Peru Declares Transgender People Mentally Ill

durangodawood said:

"Common sense" is inferences we draw from everyday experience. For most people, I would propose that actually knowing a trans person is beyond their everyday experience. This is where so called common sense is more about assumptions than reality.

Click to expand...

That’s fair. I have no further comment.

RileyG said:

It’s not who they are. They literally have to take hormones for the rest of their lives or their normal sexual characteristics will take over. It’s all make-believe.

Click to expand...

Not all trans people take hormones, but putting that aside, how does it harm you?

RileyG said:

Thank you. That doesn’t surprise me one bit.

Click to expand...

Seeing the lack of people who are in the 'unsure' camp, but instead in the yes or no camp just tells me that a lot of this cultural war over trans-issues is incredibly phony. Lol.

BCP1928 said:

Not all trans people take hormones, but putting that aside, how does it harm you?

Click to expand...

They harm themselves……and I don’t accept their lifestyle. I think it’s sexist and hateful towards real women. They scream we must accept their fantasy. It makes no sense.

BCP1928 said:

Of course it is, as I have already stipulated.

Nor have they been my arguments, though plenty of people are making such arguments. But we are not talking about harm to trans persons, but about harm to those around them caused by having to go along with it. What is that harm?

Click to expand...

"Harm" doesn't always have to be physical harm.

Externalities are a form of "harm". A parent who maybe went along with something because the doctor told them "it's the best thing to do", and now has to deal with the fallout (both emotionally and financially) has been "harmed".

The rest of society (who's expected to provide healthcare) is being "harmed" (or at the very least, impacted) by when folks need a lifetime worth of maintenance drugs to attempt to mitigate the cardiovascular and organ damage that occurs in a huge percentage of people who take the hormones long term.


Not that this is as widespread, but just as an example... while oxycontin didn't "physically harm" anyone other than the users, there was certainly externalities and a "cost" on society as a whole by the medical community being so quick to embrace and dispense it because it seems like a fast solution to a problem.
(and I suspect, but hope I'm wrong, that we'll see similar fallout from the weight loss drug craze that's ramping up as of late)



To be clear, I'm not denying that affirming is the best course of action (for the time being), or that it may even be the best course of action for certain individuals, period.

I'm saying that when you see clinics touting fast-tracking these things (like it's a selling point), or deeming 100% of people who walk through the door as "good candidates" for the services they provide (two things that would be frowned on or maybe even investigated in any other medical or mental health setting), perhaps it's time to take a few deep breaths and say "hey, maybe we let this one get away from us a little bit and it's time to pump the brakes and rethink some stuff".

In most cases your clinician will be able to prescribe hormones the same day as your first visit. No letter from a mental health provider is required.

Or in the case of a high profile case here in Ohio, while the judge ultimately sided with the clinic in the limited scope of that particular case's details
[Judge had added] she was concerned that the director of the hospital’s Transgender Health Clinic said 100 percent of patients seen by the clinic “who present for care are considered to be appropriate candidates for continued gender treatment.”


If we replaced "hormones" with "painkillers" and replaced "4th largest Gender Clinic" with "4th largest Pain management clinic", and saw things like "you can get them same day with no referral" and "100% of the people who've been seen by our clinic were appropriate candidates for vicodin", we'd be having a very different conversation about this, wouldn't we?

And our questioning of that wouldn't be instantly conflated with "you just want people who are in pain to suffer", or "you just have a bias against drugs"

durangodawood said:

I am sure of the legitimacy of being transgender. This comes from knowing a person who is trans and knowing some important parts of their life history.

That said, I think there's also a certain amount of faddism afoot among hs age kids, at an age when learning about and establishing who you are has always been fraught. I think this has the potential to be harmful if they choose irreversible treatments.

But for some people Im quite sure its entirely genuine and more real than trying to stay attached to birth certificate identity.

Click to expand...

What did they share with you that you found compelling?

I've never known a trans-person in real life, but I am genuinely interested about the experiences. In the past I've watched videos of trans-people sharing their life story. I've never heard anything from them that I'd call compelling. I do believe they suffer from body dysphoria, but I don't really see what that ultimately means.

In fact, when I used to lurk the trans-forums, I've seen trans people themselves post that they sometimes struggle in finding the legitimacy of their issues themselves.

MehGuy said:

What did they share with you that you found compelling?

I've never known a trans-person in real life, but I am genuinely interested about the experiences. In the past I've watched videos of trans-people sharing their life story. I've never heard anything from them that I'd call compelling. I do believe they suffer from gender dysphoria, but I don't really see what that ultimately means.

In fact, when I used to lurk the trans-forums, I've seen trans people themselves post that they sometimes struggle in finding the legitimacy of their issues themselves.

Click to expand...

I dont doubt there are trans people with all kinds of understandings of whats going on with them. Im certainly not saying that every trans person is having a completely life-confident experience with their identity. I'm just saying that I'm pretty sure some are.

I'm reluctant to get into this persons biography. The problem is that little sounds bites are just naturally dismissable, and you really need to get the novel or at least short story. I dont feel like making that effort, frankly. So I dont demand to be taken super seriously. I just wanted to make the point that issues like this generally only come properly alive when you know people who are living them. Most people are just speculating or uncritically swallowing culture wars invective.

MehGuy said:

What did they share with you that you found compelling?

I've never known a trans-person in real life, but I am genuinely interested about the experiences. In the past I've watched videos of trans-people sharing their life story. I've never heard anything from them that I'd call compelling. I do believe they suffer from body dysphoria, but I don't really see what that ultimately means.

In fact, when I used to lurk the trans-forums, I've seen trans people themselves post that they sometimes struggle in finding the legitimacy of their issues themselves.

Click to expand...

Some of them are good at hiding. I didn't know someone was trans until another mutual friend outed them to me. It's sometimes in plain sight.

I agree, it's not really compelling, and a lot it is related to body dysphoria disorder.

durangodawood said:

I dont doubt there are trans people with all kinds of understandings of whats going on with them. Im certainly not saying that every trans person is having a completely life-confident experience with their identity. I'm just saying that I'm pretty sure some are.

Click to expand...

I am sure there is a spectrum, with some being on the extremely confident side. Although I do wonder how many of those people think deeply about the issues of gender and sex. Initially I started observing the trans-gender community closely myself because despite not being trans-gender myself mainly because the concept of gender and what masculinity and femininity is itself has always greatly interested me.

At least from what I've seen, I've been pretty disappointed. There doesn't really seem to be any great depth about what masculinity and femininity is. Some of them even claim it's just a social construct. I suspect this is due to a large feminist influence on trans-communities.

That's an even larger problem with me. Personally, I have very low opinion of feminism. It screams to me as a movement ran by women with a predictably heavily female bias. Fair enough, some cis people are feminists too.. but you'd think a movement that has gender in its title would have more of a push-back against feminism.

durangodawood said:

I'm reluctant to get into this persons biography. The problem is that little sounds bites are just naturally dismissable, and you really need to get the novel or at least short story. I dont feel like making that effort, frankly. So I dont demand to be taken super seriously. I just wanted to make the point that issues like this generally only come properly alive when you know people who are living them. Most people are just speculating or uncritically swallowing culture wars invective.

Click to expand...

Isn't there also a danger in knowing someone you personally care for going through these issues can potentially lead one to being emotionally biased about the subject and less objective?

I'm not saying this to be all high and mighty, I'm prone to the emotional struggle of others too. If I had a child who came out as trans-gender, I would be in danger of being compromised in my thinking myself.

Chesterton said:

A dystopian society is by definition a sick society.

Click to expand...

BINGO!

RileyG said:

Some of them are good at hiding. I didn't know someone was trans until another mutual friend outed them to me. It's sometimes in plain sight.

I agree, it's not really compelling, and a lot it is related to body dysphoria disorder.

Click to expand...

I've only ever interacted with two (to my knowledge) trans people in my real world-life. Both were trans-female.

It's usually the voice that hinders the really convincing ones.

While I am in the unsure camp.. I do believe the trans community could be more dynamic and compelling than they currently are. Sadly, they're too politically compromised IMO.

MehGuy said:

I've only ever interacted with two (to my knowledge) trans people in my real world-life. Both were trans-female.

It's usually the voice that hinders the really convincing ones.

While I am in the unsure camp.. I do believe the trans community could be more dynamic and compelling than they currently are. Sadly, they're too politically compromised IMO.

Click to expand...

It’s also the face and hands that gives it away imo.

RileyG said:

They harm themselves……and I don’t accept their lifestyle. I think it’s sexist and hateful towards real women. They scream we must accept their fantasy. It makes no sense.

Click to expand...

A tiny fraction (0.6%) of people are transgender.
Maybe half of these find the “need” to get treatment(s) for this condition and the 99.4% of us have the option to either vilify them for seeking these treatments, or choose to be compassionate and say (in effect), “Wow, that must really be difficult to live life in a body that you are not at all comfortable inhabiting, what can we do to help you?”

But demanding that they conform to the 99.4%’s “reality” seems a bit harsh.

MehGuy said:

....Isn't there also a danger in knowing someone you personally care for going through these issues can potentially lead one to being emotionally biased about the subject and less objective?....

Click to expand...

There is. But I think we're capable of seeing when people we know are doing harm to themselves. We dont just go along validating every bad decision they make unless we're extremely emotionally dependant upon them.

Pommer said:

A tiny fraction (0.6%) of people are transgender.
Maybe half of these find the “need” to get treatment(s) for this condition and the 99.4% of us have the option to either vilify them for seeking these treatments, or choose to be compassionate and say (in effect), “Wow, that must really be difficult to live life in a body that you are not at all comfortable inhabiting, what can we do to help you?”

But demanding that they conform to the 99.4%’s “reality” seems a bit harsh.

Click to expand...

So? What about pica and eating rocks dirt because someone craves it? Still harms the person.

Therapy is needed. Not bodily mutilation.

RileyG said:

They harm themselves……and I don’t accept their lifestyle. I think it’s sexist and hateful towards real women. They scream we must accept their fantasy. It makes no sense.

Click to expand...

I view your religion the same way as you view transgenderism. I think it harms you, I don’t accept your lifestyle. I think it is sexist and hateful toward women. You’ll probably scream that I have to accept what I view is a fantasy.

But your beliefs neither pick my pocket nor break my leg so you are free to have them. Try doing that with transgender people.

RileyG said:

They harm themselves……and I don’t accept their lifestyle. I think it’s sexist and hateful towards real women. They scream we must accept their fantasy. It makes no sense.

Click to expand...

Then you forfeit a measure of credibility in arguing that it's a mental illness.

The moment you reduce it to a "lifestyle choice", you concede a certain amount to the uber-progressive position.

That's what I was talking about before, with regards to both sides flip flopping on whether or not it's a "medical thing" or a "self-expression" thing.

Both sides seem to argue that it's mental health thing when they want to limit the other side's advocacy on the topic, but then want to claim it's an "expression thing" when they want to advance their own.

It can either be a mental health issue, or it can be a self-expression/sexual identity issue, but it can't be both.

If it's a sexual issue, then the religious right has no basis in trying to restrict it on purely religious grounds, and the left has no basis for trying to brand it as a healthcare matter.

If it's a mental health issue, then the religious right has no basis for labeling people as "sexual perverts" for having it (as they certainly wouldn't do that to a mentally compromised person of any other ilk), and the left has no basis for labelling it as a source of "pride" and lumping it with the LGB and a merely another form of expression.

Like I hinted at before, it's both sides wanting it both ways with regards to this topic.


Now, if you want my hot take, here's what I think is happening....

The left has caught on to the fact that if you can brand something as a "healthcare issue" in selective circumstances, you can make it immune from challenges and criticism.

The right has caught onto the fact that as long as they can claim something is a "religious belief against something" (and find whatever verse of the day supports it), they can pick and choose the things they want to object to and feel that makes their position immune from challenges and criticism.

ThatRobGuy said:

Then you forfeit a measure of credibility in arguing that it's a mental illness.

The moment you reduce it to a "lifestyle choice", you concede a certain amount to the uber-progressive position.

That's what I was talking about before, with regards to both sides flip flopping on whether or not it's a "medical thing" or a "self-expression" thing.

Both sides seem to argue that it's mental health thing when they want to limit the other side's advocacy on the topic, but then want to claim it's an "expression thing" when they want to advance their own.

It can either be a mental health issue, or it can be a self-expression/sexual identity issue, but it can't be both.

If it's a sexual issue, then the religious right has no basis in trying to restrict it on purely religious grounds, and the left has no basis for trying to brand it as a healthcare matter.

If it's a mental health issue, then the religious right has no basis for labeling people as "sexual perverts" for having it (as they certainly wouldn't do that to a mentally compromised person of any other ilk), and the left has no basis for labelling it as a source of "pride" and lumping it with the LGB and a merely another form of expression.

Like I hinted at before, it's both sides wanting it both ways with regards to this topic.


Now, if you want my hot take, here's what I think is happening....

The left has caught on to the fact that if you can brand something as a "healthcare issue" in selective circumstances, you can make it immune from challenges and criticism.

The right has caught onto the fact that as long as they can claim something is a "religious belief against something" (and find whatever verse of the day supports it), they can pick and choose the things they want to object to and feel that makes their position immune from challenges and criticism.

Click to expand...

No. It’s a mental illness and a lifestyle when they play up and pretend to be the opposite sex. Nothing I said was contradictory.

RileyG said:

So? What about pica and eating rocks dirt because someone craves it? Still harms the person.

Therapy is needed. Not bodily mutilation.

Click to expand...

What is the “harm” they’re doing?

Pommer said:

What is the “harm” they’re doing?

Click to expand...

Spiritual harm, but since you don’t acknowledge the Christian God, I don’t expect you to agree- which is fine.

We live in very individualistic society. It’s all about ME ME ME and what I want. In other cultures, where they are more communal and familial oriented, coming out as LGBT would cause pain and embarrassment to their family and society.