressured them into changing their minds. My actual contention couldn’t be simpler: a transsexual is not a fit and proper person to serve as a community leader, spiritual advisor, school teacher, public servant, soldier, sailor, airman, commercial pilot or any other position in which the community has an expectation of trustworthy behaviour and responsibility.
Mr Johnson is applying for the zookeeper position.
[/quote]
Oh, another thing:
Not analogous.
A zoophile is attracted to animals and would be working with animals in your scenario.
The analogue would be a pedophile working with children.
We are talking about the recipient of a sex change operation, not a pedophile.
Again, your lazy thinking about social issues–really just gay issues, actually–precludes you from making a logically consistent argument.
There is a reason that each of these discussions ends the way it does. It isn’t that you’re a bad bowler–it’s that you’re trying to bowl a cactus rather than a ball.
And doctors once removed teeth to let the bad spirits our when people had headaches.
[/quote]
Yes but doctors weren’t removing teeth or dancing in a circle with chicken feathers in the mid 1970’s. In fact medicine was quite advanced and involved things like antibiotics, vaccines and open heart surgery.
Frankly I don’t give a shit what some quack says about transsexuals.[/quote]
Nobody says you have to, but you should probably not be surprised when nobody takes your not-psychologist’s opinion seriously in light of the fact that it is at odds with the opinions of the people who actually practice the discipline in question. The people who can answer “yes” to the question, “are you qualified to make these judgments?”
[quote]
My actual contention couldn’t be simpler: a transsexual is not a fit and proper person to serve as a community leader, spiritual advisor, school teacher, public servant, soldier, sailor, airman, commercial pilot or any other position in which the community has an expectation of trustworthy behaviour and responsibility.[/quote]
And like all of your other actual contentions on the subject of homosexuality, it is neither logically nor evidentially supportable.
And doctors once removed teeth to let the bad spirits our when people had headaches.
[/quote]
Yes but doctors weren’t removing teeth or dancing in a circle with chicken feathers in the mid 1970’s. In fact medicine was quite advanced and involved things like antibiotics, vaccines and open heart surgery.[/quote]
The point is that “experts used to say X!” is not valid evidence of X if experts no longer say X.
Experts used to say many things.
It is the field of psychology that determines what is and is not a mental disorder.
You are objectively incorrect when you say that homosexuality is a mental disorder, because the field of psychology says otherwise.
Nobody says you have to, but you should probably not be surprised when nobody takes your not-psychologist’s opinion seriously in light of the fact that it is at odds with the opinions of the people who actually practice the discipline in question.
[/quote]
Transsexualism is considered a mental disorder:
“In 1980, the American Psychiatric Association added gender identity disorder to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM)…In a nod to progress, the next DSM will replace “gender identity disorder” with “gender dysphoria” as a diagnosis.”
So this priest is mentally ill according to the APA and the DSM. Interesting that a supposedly scientific discipline has to change its findings to give a “nod to progress.” I would’ve thought that social and political ideology have no place in science. But so long as they give a “nod” to homosexual activists and change their findings accordingly that’s the main thing. Science based on public opinion; what could be more unscientific? Oh yeah right, climate change. I forgot.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Especially when it’s at odds with what his colleagues were saying for over a century prior to the 1970’s when homosexuals pressured them into changing their minds. [/quote]
If, say, 10% of the population has that much influence over the rest, maybe we should all be gay.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Especially when it’s at odds with what his colleagues were saying for over a century prior to the 1970’s when homosexuals pressured them into changing their minds. [/quote]
If, say, 10% of the population has that much influence over the rest, maybe we should all be gay.[/quote]
It’s not just the gay community. As you may have noticed here, large numbers of heterosexual people feel the need to involve themselves in homosexual activism. Say something politically incorrect about gays and you’ll find that just about everyone will attack you. You’ll be simultaneously a homophobe and a repressed homosexual. You’ll be compared to the Nazis and the Ku Klux Klan. You might even lose your job or be sent off to a sensitivity training re-education camp.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
It’s not just the gay community. As you may have noticed here, large numbers of heterosexual people feel the need to involve themselves in homosexual activism. Say something politically incorrect about gays and you’ll find that just about everyone will attack you. You’ll be simultaneously a homophobe and a repressed homosexual. You’ll be compared to the Nazis and the Ku Klux Klan. You might even lose your job or be sent off to a sensitivity training re-education camp.[/quote]
Then why bring up the topic? Gays hurt nobody else. The reactions that people have been conditioned to have to any criticism of gays are no different than the ones people have been conditioned to have to any criticism of dark-skinned peoples or any other victim group. I agree that it’s foolish to criticize people who criticize gays, but unless you’re willing to admit that it’s equally foolish to criticize gays, why bring it up?
Nobody says you have to, but you should probably not be surprised when nobody takes your not-psychologist’s opinion seriously in light of the fact that it is at odds with the opinions of the people who actually practice the discipline in question.
[/quote]
Transsexualism is considered a mental disorder:
“In 1980, the American Psychiatric Association added gender identity disorder to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM)…In a nod to progress, the next DSM will replace “gender identity disorder” with “gender dysphoria” as a diagnosis.”
So this priest is mentally ill according to the APA and the DSM. Interesting that a supposedly scientific discipline has to change its findings to give a “nod to progress.” I would’ve thought that social and political ideology have no place in science. But so long as they give a “nod” to homosexual activists and change their findings accordingly that’s the main thing. Science based on public opinion; what could be more unscientific? Oh yeah right, climate change. I forgot.
[/quote]
No, it’s a disorder when the body and the identity are out of whack and this causes distress. Without the distress–after treatment, for example–there is no disorder. From your link:
[quote]
The shift underscores that [b]being transgender is not a disorder in itself[/b]: Treatment only is considered for transgender people who experience gender dysphoria â?? a feeling of intense distress that one’s body is not consistent with the gender he or she feels they are.[/quote]
Wiki:
[quote]
“The current medical approach to treatment for people diagnosed with gender identity disorder is to support them in physically modifying their bodies so that they better match their gender identities.”[/quote]
Do you know that this person experiences gender dysphoria, after the medical procedures? Do you know that this person feels intense distress that her body is not in line with her gender identity?
No, you don’t. So, just like Obama as a psychopath, you wouldn’t be able to diagnose anything here even if you were qualified, which you are not.
Then why bring up the topic? Gays hurt nobody else.
[/quote]
My problem is not so much with gays but with the normalisation of homosexuality and the promotion of the homosexual lifestyle as admirable. That undermines the civil society and traditional families. If gays did not try to force society to approve of their behaviour and run around saying “hey everyone look at me! Yoo hoo! I’m wearing fairy wings and high heels! Aren’t I adorable?” - if they weren’t doing shit like that I would find them easier to tolerate.
Gays are not a victim group. They’re a protected class. And It’s outrageous to compare gays to the victims of slavery and lynchings.
[quote]
I agree that it’s foolish to criticize people who criticize gays, but unless you’re willing to admit that it’s equally foolish to criticize gays, why bring it up?[/quote]
This guy’s pathological problem caused him such distress that he had himself castrated and dismembered. If it’s your contention that dismembering oneself cures one of mental illness then by logical extension the cure for apodemnophilia is have one’s limb/s amputated. Either you agree with both or you agree that castrating yourself is a sign that something’s amiss upstairs.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
My problem is not so much with gays but with the normalisation of homosexuality and the promotion of the homosexual lifestyle as admirable. That undermines the civil society and traditional families. If gays did not try to force society to approve of their behaviour and run around saying “hey everyone look at me! Yoo hoo! I’m wearing fairy wings and high heels! Aren’t I adorable?” - if they weren’t doing shit like that I would find them easier to tolerate.[/quote]
Who sees that as normal?
[quote]
Gays are not a victim group. They’re a protected class. And It’s outrageous to compare gays to the victims of slavery and lynchings.[/quote]
Protected class! There’s the phrase I was looking for. I agree that it’s outrageous to compare gays to the victims of slavery and lynchings. Luckily, I didn’t do that; I only compared them to living dark-skinned peoples. I don’t believe you’re an American, but there are no living victims of American slavery(at least what is commonly recognized as slavery) here in the U.S. Since you brought up lynchings, Matthew Shepherd’s murder was pretty close.
smh for starters. Perhaps not directly but when I said transsexualism is abnormal he asked me to define “normal.” So any reasonable person would have to assume he thinks transsexualism is normal. Although I’m sure he’ll prepare some convoluted argument attempting to deny it and at the same time act as an apologist for self castrating drag queens.
[quote]
Protected class! There’s the phrase I was looking for. I agree that it’s outrageous to compare gays to the victims of slavery and lynchings. Luckily, I didn’t do that; I only compared them to living dark-skinned peoples. I don’t believe you’re an American, but there are no living victims of American slavery(at least what is commonly recognized as slavery) here in the U.S. Since you brought up lynchings, Matthew Shepherd’s murder was pretty close.[/quote]
I agree. However fortunately the law does not overlook such crimes and the perpetrators were given life sentences.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
I agree that it’s foolish to criticize people who criticize gays[/quote]
And why is that?[/quote]
Their words hurt no one. [/quote]
Yes, because being told that you are eternally condemned to burn in Hell and that you’re a sexual deviant detrimental to your fellow man based on your inate sexual orientation has never caused a homosexual in the modern era to feel like a second class citizen or to commit suicide. And homosexuals have never been persecuted for who they love historically.
Gays want social conservatives to stay out of the bedroom. Here’s an idea: if you want people to stay out of the bedroom don’t ride down Main Street straddling a 20 foot long phallus dressed in a cock box and a ten gallon Stetson. Want people out of the bedroom? Stay out of the ladies’ restrooms. Out of the bedroom? Put your pants back on and wipe the lipstick off your face. In short, stay in the bedroom and we won’t even know what you’re doing.