[W: #255] The hypocrisy of most trans opponents

[blueskies2018]

Would you like me to try to PM it to you? Basically it's written by a women who did dance from a young age, and how the body undergoes permanent changes due to the training they get, assuming that they keep up with it for a certain amount of time. The point was countering specifically the argument about how we should not allow children to have these permanent physical changes (ignoring that such surgical transitioning is more rare than a 3rd term abortion). It was showing how many opponents are alright with non medically necessary changes in some cases, but not in others.

Please send if you can!

Ultimately, we have to use human "guinea pigs" at some point in any given research. My step daughter was the first, or at least one of the first, to have a new treatment tried on her for Whooping Cough for her age (still an infant). It's now the standard treatment for that age, BTW. This holds true whether we are talking surgical procedures, drug use, or psychological treatments. Even when it comes to something on children, it has to be done at some point. My daughter had/has Moyamoya, meaning that her blood vessels in her brain didn't grow with the rest of her, and she had her first stroke at age 3. She had brain surgery at 8. But all that had to be "guinea pigged" at some point on someone, including on children who could not really provide informed consent to it.

100% true, still scares me obviously.

And that actually runs both ways.

Yes, it does run both ways! I just worry that people don’t understand that people who want to hold on the puberty blocker etc do it out of concern not hatred. But you are right both sides want to help and are concerned it’s just an opinion of the best way to do it! Unfortunately every year the number of pediatric trans clinics, surgeries, and children placed on blocker or hormones increases. That’s my only concern.

I am unclear as to which side you are referring to at this point, and for the next couple of lines hereafter. ATM, I am going to go with the g

If they are doing an experimental study for this and parent are aware…maybe…maybe. But my gut says no haha. I would say that parents can’t decide to do any thing that could potentially harm their child, that’s the law now right…child endangerment. Now, like I said earlier, one side could see it as endangerment or as endangerment if you don’t do this treatment. Ultimately, this is why we need more research! To know which is actually right! Which then means we need guinea pigs!! Ahhh!!! So that’s the crux of it for me. I gues what I would say though is, let’s do the studies with treatments that are not physical first before doing the one with drugs not approved by the FDA to be used for this purpose. But that’s just my opinion.

Again, assuming you mean proponents, it's because another solution is not available that actually treats the GD without causing more damage than it corrects. Think of it as similar to diabetes. Right now, the only real solution is insulin control, although it does come in a variety of methods. But there is no other treatment. And similar to how there is a variety of methods under the one treatment of diabetes, ranging from dietary, to injectable insulin, so too does the treatment of transitioning, ranging from presentation to the full GCS.

Yes, we need more research and effort to find the BEST solution. When that is done, I will go with that treatment. I don’t see that going either way yet due to lack of research tho.

Cont'd next post due to character limits

 

[maquiscat]

You really would use Ze/Zir when talking to a total stranger about someone who isn't present and would never know about the conversation?

Language is also about clear communication.

The use of Ze/Zir would make it clear that I am talking about a NB person. Whether that other agreed with the concepts or not is completely separate. I would even know that they received clear communication if they try to insist on the use of he or she.

 

[rahl]

And the DSM determines the qualifications to treat patients as you claimed?

The DSM is crystal clear on the criteria for delusional disorder.

 

[rahl]

Correct, gender is a sociological term and biologists agree with that.

Yes, gender is now a meaningless term.

They don’t lie and claim the term is meaningless like you do.

But we know it’s now meaningless. You people pandering to delusions rendered meaningless around 10 years ago.

 

[rahl]

And you’ve gone a step further to claim that psychiatrists who don’t agree with your interpretation of the DSM aren’t qualified to treat patients.

I have made no claims.

What is that claim based on?

Not a claim. Statement of fact. Based on the actual criteria for delusional disorder diagnosis per the DSM.

 

[Lisa]

The DSM is crystal clear on the criteria for delusional disorder.

And it doesn't apply to transgender or NB people. You should read it.

Introduction​

Delusional disorder is one of the less common psychotic disorders, in which patients have delusions but not the other classical symptoms of schizophrenia (thought disorder, hallucinations, mood disturbance or flat affect). There have been some changes in diagnostic criteria for this condition in the new edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, intended to improve the reliability and stability of the diagnosis and facilitate consistent treatment (American Psychiatric Association, 2013).


A delusion is a belief that is held with strong conviction despite evidence disproving it that is stronger than any evidence supporting it. It is distinct from an erroneous belief caused by incomplete information (misconception or misunderstanding), deficient memory (confabulation) or incorrect perception (illusion). The psychiatrist and philosopher Karl Jaspers proposed 3 criteria for delusional beliefs in 1913: certainty (the belief is held with absolute conviction), incorrigibility (the belief cannot be changed with any proof to the contrary) and impossibility or falsity (the belief cannot be true) (Jaspers, 1967). Delusions are associated with a variety of mental and neurological disorders, but are of diagnostic importance in the psychotic disorders.

Symptoms of Delusional Disorder​

Delusions are generally categorized in 4 groups: bizarre, non-bizarre, mood-congruent and mood-neutral. Bizarre delusions are strange and implausible, such as being vivisected by aliens, while non-bizarre delusions are possible but unlikely, such as being under surveillance. Mood-congruent delusions are false beliefs that are consistent with the patient’s mood if disordered, such as power and influence with mania and rejection and ostracism with depression. Mood-neutral delusions are not related to the patient’s mood, such as having two heads or one arm.


Delusions have a great variety of themes, but certain recurrent themes have been identified (Spitzer, 1990). These include delusions of control, mind-reading, thought insertion, reference, persecution, grandeur, self-accusation, jealousy (Othello syndrome), romance or sexual involvement (erotomania), somatic change or disease or death (Cotard syndrome). Somatic delusions are associated with mood disorders and organic dementias, and may constitute their own diagnostic entity (body dysmorphic disorder) (Spitzer, 1990), while grandiose or persecutory delusions are often cardinal symptoms of schizophrenia and related disorders (Freeman, 2004).

Delusional Disorder DSM-5 297.1 (F22) - Therapedia

www.theravive.com

 

[rahl]

And it doesn't apply to transgender or NB people.

Of course it does lol

You should read it.

I have. If you believe you are something you provably are not, the DSM says you are delusional.

 

[Lisa]

Of course it does lol

I have. If you believe you are something you provably are not, the DSM says you are delusional.

Transgender people are not schizophrenic. That possibly would be a different diagnosis and rule out gender dysphoria.

Treating a trans people with anti-psychotics does not change their trans feelings. It was tried in the past with zero sucess. The use of the MMPI personally inventory would make this very clear that trans clients arent delusional.

This is why they went to med school, and you obviously didn't.

 

[rahl]

Transgender people are not schizophrenic.

Strawman

That possibly would be a different diagnosis and rule out gender dysphoria.

They can suffer from both delusional disorder as well as gender dysphoria.

Treating a trans people with anti-psychotics does not change their trans feelings. It was tried in the past with zero sucess.

You can not show this claim to be true.

 

[Questerr]

The DSM is crystal clear on the criteria for delusional disorder.

Does the DSM determine the qualifications to treat patients as you claimed?

 

[Questerr]

I have made no claims.

Not a claim. Statement of fact. Based on the actual criteria for delusional disorder diagnosis per the DSM.

And that criteria determines qualifications to treat patients?

 

[rahl]

Does the DSM determine the qualifications to treat patients as you claimed?

The DSM is crystal clear on the criteria for the disorder.

 

[rahl]

And that criteria determines qualifications to treat patients?

You can’t be qualified to treat a patient if you disregard the treatment and diagnostic criteria lol

 

[Questerr]

The DSM is crystal clear on the criteria for the disorder.

And the DSM also says that any psychiatrist who disagrees with your position is unqualified to treat patients as you claimed?

 

[Questerr]

You can’t be qualified to treat a patient if you disregard the treatment and diagnostic criteria lol

So psychiatrists who disagree with you are disqualified from treating patients? Source for this?

 

[Lisa]

So psychiatrists who disagree with you are disqualified from treating patients? Source for this?

He is a graduate of Trump Medical School. Top of his Bigly class.

 

[maquiscat]

Please send if you can!

Sent.

Yes, it does run both ways! I just worry that people don’t understand that people who want to hold on the puberty blocker etc do it out of concern not hatred.

Sadly, that is not true, or rather it is not universally true. If the person calling for such limit on puberty blockers is also trying to limit the procedure to adults as well, then you have someone who is doing so out of hate. And simply publicly claiming that you don't care what adults do, doesn't always cut it. Some of these people claim that but then work towards getting such laws passed, and trying to make sure the group as a whole doesn't have the same right. We saw it with interracial marriage, same sex marriage, and gay rights, and transgenders are the new target. Yes I will gladly admit that there those whose concern is genuine, and would gladly support an adult through the whole transition process all the way up to GCS. For that matter, I had initial concerns about puberty blockers, and how it could negatively affect bodily development such that it cause problems with future transitioning, particularly in trans women.

But you are right both sides want to help and are concerned it’s just an opinion of the best way to do it! Unfortunately every year the number of pediatric trans clinics, surgeries, and children placed on blocker or hormones increases. That’s my only concern.

This is one of those things where we have to be very careful of correlation and causation. Because of past (and to a point current) aggression towards all under the LBGT+ umbrella, many of them had to stay in hiding. It has only been with the support and shifting view of these people, that they are feeling safe enough to come out. There is a major difference between the number of cases and the number of cases reported. As it becomes more safe to "be out", the number of cases reported go up even if the number of actual cases do not. For that matter, the actual number of cases could go down, while the reporting of such goes up, reflecting a false increase in the number of actual cases. So naturally as the number of minors who feel safe to express and seek help for their GD increase, then the number that get evaluated in that extreme part that needs the early intervention of puberty blockers is going to go up. We don't have more extreme cases, we have more that are seeking help.

If they are doing an experimental study for this and parent are aware…maybe…maybe. But my gut says no haha. I would say that parents can’t decide to do any thing that could potentially harm their child, that’s the law now right…child endangerment.

Except that is exactly what happens every time we develop something new for use on children. Is it not endangering the child to perform open heart surgery? The first ones were probably more endangering to the child than simply letting them be and dying of whatever. The first use of epileptic drugs on children. The epilepsy itself won't necessarily kill the child, but trying to use a drug to control it, especially when figuring out what doses work on children, very well could. At some point parents have to take that change with their child, to risk failure with something that might save their life or provide more quality to life.

Now, like I said earlier, one side could see it as endangerment or as endangerment if you don’t do this treatment. Ultimately, this is why we need more research! To know which is actually right! Which then means we need guinea pigs!! Ahhh!!! So that’s the crux of it for me. I gues what I would say though is, let’s do the studies with treatments that are not physical first before doing the one with drugs not approved by the FDA to be used for this purpose. But that’s just my opinion.

What do you think we've been doing all these years? The studies and the treatments have been going on for a long time. They are just more open and discussed now than the y used to be. And even so, as noted, the actual surgery prior to adulthood, is a rare thing.

Yes, we need more research and effort to find the BEST solution. When that is done, I will go with that treatment. I don’t see that going either way yet due to lack of research tho.

There will never be any one best treatment. There isn't now. Surgery is not for some transgender people. They can be treated with just hormone treatments, or even simple presenting. That's part of the problems with the opponents. They are acting as if all the transgender minors are getting the full on GCS procedure at like age 8, when it's not really happening.

 

[Nomad4Ever]

Genuine question. If you knew someone who used Ze/Zir pronouns, would you use those pronouns when talking about them even when they weren't present?

Yes.

 

[Aristaeus]

Yes.

Even if it makes communication harder?

The purpose of language is to bridge the gap between separate human minds, communicating information through shared conventions - like common definitions of words and acceptable grammar. That is, it’s inherently a two way street requiring cooperation. In that context, for whose utility do we have & use pronouns - primarily the speaker, the listener or the person being discussed?

You and I could be discussing somebody who is a thousand miles away and whom neither of us will ever meet - if we use a gendered pronoun in our communication, should that be between the two of us who are negotiating common language, or is the third party we are talking about the primary “owner” of the pronoun? Who chooses whether we use “woman”, or “lady” or “female” to informally refer to the third party who is not present?

The traditional answer is that the speaker and listener get to choose their common language to suit their communication. If the word in question is gendered, the speaker usually makes a choice based on how they read the person. It’s their speech and they control the words they use.

Some modern advocates of personal choice in pronouns believe that the person being referred to should have sole and complete control of the pronoun that others use for them. That is, they are asserting a newly forged right to control other people’s pronoun usage. That’s a radically new linguistic concept.

 

[maquiscat]

Even if it makes communication harder?

How much harder is it than say talking about two females? "So I told her, that if she wanted to go out with her, then she had better get tested, because she as been around quite a bit, and then she said that she was not that kind of a person." So which "she" was that last one about?

The traditional answer is that the speaker and listener get to choose their common language to suit their communication. If the word in question is gendered, the speaker usually makes a choice based on how they read the person. It’s their speech and they control the words they use.

So then by this, you are saying that if two people are discussing you, whether you are there or across the globe, they get to chose to consistently refer to you as "she", even with you right next to them?

Some modern advocates of personal choice in pronouns believe that the person being referred to should have sole and complete control of the pronoun that others use for them. That is, they are asserting a newly forged right to control other people’s pronoun usage. That’s a radically new linguistic concept.

Not at all. Are you trying to tell me, that people have not gotten upset and tried to correct others when they have used the wrong pronoun for them? Or correct them if they call them Ma'am instead of Sir? I'm starting to think that you've lived a sheltered life if such is the case. I've seen plenty of people, long before the transgender thing blew up, who would get upset at being referred to as the opposite pronoun even in third person.

 

[Aristaeus]

How much harder is it than say talking about two females? "So I told her, that if she wanted to go out with her, then she had better get tested, because she as been around quite a bit, and then she said that she was not that kind of a person." So which "she" was that last one about?



So then by this, you are saying that if two people are discussing you, whether you are there or across the globe, they get to chose to consistently refer to you as "she", even with you right next to them?



Not at all. Are you trying to tell me, that people have not gotten upset and tried to correct others when they have used the wrong pronoun for them? Or correct them if they call them Ma'am instead of Sir? I'm starting to think that you've lived a sheltered life if such is the case. I've seen plenty of people, long before the transgender thing blew up, who would get upset at being referred to as the opposite pronoun even in third person.

Actually, my preferred 2nd person pronoun is thou, not you. Please use thou when talking to me.

 

[maquiscat]

Actually, my preferred 2nd person pronoun is thou, not you. Please use thou when talking to me.

I see that thou has completely ignored the first part of mine post as well as avoiding answering the second part.

 

[Nomad4Ever]

Even if it makes communication harder?

The purpose of language is to bridge the gap between separate human minds, communicating information through shared conventions - like common definitions of words and acceptable grammar.

I would argue it makes it easier if you know what neo-pronouns are. Knowing someone's gender tells you way more about them than just knowing what genitals they were born with.

But, in my experience, a lot of people who use neo-pronouns usually have a second set of pronouns they are comfortable with (like they/them) that are more conventional.

That is, they are asserting a newly forged right to control other people’s pronoun usage. That’s a radically new linguistic concept.

Nobody is asserting any right. Are artists who have a rap name asserting some right too? Is Lil Nas X inventing a new linguistic concept by asserting people refer to him with a made up preferred artist name?

They are just saying, "hey, here is how I'd like people to refer to me". That's it.

 

[Aristaeus]

I see that thou has completely ignored the first part of mine post as well as avoiding answering the second part.

The first part isn't using made-up words to replace standard words.

re the 2nd part, yes they do. It may be rude when I'm present or if I might gain awareness of the words used, but they get to choose.
Let's say I used to work with a colleague called Bob who used xe/xim pronouns. I wasn't close to Bob, he left my workplace many years ago and we will never see or hear from each other again. Now I'm having a conversation with a friend about past work colleagues and this friend has never heard about Bob, doesn't know who he is, never met him, never will meet him.
Am I really going to use xe/xim? Of course not. When there is no possibility of causing offence, then I'm going to use standard wording.

 

[Aristaeus]

I would argue it makes it easier if you know what neo-pronouns are. Knowing someone's gender tells you way more about them than just knowing what genitals they were born with.

But, in my experience, a lot of people who use neo-pronouns usually have a second set of pronouns they are comfortable with (like they/them) that are more conventional.


Nobody is asserting any right. Are artists who have a rap name asserting some right too? Is Lil Nas X inventing a new linguistic concept by asserting people refer to him with a made up preferred artist name?

They are just saying, "hey, here is how I'd like people to refer to me". That's it.

Well Lil Nas X is a name, not a pronoun. If Lil Nas X said my new neo-pronouns are fli/flim/flimself, would you always use those pronouns when talking about him with your friend? Honestly?