LGBTQ The Next

[MinDonner]

I'd say it could be rational. You want Manning to be punished, but not punished in a cruel and unusual way.

And in this case you have an insight on how cruel and unusual the time Manning has been convicted to could be.

I think Seli's point here is pretty apt. It's not favouritism, it's empathy; think of that guy who claimed that waterboarding wasn't torture, then changed his mind once he'd experienced it.

[Robin Of House Hill]

I think Seli's point here is pretty apt. It's not favouritism, it's empathy; think of that guy who claimed that waterboarding wasn't torture, then changed his mind once he'd experienced it.

I'm my harshest critic, here. It appears I only have the capacity for a very limited area of empathy.

[Gillio]

I dont know if the link will work, but this is an episode of a program called insight on Gay marriage

http://www.sbs.com.au/insight/episode/watchonline/563/Gay-Marriage

[Seli]

I'm my harshest critic, here. It appears I only have the capacity for a very limited area of empathy.

Everyone has issues :P

And this is true for everyone, we would be wrecks otherwise.

eta: and it is most likely one of the bases for the whole privilege discussion.

[Robin Of House Hill]

It is less scary being Mr. Creedy, than the prisoner writing her life story on toilet paper.

[Stag Country]

I don't know why it makes no sense to you, other than an unwillingness to intellectually engage in this thought experiment. Your argument is that sex reassignment, whether it's hormone-based or surgery-based, are unnecessary, elective, and comparable to face-lifts and breast enlargement. So if you think that having a set of genital that matches a person's perception of self is an elective and medically unnecessary procedure, what's your thought on the likelihood that a cisgender male can elect to forego his own penis? If a man were castrated, against his will, how would that affect his psychological state?

If we look at examples from survivors of breast cancer who had to undergo mastectomy or double mastectomy, there are plenty of patients who undergo severe depression and mental anguish at the loss of an integral part of their personal identity that strongly signifies their sexual identity. For a FtM transgender person, it's as if they were born with a double mastectomy. That's the level of mental anguish we're talking about, not the same type of mental anguish from someone who cannot look 5 years younger from a botox injection.

It makes no sense because you are pulling out a false equivalence and then trying to pass it off as a pseudo-intellectual debate. A man being castrated against his will is not even remotely comparable to Bradley Manning's situation, no matter how badly you want that comparison to stick. The military, in this case, is imprisoning someone and treating them as he has been treated his whole life, as a man. Suddenly he wants to be treated differently and it's "cruel and unusual punishment" to continue treating him as a man anymore.

It also makes no sense how you write off cosmetic surgery as uncomparable. There are people with very real disorders, the most prominent being body dysmorphic disorder, that believe their quality of life is diminished if they are trapped in an "ugly" body. If we follow your logic here, then the army, and by extension the taxpayers, should shell out money for incarcerated individuals to have elective cosmetic surgery on mental health grounds (that is EXACTLY what you are advocating for Manning in the other thread).

You're misinterpreting the descriptor. The "natural" part refers to the progression, that once someone identifies as a transgender person, the next step is to start hormone replacement treatment, and eventually, a sex reassignment surgery (though not all trans* people desire the surgery).

I didn't misinterpret anything. You need to be more careful with your word choices. There is nothing natural about cosmetic surgery in general, regardless of whether it is for gender reassignment or whether it is to conduct a tummy tuck. You also just defeated the point you are attempting to make by rightly saying that not all transgender individuals will seek the reassignment surgery.

Also, your understanding of natural is rather limited. Humans, like all organisms, exhibit a wide range of variance on all our traits. Transgender identity is no less, or more, natural than cisgender identity or heterosexuality. These people develop their identities not as a result of chemical mutagens or forced psychological conditioning. In fact, they develop these identities despite the immensely powerful social pressure to conform. The genesis of their transgender identity is, by definition, natural, i.e., something that occurs in nature without adulteration.

Is it possible for you to engage in a discussion without this typical elitist bullshit? Seriously? Every conversation I see you partake in on these boards involves you attempting to talk down to people like they don't understand the "true" meaning of a concept, as if you are the purveyor of all accepted fact in the world.

By definition people with gender identity concerns are suffering from a mental disorder. That's not a slight, that's fact. It's not a matter of having a limited conception of the term "natural". It's that I don't classify mental disorders as "natural" occurances.

It is incredibly disrespectful to keep referring to Manning in the male pronoun after she has asked the rest of the world to change that. I don't know that you'd care that you're being extremely rude in doing this, but it bears stating in public.

Moving on.

She apparently has done enough to warrant his lawyer's deliberate suppression of that facet of his identity.

Besides, how bizarre an argument is it that she is not allowed to progress in her own transitioning process just because she was imprisoned and awaiting trial for years? Is there a law against someone developing their identity while imprisoned?

First of all. It is not disrespectful to refer to him as a man and to use the male pronoun. He IS a man. The fact that his mental facilities put him in a position where he doesn't agree with that fact doesn't matter. If a mentally ill homeless man gets up on a stage and declares himself the 'King of England', it's not disrespectful if I choose not to refer to him as 'Your Grace'.

Second, you just used the male pronoun to describe him. Twice.

Third, there is nothing bizarre about saying an individual should not be granted completely unnecessary and expensive surgery on the tax payer's dime. Gender reassignment surgery is an optional procedure that is not medically necessary. You, yourself, even stated that not every transgender person goes through with it. Yet you want to continue insisting that it is necessary and, most of all, that the rest of us should pay for it.

Your assertions here are not backed by medical experts nor the lived experience of transgender people. It amounts to a exclamation from a disrespectful person ignorant and uncaring about these issues.

Bullshit. There isn't a medical expert in the nation that would assert that Bradley Manning is not biologically a male, unless they are privy to some procedure he may have already done that the rest of us don't know about. I am neither ignorant of these issues nor am I being disrespectful, this is just part and parcel with your schtick of proclaiming everyone that doesn't agree with you as a bigot.

Priority? No. But they should be allowed to put their names on the waiting list.

Now THAT is a bizarre argument.

No, the reality is that you're woefully unprepared to tackle the issue of transgender identity, as exemplified by the incorrect presumptions you revealed and by your choice of language.

Says the person who has no idea what constitutes an elective medical procedure.

[MinDonner]

FYI: "elective" as used for medical procedures only means "not an immediate life-threatening emergency". So the removal of cancerous tumours that can be scheduled for next week, also counts as "elective".

Says the person who has no idea what constitutes an elective medical procedure.

*cough*

(I'm not even gonna get started on that other shit as you clearly have no interest in learning about the actual subject)

[Roose Seal]

*snip*

Why do some people always feel the need to give their opinion on subjects they cannot even begin (or don't seem to want) to understand?

Comparing a SRS (or GRS?) to a tummy tuck. Comparing a trans* person to someone who thinks they're the king of england. Insisting on referring as a male to a person who identifies as female. The assertion that trans*people suffer from a mental disorder. Making a conscious effort to ignore the difference between biological sex and gender....

I don't even know where to begin.

[Kolantero]

Bullshit. There isn't a medical expert in the nation that would assert that Bradley Manning is not biologically a male, unless they are privy to some procedure he may have already done that the rest of us don't know about. I am neither ignorant of these issues nor am I being disrespectful, this is just part and parcel with your schtick of proclaiming everyone that doesn't agree with you as a bigot.

:agree:

I don't actually agree with gender essentialism but to try and pass the opposite opinion as some undisputed fact simply because it fits your own worldview is BS if you ask me.

[Sci-2]

Is it possible for you to engage in a discussion without this typical elitist bullshit? Seriously? Every conversation I see you partake in on these boards involves you attempting to talk down to people like they don't understand the "true" meaning of a concept, as if you are the purveyor of all accepted fact in the world.

By definition people with gender identity concerns are suffering from a mental disorder. That's not a slight, that's fact. It's not a matter of having a limited conception of the term "natural". It's that I don't classify mental disorders as "natural" occurances.

I don't [see] how Terra is being elitist. He simply disagrees with you. I actually think the unfairness is on your part to throw out accusations that seem, to me, tantamount to ad hominem.

Because it seems to me by your definition of mental disorder, all elective/cosmetic surgery becomes the acting out of insanity. There's also a difference between "disorder" and not being inline with the majority of the population. A better term would be to classify trans* as a "condition" which seems much more neutral.

Really, saying "disorder" is the correct term comes off as question begging to me.

[Fragile Bird]

<snipped incredibly offensive commentary>

You really need to open your mind and come into the 21st century, Stag Country,

More later, as I am going out to run.

[mormont]

It makes no sense because you are pulling out a false equivalence and then trying to pass it off as a pseudo-intellectual debate.

You mean like this?

It is not disrespectful to refer to him as a man and to use the male pronoun. He IS a man. The fact that his mental facilities put him in a position where he doesn't agree with that fact doesn't matter. If a mentally ill homeless man gets up on a stage and declares himself the 'King of England', it's not disrespectful if I choose not to refer to him as 'Your Grace'.

Gender identity issues are not remotely the same as psychotic primary delusions and any respectable medical professional would be appalled by the comparison.

There are people with very real disorders, the most prominent being body dysmorphic disorder, that believe their quality of life is diminished if they are trapped in an "ugly" body. If we follow your logic here, then the army, and by extension the taxpayers, should shell out money for incarcerated individuals to have elective cosmetic surgery on mental health grounds (that is EXACTLY what you are advocating for Manning in the other thread).

You bring this out as if it's some sort of point in support of your arguments, but honestly, I can't see why. If an incarcerated individual has BDD and a medical professional agrees that they should have surgery on mental health grounds, what would be the problem? (Not that they would. BDD is an entirely different problem and cosmetic surgery is often not actually helpful in resolving the problem.)

There is nothing natural about cosmetic surgery in general, regardless of whether it is for gender reassignment or whether it is to conduct a tummy tuck.

An extremely banal point. There's nothing natural about any surgery, in a sense. The issue is whether gender reassignment surgery is more like a tummy tuck or more like, say, correcting a congenital deformity.

You also just defeated the point you are attempting to make by rightly saying that not all transgender individuals will seek the reassignment surgery.

If you think this defeated Terra's point, I don't think you really understand his point in the first place.

By definition people with gender identity concerns are suffering from a mental disorder. That's not a slight, that's fact.

It's not a fact, it's an opinion. Many modern medical professionals would not agree with it: it is officially no longer referred to as a 'disorder', in fact.

Third, there is nothing bizarre about saying an individual should not be granted completely unnecessary and expensive surgery on the tax payer's dime.

Begging the question: the point being discussed is whether the surgery is unnecessary.

[Stag Country]

Why do some people always feel the need to give their opinion on subjects they cannot even begin (or don't seem to want) to understand?

Comparing a SRS (or GRS?) to a tummy tuck. Comparing a trans* person to someone who thinks they're the king of england. Insisting on referring as a male to a person who identifies as female. The assertion that trans*people suffer from a mental disorder. Making a conscious effort to ignore the difference between biological sex and gender....

I don't even know where to begin.

You should regard that question to yourself, since my reply was a continuation of a discussion from another thread. Which got dragged here because TP couldn't stay on topic (RE: the discussion was about whether public tax dollars should be used to perform this type of procedure for someone incarcerated to 35 years in prison for treason).

Gender Identity Disorder is classifed as a mental disorder by psychologists and physicians and is listed as such in the international classification of diseases. That is neither offensive nor is it insulting, that is just reality. If you don't agree with that and it doesn't fit your preconceived notion of political correctness, then take it up with science.

The comparison with cosmetic surgery pertained directly to people that suffer from dysmorphic disorder and is entirely valid in the context of the discussion.

Also, I didn't ignore the difference between gender identity and biological sex, quite the contrary I made a rather large point about how they are completely seperate issues. Did you actually read that post or did you find one sentence that you disagreed with and then decide to run with an invented strawman?

You really need to open your mind and come into the 21st century, Stag Country,

More later, as I am going out to run.

Yeah, because thinking its ridiculous for taxpayers to potentially pay for gender reassignment surgery for a man convicted of espionage against our country makes me close minded. Priceless.

[Robin Of House Hill]

Manning was convicted of treason? I think the world now fully realizes the worth of those posts of yours.

[peterbound]

Crazy Stuff

So, a couple of things:

My sister, FSM bless her silly little soul, joined the Air Force the same time I did. We joined in 1998, the fucking dark ages in terms of acceptance and forward thinking.

Flash forward 3 years. Annie is depressed, moody, and just a fucking peach to be around. She starts going to mental health (what they call the cadre of head shrinkers in the AF), and they decide that the problem she is facing is that she doesn't' feel good about the way she looks.

Boom! Nose job, boobs, and jaw surgery (I still don't know what the jaw surgery was about, but she sure as shit got it). All elective, and all done off base, by not cheap docs (did you know boobs require upkeep? She has to go back to the doc every couple of years to get those bad boys tuned up, all at the gov's expense, even though she is now out). Come to find out, this happens more than you think. Elective surgeries performed by the military at your expense, to make folks feel better about themselves. Now, i'm torn with the manning thing, as he is a convict, and you (in my opinion) give up certain rights when you break the law and are convicted, so i'm going to have to give that one some thought.

So ya, there is precedent for that.

As for the mental disorder, the only thing you got going for you on that one is the DSM, which is forever updating that shit. Doubt it will be in the next revision. Fuck, they had homosexuality in there for years, yet that no longer is categorized as a problem. Hell, transgender is no longer even referred to as a disorder. More body dysmorphia

Which brings me to my next point... the medical expert bit. The APA has release guide lines that specifically address how to refer to transgender folks, and one of them is to use the pronoun the individuals identify with. Now, i'm sure you meant medical professionals in the sense of surgical/emergency medic docs/internal docs, but psychiatrist are just as 'medical' as the next guy

Also, for a guy that puts a premium on the use of words, you sure fuck them up a lot.

[Sci-2]

Yeah, because thinking its ridiculous for taxpayers to potentially pay for gender reassignment surgery for a man convicted of espionage against our country makes me close minded. Priceless.

Actually I'm not convinced taxpayers should have to pay either.

Criticism of your posts seems to largely stem from your attitude that you are right, come hell or high water. For example:

Gender Identity Disorder is classifed as a mental disorder by psychologists and physicians and is listed as such in the international classification of diseases. That is neither offensive nor is it insulting, that is just reality. If you don't agree with that and it doesn't fit your preconceived notion of political correctness, then take it up with science.

This appeal to science isn't valid, as there are all sorts of debates regarding the DSM. There's gathering momentum to root out the prejudices inherent in past classifications.

Appeals to science should end at description. What does the data and/or math say?

[peterbound]

Gender Identity Disorder is classifed as a mental disorder by psychologists and physicians and is listed as such in the international classification of diseases. That is neither offensive nor is it insulting, that is just reality. If you don't agree with that and it doesn't fit your preconceived notion of political correctness, then take it up with science.

Google that shit before you post it:

The fifth edition of the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) was released in May 2013. This edition officially eliminated the term "gender identity disorder", which was considered stigmatizing, instead referring to "gender dysphoria," which focuses attention only on those who feel distressed by their gender identity. Subtypes of gender identity disorder based on sexual orientation were also deleted. Among other wording changes, criterion A and criterion B (cross-gender identification, and aversion toward one’s gender) were combined. The edition also saw the creation of a separate gender dysphoria in children as well as one for adults and adolescents. The creation of a specific diagnosis for children reflects the supposedly lesser ability of children to have insight into what they are experiencing, or ability to express it in the event that they have insight. The grouping has also been moved out of the sexual disorders category and into its own.

[mormont]

I referred to this above, but for anyone who doesn't know:

The latest revision of the DSM (the bible for mental health professionals) removed the term 'gender identity disorder' and officially replaced it with 'gender dysphoria'. In addition it was removed from the section on sexual disorders. This was specifically because classing it as a 'disorder' was felt to be stigmatising. This is not a recent opinion: many medical professionals had been using what is now the 'official' terminology for years, even decades, for that reason. There is ongoing discussion over whether it even constitutes a 'mental illness' - many psychiatrists believe that it does not.

[Stag Country]

Gender identity issues are not remotely the same as psychotic primary delusions and any respectable medical professional would be appalled by the comparison.

Take it up with medical professionals everywhere then. It IS classified as a mental disorder. Are you arguing that it isn't? You can certainly argue that it shouldn't be, I wouldn't agree with you if you did but it would be a legitimate discussion. If you are arguing that it isn't, though, well....you are simply wrong, no other way to put it.

If an incarcerated individual has BDD and a medical professional agrees that they should have surgery on mental health grounds, what would be the problem? (Not that they would. BDD is an entirely different problem and cosmetic surgery is often not actually helpful in resolving the problem.)

What's the problem with using tax payer dollars to provide expensive elective and entirely optional surgery to treat a disorder? Really? That isn't self-evident to you? There are a variety of methods for treating mental health disorders that don't invole surgery that costs tens of thousands of dollars. I don't think it's unreasonable that it should not be considered if it's going to be done on the taxpayer's dime.

If you think this defeated Terra's point, I don't think you really understand his point in the first place.

His argument is that gender reassignment surgery is medically necessary and that refusing to administer such treatment in prison would constitute 'cruel and unusual punishment'. Yet, then he goes on to say that many transgender individuals will elect not to carry out the procedure. Seems to be a pretty clear contractadiction to me.

It's not a fact, it's an opinion. Many modern medical professionals would not agree with it: it is officially no longer referred to as a 'disorder', in fact.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_identity_disorder

Gender identity disorder is classified as a medical disorder by the ICD-10 CM and was also in the DSM-IV TR.The current DSM-5, however, removed the diagnosis and replaced it with an updated diagnosis called gender dysphoria.Controversy exists as to whether GID should be classified as a mental disorder.Many transgender people and researchers support the declassification of GID as a mental disorder for several reasons. The classification of GID as a mental disorder pathologizes gender variance, and reinforces the binary model of gender.

While there is debate about whether it SHOULD be classified as a mental disorder, there is not debate that it currently is. Simply put, you are completely and utterly wrong in your comment.

[Larry of the Lawn]

While we're on such a wiki-kick