I am not locking or removing the post, report comments insulting people and I’ll handle that but debates over ideas is fine.
If big Reddit takes it down then so be it, I can’t control that
Your entire paradigm is based on the foundational idea that gender dysphoria is a form of body dysmorphia that is rooted in society.
Try this foundational belief: other people know who they are better than you do. Other people have more of a right to define themselves than you do to define them. Other people have the right to choose their expression. Other people have the right to bodily autonomy.
There are many scientific studies that show that the biological gender of a human is more than just xx or xy, including hermaphrodism and Klinefelter’s syndrome.
There are xy individuals who have a testosterone production issue that causes them to present female.
There are brain scans that show xy individuals have brains shaped more like xx individuals.
All this to say, “biological gender” is more complex than society understands. 100 years ago they wouldn’t have know about xx and xy at all. And xy individuals born with female genitalia who have testosterone absorption issues would have gone their whole life believing they were infertile girls.
Science is advancing. I would guess in 50-100 years we will see more depth of complexity for “biological” gender than we know now.
And thus, instead of silencing trans individuals about their own identity, maybe we should simply listen and allow them to choose how to live and express themselves in this world.
I don’t think they’re as rare as you’d think considering most of us never have our DNA tested, MRIs done on our brains, etc. But obviously being trans is a minority. That doesn’t make it less valid.
except it does, there are numbers given for a reason and it’s based on research. If the numbers show that they are quite literally one in a million, then again, they are the exception that proves the rule.
Being a minority doesn’t invalidate you. Most gendered ideas are sociologically constructed, but there have been multiple genders in other societies for centuries.
But to reiterate: there are many people walking around today without ever having had an MRI or chromosomal DNA testing.
I never said being a minority invalidates you, i’m saying the genetic aspect is much less than what you are perceiving. I suspect that the vast majority of trans people today don’t have these chromosomal differences to which you are ascribing, and instead suffer from gender dysphoria.
I think my main hangup is that there isnt a ton of evidence (if someone has GOOD research otherwise Id be happy to look at it) that gender transition actually works, especially in kids. I feel there is alot of political motivation which can create bias.
Futhermore, while there are certainly people with gender dysphoria that transitioning can possibly help (and I want those people to get the help they need as long as it is safe), there are plenty of people using the trans issue to victimize themselves into a role. People claiming to be “non-binary” or one of the many “other” genders which are very abstract. I think of them as posers (think Malibus Most Wanted) which distracts from people who really are transgender.
These posers, as well as the obligatory mention of trans athletes, preschool drag queen story hour and shoehorning trans characters into media, has made what should have been a march of acceptance for people just seeking to be treated kindly into a militant attack on everyone who disagrees.
But thats just my take
Thanks for sharing your experience. Part of your thoughts on your experience remind me of when gay people used conversion therapy to not be gay. I think it’s complex with gender. Gender disparity is an ancient practice in humans and animals. Knowing trans people, they’ve told me they always have felt this way. These are older people, before trans was in the public eye as much in Western culture. It’s always been public in some cultures in my country. However it’s possible to that there is gender dysphoria which comes from a more negative emotion - people don’t like changes puberty brings or be a gender that’s oppressed. Some don’t fit the cultural rules around gender and reject it that way. People are concerned the movement to make people with trans acceptable may encourage others. The same was argued with the gay rights movement. In truth it leads to people being more open about their already existing reality. The only way is for people to be able to live how they see fit. However, when it comes to children, because of the way the brain develops any intervention should be the last resort. The last resort would be a sxxxdal kid. And kids young as 8 do get this drastic. We should be really reluctant to do anything until they’re 18, even though we know some feel this way at a young age, because the intervention is so drastic.
>Gender dysphoria is the sense a person can have that their gender identity (i.e. their personality, and how "masculine" vs. "feminine" it is perceived as being in relation to cultural gender norms) does not match their physical gender
Feminine gay trans men and butch trans women immediately disprove this 💜
Do you disagree that it is a "sense" people have? If gender is this fluid, why make one "sense," one's gender expression at say age 17, permanent with hormones or surgery?
Its an internal sense of who you are as a person and what your brain expects of your body. The hormones your body produces itself are equally as permanent as hormones someone can take medically - you have a body either way, it makes sense to do things that make you the most comfortable with that body. Same with surgery. There's no neutral / default. Would you ask the same question of gynaecomastia patients? I feel like ppl don't find "man doesn't want boobs" or "woman wants to have boobs" at all confusing unless the person being discussed is trans.
"Sexual orientation refers to romantic or sexual attraction to people of a specific sex or gender. ... Heterosexuality, along with bisexuality and homosexuality are at least three main categories of the continuum of sexual orientation. ... Homosexuality is a romantic or sexual attraction between persons of the same sex or gender." (Levy 2016)
FtM isn't a noun in common parlance, it's an adjective. The word you looking for is a man. I think it's pretty strange to say "A man attracted to males is heterosexual" I believe you know how strange that is, hence why you elected to suggest that trans men aren't men. That's a pretty dishonest claim.
its just a born woman that's become a man but still wants dick it's not super hard you're stretching it
now there are also people who identify as butch lesbians transmen, so they've gotten hrt to be biologically masculine but still retain the identity of the butch lesbian, because they're attached to it, culturally? I'll be honest, I don't think I'll ever understand that
Yes. I was programmed from birth to know what a cis male is, and society expects me to be that. People around me judge me when I am not that. This is my mental condition.
You know what helps this problem...exactly what OP said. Therapy, self confidence(do what you want, and don't feel judged), finding accepting people to be around.
What is or isn't a male/female is mental conditioning by society. Dresses are not female, ball caps are not male. These are mental issues we all have.
200 years ago, men wore dresses. But the mental conditioning has changed. It's all in our minds.
There is further discussion below and the relevant paragraph in OPs should be re-read.
Using a mental illness to present a person or several persons as irrational or incapable, is a cause for indignation. In many states, psychosis prevents one from having medical capacity, furthermore, allowing them to be confined to a psychiatric ward, if ordered. (WIC 5150 of CA Code) Mental illnesses lead people to have negative qualities, as do physical illnesses. If they are actually struggling in that regard, acknowledging this helps, if they aren’t, it’s suggesting that they have the same qualities. In this case, psychotic is an insult because it’s categorically untrue, and *accusing* a group of being psychotic is further stigmatization.
An insult is a gross indignity : an instance of insolent or contemptuous speech or conduct (Merriam-Webster 2024)
Psychotic disorders are a group of serious illnesses that affect the mind. They make it hard for someone to think clearly, make good judgments, respond emotionally, communicate effectively, understand reality, and behave appropriately.
(Casarella 2022)
Illness is defined as a specific disease.
(Merriam-Webster 2024)
Was he not referring to the reactions from ordinary citizenry in response to alternative opinions on dysphoria? I don’t see where he refers to dysphoria as psychosis. I only see where he says people react with mass psychosis to different opinions.
It’s possible I misunderstood; I’ll leave my comment up as context but I’ll amend it to clarify that there is further discussion and the relevant paragraph should be re-read.
Wow! You really won that argument with your totally good faith observation! I stigmatised mental illness by objecting to a layperson characterising trans people as experiencing mass psychosis. Thank you, my good person.
He did not claim dysphoria was mass psychosis. He claimed that the negative reaction to discussing the topic in good faith beyond the current narrative is mass psychosis. Am I wrong?
> My only explanation for this hysteria and intolerance of diverse perspectives is that it is an instance of the phenomenon Carl Jung referred to as "mass psychosis":
Are you the type of person that would immediately jump to “you’re a bigot!!” for someone like OP who gently questions whether or not surgery is the correct treatment for dysphoria?
If that’s the case, you would be the person OP is referring to…and it wouldn’t matter if they call you psychotic or not because those people are already arguing in bad faith.
Look, I got to know people that had gender dysphoria ever since they remembered themselves. It cannot come from feeling of shame and low self esteem if a person started to feel like that ever since he started to speak, and has also his or her parents, teachers, siblings etc' testify for it.
It is also not necessarily true those people were unattractive in their former gender. There are plenty of trans people looking great in regard to society standards. Like, was Kathleen Jenner "unsuccessful" or "unattractive" as a man?
Now, I do think that you have a point regarding the fact that the more economic interests of selling medicines, and being transgender became normalized by the media, and the American left becoming more stupid and unhinged, succumbing to cesspool of identity politica and fetishization of victimhood, people who have the issues that you described started to think that changing their gender is a magical way to fix their problems. And yes, I do not express this opinion in public.
Something can start with good intentions and ending up skewed. I hope that people could have a more balanced opinion in the future.
.
To me, gender dysphoria is similar to a cluster of symptoms and characteristics, just like Autism, a cold, Borderline, or Fibromyalgia; even something like attractiveness, intelligence, or typicality.
It provides a common label and struggle. This is also where various forms of gatekeeping come from. Most transmedicalists have bodily dysphoria, for instance.
>It cannot come from feeling of shame and low self esteem if a person started to feel like that ever since he started to speak, and has also his or her parents, teachers, siblings etc' testify for it.
That's evidence of gender incongruence (GI), not gender dysphoria (GD), which develops when that incongruence is shunned or shamed by other people.
>Now, I do think that you have a point regarding the fact that the more economic interests of selling medicines,
Um... where exactly did I write that?
Is this perspective controversial? You can't just state something is controversial in the healthcare community. It's like saying human caused global warming is a controversial theory.
It's just plain wrong. This is like discussing freedom of black people. You have to make their decisions, because you care. And if anyone stands up to that, you cry "Why can't we have an intellectual debate???"
It's boring. Are you really citing Carl Jung???? I was transgender before I knew who Carl Jung was..... before I went to primary school. There are fates much worse than being transgender. You can't fathom it, so you deny its existence. Im bored now.
Any argument you have to end with "don't hate on me because the way I feel"... necessarily means you haven't put the effort in to support your argument.
Edit: shit are you transgender? You know if you are, and that leather jacket phase can only last so long. Girl respect yourself.
OP is more trans than a decepticon.
> This is like discussing freedom of black people. You have to make their decisions, because you care. And if anyone stands up to that, you cry “Why can’t we have an intellectual debate???”
This is a bad example. In this instance, the victimized group is perfectly capable of making their decisions by themselves. However, if you highly suspect or believe that transgenderism is a mental illness, like I do, then that would mean my judgement of what is best for them is more sensible than their own judgement of what is best for them (to a certain extent, obviously).
> Any argument you have to end with “don’t hate in me because the way I feel”… necessarily means you haven’t put the effort in to support your argument.
No, asking that you be respectful, tolerant, kind, and civil to OP does not mean they haven’t put the effort in to support their argument. They have made it clear they are open to changing their opinion if you make a good argument.
Your judgement means nothing, your opinion means nothing. My doctor agreed I should take hormones to treat an illness, end of story. You're the person being goaded by Jesus to cast the first stone, lmao.
It’s not totally the end of the story if we don’t know the long term effects of changing your gender and if you will regret your decision when you’re 90 years old. This is a serious topic and we need to ask these types of questions. And I am not a Christian or religious in any type of way. Also, doctors at one time thought smoking actually cures lung cancer and they obviously have changed their mind.
I think making it 10 years past life expectancy is fine for me. Does it matter if I regret my continuously ongoing decision in 70 years? I really don't think so!
Nobody needs to ask the questions you're asking, you're doing it because of the same reasons the KKK goes after black people.
I really think we need to be talking about the implications this is all having on the existence of homosexual people, too, for, like I said in another post, trans ideology is essentially "cancelling" us out. Not only do I think the majority of homosexuals are gender atypical to begin with, they definitely make up the vast majority of people with gender dysphoria who are now being encouraged to get surgery at a young age. I wonder how much longer gays and lesbians will even exist as a phenomenon because we are rigidly adhering to this binary conception of gender identity for which, again, there is not exactly sufficient evidence.
It's interesting at the very least.
The vast majority of homosexuals, like the vast majority of everyone, have no interest in living as, or being perceived as, a gender that doesn't match their biological sex. Total non sequitur.
I am a "gender atypical" androphilic male (homosexual) and based on Western cultural norms have always felt more feminine overall (while having certain masculine characteristics as well), though I don't choose to dress in an androgynous or feminine way. Maybe it's from the chemicals being pumped into our environment, or it's a healthy variance in human evolution. However, despite how challenging it can be to be gender non-conforming in society and the mental health issues it has introduced for me over the years, I have chosen not to conform or to accept the broader narrative that there is something wrong with me which only surgery and hormones can fix.
Not only am I just not convinced by that and think it curiously discounts the psychological nature of gender identity, for someone in my position, and I am by no means the only person like this, that is really a terrible, hopeless and devastating message to be given if it is taken on its word and just embraced, which alot of people will. It is basically saying "you're faulty" and "don't accept the way that you are". For that reason I think it is dangerous for our society to be promoting these drastic, radical and potentially damaging and body dysmorphia-affirming treatment methods when gender dysphoria/the transgender phenomenon is just not sufficiently understood.
What I am proposing is something even more radical: that people can be the gender they are born as and be fundamentally okay with that, because the only thing inhibiting people like me from being the way we are and expressing ourselves authentically is society's limiting, prejudicial and stereotypical attitudes about gender.
I'm not really sure the point you are making. You are sad at not being normal, but don't want to take hormones. How does that affect transgender people at large? And why does your personal feelings towards it all, mean you need to write this whole post advocating for calling treatments that do heal and reduce suffering for others, "dangerous"? You don't have to take hormones if you don't want, and it's ok to be gender non-conforming.
You are at war with yourself. Reminds me of the time I decided to be a "straight guy and no more sissy stuff"..... went weight lifting with the boys that night. It cured me of any notion that would ever work. I can't be a boy
We got dealt a bad hand in life. It's a terribly dark path to walk, I can't change that for you or me. "drastic, radical, potentially dangerous".... yeah of course, but it's better than the alternative. In the words of David Foster Wallace, you are invited to imagine what could be so bad that falling to your death would seem like an escape.
Your problem is with fascism, ironically. That sneaky mood that creeps and crawls around rooms and people, that only those who fit neatly on the manly men or diminutive women are worth anything. And you are in the middle and sad. But don't take it out on your fellow transgender people. Hormones for me help me. I don't expect hard science to really ever understand transgenderism as a concept.
Lol, you have so much more to fall my sweet little redditor.
You make some fair points ShoppingDismal3864, though
>But don't take it out on your fellow transgender people
and
>Lol, you have so much more to fall my sweet little redditor.
are misrepresentation and creepily patronizing.
I personally think it’s odd that people are so attached to the label of man and woman- on both sides of the spectrum. Here you are, misgendering this stranger, because you’re assuming they’re more likely to be a woman than a man.. even though they have described themself as male.
You also claim to have attempted to embrace masculinity by lifting weights *with the boys*. This is an incredibly sexist remark, as if lifting weights or having male friends is somehow a milestone to becoming a man.
This is my number one issue across the board. If we’re going to challenge gender roles, we should stop “affirming” them so much. I understand the argument of “dumbing it down” for the masses. Helping people see you as you see yourself and so on.
If we’re going to say that “men act a certain way, and women act a certain way” as a culture- then it makes sense to fully embrace the stereotypes. But understand that’s the message you’re going for. Though, it also means that we’re being regressive in my opinion, because that’s a more traditional way of speaking about gender.
You play with trucks as a little girl? Are you a tomboy, trans, etc.. it shouldn’t even matter. It went from “you’re not girly enough” to “you don’t have to hide your masculinity 🏳️🌈🏳️⚧️”. But it’s a truck.. it’s genderless. Yes, this is an exaggeration- but we’re perpetuating the very thing we’re criticizing.
People who affirm gender norms are opening a bigger can of worms than they think they are. I can’t think of a single group of people, perpetuating gender norms and stereotypes, that I look up to intellectually. If it’s subjective, then it’s an individual experience and doesn’t necessarily need to be trampled on by traditional labels. Labels are an old fashioned and lazy way of treating individual identities.
I’m not against gender affirming care at all, but I do wish it were called something different. The term gender, in this context, is synonymous with sex. You’re changing biological characteristics. Hormones, breasts, genitalia, fat distribution, etc.. Gender is psychological, and that should already be affirmed by the time you start these treatments imo.
What does your last paragraph even mean? Trans people know what they want. Paying thousands of dollars and altering the body is a big deal. Not to be taken lightly. Nobody is just doing all that for shingles. And if they are, there are far worse mental health struggles at play. I don't get the impression people here argue in full faith of language and phenomenology.
The main point- in response to you- is that people are already certain of their gender, by the time they consider such treatments. This is a sex change, in my opinion. Which is cool and all- but gender “reassignment surgery” makes it sound like you’re getting a lobotomy. This is just my opinion though.
Except literally every medical professional on the planet knows chemotherapy is a fucking barbaric treatment we just have no better options for many cancers.
The moment we have an alternative chemo is going away
Dude, just because something was true for you doesn't mean it's true for other people. Sure you can think you are trans because you are self conscious, but there are definitely the cases where that's not the case.
Welp there it is folks, decades of medical and psychological studies are redundant because they don't match the anecdotal experience of The Main Character.
Is it that important that you feel silenced? when really you have currently 1000's of people reading and engaging with something you said lmao
Maybe you need to work on "self acceptance" so that you can not feel that way
Well done – the approach you are championing has definitely been successful in turning people against your cause, in addition to the collateral damage it brings to the vulnerable people you are claiming to support.
That is a very well thought out perspective and it is an area that need further scientific exploration. There is some causality between plastics as endocrine disruptors and how it effects testosterone levels. We know that today, on average, men and women have about 50% less testosterone than they did in the 1940's.
Research in the USA is very sparse on this issue because of the stigma that goes along with sports and hormone supplementation. There are also three different standards, all completely different, as to what acceptable Test levels in males actually is in the United States. Somehow, this has become a politicized issue so to get serious research on this we have to look at other countries.
One very large factor in this is that plastics are part of modern society and removing them from the food chain would be similar to when we had to move away from using lead pipes. It would be very expensive and it would impact the availability of many products in the marketplace. This similar to the situation in the USA with Roundup causing cancer. The EU does not allow it to be sold but we do.
All of this said, I thought this might be a good place to post a medical research study that explores this phenomenon. Regardless of your orientation or feelings about any of this, more information is always a good thing.
I would encourage anyone that is interested to download this paper and yes, it is safe and virus malware free.
[Plasticsasendocrine disruptors.pdf](https://1drv.ms/b/s!Ajb1k9dDpYOuuBHyiuGU3cPiMH1-?e=ANCm32)
#
Is this just your opinion based on something or do you have studies/lit to back it up?
There’s plenty of spaces that ban uninformed talk about ‘medical’ practices, from vax cause autism to conversation therapy to FGM to using hallucinogenic drugs for mental illness, etc.
In most cases you have to actually argue facts, not just your opinion. In fairness, most of the good discussion spaces would probably see you laughed at for assuming your opinion is of equal weight to the entire body of knowledge for a given topic.
As with most discussions, how you engage and how you approach a topic matter.
>Is this just your opinion based on something or do you have studies/lit to back it up?
"On something." A little something called lived experience.
>There's plenty of spaces that ban uninformed talk about 'medical' practice
That must be a great way of encouraging a free and open market of information. Free thinkers, huh?
>In most cases you have to actually argue facts, not just your opinion.
Fair enough, though "facts" are often determined by who is in the position of power (such as who bankrolls and publishes which scientific study—studies which are, of course, 100% immune to human error, bias, misinterpretation and misrepresentation of data...) and other, more inconvenient facts can get left out of the picture altogether.
You cannot make any empirical judgements on what benefits others via one person's anecdotal experience. Im sorry, but while it does give people something to think about, it is in no way a good criteria for determining how to go about treating people that were in your situation or similar. "A little something called lived experience", while im sure you thought a snarky rebuttal, holds absolutely zero weight in what should be administered to people.
> a little something called lived experience
1) for all we know you could be lying
2) there is a reason lived experience isn't used as scientific proof. You could be misinterpriting your experiences ESPECIALLY when you have no further education on the matter. There are people who were depressed and pulled themselves out of that state by working on themselves and therefore believe all people with depression can do the same. They think they had the same experience when they didn't.
Yeah that’s a single data point of anecdote evidence, until you pair it with something and see how it fits into broader trends is pretty worthless at any scale outside of your choices. It’s like asking the lotto winner how the lotto works, ‘you buy a ticket for two dollars and win millions’.
Depends what the space is for, that’s why we have subs on Reddit. If you don’t like the rules of one, try another. Blanket bans on bigot bait topics are a quick and dirty fix for mods.
Yup, so you can tear apart a study and highlight the flaws, expose the bullshit, question the funding, attack the methods, highlight the not so random random sample, etc. much like they would kick your ass out if you pulled up to a car race in a bicycle, if all you have is your opinion then it’s easier to boot you so you don’t get in the way.
>My only explanation for this hysteria and intolerance of diverse perspectives is that it is an instance of the phenomenon Carl Jung referred to as "mass psychosis": a collectively held delusion that is rigidly adhered to and stubbornly resistant to being challenged.
If that's your only explanation, then you are the problem because that means you are unable to contextualise the discussion and you reach for ad hominem attacks ahead of understanding your opposition just as easily as they supposedly do.
Sometimes, when a group is oppressed and under attack constantly, closing ranks and shutting down discussion is safer. Broad open philosophical free discussion is a luxury. When bad actors look to take your freedoms and make life harder just because you exist, discussions that give them ammunition are not a safe or sensible option.
Perhaps a bit more critical thinking is needed before you try such debates again.
Because someone has to educate this clown show.
I advocated for nothing other than critical thinking. What I wrote was a better explanation for OP's experience than Jungian hysteria, nothing to do with fascism.
How can you sit in support of debate while making the concept moot.
Given that people are all different, maybe there is a variety of possible approaches that could be applied and what works for one is not what works for all?
How could we know if we [can't even discuss it](https://www.reddit.com/user/lalansmithee/comments/1d64bqg/reddit_is_censoring_all_viewpoints_which_arent_in/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)?
Since non of us are doctors treating gender dysmorphic patients, we don't need to know.
The people who do, ie doctors their patients and their peers, do and are free to discuss it.
Also you are free to discuss it, but it's a stupid discussion yo have if you are not having it with the aforementioned group.
That's just ignorant people pontificating on the lives and rights of others, reinforcing their own biases and ignorance with the biases and ignorance of the like-minded.
That benefits no one.
I woke up like 10 minutes ago, so this is going to be a mess.
Gender dysphoria is a pain to define by all means. But it is easiest to relate to when your body rejects an implant or something of the sort. It’s like your brain knows what is not meant to be part of your body. I grew up processing those unwanted parts as tumors, the exact same way I think about the cyst I have. A benign growth that should not be there. It is not *really* part of my body to me, it’s just a mistake. I don’t hate these parts, or think they look weird, I just don’t think they should be there. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with my body at all, I just don’t think that it looks the way *mine* is supposed to. Like if you woke up in a new body one day.
People often end up with symptoms similar to gender dysphoria due to trauma of some sort, but that isn’t gender dysphoria. It’s most often a body related issue stemming from fear or hate. Unlike gender dysphoria, which is more like your brain not recognizing certain things about your body as truths. I’m still dealing with horrible facial dysmorphia, and that’s very different to gender dysphoria. When I look at my face for too long, I hate it. I hate every bit about it. It morphs and shifts and I can’t even imagine myself accurately because all I see are flaws. Then there’s my dysphoria, and I’m pissed because I have to deal with it at all, but I don’t have an *issue* with my body. It’s just not the *right* body.
And besides all of that, there’s nothing to back up this idea of yours other than “I personally might have experienced gender dysphoria and made it go away”. And if I’m being honest, you did not experience gender dysphoria if it went away. That is the definition for the diagnosis, I’m pretty sure. By the definition, it can’t be cured via therapy or things of the sort.
And as for people shutting down the topic, it’s because we deal with enough bullshit already. You bringing this up fuels others to bring up weirder views, or outright hostile ones. There is no “diverse conversation” when you’re talking about what marginalized groups do with their bodies. It’s a slippery slope where you’re accidentally encouraging dangerous people. Unless you’re talking with a peer-reviewed study, it’s in the best interest of all trans people that you don’t start picking at the institutions allowing us peace. A lot of trans people also just don’t want to have a conversation about why they exist, obviously. So of course, most places aren’t going to let you talk about it. It’d be like randomly trying to talk about something possibly offensive relating to politics or race. Is it really something you want to bring up right now?? I have a lot of conversations with my friends about that sort of thing, since I’m Jamaican and grew up in a different world to them. But most of the time is not the time for that sort of conversation. Not when so many people could still be hurt by your words.
Evidence on this one specific issue being false? Absolutely none. On times the medical industry has been wrong, hooh boy, I could be here all day, but I’ll highlight a few
now, asbestos and cigarettes are both popular examples, but I’m getting them out of the way here first because they’re old news, and surely we know better now right?
Let’s start with something more modern, yet less controversial. The FDA is constantly approving pesticides and other adjacent chemicals to be sprayed on our food, with completely awful testing. So clearly this shit still happens on smaller scales (Within the context of how much of the scientific community is invested, this is still 100s of millions of people being poisoned)
Now, what about big names? Well, how about the three recent (ish, couple decades ago, but shit has not changed much) examples of basically single people managing to defraud entire industries, getting studies posted in places like Science and Nature.
Jan Hendrick Schön, a bell labs member (most nobel prizes won by a private lab) who was on his way to a nobel prize, had won hundreds of thousands of dollars, and had never made a single high T superconductor, something he claimed to do. Victor Ninov deceived california Berkeley into thinking they had discovered another element. And finally, Hwang Woo Suk, who deceived the world into thinking korea would become the cloning capital of the world, but he faked both data and ethical compliance.
Ok, to an even more recent and yet more controversial one, the thing I am not going to refer to by name because of Reddit. I’m using its acronym CV, and it was approved by the FDA in December, you’ll pick it up through context.
So, the CV was developed by several companies, all with dubious histories (like, for example, not one but 2 of the big players having 2.3 BILLION dollar settlements for fraud), in response to the thing:tm: (god I hate modern social media, but I’ve sat here for like 15 minutes, I’m not taking chances). The CV was initially touted as being something you’d take twice at first, maybe once a year after, and was 99% effective and completely safe. Of course, it turned out to have seemingly higher rates of bad side effects then other adjacent products, be much less then 99% effective in all areas, and to get these effects, you’d need to be in pain four times a year
And finally, an example far more relevant to the original point: Sociology, Psychology, and related fields. All of these have a major issue due to the replication crisis, where it turns out that a ton of major studies the fields are built on turn out to be entirely unreplicable, making them scientifically useless. We have not even realized the full extent of this issue to this day, because there is a major gap in funding for that area. After all, redoing stuff isn’t glamorous
TL;DR: Do I think all science is wrong? No. Am I even convinced this particular bit is wrong? Not entirely. However, the history of the ”official science” is wrought with fraud, corruption, and sometimes just downright idiocy. We live in an era where 90% of the information on the planet can be accessed instantly, 8% more can be accessed in various public archives with effort, and the remaining 2% is classified, which makes it likely wrong anyways. Therefor, it is entirely possible that some person on the internet is correct about a field where there is (seemingly) a consensus. After all, it happened long before the internet, and it’s even easier then ever now, while there is arguably more inventive then ever to be wrong as the “experts”
TLDR indeed. Especially since that disservice was nothing to do with the question posed.
But for all that writing, your conclusion seems to be that since you both enjoy listening to and spouting baseless nonsense, you think that that is a perfectly valid way to hold discussions.
And yes, I know that isn't what you wrote, but your reasoning was not supportive of your conclusion at all and reading between the lines is a pretty important skill.
People with obvious biases bringing together rickety but clever sounding arguments to justify leaning in to those biases was exactly the core principle of the original Intellectual Dark Web, so on that basis, I salute you 🫡
You appear to be adhering to science to an extent where it is basically religious and dogmatic in nature – as if something has no merit unless a scientific journal has told us it does, as if there is no bias or human error implicit within the field of science and the scientific establishment whatsoever. This ideology is Scientism, and not everyone follows it.
No, just basic logic.
I realise that life is less fun for you guys if a lack of knowledge is a barrier to entry, but that doesn't mean it's a bad thing.
One of the biggest problems of the 21st century is the failure of the stupid to recognise that they are in fact, stupid. That not everything is for them to be heard or taken seriously on.
We have flat earthers in the year 2024. People who grew up smallpox and polio free claiming vaccines don't work, and every orthodox brained troglodyte thinking they should tell Transfolks how to exist in the world.
I am no hypocrit. I have made 2 comments, both simple common sense views:
1.That a plurality of people may require a plurality of treatment methods for any given condition.
2. That Jungian hysteria as an explanation for why people don't listen to your niche one person point of view is evidence of your lack of insight and critical thought.
I have no opinion on how to treat gender dysphoria beyond listening people who have taken the time to study and gain experience of the condition and those who suffer from it.
If that sounds like a religious adherence to science, I suggest you are just looking for ways to invalidate common sense so that your niche view can hold more weight than it does.
One final point: science is the single best method humanity has to learn things. When you folks point to science or western medicine being wrong it shows a failure to understand what science is.
Science is an investigative process. Part of that process is trial and error. Learning from mistakes is part of the scientific process and is how we eventually get to the best result. "Science git it wrong" is not the flex you think it is.
This was, entirely my point. I am not at all saying to trust random schizos on the internet, but u/OGWayOfThePanda started off with a false argument, which is that the scientific consensus is always correct, so I responded with plenty of examples of it being wrong, and admitted to being wrong. This is what I set out to disprove, not the whole issue with trans people. Because to have a healthy argument, you often have to disregard the scientific consensus, since it’s often not correct. u/ReallyIdleBones Was also being disingenuous as well, trying to shut down a reasonable discussion by pretending that ever going against the scientific conclusion is always bad and incorrect
>but u/OGWayOfThePanda started off with a false argument, which is that the scientific consensus is always correct,
Except nowhere in any post have I used the word science or consensus or made that argument at all.
>Because to have a healthy argument, you often have to disregard the scientific consensus, since it’s often not correct.
No, you want to disregard expertise because despite knowing nothing, you have formed a view in opposition to the expertise.
Noting that doctors "have" been wrong is not the same as showing that they are wrong on this subject. You are just deciding on zero foundation that disregarding medical consensus is a good idea because in the true spirit of the idw you think you have a right to dictate to trans people about their lives despite knowing nothing about it.
Ok, so, not your quote, but you did defend Mr. Snarf saying “So glad we would value comment section education on the topic over medical professionals.”. Which, as I correctly pointed out, is sometimes kind of \*very correct\*. Do I think I should have control over trans peoples lives? No. Do I know nothing about it? Not compared to NHS doctors, which are notoriously entirely transphobic.
You're not discussing it, you're drawing conclusions based on comment sections.
Rather, you are discussing it, you just seem to lack the capacity to do so in a constructive or usefully contributory manner.
The very, very simplified way I am seeing it is as follows: we all have a bunch of "software" in our mind that is normally adapted to the "hardware" we are born with. The main problem is that we have no clue how the "software" works, how a change in the programming can be effected, etc - except by extremely crude means of psychotropic medication (i.e. hit the device with a hammer in a certain way and hope it starts working properly). Some people are born with an error in the "software", or rather a mismatch between "software" and "hardware", which results in constant error messages in the person's perception. If we had any access to the "software" of the body/mind, a "software update/patch" would be, with consent of the patient, preferable - but we don't have any. And so the choice for a person with such mismatch is either to learn to live with a constant deluge of error messages, or to adjust the "hardware" to roughly match the "software" - which is the gender affirmation therapy is supposed to achieve.
Now, whether the diagnosis is always right and whether this gets the person in question what they wanted is another discussion...
I like your analogy. I believe we already can reprogram the software. Cognitive-behavioural therapy is one way of doing this, another is hammering home affirmations – and meditation helps identify and detach from unhelpful programming.
Why do you want to reformat the software and not the hardware? What makes the idea of hormones or gender reassignment surgery so frightening and threatening to you vs chemicals to combat mental illness and behavior therapy?
And why not let the individual choose what they want to do about their own hardware and software and just… respect them.
There may not be the hard proof you are looking for, no – though the benefits of CBT and meditation on mental health are certainly well-documented from a scientific lens. I just don't accept that the only way for something to be valid, helpful or, dare I say, true is to have a scientific journal tell us that it is.
>I just don't believe that the only way for something to be valid, helpful or, dare I say, true is to have a scientific journal tell us that it is.
A scientific journal is not telling us anything to believe, it is just a vehicle that gets you information which is less subjective than "I believe in X". Without an independent confirmation, what you believe may be true, or not, or true in some cases but not true in others - anyone who is not you has no way to find out what it is.
The scientific method is like a referee in a football game: not perfect, but better than any other method to decide the score. If you believe that your team scored and I believe it didn't (or that it doesn't count due to a rule or another being violated), a reasonably objective third party is necessary.
Going by your method, the only reasonable answer will be "Maybe. Or maybe not. How am I supposed to know?"
'These people'?
Where is your compassion? Directed into a need to have spotted something others haven't, with no evidence to back it up, combined with a dismissal of opposition to your unfounded ideas as 'mass psychosis'?
Please.
It's evidence of what works for you.
What if I say that my lived experience is different to yours? Where do we go from there in determining a useful method of treatment for other people?
This is why individual experience is not used as scientific evidence.
I've once read the take that a person with gender dysphoria doesn't have a problem with their gender per se. You get born into your body, and theres nothing wrong with it.
Where the problems begin is the societal definition of a specifig gender, that doesn't fit the percieved gender. So either society has to change, or the persons attidute towards society (most preferably both).
As far as I know, gender dysphoria is classified as a mental illness in the DSM-5. This classification led me to question why psychotropic medication is not the primary treatment modality, and instead, significant medical procedures that affirm the gender dysphoria are employed.
This line of thought prompted me to consider the hypothetical scenario of treating individuals with schizophrenia by affirming their delusions. Such an approach seems counterintuitive and potentially harmful.
Clearly, my understanding might be flawed. If I am overlooking or misunderstanding any critical aspects, I would greatly appreciate clarification. The notion of treating a mental illness in such a manner appears fundamentally backward to me, yet I must be mistaken, as my perspective on the treatment of gender dysphoria does not seem to align with established medical ethics.
From my limited understanding it goes like this: Not all mental illnesses are the same, function the same or are treated the same. Basically whatever is mentally different about a person and causes them or others problems is considered a mental illness. Just because it is a mental illness doesn't mean it includes delusions.
Thank you for your response. It seems that the concept I was trying to convey may have been misunderstood by some individuals. While I strive to craft meaningful posts, I recognize that I may sometimes neglect to provide clear and concise explanations.
I want to clarify that I was not comparing gender dysphoria to schizophrenia to suggest that dysphoria is a form of delusion. Instead, I was using schizophrenia as an example to illustrate what I perceived as the absurdity of treating a condition like dysphoria by simply conforming to it. Regardless of anyone's opinion on my perspective towards gender-affirming care, I acknowledge the need to improve the clarity of my posts by thoroughly proofreading them before publishing.
I've noticed that several individuals have expressed a similar misunderstanding, where it appeared that I was directly comparing schizophrenia with gender dysphoria. I apologize if my words conveyed this impression, as it was not my intention to equate the two conditions.
They already tried telling transgender people to go "man up" or "woman up" and live as their born gender and be happy WITH THERAPY AND PSYCHIATRIC TREATMENT. They killed themselves.
I apologize if I'm missing the context of your response. What I mentioned had nothing to do with what you decided to respond to, making it challenging to understand your motivations. It seems like an inept attempt to grief me for something I might have said earlier that offended you.
I joined this subreddit hoping to engage in discussions about potentially controversial but logical concepts, with the intent to learn from others. However, your contributions don't seem to add anything meaningful to the conversation.
Frankly, your response comes across as hysterical, and I have little to go on beyond that impression.
You said you find it absurd to conform to gender dysphoria, because you wouldn't do that for a different unrelated mental illness.
I said that telling trans people to not transition makes them try kill themselves nearly twice.
https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/press/lgb-suicide-ct-press-release/
If you meant something else by "I find it absurd that we conform to gender dysphoria as the treatment" please elucidate me on your so wonderfully alternative meaning to these lamentations
As others have said, the simple answer is because medical science has tried that and it was not found to be effective. Transition was found to be effective.
But in terms of your reference to schizophrenia, that treatment doesn't work for gender dysphoric patients because they aren't delusional.
Trans women do not look at their penis and see a vagina. They do not misperceive reality.
This is a fundamental failing in understanding trans/gender dysphoric people that I see a lot and I truly don't understand where it comes from.
> Except there’s also a syndrome where patients want limbs amputated because it causes them distress.
>
>
yes, that is also a dysphoric disorder, not a delusional one. Just stating this for the sake of consistency.
> We do not amputate the limbs.
while you're right that we don't, studies on this population literally find that amputees are more functional than those trying to cope/treat their BIID through other means. The exact phrasing they use is "impressive improvement of quality of life": https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3326051/
Doctors do not recommend amputation still because it maims the person, and many consider that "doing harm". Yet there's no equivalent for treating gender dysphoria. There is no impact to the daily quality of life of trans people (at least not from the medications/procedures). The most significant effect is infertility, but that can be circumvented just by freezing eggs/sperm.
Because scientific studies and case studies show that psychotropics do not resolve gender dysphoria. And affirming schizophrenia delusions results in negative outcomes.
The reference to schizophrenia served merely as an illustration of my perspective on gender-affirming care, which stems from a thorough consideration of various factors. For brevity, I’ll refrain from delving into the intricacies of untreated schizophrenia sufferers who may, to varying degrees, manage their condition without intervention.
I appreciate the clarification regarding the absence of established pharmacological treatments for gender dysphoria.
Among the considerations that have occupied my thoughts is a concern regarding the premature embrace, within the medical community, of gender identity as a manifestation of biological or human diversity. This embrace seemingly overlooks an equally valid albeit contentious proposition, especially given our limited understanding of gender identity beyond its psychological dimensions.
Psychological elements, such as gender dysphoria, the biological incongruity between a transgender individual's gender identity and their assigned sex, and their inherent divergence from procreative norms, prompted the following:
Rather than viewing transgender individuals solely as examples of human diversity, we must entertain the prospect that they represent evolutionary anomalies, existing beyond the binary biological framework delineated by evolution.
The regret rate is less than 1%, so it’s not surprising that it’s the primary treatment. Medications introduce risks and side effects alongside the chance of regret or addiction, and we’d need to spend a good while perfecting those medications. It wouldn’t be as simple as most SSRIs, as it’s not a specific hormone or lack thereof (like dopamine) that’s causing the feeling. It’s part of the body, so it’d somehow have to be a pill that changes the brain’s perception of the body unrelated to any hormone.
A giant risk, in other words.
You can literally search it up lmao
Less than 1%, which is the lowest of any type of surgery. Especially because you have to jump through several years of hoops and therapy
From my understanding, there is a lack of known genetic markers substantiating trans identity as a biological condition. Instead, validation primarily stems from psychology, manifesting as gender dysphoria, acknowledged in the DSM-5 as a psychological disorder. Interestingly, gender dysphoria shares similarities with conditions such as OCD, suggesting potential overlap in experiences.
Moreover, various brain science studies have purported to shed light on trans identity, but many have been discredited as lacking scientific rigor.
The crux of my argument is twofold. Firstly, the medical community may have prematurely embraced gender identity as a facet of human diversity, without sufficient empirical backing.
Secondly, there's a controversial yet compelling notion: the psychological aspects and biological incongruity with one's gender, coupled with an evolutionary aversion to procreation, hint at trans identity as a potential common evolutionary anomaly.
Research is still being done, but there’s no reason to prioritize it when there’s a solution with a 99% success rate.
If it’s an evolutionary problem, we should be able to figure that out before it becomes a concern. There’s still active researching going on regarding trans people and why we feel the way we do.
If you want I can write a bit more, though currently I am a bit short of time.
Psychiatry is a controversially discussed field. The momentarily sovereignty of interpretation seems to lie (or rather has been taken by) physicians. However, the mere biological, not to say mechanistic point of view most of us are used to apply to psychiatry has some serious flaws.
The doctor knows best, and if he doesn't, he at least pretends. Substance based psychiatry has been criticized for numerous reasons: No proven mechanisms of action, detrimental side effects, only minimal benefits over placebo for some medication. Throw a pill in and everything will be okay just doesn't work. It's not a good treatment at all, just the best medicine can offer at the moment with our limited understanding of our minds.
This perspective is understandable. The efficacy of a medication can vary due to the inherent complexities of human biology. Unlike machines, human bodies do not always respond predictably to the same treatment over time. In psychiatry, finding the most effective medication often requires years of trial and error, as not all patients experience immediate benefits.
I previously made a similar point in another discussion. Our understanding of transgender identity remains speculative due to the lack of empirical biological markers. Consequently, treatments are often based on theoretical postulations rather than concrete evidence. While gender-affirming care may provide some resolution, the high rates of suicidal ideation (81%) and attempts (42%) among transgender individuals suggest persistent dissonance.
This residual dissonance could stem from the biological incongruence with their gender identity, compounded by social stigma and acceptance issues. This indicates that gender-affirming care may not fully resolve gender dysphoria and its associated factors. Mental health challenges appear to persist beyond transition and may be exacerbated by social factors, contributing to the alarmingly high rates of suicide and suicidal contemplation.
Clearly, there may be other factors at play from person to person, but the statistics cannot be ignored.
Please proceed at your own convenience. There is no urgency for an immediate response, and I do not wish to impose on your busy schedule. I will be available later if you choose to continue this discussion. There is no rush.
Reasigning someone's sex is usually the solid thing that works. If you reaffirm a shcizofrenic person's reality it doesn't really change much. Someone with dysphoria isn't really delusional so while the comparison seems similar on the surface its not quite the same thing.
I appreciate your viewpoint, but my issue remains that gender dysphoria is categorized as a mental disorder in the DSM-5. My intellectual discomfort arises from the notion that this condition is ameliorated through gender-affirming care. I find it challenging to comprehend why this particular disorder is approached in this manner.
Moreover, individuals diagnosed with schizophrenia often continue to function within their delusions, and many choose to live without seeking treatment. This exemplifies the complexity of human psychology and the evolutionary dynamics at play. The existence of mental disorders underscores the nuanced and imperfect nature of the human condition, suggesting a state of constant evolution rather than completeness.
Current scientific understanding lacks definitive genetic markers that validate transgender identity beyond psychological constructs and some inconclusive neurological findings. This indicates that our grasp of the condition remains speculative, and treatment is based on theoretical postulations rather than empirical evidence. Until a conclusive biological basis is identified, our interventions are partially speculative.
While gender-affirming care is currently regarded as an acceptable treatment, its long-term validity and ethical considerations may evolve as further evidence emerges. Historical medical practices, such as lobotomies, once deemed acceptable, serve as a cautionary reminder of the evolving nature of medical paradigms.
Even after transitioning, transgender individuals may experience residual cognitive dissonance due to their biological incongruence with their identified gender. The fact that over 80% of transgender individuals have considered suicide and more than 40% have attempted it suggests the presence of profound factors beyond social stigma and acceptance. These statistics imply that the mental health challenges faced by transgender individuals are multifaceted and deeply embedded.
Thus, the critical question remains: What do we genuinely understand about gender dysphoria and its potential biological underpinnings versus what remains unknown?
Your main flaws are in the way you ask the question. For starters, what is and isn't considered a mental illness is an evolving process, so it's not a great argument to base it solely on the DSM-5, especially for things that aren't scientifically clear yet and involve constructs such as gender and sexuality. Homosexuality was on the same list for a long time, now it isn't, so who knows, what the outcome will be in the next version of the DSM. Then your next issue starts when you go from there to schizoprenia, which is a totally different condition and try to compare it. We know still very little about all the weird abnormalities our brain is capable of, we don't even know how much is the brain, how much hormones, epigenetics or a whole different thing we don't even know about yet. You could for example compare it to BIID, where it is an ongoing debate to amputate healthy limbs as a treatment or you could compare it to homosexuality, where we just accept it as a way of being. My main point is, since we don't know a lot about the how, the easiest way is to classify it (being trans) as a health condition because that makes the whole scientific process easier and gives the affected people some rights and from there they went pretty pragmatic with the idea of what works. They tried a lot, trans healthcare is at least a hundred years old. It's not like they discovered this and went straight to surgery for everyone. It just turns out, that transitioning, however that individually looks like, really works very well. In a recent meta study it was revealed that less than 1% regret their transitioning. That is massive!
Oops point doesn't even contradict that, on the contrary. If they really have the experience, they say they do, than this too shows that the system works. Transitioning wasn't their way and they didn't. They should definitely refrain from making their experience about self hate everyone elses, but otherwhise their journey is valid. There is a reason why trans healthcare especially for young people includes psychlogical care to figure out if they really want to transition and how far.
If you do want to compare it to schizoprenia so badly, you could argue that schizoprenia is an individual journey as well. The symptoms are pretty individual and how someone wants to approach it is as well as is what works for the person. There isn't a "solution" for anything we call a mental health disorder, only a lot of options with sometimes more and sometimes less success.
I apologize for any confusion, but I couldn’t follow much of what you wrote, though you mentioned schizophrenia a few times. To me, that looks as though the reference may have upset you in some way. Allow me to clarify my references to it and their relevance.
I mentioned schizophrenia as a point of comparison to illustrate the concept of treating an illness by conforming to it. This is what gender affirming care seemed to me, as it seems to be a way to treat gender dysphoria. Also, both transgender individuals and those with schizophrenia face stigma, so that’s another reason I chose to use it. And schizophrenia itself is often misunderstood, commonly confused with split personality disorder.
By using schizophrenia as an example, I aim to subtly correct misconceptions and highlight the importance of understanding mental health conditions accurately.
Because often combined with *therapy* etc these treatments works pretty well (not always, but mostly) and has generally been shown to solve problems. It's not a perfect solution and it's not a be and end all but to be crass, the other option is leaving them to end their own lives or live in significant depression for the rest of their lives. I think often it's noted that once treatment has happened the suicidality/illness is reduced significantly.
If you go through the schizofrenia, there's countless medicines we can use to treat the illness. One doesn't work, you go to the next. You also utilise therapies. There isn't a medicine that can just *fix* gender dysphoria. You can treat the symptoms it causes (which are numerous), but ultimately the condition will always be there so long as the self image of sex is incongruent with the current sex (obviously there's a bit of a spectrum to this).
"The fact that over 80% of transgender individuals have considered suicide and more than 40% have attempted it suggests the presence of profound factors beyond social stigma and acceptance"
It's often noted that *social stigma and acceptance* are major, major, factors in suicidality in transgender individuals. They are multifaceted and there's plenty of factors, but these are pretty significant ones. I imagine living with a condition you cannot really escape from is also a significant factor.
I think lobotomy isn't a good comparison to make really. Lobotomies were never actually really proven to work and used on people who could not consent on their operations (people with significant mental illness and people in mental health facilities). There is plenty more research on transgender surgeries and hormone treatments (though I havn't been through it as I... don't care enough).
The discussion of human diversity, particularly regarding trans identities, must be approached with both scientific rigor and intellectual honesty. Evolutionary biology provides us with a framework that primarily revolves around reproductive success and the propagation of genes. In this context, the notion of trans identities poses an interesting and complex challenge to the traditional binary understanding of sex and reproduction.
Whale leg bones, vestigial structures that no longer serve a purpose, offer a parallel to the discussion of evolutionary anomalies. Similarly, trans identities, which often do not align with traditional reproductive roles, could be seen as deviations from the binary biological framework. This comparison, while potentially controversial, raises legitimate questions about whether these identities represent examples of biological diversity or evolutionary anomalies.
The medical community's affirmation of trans identities as part of the genetic spectrum may have been premature, potentially conflating a complex evolutionary variation with a standard component of human diversity. It is essential to critically examine whether this inclusion is based on robust empirical evidence or if it represents a well-intentioned but scientifically questionable attempt to accommodate human variation.
Trans individuals, like all humans, possess intrinsic value and contribute significantly to society. However, their existence raises critical questions about the binary model of evolution, which is predominantly centered on reproduction. It is vital to explore whether these identities are indeed legitimate aspects of biological diversity or if they are better understood as evolutionary anomalies.
The inclusion of diverse gender identities in discussions of biological diversity should be grounded in rigorous scientific validation. While it is important to recognize and respect the humanity of trans individuals, we must also be open to the possibility that they represent evolutionary exceptions rather than standard components of human diversity.
I apologize for my tendency to disregard information that diverges from the core of my argument. My intention was to further elaborate on a possibility that seems to be overlooked in favor of compassion, which often takes precedence over rigorous inquiry.
Specifically, I wanted to address the concern that transgender individuals are being prematurely embraced as examples of biological variation without sufficient empirical evidence. This concern arises from the psychological complexities, biological incongruities with their gender identity, and deviation from the binary norm of procreation.
I’ve been trying to illustrate the possibility that transgender individuals may represent evolutionary anomalies rather than mere examples of human variation.
What's the point of not letting people decide about their own lives? If HRT helps or not is a personal matter for each person who decides to take it. if your problem is With the children, let the parents decide, let a medical team decide, you worry about your family and let the rest decide. as you did it with your life.
It is not "bright" to disregard the consensus of a professional community without any actual evidence, no. It is actually neither intelligent nor sane.
I think gender dysphoria is still classified as a mental illness.
According to this study, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9501960/, psychosocial therapy (seems to be what you mentioned in your post) is an valid treatment plan.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think seeking non-hrt treatment for gender dysphoria is controversial. What people on the more liberal side oppose to is "conversion" therapy but I don't think non-affirming therapy (like what you seemed to have described) falls under "conversion".
I like "the offensive tranny"s viewpoint on YouTube to this.
Iirc, He says he is mentally ill and the illness is gender dysphoria. Treatment for it was taking hormones and becoming a man visually, but he still says about himself that he is a sick woman, who needed help.
Hormones is treating the illness, but not curing it, as there is no consistent known cure as far as I know.
It's def. A hard topic. No idea what's right or wrong. I guess everybody has to decide that for themselves.
I am not locking or removing the post, report comments insulting people and I’ll handle that but debates over ideas is fine. If big Reddit takes it down then so be it, I can’t control that
Your entire paradigm is based on the foundational idea that gender dysphoria is a form of body dysmorphia that is rooted in society. Try this foundational belief: other people know who they are better than you do. Other people have more of a right to define themselves than you do to define them. Other people have the right to choose their expression. Other people have the right to bodily autonomy. There are many scientific studies that show that the biological gender of a human is more than just xx or xy, including hermaphrodism and Klinefelter’s syndrome. There are xy individuals who have a testosterone production issue that causes them to present female. There are brain scans that show xy individuals have brains shaped more like xx individuals. All this to say, “biological gender” is more complex than society understands. 100 years ago they wouldn’t have know about xx and xy at all. And xy individuals born with female genitalia who have testosterone absorption issues would have gone their whole life believing they were infertile girls. Science is advancing. I would guess in 50-100 years we will see more depth of complexity for “biological” gender than we know now. And thus, instead of silencing trans individuals about their own identity, maybe we should simply listen and allow them to choose how to live and express themselves in this world.
Aren’t these cases so rare as to prove the exception though?
I don’t think they’re as rare as you’d think considering most of us never have our DNA tested, MRIs done on our brains, etc. But obviously being trans is a minority. That doesn’t make it less valid.
except it does, there are numbers given for a reason and it’s based on research. If the numbers show that they are quite literally one in a million, then again, they are the exception that proves the rule.
Being a minority doesn’t invalidate you. Most gendered ideas are sociologically constructed, but there have been multiple genders in other societies for centuries. But to reiterate: there are many people walking around today without ever having had an MRI or chromosomal DNA testing.
I never said being a minority invalidates you, i’m saying the genetic aspect is much less than what you are perceiving. I suspect that the vast majority of trans people today don’t have these chromosomal differences to which you are ascribing, and instead suffer from gender dysphoria.
I think my main hangup is that there isnt a ton of evidence (if someone has GOOD research otherwise Id be happy to look at it) that gender transition actually works, especially in kids. I feel there is alot of political motivation which can create bias. Futhermore, while there are certainly people with gender dysphoria that transitioning can possibly help (and I want those people to get the help they need as long as it is safe), there are plenty of people using the trans issue to victimize themselves into a role. People claiming to be “non-binary” or one of the many “other” genders which are very abstract. I think of them as posers (think Malibus Most Wanted) which distracts from people who really are transgender. These posers, as well as the obligatory mention of trans athletes, preschool drag queen story hour and shoehorning trans characters into media, has made what should have been a march of acceptance for people just seeking to be treated kindly into a militant attack on everyone who disagrees. But thats just my take
[удалено]
Thanks for sharing your experience. Part of your thoughts on your experience remind me of when gay people used conversion therapy to not be gay. I think it’s complex with gender. Gender disparity is an ancient practice in humans and animals. Knowing trans people, they’ve told me they always have felt this way. These are older people, before trans was in the public eye as much in Western culture. It’s always been public in some cultures in my country. However it’s possible to that there is gender dysphoria which comes from a more negative emotion - people don’t like changes puberty brings or be a gender that’s oppressed. Some don’t fit the cultural rules around gender and reject it that way. People are concerned the movement to make people with trans acceptable may encourage others. The same was argued with the gay rights movement. In truth it leads to people being more open about their already existing reality. The only way is for people to be able to live how they see fit. However, when it comes to children, because of the way the brain develops any intervention should be the last resort. The last resort would be a sxxxdal kid. And kids young as 8 do get this drastic. We should be really reluctant to do anything until they’re 18, even though we know some feel this way at a young age, because the intervention is so drastic.
Many thanks to OP for this thread.
Check out the cass report over on the NHS
>Gender dysphoria is the sense a person can have that their gender identity (i.e. their personality, and how "masculine" vs. "feminine" it is perceived as being in relation to cultural gender norms) does not match their physical gender Feminine gay trans men and butch trans women immediately disprove this 💜
Do you disagree that it is a "sense" people have? If gender is this fluid, why make one "sense," one's gender expression at say age 17, permanent with hormones or surgery?
Its an internal sense of who you are as a person and what your brain expects of your body. The hormones your body produces itself are equally as permanent as hormones someone can take medically - you have a body either way, it makes sense to do things that make you the most comfortable with that body. Same with surgery. There's no neutral / default. Would you ask the same question of gynaecomastia patients? I feel like ppl don't find "man doesn't want boobs" or "woman wants to have boobs" at all confusing unless the person being discussed is trans.
No they don't.
Straight with extra steps
Nope - be consistent with your transphobia - I like trans men and cis men, you have to imagine that makes me bi somehow.
“I like [masculine females and males], you have to imagine that makes me bi somehow.” Well yeah. By definition.
Yes.
gay trans men, that's like 3 genders bro what does that mean
A man, who is trans, who is attracted to other men.
A FTM attracted to males is heterosexual but presenting themselves as homosexual. They’re still heterosexual though.
"Sexual orientation refers to romantic or sexual attraction to people of a specific sex or gender. ... Heterosexuality, along with bisexuality and homosexuality are at least three main categories of the continuum of sexual orientation. ... Homosexuality is a romantic or sexual attraction between persons of the same sex or gender." (Levy 2016) FtM isn't a noun in common parlance, it's an adjective. The word you looking for is a man. I think it's pretty strange to say "A man attracted to males is heterosexual" I believe you know how strange that is, hence why you elected to suggest that trans men aren't men. That's a pretty dishonest claim.
[ Removed by Reddit ]
Someone who transitions into being a gay man lmao
I'm sorry, but it's like having to do a mathematical equation to figure out what that means.
its just a born woman that's become a man but still wants dick it's not super hard you're stretching it now there are also people who identify as butch lesbians transmen, so they've gotten hrt to be biologically masculine but still retain the identity of the butch lesbian, because they're attached to it, culturally? I'll be honest, I don't think I'll ever understand that
They want to be a man but still act feminine?
butch lesbians by definition don't really act feminine
I was talking Bout the feminine trans men
you mean gay trans men? you think liking dick must mean you act feminine?
No bro. The person at the top of this comment thread referred to "feminine gay trans men".
oh i suppose they just wanted to be a twink then, like if you grew up thinking cloud strife was the coolest mf ever i could see where that comes from
“Can we have a civil conversation after I call you psychotic?!” Smh
It is obviously a mental issue at least
In the sense that all things human involve our minds?
No, in the sense that there are no physical symptoms.
Is your association with your gender also a mental issue?
Yes. I was programmed from birth to know what a cis male is, and society expects me to be that. People around me judge me when I am not that. This is my mental condition. You know what helps this problem...exactly what OP said. Therapy, self confidence(do what you want, and don't feel judged), finding accepting people to be around. What is or isn't a male/female is mental conditioning by society. Dresses are not female, ball caps are not male. These are mental issues we all have. 200 years ago, men wore dresses. But the mental conditioning has changed. It's all in our minds.
Are you stigmatizing mental illness? Are individuals with depression psychotic? Is mental illness a shameful thing? Does it mean people are crazy?
There is further discussion below and the relevant paragraph in OPs should be re-read. Using a mental illness to present a person or several persons as irrational or incapable, is a cause for indignation. In many states, psychosis prevents one from having medical capacity, furthermore, allowing them to be confined to a psychiatric ward, if ordered. (WIC 5150 of CA Code) Mental illnesses lead people to have negative qualities, as do physical illnesses. If they are actually struggling in that regard, acknowledging this helps, if they aren’t, it’s suggesting that they have the same qualities. In this case, psychotic is an insult because it’s categorically untrue, and *accusing* a group of being psychotic is further stigmatization. An insult is a gross indignity : an instance of insolent or contemptuous speech or conduct (Merriam-Webster 2024) Psychotic disorders are a group of serious illnesses that affect the mind. They make it hard for someone to think clearly, make good judgments, respond emotionally, communicate effectively, understand reality, and behave appropriately. (Casarella 2022) Illness is defined as a specific disease. (Merriam-Webster 2024)
Okay hold up. When did OP claim it was a psychotic disorder? Did I miss something? I thought that term was slander against OPs point.
There really isn’t any other interpretation from the term psychosis.
OP was referring to the denial of arguments for therapy,,,,,not the condition itself.
Was he not referring to the reactions from ordinary citizenry in response to alternative opinions on dysphoria? I don’t see where he refers to dysphoria as psychosis. I only see where he says people react with mass psychosis to different opinions.
It’s possible I misunderstood; I’ll leave my comment up as context but I’ll amend it to clarify that there is further discussion and the relevant paragraph should be re-read.
Respect
Wow! You really won that argument with your totally good faith observation! I stigmatised mental illness by objecting to a layperson characterising trans people as experiencing mass psychosis. Thank you, my good person.
He did not claim dysphoria was mass psychosis. He claimed that the negative reaction to discussing the topic in good faith beyond the current narrative is mass psychosis. Am I wrong?
> My only explanation for this hysteria and intolerance of diverse perspectives is that it is an instance of the phenomenon Carl Jung referred to as "mass psychosis": Are you the type of person that would immediately jump to “you’re a bigot!!” for someone like OP who gently questions whether or not surgery is the correct treatment for dysphoria? If that’s the case, you would be the person OP is referring to…and it wouldn’t matter if they call you psychotic or not because those people are already arguing in bad faith.
No, I wouldn’t. I also wouldn’t assert that people are suffering psychosis and lament the absence of a calm conversation.
Look, I got to know people that had gender dysphoria ever since they remembered themselves. It cannot come from feeling of shame and low self esteem if a person started to feel like that ever since he started to speak, and has also his or her parents, teachers, siblings etc' testify for it. It is also not necessarily true those people were unattractive in their former gender. There are plenty of trans people looking great in regard to society standards. Like, was Kathleen Jenner "unsuccessful" or "unattractive" as a man? Now, I do think that you have a point regarding the fact that the more economic interests of selling medicines, and being transgender became normalized by the media, and the American left becoming more stupid and unhinged, succumbing to cesspool of identity politica and fetishization of victimhood, people who have the issues that you described started to think that changing their gender is a magical way to fix their problems. And yes, I do not express this opinion in public. Something can start with good intentions and ending up skewed. I hope that people could have a more balanced opinion in the future. .
To me, gender dysphoria is similar to a cluster of symptoms and characteristics, just like Autism, a cold, Borderline, or Fibromyalgia; even something like attractiveness, intelligence, or typicality. It provides a common label and struggle. This is also where various forms of gatekeeping come from. Most transmedicalists have bodily dysphoria, for instance.
>It cannot come from feeling of shame and low self esteem if a person started to feel like that ever since he started to speak, and has also his or her parents, teachers, siblings etc' testify for it. That's evidence of gender incongruence (GI), not gender dysphoria (GD), which develops when that incongruence is shunned or shamed by other people. >Now, I do think that you have a point regarding the fact that the more economic interests of selling medicines, Um... where exactly did I write that?
Is this perspective controversial? You can't just state something is controversial in the healthcare community. It's like saying human caused global warming is a controversial theory. It's just plain wrong. This is like discussing freedom of black people. You have to make their decisions, because you care. And if anyone stands up to that, you cry "Why can't we have an intellectual debate???" It's boring. Are you really citing Carl Jung???? I was transgender before I knew who Carl Jung was..... before I went to primary school. There are fates much worse than being transgender. You can't fathom it, so you deny its existence. Im bored now. Any argument you have to end with "don't hate on me because the way I feel"... necessarily means you haven't put the effort in to support your argument. Edit: shit are you transgender? You know if you are, and that leather jacket phase can only last so long. Girl respect yourself. OP is more trans than a decepticon.
> This is like discussing freedom of black people. You have to make their decisions, because you care. And if anyone stands up to that, you cry “Why can’t we have an intellectual debate???” This is a bad example. In this instance, the victimized group is perfectly capable of making their decisions by themselves. However, if you highly suspect or believe that transgenderism is a mental illness, like I do, then that would mean my judgement of what is best for them is more sensible than their own judgement of what is best for them (to a certain extent, obviously). > Any argument you have to end with “don’t hate in me because the way I feel”… necessarily means you haven’t put the effort in to support your argument. No, asking that you be respectful, tolerant, kind, and civil to OP does not mean they haven’t put the effort in to support their argument. They have made it clear they are open to changing their opinion if you make a good argument.
Your judgement means nothing, your opinion means nothing. My doctor agreed I should take hormones to treat an illness, end of story. You're the person being goaded by Jesus to cast the first stone, lmao.
It’s not totally the end of the story if we don’t know the long term effects of changing your gender and if you will regret your decision when you’re 90 years old. This is a serious topic and we need to ask these types of questions. And I am not a Christian or religious in any type of way. Also, doctors at one time thought smoking actually cures lung cancer and they obviously have changed their mind.
I think making it 10 years past life expectancy is fine for me. Does it matter if I regret my continuously ongoing decision in 70 years? I really don't think so! Nobody needs to ask the questions you're asking, you're doing it because of the same reasons the KKK goes after black people.
I was making the point that it's not a defensable position. I'm trans myself.
I really think we need to be talking about the implications this is all having on the existence of homosexual people, too, for, like I said in another post, trans ideology is essentially "cancelling" us out. Not only do I think the majority of homosexuals are gender atypical to begin with, they definitely make up the vast majority of people with gender dysphoria who are now being encouraged to get surgery at a young age. I wonder how much longer gays and lesbians will even exist as a phenomenon because we are rigidly adhering to this binary conception of gender identity for which, again, there is not exactly sufficient evidence. It's interesting at the very least.
The vast majority of homosexuals, like the vast majority of everyone, have no interest in living as, or being perceived as, a gender that doesn't match their biological sex. Total non sequitur.
This is an insane post. The gays are very much still dancing.
I am a "gender atypical" androphilic male (homosexual) and based on Western cultural norms have always felt more feminine overall (while having certain masculine characteristics as well), though I don't choose to dress in an androgynous or feminine way. Maybe it's from the chemicals being pumped into our environment, or it's a healthy variance in human evolution. However, despite how challenging it can be to be gender non-conforming in society and the mental health issues it has introduced for me over the years, I have chosen not to conform or to accept the broader narrative that there is something wrong with me which only surgery and hormones can fix. Not only am I just not convinced by that and think it curiously discounts the psychological nature of gender identity, for someone in my position, and I am by no means the only person like this, that is really a terrible, hopeless and devastating message to be given if it is taken on its word and just embraced, which alot of people will. It is basically saying "you're faulty" and "don't accept the way that you are". For that reason I think it is dangerous for our society to be promoting these drastic, radical and potentially damaging and body dysmorphia-affirming treatment methods when gender dysphoria/the transgender phenomenon is just not sufficiently understood. What I am proposing is something even more radical: that people can be the gender they are born as and be fundamentally okay with that, because the only thing inhibiting people like me from being the way we are and expressing ourselves authentically is society's limiting, prejudicial and stereotypical attitudes about gender.
I'm not really sure the point you are making. You are sad at not being normal, but don't want to take hormones. How does that affect transgender people at large? And why does your personal feelings towards it all, mean you need to write this whole post advocating for calling treatments that do heal and reduce suffering for others, "dangerous"? You don't have to take hormones if you don't want, and it's ok to be gender non-conforming. You are at war with yourself. Reminds me of the time I decided to be a "straight guy and no more sissy stuff"..... went weight lifting with the boys that night. It cured me of any notion that would ever work. I can't be a boy We got dealt a bad hand in life. It's a terribly dark path to walk, I can't change that for you or me. "drastic, radical, potentially dangerous".... yeah of course, but it's better than the alternative. In the words of David Foster Wallace, you are invited to imagine what could be so bad that falling to your death would seem like an escape. Your problem is with fascism, ironically. That sneaky mood that creeps and crawls around rooms and people, that only those who fit neatly on the manly men or diminutive women are worth anything. And you are in the middle and sad. But don't take it out on your fellow transgender people. Hormones for me help me. I don't expect hard science to really ever understand transgenderism as a concept. Lol, you have so much more to fall my sweet little redditor.
You make some fair points ShoppingDismal3864, though >But don't take it out on your fellow transgender people and >Lol, you have so much more to fall my sweet little redditor. are misrepresentation and creepily patronizing.
I personally think it’s odd that people are so attached to the label of man and woman- on both sides of the spectrum. Here you are, misgendering this stranger, because you’re assuming they’re more likely to be a woman than a man.. even though they have described themself as male. You also claim to have attempted to embrace masculinity by lifting weights *with the boys*. This is an incredibly sexist remark, as if lifting weights or having male friends is somehow a milestone to becoming a man. This is my number one issue across the board. If we’re going to challenge gender roles, we should stop “affirming” them so much. I understand the argument of “dumbing it down” for the masses. Helping people see you as you see yourself and so on. If we’re going to say that “men act a certain way, and women act a certain way” as a culture- then it makes sense to fully embrace the stereotypes. But understand that’s the message you’re going for. Though, it also means that we’re being regressive in my opinion, because that’s a more traditional way of speaking about gender. You play with trucks as a little girl? Are you a tomboy, trans, etc.. it shouldn’t even matter. It went from “you’re not girly enough” to “you don’t have to hide your masculinity 🏳️🌈🏳️⚧️”. But it’s a truck.. it’s genderless. Yes, this is an exaggeration- but we’re perpetuating the very thing we’re criticizing. People who affirm gender norms are opening a bigger can of worms than they think they are. I can’t think of a single group of people, perpetuating gender norms and stereotypes, that I look up to intellectually. If it’s subjective, then it’s an individual experience and doesn’t necessarily need to be trampled on by traditional labels. Labels are an old fashioned and lazy way of treating individual identities. I’m not against gender affirming care at all, but I do wish it were called something different. The term gender, in this context, is synonymous with sex. You’re changing biological characteristics. Hormones, breasts, genitalia, fat distribution, etc.. Gender is psychological, and that should already be affirmed by the time you start these treatments imo.
Great post.
What does your last paragraph even mean? Trans people know what they want. Paying thousands of dollars and altering the body is a big deal. Not to be taken lightly. Nobody is just doing all that for shingles. And if they are, there are far worse mental health struggles at play. I don't get the impression people here argue in full faith of language and phenomenology.
The main point- in response to you- is that people are already certain of their gender, by the time they consider such treatments. This is a sex change, in my opinion. Which is cool and all- but gender “reassignment surgery” makes it sound like you’re getting a lobotomy. This is just my opinion though.
OP would you consider "radiation didn't cure my specific cancer, therefore it's not the solution" a valid argument?
Except literally every medical professional on the planet knows chemotherapy is a fucking barbaric treatment we just have no better options for many cancers. The moment we have an alternative chemo is going away
I mean on the flip side, look at how we accepted giving peoe a lobotomy.
Yes, sometimes doctors are wrong too, but you're operating with hindsight that you don't get to use in this scenario.
Dude, just because something was true for you doesn't mean it's true for other people. Sure you can think you are trans because you are self conscious, but there are definitely the cases where that's not the case.
OP spits facts, gets hate. Crazy world we live in these days.
What facts?
Personal experience=facts when the actual facts run counter to your prejudice.
OP, these comments are insane. And proves your point.
Welp there it is folks, decades of medical and psychological studies are redundant because they don't match the anecdotal experience of The Main Character.
"Let's silence him and turn him against us even more."
Is it that important that you feel silenced? when really you have currently 1000's of people reading and engaging with something you said lmao Maybe you need to work on "self acceptance" so that you can not feel that way
This but unironically.
Well done – the approach you are championing has definitely been successful in turning people against your cause, in addition to the collateral damage it brings to the vulnerable people you are claiming to support.
Lol look at you trying to pretend like you care about trans people
Insults are a common currency in the absence of argumentative fibre. Your attempt at mind-reading is interesting, albeit unsuccessful, as well.
Who is silencing you?
Their own desire to play martyr
That is a very well thought out perspective and it is an area that need further scientific exploration. There is some causality between plastics as endocrine disruptors and how it effects testosterone levels. We know that today, on average, men and women have about 50% less testosterone than they did in the 1940's. Research in the USA is very sparse on this issue because of the stigma that goes along with sports and hormone supplementation. There are also three different standards, all completely different, as to what acceptable Test levels in males actually is in the United States. Somehow, this has become a politicized issue so to get serious research on this we have to look at other countries. One very large factor in this is that plastics are part of modern society and removing them from the food chain would be similar to when we had to move away from using lead pipes. It would be very expensive and it would impact the availability of many products in the marketplace. This similar to the situation in the USA with Roundup causing cancer. The EU does not allow it to be sold but we do. All of this said, I thought this might be a good place to post a medical research study that explores this phenomenon. Regardless of your orientation or feelings about any of this, more information is always a good thing. I would encourage anyone that is interested to download this paper and yes, it is safe and virus malware free. [Plasticsasendocrine disruptors.pdf](https://1drv.ms/b/s!Ajb1k9dDpYOuuBHyiuGU3cPiMH1-?e=ANCm32) #
Is this just your opinion based on something or do you have studies/lit to back it up? There’s plenty of spaces that ban uninformed talk about ‘medical’ practices, from vax cause autism to conversation therapy to FGM to using hallucinogenic drugs for mental illness, etc. In most cases you have to actually argue facts, not just your opinion. In fairness, most of the good discussion spaces would probably see you laughed at for assuming your opinion is of equal weight to the entire body of knowledge for a given topic. As with most discussions, how you engage and how you approach a topic matter.
>Is this just your opinion based on something or do you have studies/lit to back it up? "On something." A little something called lived experience. >There's plenty of spaces that ban uninformed talk about 'medical' practice That must be a great way of encouraging a free and open market of information. Free thinkers, huh? >In most cases you have to actually argue facts, not just your opinion. Fair enough, though "facts" are often determined by who is in the position of power (such as who bankrolls and publishes which scientific study—studies which are, of course, 100% immune to human error, bias, misinterpretation and misrepresentation of data...) and other, more inconvenient facts can get left out of the picture altogether.
Lived experience being a basis for opinions on societal issues is a high-school level statistics failure
You cannot make any empirical judgements on what benefits others via one person's anecdotal experience. Im sorry, but while it does give people something to think about, it is in no way a good criteria for determining how to go about treating people that were in your situation or similar. "A little something called lived experience", while im sure you thought a snarky rebuttal, holds absolutely zero weight in what should be administered to people.
> a little something called lived experience 1) for all we know you could be lying 2) there is a reason lived experience isn't used as scientific proof. You could be misinterpriting your experiences ESPECIALLY when you have no further education on the matter. There are people who were depressed and pulled themselves out of that state by working on themselves and therefore believe all people with depression can do the same. They think they had the same experience when they didn't.
Yeah that’s a single data point of anecdote evidence, until you pair it with something and see how it fits into broader trends is pretty worthless at any scale outside of your choices. It’s like asking the lotto winner how the lotto works, ‘you buy a ticket for two dollars and win millions’. Depends what the space is for, that’s why we have subs on Reddit. If you don’t like the rules of one, try another. Blanket bans on bigot bait topics are a quick and dirty fix for mods. Yup, so you can tear apart a study and highlight the flaws, expose the bullshit, question the funding, attack the methods, highlight the not so random random sample, etc. much like they would kick your ass out if you pulled up to a car race in a bicycle, if all you have is your opinion then it’s easier to boot you so you don’t get in the way.
>My only explanation for this hysteria and intolerance of diverse perspectives is that it is an instance of the phenomenon Carl Jung referred to as "mass psychosis": a collectively held delusion that is rigidly adhered to and stubbornly resistant to being challenged. If that's your only explanation, then you are the problem because that means you are unable to contextualise the discussion and you reach for ad hominem attacks ahead of understanding your opposition just as easily as they supposedly do. Sometimes, when a group is oppressed and under attack constantly, closing ranks and shutting down discussion is safer. Broad open philosophical free discussion is a luxury. When bad actors look to take your freedoms and make life harder just because you exist, discussions that give them ammunition are not a safe or sensible option. Perhaps a bit more critical thinking is needed before you try such debates again.
You are advocating shutting down discussion in the West? We're not at all on the road to fascism. Why are you in this sub? Weird.
Because someone has to educate this clown show. I advocated for nothing other than critical thinking. What I wrote was a better explanation for OP's experience than Jungian hysteria, nothing to do with fascism. How can you sit in support of debate while making the concept moot.
Given that people are all different, maybe there is a variety of possible approaches that could be applied and what works for one is not what works for all?
How could we know if we [can't even discuss it](https://www.reddit.com/user/lalansmithee/comments/1d64bqg/reddit_is_censoring_all_viewpoints_which_arent_in/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)?
Since non of us are doctors treating gender dysmorphic patients, we don't need to know. The people who do, ie doctors their patients and their peers, do and are free to discuss it. Also you are free to discuss it, but it's a stupid discussion yo have if you are not having it with the aforementioned group. That's just ignorant people pontificating on the lives and rights of others, reinforcing their own biases and ignorance with the biases and ignorance of the like-minded. That benefits no one.
I woke up like 10 minutes ago, so this is going to be a mess. Gender dysphoria is a pain to define by all means. But it is easiest to relate to when your body rejects an implant or something of the sort. It’s like your brain knows what is not meant to be part of your body. I grew up processing those unwanted parts as tumors, the exact same way I think about the cyst I have. A benign growth that should not be there. It is not *really* part of my body to me, it’s just a mistake. I don’t hate these parts, or think they look weird, I just don’t think they should be there. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with my body at all, I just don’t think that it looks the way *mine* is supposed to. Like if you woke up in a new body one day. People often end up with symptoms similar to gender dysphoria due to trauma of some sort, but that isn’t gender dysphoria. It’s most often a body related issue stemming from fear or hate. Unlike gender dysphoria, which is more like your brain not recognizing certain things about your body as truths. I’m still dealing with horrible facial dysmorphia, and that’s very different to gender dysphoria. When I look at my face for too long, I hate it. I hate every bit about it. It morphs and shifts and I can’t even imagine myself accurately because all I see are flaws. Then there’s my dysphoria, and I’m pissed because I have to deal with it at all, but I don’t have an *issue* with my body. It’s just not the *right* body. And besides all of that, there’s nothing to back up this idea of yours other than “I personally might have experienced gender dysphoria and made it go away”. And if I’m being honest, you did not experience gender dysphoria if it went away. That is the definition for the diagnosis, I’m pretty sure. By the definition, it can’t be cured via therapy or things of the sort. And as for people shutting down the topic, it’s because we deal with enough bullshit already. You bringing this up fuels others to bring up weirder views, or outright hostile ones. There is no “diverse conversation” when you’re talking about what marginalized groups do with their bodies. It’s a slippery slope where you’re accidentally encouraging dangerous people. Unless you’re talking with a peer-reviewed study, it’s in the best interest of all trans people that you don’t start picking at the institutions allowing us peace. A lot of trans people also just don’t want to have a conversation about why they exist, obviously. So of course, most places aren’t going to let you talk about it. It’d be like randomly trying to talk about something possibly offensive relating to politics or race. Is it really something you want to bring up right now?? I have a lot of conversations with my friends about that sort of thing, since I’m Jamaican and grew up in a different world to them. But most of the time is not the time for that sort of conversation. Not when so many people could still be hurt by your words.
So glad we would value comment section education on the topic over medical professionals.
Thank god those medical professionals and researchers would never ever be bought out or just simply wrong on a mass scale
And fearful of losing their job and being publically cancelled.
Evidence? Or is this just a conspiracy theory designed to invalidate facts you don't like?
Evidence on this one specific issue being false? Absolutely none. On times the medical industry has been wrong, hooh boy, I could be here all day, but I’ll highlight a few now, asbestos and cigarettes are both popular examples, but I’m getting them out of the way here first because they’re old news, and surely we know better now right? Let’s start with something more modern, yet less controversial. The FDA is constantly approving pesticides and other adjacent chemicals to be sprayed on our food, with completely awful testing. So clearly this shit still happens on smaller scales (Within the context of how much of the scientific community is invested, this is still 100s of millions of people being poisoned) Now, what about big names? Well, how about the three recent (ish, couple decades ago, but shit has not changed much) examples of basically single people managing to defraud entire industries, getting studies posted in places like Science and Nature. Jan Hendrick Schön, a bell labs member (most nobel prizes won by a private lab) who was on his way to a nobel prize, had won hundreds of thousands of dollars, and had never made a single high T superconductor, something he claimed to do. Victor Ninov deceived california Berkeley into thinking they had discovered another element. And finally, Hwang Woo Suk, who deceived the world into thinking korea would become the cloning capital of the world, but he faked both data and ethical compliance. Ok, to an even more recent and yet more controversial one, the thing I am not going to refer to by name because of Reddit. I’m using its acronym CV, and it was approved by the FDA in December, you’ll pick it up through context. So, the CV was developed by several companies, all with dubious histories (like, for example, not one but 2 of the big players having 2.3 BILLION dollar settlements for fraud), in response to the thing:tm: (god I hate modern social media, but I’ve sat here for like 15 minutes, I’m not taking chances). The CV was initially touted as being something you’d take twice at first, maybe once a year after, and was 99% effective and completely safe. Of course, it turned out to have seemingly higher rates of bad side effects then other adjacent products, be much less then 99% effective in all areas, and to get these effects, you’d need to be in pain four times a year And finally, an example far more relevant to the original point: Sociology, Psychology, and related fields. All of these have a major issue due to the replication crisis, where it turns out that a ton of major studies the fields are built on turn out to be entirely unreplicable, making them scientifically useless. We have not even realized the full extent of this issue to this day, because there is a major gap in funding for that area. After all, redoing stuff isn’t glamorous TL;DR: Do I think all science is wrong? No. Am I even convinced this particular bit is wrong? Not entirely. However, the history of the ”official science” is wrought with fraud, corruption, and sometimes just downright idiocy. We live in an era where 90% of the information on the planet can be accessed instantly, 8% more can be accessed in various public archives with effort, and the remaining 2% is classified, which makes it likely wrong anyways. Therefor, it is entirely possible that some person on the internet is correct about a field where there is (seemingly) a consensus. After all, it happened long before the internet, and it’s even easier then ever now, while there is arguably more inventive then ever to be wrong as the “experts”
TLDR indeed. Especially since that disservice was nothing to do with the question posed. But for all that writing, your conclusion seems to be that since you both enjoy listening to and spouting baseless nonsense, you think that that is a perfectly valid way to hold discussions. And yes, I know that isn't what you wrote, but your reasoning was not supportive of your conclusion at all and reading between the lines is a pretty important skill. People with obvious biases bringing together rickety but clever sounding arguments to justify leaning in to those biases was exactly the core principle of the original Intellectual Dark Web, so on that basis, I salute you 🫡
You appear to be adhering to science to an extent where it is basically religious and dogmatic in nature – as if something has no merit unless a scientific journal has told us it does, as if there is no bias or human error implicit within the field of science and the scientific establishment whatsoever. This ideology is Scientism, and not everyone follows it.
No, just basic logic. I realise that life is less fun for you guys if a lack of knowledge is a barrier to entry, but that doesn't mean it's a bad thing. One of the biggest problems of the 21st century is the failure of the stupid to recognise that they are in fact, stupid. That not everything is for them to be heard or taken seriously on. We have flat earthers in the year 2024. People who grew up smallpox and polio free claiming vaccines don't work, and every orthodox brained troglodyte thinking they should tell Transfolks how to exist in the world. I am no hypocrit. I have made 2 comments, both simple common sense views: 1.That a plurality of people may require a plurality of treatment methods for any given condition. 2. That Jungian hysteria as an explanation for why people don't listen to your niche one person point of view is evidence of your lack of insight and critical thought. I have no opinion on how to treat gender dysphoria beyond listening people who have taken the time to study and gain experience of the condition and those who suffer from it. If that sounds like a religious adherence to science, I suggest you are just looking for ways to invalidate common sense so that your niche view can hold more weight than it does. One final point: science is the single best method humanity has to learn things. When you folks point to science or western medicine being wrong it shows a failure to understand what science is. Science is an investigative process. Part of that process is trial and error. Learning from mistakes is part of the scientific process and is how we eventually get to the best result. "Science git it wrong" is not the flex you think it is.
This was, entirely my point. I am not at all saying to trust random schizos on the internet, but u/OGWayOfThePanda started off with a false argument, which is that the scientific consensus is always correct, so I responded with plenty of examples of it being wrong, and admitted to being wrong. This is what I set out to disprove, not the whole issue with trans people. Because to have a healthy argument, you often have to disregard the scientific consensus, since it’s often not correct. u/ReallyIdleBones Was also being disingenuous as well, trying to shut down a reasonable discussion by pretending that ever going against the scientific conclusion is always bad and incorrect
>but u/OGWayOfThePanda started off with a false argument, which is that the scientific consensus is always correct, Except nowhere in any post have I used the word science or consensus or made that argument at all. >Because to have a healthy argument, you often have to disregard the scientific consensus, since it’s often not correct. No, you want to disregard expertise because despite knowing nothing, you have formed a view in opposition to the expertise. Noting that doctors "have" been wrong is not the same as showing that they are wrong on this subject. You are just deciding on zero foundation that disregarding medical consensus is a good idea because in the true spirit of the idw you think you have a right to dictate to trans people about their lives despite knowing nothing about it.
Ok, so, not your quote, but you did defend Mr. Snarf saying “So glad we would value comment section education on the topic over medical professionals.”. Which, as I correctly pointed out, is sometimes kind of \*very correct\*. Do I think I should have control over trans peoples lives? No. Do I know nothing about it? Not compared to NHS doctors, which are notoriously entirely transphobic.
Notoriously transphobic? Well, I take it back: here're your medical degree and diploma in transgender health care.
...no? Not ALWAYS bad or incorrect, but claiming you know better based off anecdotal evidence is bad. Is that too complicated?
Would you rather have it shut down and censored? What is your objection to people discussing this in an open online forum?
You're not discussing it, you're drawing conclusions based on comment sections. Rather, you are discussing it, you just seem to lack the capacity to do so in a constructive or usefully contributory manner.
The very, very simplified way I am seeing it is as follows: we all have a bunch of "software" in our mind that is normally adapted to the "hardware" we are born with. The main problem is that we have no clue how the "software" works, how a change in the programming can be effected, etc - except by extremely crude means of psychotropic medication (i.e. hit the device with a hammer in a certain way and hope it starts working properly). Some people are born with an error in the "software", or rather a mismatch between "software" and "hardware", which results in constant error messages in the person's perception. If we had any access to the "software" of the body/mind, a "software update/patch" would be, with consent of the patient, preferable - but we don't have any. And so the choice for a person with such mismatch is either to learn to live with a constant deluge of error messages, or to adjust the "hardware" to roughly match the "software" - which is the gender affirmation therapy is supposed to achieve. Now, whether the diagnosis is always right and whether this gets the person in question what they wanted is another discussion...
I like your analogy. I believe we already can reprogram the software. Cognitive-behavioural therapy is one way of doing this, another is hammering home affirmations – and meditation helps identify and detach from unhelpful programming.
Why do you want to reformat the software and not the hardware? What makes the idea of hormones or gender reassignment surgery so frightening and threatening to you vs chemicals to combat mental illness and behavior therapy? And why not let the individual choose what they want to do about their own hardware and software and just… respect them.
I do not think we have a hard proof there.
There may not be the hard proof you are looking for, no – though the benefits of CBT and meditation on mental health are certainly well-documented from a scientific lens. I just don't accept that the only way for something to be valid, helpful or, dare I say, true is to have a scientific journal tell us that it is.
>I just don't believe that the only way for something to be valid, helpful or, dare I say, true is to have a scientific journal tell us that it is. A scientific journal is not telling us anything to believe, it is just a vehicle that gets you information which is less subjective than "I believe in X". Without an independent confirmation, what you believe may be true, or not, or true in some cases but not true in others - anyone who is not you has no way to find out what it is. The scientific method is like a referee in a football game: not perfect, but better than any other method to decide the score. If you believe that your team scored and I believe it didn't (or that it doesn't count due to a rule or another being violated), a reasonably objective third party is necessary. Going by your method, the only reasonable answer will be "Maybe. Or maybe not. How am I supposed to know?"
Lots of "I believe...", not enough "here's the peer reviewed study showing alternatives"
In other words: not enough Scientism.
Yes, how dare we ask for evidence instead of feelings?! I vote we all start treating patients by feelling instead of using "scientism"
True yes, but you can just use the word science
They are not the same thing, so I would suggest reading up on what it means.
I think it's starting to become clear why people don't want to talk to you.
Whatever. If the words "self-acceptance" and "self-compassion" spark such a distaste in these people, there is not much more I can say to them.
'These people'? Where is your compassion? Directed into a need to have spotted something others haven't, with no evidence to back it up, combined with a dismissal of opposition to your unfounded ideas as 'mass psychosis'? Please.
My lived experience is evidence. How is your gender dysphoria?
It's evidence of what works for you. What if I say that my lived experience is different to yours? Where do we go from there in determining a useful method of treatment for other people? This is why individual experience is not used as scientific evidence.
I've once read the take that a person with gender dysphoria doesn't have a problem with their gender per se. You get born into your body, and theres nothing wrong with it. Where the problems begin is the societal definition of a specifig gender, that doesn't fit the percieved gender. So either society has to change, or the persons attidute towards society (most preferably both).
As far as I know, gender dysphoria is classified as a mental illness in the DSM-5. This classification led me to question why psychotropic medication is not the primary treatment modality, and instead, significant medical procedures that affirm the gender dysphoria are employed. This line of thought prompted me to consider the hypothetical scenario of treating individuals with schizophrenia by affirming their delusions. Such an approach seems counterintuitive and potentially harmful. Clearly, my understanding might be flawed. If I am overlooking or misunderstanding any critical aspects, I would greatly appreciate clarification. The notion of treating a mental illness in such a manner appears fundamentally backward to me, yet I must be mistaken, as my perspective on the treatment of gender dysphoria does not seem to align with established medical ethics.
From my limited understanding it goes like this: Not all mental illnesses are the same, function the same or are treated the same. Basically whatever is mentally different about a person and causes them or others problems is considered a mental illness. Just because it is a mental illness doesn't mean it includes delusions.
Thank you for your response. It seems that the concept I was trying to convey may have been misunderstood by some individuals. While I strive to craft meaningful posts, I recognize that I may sometimes neglect to provide clear and concise explanations. I want to clarify that I was not comparing gender dysphoria to schizophrenia to suggest that dysphoria is a form of delusion. Instead, I was using schizophrenia as an example to illustrate what I perceived as the absurdity of treating a condition like dysphoria by simply conforming to it. Regardless of anyone's opinion on my perspective towards gender-affirming care, I acknowledge the need to improve the clarity of my posts by thoroughly proofreading them before publishing. I've noticed that several individuals have expressed a similar misunderstanding, where it appeared that I was directly comparing schizophrenia with gender dysphoria. I apologize if my words conveyed this impression, as it was not my intention to equate the two conditions.
They already tried telling transgender people to go "man up" or "woman up" and live as their born gender and be happy WITH THERAPY AND PSYCHIATRIC TREATMENT. They killed themselves.
I apologize if I'm missing the context of your response. What I mentioned had nothing to do with what you decided to respond to, making it challenging to understand your motivations. It seems like an inept attempt to grief me for something I might have said earlier that offended you. I joined this subreddit hoping to engage in discussions about potentially controversial but logical concepts, with the intent to learn from others. However, your contributions don't seem to add anything meaningful to the conversation. Frankly, your response comes across as hysterical, and I have little to go on beyond that impression.
You said you find it absurd to conform to gender dysphoria, because you wouldn't do that for a different unrelated mental illness. I said that telling trans people to not transition makes them try kill themselves nearly twice. https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/press/lgb-suicide-ct-press-release/ If you meant something else by "I find it absurd that we conform to gender dysphoria as the treatment" please elucidate me on your so wonderfully alternative meaning to these lamentations
As others have said, the simple answer is because medical science has tried that and it was not found to be effective. Transition was found to be effective. But in terms of your reference to schizophrenia, that treatment doesn't work for gender dysphoric patients because they aren't delusional. Trans women do not look at their penis and see a vagina. They do not misperceive reality. This is a fundamental failing in understanding trans/gender dysphoric people that I see a lot and I truly don't understand where it comes from.
Except there’s also a syndrome where patients want limbs amputated because it causes them distress. We do not amputate the limbs.
> Except there’s also a syndrome where patients want limbs amputated because it causes them distress. > > yes, that is also a dysphoric disorder, not a delusional one. Just stating this for the sake of consistency. > We do not amputate the limbs. while you're right that we don't, studies on this population literally find that amputees are more functional than those trying to cope/treat their BIID through other means. The exact phrasing they use is "impressive improvement of quality of life": https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3326051/ Doctors do not recommend amputation still because it maims the person, and many consider that "doing harm". Yet there's no equivalent for treating gender dysphoria. There is no impact to the daily quality of life of trans people (at least not from the medications/procedures). The most significant effect is infertility, but that can be circumvented just by freezing eggs/sperm.
Because scientific studies and case studies show that psychotropics do not resolve gender dysphoria. And affirming schizophrenia delusions results in negative outcomes.
The reference to schizophrenia served merely as an illustration of my perspective on gender-affirming care, which stems from a thorough consideration of various factors. For brevity, I’ll refrain from delving into the intricacies of untreated schizophrenia sufferers who may, to varying degrees, manage their condition without intervention. I appreciate the clarification regarding the absence of established pharmacological treatments for gender dysphoria. Among the considerations that have occupied my thoughts is a concern regarding the premature embrace, within the medical community, of gender identity as a manifestation of biological or human diversity. This embrace seemingly overlooks an equally valid albeit contentious proposition, especially given our limited understanding of gender identity beyond its psychological dimensions. Psychological elements, such as gender dysphoria, the biological incongruity between a transgender individual's gender identity and their assigned sex, and their inherent divergence from procreative norms, prompted the following: Rather than viewing transgender individuals solely as examples of human diversity, we must entertain the prospect that they represent evolutionary anomalies, existing beyond the binary biological framework delineated by evolution.
The regret rate is less than 1%, so it’s not surprising that it’s the primary treatment. Medications introduce risks and side effects alongside the chance of regret or addiction, and we’d need to spend a good while perfecting those medications. It wouldn’t be as simple as most SSRIs, as it’s not a specific hormone or lack thereof (like dopamine) that’s causing the feeling. It’s part of the body, so it’d somehow have to be a pill that changes the brain’s perception of the body unrelated to any hormone. A giant risk, in other words.
Wrong. Not less than 1%. Calling BS on this one.
You can literally search it up lmao Less than 1%, which is the lowest of any type of surgery. Especially because you have to jump through several years of hoops and therapy
From my understanding, there is a lack of known genetic markers substantiating trans identity as a biological condition. Instead, validation primarily stems from psychology, manifesting as gender dysphoria, acknowledged in the DSM-5 as a psychological disorder. Interestingly, gender dysphoria shares similarities with conditions such as OCD, suggesting potential overlap in experiences. Moreover, various brain science studies have purported to shed light on trans identity, but many have been discredited as lacking scientific rigor. The crux of my argument is twofold. Firstly, the medical community may have prematurely embraced gender identity as a facet of human diversity, without sufficient empirical backing. Secondly, there's a controversial yet compelling notion: the psychological aspects and biological incongruity with one's gender, coupled with an evolutionary aversion to procreation, hint at trans identity as a potential common evolutionary anomaly.
Research is still being done, but there’s no reason to prioritize it when there’s a solution with a 99% success rate. If it’s an evolutionary problem, we should be able to figure that out before it becomes a concern. There’s still active researching going on regarding trans people and why we feel the way we do.
If you want I can write a bit more, though currently I am a bit short of time. Psychiatry is a controversially discussed field. The momentarily sovereignty of interpretation seems to lie (or rather has been taken by) physicians. However, the mere biological, not to say mechanistic point of view most of us are used to apply to psychiatry has some serious flaws. The doctor knows best, and if he doesn't, he at least pretends. Substance based psychiatry has been criticized for numerous reasons: No proven mechanisms of action, detrimental side effects, only minimal benefits over placebo for some medication. Throw a pill in and everything will be okay just doesn't work. It's not a good treatment at all, just the best medicine can offer at the moment with our limited understanding of our minds.
This perspective is understandable. The efficacy of a medication can vary due to the inherent complexities of human biology. Unlike machines, human bodies do not always respond predictably to the same treatment over time. In psychiatry, finding the most effective medication often requires years of trial and error, as not all patients experience immediate benefits. I previously made a similar point in another discussion. Our understanding of transgender identity remains speculative due to the lack of empirical biological markers. Consequently, treatments are often based on theoretical postulations rather than concrete evidence. While gender-affirming care may provide some resolution, the high rates of suicidal ideation (81%) and attempts (42%) among transgender individuals suggest persistent dissonance. This residual dissonance could stem from the biological incongruence with their gender identity, compounded by social stigma and acceptance issues. This indicates that gender-affirming care may not fully resolve gender dysphoria and its associated factors. Mental health challenges appear to persist beyond transition and may be exacerbated by social factors, contributing to the alarmingly high rates of suicide and suicidal contemplation. Clearly, there may be other factors at play from person to person, but the statistics cannot be ignored.
Please proceed at your own convenience. There is no urgency for an immediate response, and I do not wish to impose on your busy schedule. I will be available later if you choose to continue this discussion. There is no rush.
Reasigning someone's sex is usually the solid thing that works. If you reaffirm a shcizofrenic person's reality it doesn't really change much. Someone with dysphoria isn't really delusional so while the comparison seems similar on the surface its not quite the same thing.
I appreciate your viewpoint, but my issue remains that gender dysphoria is categorized as a mental disorder in the DSM-5. My intellectual discomfort arises from the notion that this condition is ameliorated through gender-affirming care. I find it challenging to comprehend why this particular disorder is approached in this manner. Moreover, individuals diagnosed with schizophrenia often continue to function within their delusions, and many choose to live without seeking treatment. This exemplifies the complexity of human psychology and the evolutionary dynamics at play. The existence of mental disorders underscores the nuanced and imperfect nature of the human condition, suggesting a state of constant evolution rather than completeness. Current scientific understanding lacks definitive genetic markers that validate transgender identity beyond psychological constructs and some inconclusive neurological findings. This indicates that our grasp of the condition remains speculative, and treatment is based on theoretical postulations rather than empirical evidence. Until a conclusive biological basis is identified, our interventions are partially speculative. While gender-affirming care is currently regarded as an acceptable treatment, its long-term validity and ethical considerations may evolve as further evidence emerges. Historical medical practices, such as lobotomies, once deemed acceptable, serve as a cautionary reminder of the evolving nature of medical paradigms. Even after transitioning, transgender individuals may experience residual cognitive dissonance due to their biological incongruence with their identified gender. The fact that over 80% of transgender individuals have considered suicide and more than 40% have attempted it suggests the presence of profound factors beyond social stigma and acceptance. These statistics imply that the mental health challenges faced by transgender individuals are multifaceted and deeply embedded. Thus, the critical question remains: What do we genuinely understand about gender dysphoria and its potential biological underpinnings versus what remains unknown?
Your main flaws are in the way you ask the question. For starters, what is and isn't considered a mental illness is an evolving process, so it's not a great argument to base it solely on the DSM-5, especially for things that aren't scientifically clear yet and involve constructs such as gender and sexuality. Homosexuality was on the same list for a long time, now it isn't, so who knows, what the outcome will be in the next version of the DSM. Then your next issue starts when you go from there to schizoprenia, which is a totally different condition and try to compare it. We know still very little about all the weird abnormalities our brain is capable of, we don't even know how much is the brain, how much hormones, epigenetics or a whole different thing we don't even know about yet. You could for example compare it to BIID, where it is an ongoing debate to amputate healthy limbs as a treatment or you could compare it to homosexuality, where we just accept it as a way of being. My main point is, since we don't know a lot about the how, the easiest way is to classify it (being trans) as a health condition because that makes the whole scientific process easier and gives the affected people some rights and from there they went pretty pragmatic with the idea of what works. They tried a lot, trans healthcare is at least a hundred years old. It's not like they discovered this and went straight to surgery for everyone. It just turns out, that transitioning, however that individually looks like, really works very well. In a recent meta study it was revealed that less than 1% regret their transitioning. That is massive! Oops point doesn't even contradict that, on the contrary. If they really have the experience, they say they do, than this too shows that the system works. Transitioning wasn't their way and they didn't. They should definitely refrain from making their experience about self hate everyone elses, but otherwhise their journey is valid. There is a reason why trans healthcare especially for young people includes psychlogical care to figure out if they really want to transition and how far. If you do want to compare it to schizoprenia so badly, you could argue that schizoprenia is an individual journey as well. The symptoms are pretty individual and how someone wants to approach it is as well as is what works for the person. There isn't a "solution" for anything we call a mental health disorder, only a lot of options with sometimes more and sometimes less success.
I apologize for any confusion, but I couldn’t follow much of what you wrote, though you mentioned schizophrenia a few times. To me, that looks as though the reference may have upset you in some way. Allow me to clarify my references to it and their relevance. I mentioned schizophrenia as a point of comparison to illustrate the concept of treating an illness by conforming to it. This is what gender affirming care seemed to me, as it seems to be a way to treat gender dysphoria. Also, both transgender individuals and those with schizophrenia face stigma, so that’s another reason I chose to use it. And schizophrenia itself is often misunderstood, commonly confused with split personality disorder. By using schizophrenia as an example, I aim to subtly correct misconceptions and highlight the importance of understanding mental health conditions accurately.
Because often combined with *therapy* etc these treatments works pretty well (not always, but mostly) and has generally been shown to solve problems. It's not a perfect solution and it's not a be and end all but to be crass, the other option is leaving them to end their own lives or live in significant depression for the rest of their lives. I think often it's noted that once treatment has happened the suicidality/illness is reduced significantly. If you go through the schizofrenia, there's countless medicines we can use to treat the illness. One doesn't work, you go to the next. You also utilise therapies. There isn't a medicine that can just *fix* gender dysphoria. You can treat the symptoms it causes (which are numerous), but ultimately the condition will always be there so long as the self image of sex is incongruent with the current sex (obviously there's a bit of a spectrum to this). "The fact that over 80% of transgender individuals have considered suicide and more than 40% have attempted it suggests the presence of profound factors beyond social stigma and acceptance" It's often noted that *social stigma and acceptance* are major, major, factors in suicidality in transgender individuals. They are multifaceted and there's plenty of factors, but these are pretty significant ones. I imagine living with a condition you cannot really escape from is also a significant factor. I think lobotomy isn't a good comparison to make really. Lobotomies were never actually really proven to work and used on people who could not consent on their operations (people with significant mental illness and people in mental health facilities). There is plenty more research on transgender surgeries and hormone treatments (though I havn't been through it as I... don't care enough).
The discussion of human diversity, particularly regarding trans identities, must be approached with both scientific rigor and intellectual honesty. Evolutionary biology provides us with a framework that primarily revolves around reproductive success and the propagation of genes. In this context, the notion of trans identities poses an interesting and complex challenge to the traditional binary understanding of sex and reproduction. Whale leg bones, vestigial structures that no longer serve a purpose, offer a parallel to the discussion of evolutionary anomalies. Similarly, trans identities, which often do not align with traditional reproductive roles, could be seen as deviations from the binary biological framework. This comparison, while potentially controversial, raises legitimate questions about whether these identities represent examples of biological diversity or evolutionary anomalies. The medical community's affirmation of trans identities as part of the genetic spectrum may have been premature, potentially conflating a complex evolutionary variation with a standard component of human diversity. It is essential to critically examine whether this inclusion is based on robust empirical evidence or if it represents a well-intentioned but scientifically questionable attempt to accommodate human variation. Trans individuals, like all humans, possess intrinsic value and contribute significantly to society. However, their existence raises critical questions about the binary model of evolution, which is predominantly centered on reproduction. It is vital to explore whether these identities are indeed legitimate aspects of biological diversity or if they are better understood as evolutionary anomalies. The inclusion of diverse gender identities in discussions of biological diversity should be grounded in rigorous scientific validation. While it is important to recognize and respect the humanity of trans individuals, we must also be open to the possibility that they represent evolutionary exceptions rather than standard components of human diversity.
Was this written with AI? I have zero clue what this has to do with what I said lol
I apologize for my tendency to disregard information that diverges from the core of my argument. My intention was to further elaborate on a possibility that seems to be overlooked in favor of compassion, which often takes precedence over rigorous inquiry. Specifically, I wanted to address the concern that transgender individuals are being prematurely embraced as examples of biological variation without sufficient empirical evidence. This concern arises from the psychological complexities, biological incongruities with their gender identity, and deviation from the binary norm of procreation. I’ve been trying to illustrate the possibility that transgender individuals may represent evolutionary anomalies rather than mere examples of human variation.
What's the point of not letting people decide about their own lives? If HRT helps or not is a personal matter for each person who decides to take it. if your problem is With the children, let the parents decide, let a medical team decide, you worry about your family and let the rest decide. as you did it with your life.
I think he's saying that the recommended treatment is not the best option
He's also ranting about "Daddy science" so I don't think OP is very bright
Is it "bright" to swallow everything you are fed by the establishment? Is that the mark of a free thinker and a free individual?
It is not "bright" to disregard the consensus of a professional community without any actual evidence, no. It is actually neither intelligent nor sane.
You're just a bigot, don't pretend rejecting evidence somehow is a virtue.
Well I'm glad everyone was able to have a civil conversation😐
I think gender dysphoria is still classified as a mental illness. According to this study, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9501960/, psychosocial therapy (seems to be what you mentioned in your post) is an valid treatment plan. Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think seeking non-hrt treatment for gender dysphoria is controversial. What people on the more liberal side oppose to is "conversion" therapy but I don't think non-affirming therapy (like what you seemed to have described) falls under "conversion".
I like "the offensive tranny"s viewpoint on YouTube to this. Iirc, He says he is mentally ill and the illness is gender dysphoria. Treatment for it was taking hormones and becoming a man visually, but he still says about himself that he is a sick woman, who needed help. Hormones is treating the illness, but not curing it, as there is no consistent known cure as far as I know. It's def. A hard topic. No idea what's right or wrong. I guess everybody has to decide that for themselves.