LBGQT: Or how I learned to stop worrying and read the DSM

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

You have an inherent to derail every conversation into a sociology critique....which is how this argument devolved to the point where it went from a political discussion to LGBT concerns.

Well, uh, this IS the "LBGQT" thread. I mean, that's what its called.

Perhaps the Bradley Manning part of this should be taken to the "spies, traitors" threads. If this is a thread for LBGQT people to discuss issue of relevance to them, then I could see how this particular discussion might be upsetting to them. Nothing wrong with talking a piss, but not a good idea to take it on someone else's floor. So anyway, I'm bowing out of this thread for that reason.

I was really tempted to post a funny scene from Motny Python's "Life of Brian", but I suppose it might be offensive. So perhaps in that other thread....

[Rorshach]

I am not saying all changes from DSM IV to DSM 5 were equally as wise. But DSM is very far from just some completely "subjective" list of labels. It is just wrong to say that it only changes "just" because some psychiatrists had a brainstorm "last week."

Going off on a tangent here, so let it be if it derails, but I've also heard that Asberger's syndrome is removed as a separate disorder?

I've had a few students who have been identifying strongly with their diagnosis, and I'm wondering how they'll react if it's removed.

[thecryptile]

You know, it's kind of interesting for me that Terra Prime's take on this issue is the mirror image of [his] take on white privilege. Only trans* people can define gender identity, whereas with white privilege and the white experience- they can be defined by non-whites. TP feels free to tell me what it's like to be a white man in America (with no personal experience of the matter)- yet wants to castigate Stag for similar behavior directed towards Manning.

EDIT for accuracy

[Roose Seal]

When you're done complaining about this imaginary point, feel free to detail how I've marginalized, minimized, or dismissed the lived experience of transgender people.

The majority view? He is by any conceivable test a male human being. Not a female human being. When a person's "self-determination" doesn't align with reality, I think it's ok to disregard their opinion on the matter. For the last time, it is not disrespectful or rude to refer to a man as a man.

I'm done.

[Rorshach]

You know, it's kind of interesting for me that Terra Prime's take on this issue is the mirror image of her take on white privilege. Only trans* people can define gender identity, whereas with white privilege and the white experience- they can be defined by non-whites. TP feels free to tell me what it's like to be a white man in America (with no personal experience of the matter)- yet wants to castigate Stag for similar behavior directed towards Manning.

Time for another TP name change?

[Sci-2]

I think the question goes beyond trans*, it's whether we allow people the consideration of determining their own identity.

I guess a person wanting to be referred to as "she" despite not having the supposedly requisite parts isn't different to me than a Christian/Muslim/Jain wanting to be considered a Christian/Muslim/Jain despite having beliefs or acting in a manner that lies outside what is dictated by scripture.

[Stag Country]

So you see no difference between biological gender and gender identity?

I think I've made it abundantly clear that there is a difference. But I use a person's biological gender when referring to them in a conversation. That is neither rude, nor small minded, nor any other bullshit descriptor people arguing with me on this board want to assign.

[Rubies & Jade]

FFS, just STOP. holy shit people, can't you just find a little compassion? These conversations are just horrible lately. Shit, I ask people to call me by a certain name an any asshole that doesn't is rude as fuck. Can you just fucking use whatever pronoun a person prefers when referring to that person? Why is that so damned hard? Jesus.

[mormont]

I made the following points:

1) That the public shouldn't be paying for gender reassignment surgery for a prisoner because it's an elective and an entirely optional procedure.

2) That surgical treatment for gender identity disorder is comparable to surgical treatments for general dysmorphic disorder, because both are expensive solutions to mental health disorders.

Though it's certainly worth noting that, even if we grant that gender dysphoria used to be regarded as a disorder, these are two very different disorders, not really comparable in anything but the broadest terms: and that in the former case, surgical treatment is very often judged medically appropriate whereas in the latter, it is not.

Basically, the comparison is deeply flawed and could only be made by someone with a very sketchy knowledge of both. And why would the opinion of someone like that carry any weight?

I then backed up why I classified it as a mental health disorder.......and, of course, everyone lost their shit because they don't like the fact that it is still indexed as a mental disorder under some classification systems, and was only recently altered under the one they want to throw their weight behind.

Nobody 'lost their shit'. A few people calmly and accurately pointed out that the classification of gender dysphoria as a disorder has long been contested and has recently been dropped.

The problem is people like peterbound, mormont, and several others here get irrationally butthurt when people dismantle their arguments in front of them.

Well, peterbound is the kind of guy that regularly reacts in a way that can be interpreted as 'butthurt': he'd be the first to say his reaction here isn't exactly unusual. Myself, not butthurt in the slightest. If, at any point, you manage to 'dismantle' one of my arguments, I'll be quite happy to acknowledge it. However, the point's moot, since, in fact, nothing of the sort has happened.

Also, as I've addressed this before. I'm not going to refer to Bradley Manning as a woman because he held a presser and requested it. That was the purpose for the king of england/mental illness analogy earlier. He is biologically a man, he entered military service as a man, he was tried and convicted and sentenced as a man.

Are you suggesting that either biological sex or gender had any relevance to Manning's trial, conviction or sentence?

Until he is no longer biologically a man, then the pronoun is correct. It is not ignorant, rude, or offensive to refer to a man as a him.

On what basis do you claim the authority to tell a trans person what is or is not offensive to them?

[Sci-2]

You know, it's kind of interesting for me that Terra Prime's take on this issue is the mirror image of her take on white privilege. Only trans* people can define gender identity, whereas with white privilege and the white experience- they can be defined by non-whites. TP feels free to tell me what it's like to be a white man in America (with no personal experience of the matter)- yet wants to castigate Stag for similar behavior directed towards Manning.

But these aren't really the same things. Gender identity is different than the experiences of a person in a societal context. A white trans* who is biologically male but identifies as female should be referred to as "she" based on her self identification. But this does not suddenly mean that the person did not benefit from privilege due to their biological gender and race.

Note I'm not [trying to] make a statement whether someone is definitely a recipient of privilege or what degree of influence privilege has, I'm just pointing out the difference.

p.s. AFAIK I know TP identifies as male.

[Tempra]

Well, uh, this IS the "LBGQT" thread. I mean, that's what its called.

Perhaps the Bradley Manning part of this should be taken to the "spies, traitors" threads. If this is a thread for LBGQT people to discuss issue of relevance to them, then I could see how this particular discussion might be upsetting to them. Nothing wrong with talking a piss, but not a good idea to take it on someone else's floor. So anyway, I'm bowing out of this thread for that reason.

I was really tempted to post a funny scene from Motny Python's "Life of Brian", but I suppose it might be offensive. So perhaps in that other thread....

The conversation started out in the US politics thread...

[Kolantero]

Just because some people came up with a theory in the eighties (or whenever) that gender is not fixed and is separate for biological sex for the sole purpose of furthering LBGQT goals, it doesn't mean that everyone must accept that as some objective truth.

It doesn't even make people who do not follow that theory "transhophobes" or "transhaters" or "bigots" (or whatever) since it makes perfect sense to consider someone a man or a woman based on their sex.

[Sci-2]

Just because some people came up with a theory in the eighties (or whenever) that gender is not fixed and is separate for biological sex for the sole purpose of furthering LBGQT goals, it doesn't mean that everyone must accept that as some objective truth.

Isn't it the other way around, that the existence of trans* is why there are goals?

That just seems like a bizarre accusation.

[Robin Of House Hill]

Now I know why there are so many dicks in the world.

I'm taking a break. With luck, the world will end before I feel compelled to say something that will get me banned.

[Lyanna Stark]

It doesn't even make people who do not follow that theory "transhophobes" or "transhaters" or "bigots" (or whatever) since it makes perfect sense to consider someone a man or a woman based on their sex.

Why not? And why does it make "perfect sense"?

Are you better equipped to answer that than a trans person? Do you feel your view should prevail over that of trans people regarding what they should have the right to refer to themselves as? For what reason?

[mormont]

[mod] Let me make this clear:

Whatever your views on the issue in the abstract, if a trans member of this board expresses a wish not to be addressed in a particular way, it would be the height of bad manners to insist that your view trumps theirs. Everyone is entitled to their political beliefs, but anybody who can't treat others with respect, will carry the consequences. [/mod]

[Roose Seal]

Just because some people came up with a theory in the eighties (or whenever) that gender is not fixed and is separate for biological sex for the sole purpose of furthering LBGQT goals, it doesn't mean that everyone must accept that as some objective truth.

It doesn't even make people who do not follow that theory "transhophobes" or "transhaters" or "bigots" (or whatever) since it makes perfect sense to consider someone a man or a woman based on their sex.

Ah yes, the ~*~Gay Agenda~*~. I'm surprised this didn't come up earlier. "Gays tryin'a ruin the military!"

Why would it make more sense to judge a person from the genitalia they have rather than from the way they identify? Is it that hard for you to refer to a woman as a "her" when she asks to even though she looks like a man? Would it be easier if she looked like a woman? What if she looks like a woman, still has a penis, but you can't see it? [/sarcasm]

Stop embarrassing yourself guys.

[MinDonner]

Good fucking Christ. How is the discussion managing to move backwards? Now we're having to explain the existence of transgender to people who don't even believe in it? Why are they even posting in this thread? Will we have to convince them that homosexuality is real next?

[Xray the Enforcer]

[mod] Let me make this clear:

Whatever your views on the issue in the abstract, if a trans member of this board expresses a wish not to be addressed in a particular way, it would be the height of bad manners to insist that your view trumps theirs. Everyone is entitled to their political beliefs, but anybody who can't treat others with respect, will carry the consequences. [/mod]

I am going to quote and reinforce this.

If you cannot manage basic courtesy, you will no longer be welcome at this community.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Are you suggesting that either biological sex or gender had any relevance to Manning's trial, conviction or sentence?

Manning's attorneys certainly argued both at trial and in the penalty phase that it was relevant.