Announcement

Collapse

Psychology 101 Guidelines

Welcome to Tweb's couch. Please join us in discussing the joys of the human psyche. Watch in wonderment as the Tweb crowd has violent mood swings. help us understand what makes us tick.

Like everywhere else at Tweb our decorum rules apply.
See more
See less

Gender disphoria?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Gender disphoria?

    Lots of talk on this issue of late and I don't quite know what to think.

    There seems to be a distinction with the language we use to describe the discussion.

    Sex = biological?

    Gender = psychological?

    Reading several psychological opinions (including the WHO website) it seems that gender disphoria is still classified as a mental disorder. However listening to popular opinion, gender disphoria seems as normal as having two thumbs.

    At first blush the discussion seems rather straightforward: a man with gender disphoria is a man in every regard, every cell in his body has a Y chromosome. (With the exception of some of his sperm) but his brain is telling him differently.

    This can lead to all kinds of problems for the individual. Enough so that it can effect his life in very adverse ways.

    I can certainly see it as a disorder.

    It's hard for me NOT to see it as a disorder. Perhaps I'm mistaken?
    The last Christian left at tweb

  • #2
    I've similar reservations.

    Every description I've heard of this is highly dependent upon stereotypes such that I doubt someone could describe this condition without stereotypes.
    If you feel like a girl in a boy's body what does it mean to feel like a girl, how does it differ from feeling like a boy, and how do you know the difference?
    Actually YOU put Trump in the White House. He wouldn't have gotten 1% of the vote if it wasn't for the widespread spiritual and cultural devastation caused by progressive policies. There's no "this country" left with your immigration policies, your "allies" are worthless and even more suicidal than you are and democracy is a sick joke that I hope nobody ever thinks about repeating when the current order collapses. - Darth_Executor striking a conciliatory note in Civics 101

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Meh Gerbil View Post
      I've similar reservations.

      Every description I've heard of this is highly dependent upon stereotypes such that I doubt someone could describe this condition without stereotypes.
      If you feel like a girl in a boy's body what does it mean to feel like a girl, how does it differ from feeling like a boy, and how do you know the difference?
      that's actually a very good point.

      Comment


      • #4
        Also, can the typical transgendered person show me the part that didn't match the physical expression?
        If we don't have evidence of being beyond our meat then what part of the meat doesn't match?
        Actually YOU put Trump in the White House. He wouldn't have gotten 1% of the vote if it wasn't for the widespread spiritual and cultural devastation caused by progressive policies. There's no "this country" left with your immigration policies, your "allies" are worthless and even more suicidal than you are and democracy is a sick joke that I hope nobody ever thinks about repeating when the current order collapses. - Darth_Executor striking a conciliatory note in Civics 101

        Comment


        • #5
          There are women who are born with XY chromosomes, but with a complete insensitivity to androgens. It's rare but it occurs. They have labia, vaginas, wombs, breasts, they develop feminine curves when they hit puberty, and they develop exactly like other girls, and no one treats them differently.

          But the big difference is that they have testicles instead of ovaries.

          If DNA is destiny, which I don't believe, and if XY = Male and XX = Female, then these women are men.

          That's one reason why I don't think sex can be simply boiled down to chromosomes. Sex chromosomes can cause the right development of a person into either a man or a woman, but it doesn't determine this development.

          The result is a spectrum, with most people being identifiable as either male or women, with some outliers who have mixed attributes: Someone who is physically female but identifies as a male and wishes to be seen and treated as a man. To the various intersexed cases, where a person who identifies mostly as a particular gender, are born with a physical sex that is ambiguous, and sometimes even chromosomes that are ambiguous.

          We all agree that there are completely clear cases. Most people fall into those, male and women, and don't have any problem being identified as such. As for the outliers, I believe this is where gender becomes a social construction. We have to figure out what place they have, and unlike most Christians here I don't think it's a clear case.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Trout View Post
            .... It's hard for me NOT to see it as a disorder. Perhaps I'm mistaken?
            It seems to be a normal psychological reaction (distress) to an abnormal physical condition.

            “[Gender dysphoria is a condition where a person experiences discomfort or distress because there's a mismatch between their biological sex and gender identity. It's sometimes known as gender identity disorder (GID), gender incongruence or transgenderism.]”

            “[Gender dysphoria is a recognised medical condition, for which treatment is sometimes appropriate. It's not a mental illness.]”
            http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/Gender-...roduction.aspx
            “I think God, in creating man, somewhat overestimated his ability.” ― Oscar Wilde
            “And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence” ― Bertrand Russell
            “not all there” - you know who you are

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Trout View Post
              Reading several psychological opinions (including the WHO website) it seems that gender disphoria is still classified as a mental disorder.
              I was almost always categorized as a personality disorder in danish journals of psychiatry. This was very recently changed, and now it's argued that only certain subgroups of gender dysphoria is a disorder of identity. Their argument is that they find a distinction between transgender people who have a very clear gender identity different than the one assigned at birth, and its an identity they're happy with, and a group of people who are struggling with what they are and are unhappy and depressed. Different treatments for either group is needed.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
                There are women who are born with XY chromosomes, but with a complete insensitivity to androgens. It's rare but it occurs. They have labia, vaginas, wombs, breasts, they develop feminine curves when they hit puberty, and they develop exactly like other girls, and no one treats them differently.
                This is a logical fallacy known as the Exception Fallacy.

                BTW, the only way your objection works is if significance is applied to physical characteristics.
                The term 'testicles' in this case - which is exactly the argument someone who questions transgenderism is making.
                Actually YOU put Trump in the White House. He wouldn't have gotten 1% of the vote if it wasn't for the widespread spiritual and cultural devastation caused by progressive policies. There's no "this country" left with your immigration policies, your "allies" are worthless and even more suicidal than you are and democracy is a sick joke that I hope nobody ever thinks about repeating when the current order collapses. - Darth_Executor striking a conciliatory note in Civics 101

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
                  There are women who are born with XY chromosomes, but with a complete insensitivity to androgens. It's rare but it occurs. They have labia, vaginas, wombs, breasts, they develop feminine curves when they hit puberty, and they develop exactly like other girls, and no one treats them differently.

                  But the big difference is that they have testicles instead of ovaries.

                  If DNA is destiny, which I don't believe, and if XY = Male and XX = Female, then these women are men.

                  That's one reason why I don't think sex can be simply boiled down to chromosomes. Sex chromosomes can cause the right development of a person into either a man or a woman, but it doesn't determine this development.

                  The result is a spectrum, with most people being identifiable as either male or women, with some outliers who have mixed attributes: Someone who is physically female but identifies as a male and wishes to be seen and treated as a man. To the various intersexed cases, where a person who identifies mostly as a particular gender, are born with a physical sex that is ambiguous, and sometimes even chromosomes that are ambiguous.

                  We all agree that there are completely clear cases. Most people fall into those, male and women, and don't have any problem being identified as such. As for the outliers, I believe this is where gender becomes a social construction. We have to figure out what place they have, and unlike most Christians here I don't think it's a clear case.
                  These people are male. Just like Bruce Jenner is a man, and will remain one despite any surgery or hormone therapy. I don't think "DNA is destiny", but there are some things that are pretty clear cut.

                  ETA: I'm guessing most of the people who treat androgen insensitive people as female without any reservation at all don't yet know about the issue in that individual, and would change how they treat them if they found out.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
                    These people are male.
                    I discussed pretty much the whole gamut of people, so when you say 'these' in response to my post it leaves it completely ambiguous who you're trying to refer to: The women with complete androgen insensitivity disorder, but with XY chromosomes? Or someone else?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      (edit, I wrote some partially and forgot to amend it... leaving one paragraph completely wrong!)

                      Originally posted by Meh Gerbil View Post
                      This is a logical fallacy known as the Exception Fallacy.
                      Actually, this is not an example of the exception fallacy. I'd be making that one if I took an exceptional case in order to make a general statement about a group. For example, if I used people with Complete Androgen Insensitivity Disorder, in order to make conclusions about women as a whole, or humans as a whole, then it'd be the exception fallacy. The classic case would be a man who sees one woman driving poorly and concludes women, in general, do so.

                      However, I wasn't. I was taking the rather simplistic statement that 'DNA is destiny' or 'XY = male', this statement admits no possibility of exceptions. Therefore if you can produce such an exception, then you've disproven the notion.

                      BTW, the only way your objection works is if significance is applied to physical characteristics.
                      The term 'testicles' in this case - which is exactly the argument someone who questions transgenderism is making.
                      I've only seen people who question transgenderism make one of two cases, either they argue that 'XY = male' or 'Gonads = male' or some variation like that. Or they proceed to argue specific cases as specious, usually when the case involves a man who in his thirties or forties decides to change gender.

                      If significance is not applied to physical attributes, then I'm not sure what leg anyone questioning transgenderism has to stand on. What else would the essential distinction then be, in order for them to point at Jenner and argue 'that is a man'?
                      Last edited by Leonhard; 02-24-2017, 05:59 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Leonhard, you used the word "transgendered", can you define that for the sake of our discussion?
                        The last Christian left at tweb

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Trout View Post
                          Leonhard, you used the word "transgendered", can you define that for the sake of our discussion?
                          Actually, that was 'meh gerbil'. I used the term transgenderism, as all those people who not only are gender dysphoric but who attempt to live it out in one way or another, rather than living as the culturally accepted gender role they were assigned with at birth.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            I edited post #11, it no longer says the opposite of what I mean.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
                              Actually, this is not an example of the exception fallacy. I'd be making that one if I took an exceptional case in order to make a general statement about a group. For example, if I used people with Complete Androgen Insensitivity Disorder, in order to make conclusions about women as a whole, or humans as a whole, then it'd be the exception fallacy. The classic case would be a man who sees one woman driving poorly and concludes women, in general, do so.

                              However, I wasn't. I was taking the rather simplistic statement that 'DNA is destiny' or 'XY = male', this statement admits no possibility of exceptions. Therefore if you can produce such an exception, then you've disproven the notion.
                              Actually, yes you manage to make the exception fallacy.
                              You invoke the exception and you then go on to make a general statement.

                              Here is the exception:
                              Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
                              There are women who are born with XY chromosomes, but with a complete insensitivity to androgens. It's rare but it occurs. They have labia, vaginas, wombs, breasts, they develop feminine curves when they hit puberty, and they develop exactly like other girls, and no one treats them differently.
                              Here are the general statements:
                              Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
                              The result is a spectrum...
                              and more importantly:
                              Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
                              I believe this is where gender becomes a social construction...
                              The word 'gender' is being interpreted based on the exceptions to the rule.
                              You are in fact working from a few exceptions to establishing the definition of a word.

                              Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
                              If significance is not applied to physical attributes, then I'm not sure what leg anyone questioning transgenderism has to stand on.
                              The case that the anti-transgender people make is that physical attributes are what define male and female.
                              In your examples you use exceptions (mixed sex persons) to try and attack that position.
                              You're attempting to argue via exception.
                              Actually YOU put Trump in the White House. He wouldn't have gotten 1% of the vote if it wasn't for the widespread spiritual and cultural devastation caused by progressive policies. There's no "this country" left with your immigration policies, your "allies" are worthless and even more suicidal than you are and democracy is a sick joke that I hope nobody ever thinks about repeating when the current order collapses. - Darth_Executor striking a conciliatory note in Civics 101

                              Comment

                              widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                              Working...
                              X