Are Transsexuals Mentally Ill?

[Una Persson]

Originally Posted by Mellifluous

Now, with all due thanks to theose who are supportive and work hard to Quixotically bludgeon the trolls with things like facts, and I do thank you from the bottom of my heart, but placing us under some public microscope is unwanted, unnecessary, and insulting.

And what would you have us do, sit back and only allow the "transsexuals are sick/mentally ill/icky" voices to speak without response? Ignoring the ignorance won't make it go away. Do you think that allowing prejudice to rampage unchecked is going to make things better? Ignorance leads to prejudice which leads to fear, and while prejudice is socially annoying at best and dehumanizing at worst, fear leads to violence. Violence of which transsexuals are almost exclusively on the receiving end.

Transsexuals cannot be ghettoized into a "separate but equal" group or swept under the rug, they must be embraced and recognized and respected as being firmly and forever part of the multifaceted human experience on this planet.

But until that happens yes the subject is going to come up repeatedly, and some folks are going to feel like they are under a microscope. It happened to lesbians and gays before (and is still happening), it happened to blacks, it happened to Jews, shoot, it even happened to the Irish and Italians. Any minority group which differs enough from the majority is going to be on the bad end of the stick with this. It's unfortunate but it's reality - for now.

Don't assume any one person here on this message board does not already have the full experience and knowledge of living transsexual; few posters here put their gender identity in their .sig.

[Cerealbox]

I felt compelled to register to comment on this. Some people are born with ambiguous genitalia. Even doctors who are trained in this sort of thing may not know the gender of the child until chromosome tests are done. Likewise, due hormone levels in the womb, mistakes and other irregularities in the womb, a person can be born with an ambiguous brain. We identify with one gender or another: boys will associate with boys and girls will associate with girls, just like some people want to have sex with boys and some people want to have sex with girls.

Transgendered individuals, like homosexuals, appear to be born with their "disease." Yes, it is abnormal and evolutionarily disadvantageous. But the preferred and only treatment among transexuals is to change their bodies which may OR MAY NOT include turning their penises into vaginas.

[Measure for Measure]

Originally Posted by Una Persson

I'm less than impressed by what Bronze Age goatherders felt about transsexualism...which IIRC isn't mentioned in the Bible at all, other than the admonition about wearing the wrong clothing.

Narrow clarification: actually eunuchs are mentioned in the Bible: in fact Jesus of Nazareth opines on the subject:

Originally Posted by Matthew 10-12

10 The disciples said to him, “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.”

11 Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12 For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”

So there are three types of eunuchs, those who were born that way, those who had it done to them and... those who voluntarily snipped themselves for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Eunuchs were vilified at the time, and Jesus chose to put those who transitioned to eunuchhood in the best possible light. He added that he recognized that this point would be difficult to accept by many.

Later, the passage was interpreted as an endorsement of priestly celibacy. But it doesn't say that now, does it?

[Ají de Gallina]

Originally Posted by Measure for Measure

Narrow clarification: actually eunuchs are mentioned in the Bible: in fact Jesus of Nazareth opines on the subject: So there are three types of eunuchs, those who were born that way, those who had it done to them and... those who voluntarily snipped themselves for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Eunuchs were vilified at the time, and Jesus chose to put those who transitioned to eunuchhood in the best possible light. He added that he recognized that this point would be difficult to accept by many.

Later, the passage was interpreted as an endorsement of priestly celibacy. But it doesn't say that now, does it?

"and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.” has always been interpreted as celibacy not as MtF
Also, eunuchs in that part of the world (unlike in China) kept their penises and no change in gender/sex was perceived as having happened (even penis-less were still considered men).

[Una Persson]

Originally Posted by Measure for Measure

Narrow clarification: actually eunuchs are mentioned in the Bible: in fact Jesus of Nazareth opines on the subject: So there are three types of eunuchs, those who were born that way, those who had it done to them and... those who voluntarily snipped themselves for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Eunuchs were vilified at the time, and Jesus chose to put those who transitioned to eunuchhood in the best possible light. He added that he recognized that this point would be difficult to accept by many.

Later, the passage was interpreted as an endorsement of priestly celibacy. But it doesn't say that now, does it?

I don't want to sound pedantic, but eunuchs have pretty much nothing in common with transsexual women other than the removal of some genitalia.

[Mellifluous]

Originally Posted by Una Persson

And what would you have us do, sit back and only allow the "transsexuals are sick/mentally ill/icky" voices to speak without response? Ignoring the ignorance won't make it go away. Do you think that allowing prejudice to rampage unchecked is going to make things better? Ignorance leads to prejudice which leads to fear, and while prejudice is socially annoying at best and dehumanizing at worst, fear leads to violence. Violence of which transsexuals are almost exclusively on the receiving end.

Transsexuals cannot be ghettoized into a "separate but equal" group or swept under the rug, they must be embraced and recognized and respected as being firmly and forever part of the multifaceted human experience on this planet.

But until that happens yes the subject is going to come up repeatedly, and some folks are going to feel like they are under a microscope. It happened to lesbians and gays before (and is still happening), it happened to blacks, it happened to Jews, shoot, it even happened to the Irish and Italians. Any minority group which differs enough from the majority is going to be on the bad end of the stick with this. It's unfortunate but it's reality - for now.

Don't assume any one person here on this message board does not already have the full experience and knowledge of living transsexual; few posters here put their gender identity in their .sig.

I re-read my post, and i had cut it down so that it lost some essential parts. For that I apologise, as my ire was not really directed at you, a supporter and someone who has done more than their fair share of the research and try to educate those who are uneducable due to wilful ignorance on their part.

So here's my stance, about the only positive outcome that arguing against these bigots may do is to shame or embarrass them into shutting up. That is a noble endeavour in itself, but the expense of energy required to at least publicly silence them can lead to burnout. I've done a lot of Trans 101 for the past 16 years or so, and the people who are truly willing to learn and amenable to change their viewpoints often do. But there are the special ones who have some tenacious grip on a narrow and personally sensible worldview where they hold the scales of right and wrong. These people are legion, and that is scary. 2

012 is an especially deadly year for transwomen, particularly those of colour. I agree that education should be widespread, but pretending that the tans-deniers' bigotry, however thinly veiled in intellectual honesty, is a valid position, is damaging, too. It's a form of enabling, ironically much like they may argue that you are enabling us to live out our little fantasies in their world. You have much more patience and optimism than I. After encountering someone who invalidates my very being, that which I know as myself, that which has no other "proof" than my own experience which is dismissed as anecdotal, after all that, my response is simply: "wow, that's pretty fucked up."

You, and those like you, are welcome in my life because you want to know more, are open to the evidence of the lived experience, and have not attempted to dictate my reality through invalidation. They? They are not welcome, and the sound of my identity on their lips is poison to my heart. That was a bit teenage poetry-y, but pretty close to truth. (BTW, I have used othering language for them because they have othered me, and I therefor assume that they must identify as something other than me, and who am I to deny their self-categorisation.)

At some point, we have to get over the strangeness of the "other" to move forward, and create a society more closely aligned to equality. We are none of us non-human, and there are apparently 7 Billion variants on that theme, many currently doing their best to make more. I'm so tired of being heralded as something different. Of pointing out that I had severe depression and suicidal thoughts because of a mental illness. No, I was depressed and suicidal because I was denied an authentic life early on, and every step toward an authentic life is one along a gauntlet of harassment and vilification by the kin of those on this list who cannot and will not accept me. To them I address my admonition to leave me and us and anyone else you have some trouble accepting quite alone. Shame on them for heaping psychological and physical harm on us. I don't ask for compassion, and if acceptance is not enough, then kindly remove yourself from my disturbing presence. But to demonise and defame me and those of similar experience with invalid "reasoning" is simply not acceptable. For too long we have cowered (with notable exceptions), just trying to survive another day and hope to not rock the boat. Yet our reality is ridicule, rape, assault, and murder. That's not changing except to maybe get worse. So please excuse my curtness while the trolls troll, this "debate" is not academic to us. Yes, transitioning helps many, and so fucking what if a few regret it? Chemotherapy kills a certain percentage of patients, and yet its beneficial outcomes outweigh enough that it is still quite a valid treatment for cancer. I can see transsexuality as a cancer, but not one within, it is without, in the world around us . When we can hide from the cancer, our symptoms fade, and if we are not cured then our disease is in remission.

[Mellifluous]

Originally Posted by Una Persson

I don't want to sound pedantic, but eunuchs have pretty much nothing in common with transsexual women other than the removal of some genitalia.

I think that Measure for Measure was refering to those born as eunuchs being equated with intersex people, and those who were made eunuchs as either having that fate imposed upon them, and thirdly, as in some Native American societies, those who we would consider transgender perform a castration to destroy at least the testicles of M2F individuals. This passage has a long history of varying interpretations. The thought goes that the people of first-century Mediterrenian societies wouldn't use language we have newly developed to describe the same phenomenon.

[Una Persson]

Originally Posted by Mellifluous

I re-read my post, and i had cut it down so that it lost some essential parts. For that I apologise, as my ire was not really directed at you, a supporter and someone who has done more than their fair share of the research and try to educate those who are uneducable due to wilful ignorance on their part.

OK, thank you for the apology.

That is a noble endeavour in itself, but the expense of energy required to at least publicly silence them can lead to burnout.

I work for Cecil. Burnout is not an option.

[Measure for Measure]

Originally Posted by Una Persson

I don't want to sound pedantic, but eunuchs have pretty much nothing in common with transsexual women other than the removal of some genitalia.

Ok. But I'm -er- ignorant and confused. I don't know who exactly the passage refers to: King James says "Eunuchs": other translations say "Castrated men". Throughout history there have been varying motives for the practice. I'm not sure why you say that, but again I'm unfamiliar with this topic.

Originally Posted by Ají de Gallina

"and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.” has always been interpreted as celibacy not as MtF

This is false. Consider The Jesus Seminar's The Five Gospels (1996). While they agree that:

Modern scholars have ...tended to understand this passage as an accommodation to the emerging asceticism of the early church.

They also say the following:

If this saying goes back to Jesus, it is possible that he is undermining the depreciation of yet another marginal group, this time the eunuchs, who were subjected to segregation and devaluation, as were the poor, toll collectors, prostitutes, women generally, and children. Seventy-seven percent of the Fellows of the Seminar agreed with this second interpretation...

Serious scholars have argued that the passage was not limited to celibacy.

[Becky2844]

It's funny how nobody questions a butterfly.

[gamerunknown]

Originally Posted by DocCathode

If you woke up tomorrow in the body of the opposite sex, how would you feel?

Vigorously?

…

Yes, I'll take a novena for that one.

[gamerunknown]

Neglected to mention (on the Biblical theme) Deuteronomy 23:1 may be part of the reason for religious opposition.

[Irishman]

Measure for Measure, "choose to live like eunuchs" does not necessarily mean "choose to become eunuchs".

[DocCathode]

Originally Posted by Irishman

Measure for Measure, "choose to live like eunuchs" does not necessarily mean "choose to become eunuchs".

I don't know. I've read a lot of translations that say 'choose to physically become eunuchs'.

[DocCathode]

The original verse is

Originally Posted by Matthew

εἰσὶν γὰρ εὐνοῦχοι οἵτινες ἐκ κοιλίας μητρὸς ἐγεννήθησαν οὕτως καὶ εἰσὶν εὐνοῦχοι οἵτινες εὐνουχίσθησαν ὑπὸ τῶν ἀνθρώπων καὶ εἰσὶν εὐνοῦχοι οἵτινες εὐνούχισαν ἑαυτοὺς διὰ τὴν βασιλείαν τῶν οὐρανῶν ὁ δυνάμενος χωρεῖν χωρείτω

Originally Posted by Diogenes/Ken

The bolded words there are variations of eunouchos, which means what it looks like it means, but it also has a verb form which means "castrate."

He also pointed out something I had overlooked, a few deities at the time (Mithra, Cybelle) required male priests to castrate themselves. So, such a command would not be coming out of left field.

[Jragon]

Originally Posted by Mellifluous

I re-read my post, and i had cut it down so that it lost some essential parts. For that I apologise, as my ire was not really directed at you, a supporter and someone who has done more than their fair share of the research and try to educate those who are uneducable due to wilful ignorance on their part.

So here's my stance, about the only positive outcome that arguing against these bigots may do is to shame or embarrass them into shutting up. That is a noble endeavour in itself, but the expense of energy required to at least publicly silence them can lead to burnout. I've done a lot of Trans 101 for the past 16 years or so, and the people who are truly willing to learn and amenable to change their viewpoints often do. But there are the special ones who have some tenacious grip on a narrow and personally sensible worldview where they hold the scales of right and wrong. These people are legion, and that is scary. 2

"Ignore it and it will go away" makes some sense in kindergarten when somebody is bullying you. Unfortunately it works a lot less often when you're trying to get people rights. I've used this argument before on gay pride parades, "well, you're just drawing attention to otherness! That's not a good way to get people to see you as normal!" It just doesn't work, if you sit there and let it fester, then people keep thinking the same things. To get acceptance, especially legal acceptance, you really have to be a bit vocal about things.

Of pointing out that I had severe depression and suicidal thoughts because of a mental illness. No, I was depressed and suicidal because I was denied an authentic life early on, and every step toward an authentic life is one along a gauntlet of harassment and vilification by the kin of those on this list who cannot and will not accept me.

No, you did have a mental illness. I don't mean transsexuality, I mean that anybody with severe depression and suicidal thoughts has a mental illness, regardless of its cause. I'm happy you're better, really, but even if you were understandably suicidal because your entire family was murdered in front of your eyes, suicidal thoughts are still a mental illness.

I'm sorry if the premise of the thread offended you. Know that I said "mental illness" for a reason, it's not a value judgment, I didn't say "crazy." If the best, most successful way to treat it is hormone therapy, or surgery, or using a different pronoun, fine. Do it! And bring out the legislation so these people aren't socially persecuted for their treatment! Like I said, I'll never stop supporting trans rights, or trans people or their choices, but on a certain level I do still wonder if it's a mental illness or not. Again, I know it probably angers you, but it's not a value judgment, I don't think you're better, or worse, or "other" if you have a mental illness. Tons of people have mental illnesses, hell, I have social anxiety, general anxiety, and depression on top of various unclassified self esteem issues. Full disclosure, while I'm not trans, I have a (relatively) minor level of gender/body dysmorphia that I struggle with.

Again, I'm really sorry if starting this thread makes you feel discriminated against, "other", or uncomfortable, that was not my intent. I'm still trying to sort out my feelings on the issue of whether it should be called a mental illness but know that I'll never (intentionally) treat a trans person as anything less than a normal human, nor will I ever advocate not allowing a transwoman full legal rights as if they were a cis woman (or same for men).

[Broomstick]

Originally Posted by Mellifluous

So here's my stance, about the only positive outcome that arguing against these bigots may do is to shame or embarrass them into shutting up. That is a noble endeavour in itself, but the expense of energy required to at least publicly silence them can lead to burnout.

It was the eloquent, reasoned arguments of transsexuals and their supporters that took me from horrified ignorance to my present stance. I may be cissexual, but I'm a strong believer in treating people with compassion and equality, thus my arguments and posts in this thread. Arguing against the bigots may not impact the bigots much, but it can impact open-minded bystanders and lead to additional allies for your cause.

I completely understand the concept of burn out. If that's the case, then don't participate in threads such as these. You are not obligated to march into the trenches of this issue every time the issue comes up. You should back off when that is the best course of action for your own mental health and energy level. As I so often say, if you don't take care of yourself you can't take care of anyone else. At this point, if you bow out of the argument there are others to continue the debate.

[jtgain]

I've been reading this thread with interest. I tend to agree that there is definitely "something" wrong with a person who has a penis and two testicles, but nonetheless believes that he/she is a woman. That being said, I understand the suffering that person must go through in life to cope with this crisis of sexuality. My question is how far must everyone else go to play along with the person's incorrect thoughts.

Must transgendered people be given protection in job situations? I can see the "yes" argument, but if you go down that road, we should also protect alcoholics, people with sleep apnea, and overweight people as well.

If I've known a man for 30 years as Bob and one day at the job he tells me that he is really Sally Jones, a woman, MUST I legally indulge him/her? If I'm the boss do I have to allow him to use the ladies' restroom and send emails to her as Ms. Jones? If I use the male pronoun to address him or accidentally call him Bob should he have a right to sue me and the company? (And see, I unintentionally said "him" twice in the last sentence).

I think that the legal protection aspect is what makes this a debate. There is proposed legislation making it illegal to discriminate against transgendered people when many people, even enlightened posters on this board, think it is a mental illness. We are left wondering what is coming down the road that we must accept in society under penalty of law.

[DocCathode]

[quote=jtgain;15410987] My question is how far must everyone else go to play along with the person's incorrect thoughts.[quote]

What exactly are these thoughts? Why are they incorrect?

Must transgendered people be given protection in job situations? I can see the "yes" argument, but if you go down that road, we should also protect alcoholics, people with sleep apnea, and overweight people as well.

I believe this is the fallacy of the slippery slope

If I've known a man for 30 years as Bob and one day at the job he tells me that he is really Sally Jones, a woman, MUST I legally indulge him/her? If I'm the boss do I have to allow him to use the ladies' restroom and send emails to her as Ms. Jones? If I use the male pronoun to address him or accidentally call him Bob should he have a right to sue me and the company? (And see, I unintentionally said "him" twice in the last sentence).

What you have to legally do depends on your location. In most places, you don't have to do anything differently until after the sexual reassignment surgery, when Sally is legally certified a woman.

Of course, you could just fire her for being transsexual. They aren't a protected class in most places. You can walk right up to her desk, say "I'm firing you because you are a transsexual!" and she can't do anything about it.

I think that the legal protection aspect is what makes this a debate. There is proposed legislation making it illegal to discriminate against transgendered people when many people, even enlightened posters on this board, think it is a mental illness.

When the supreme court ruled segregation unconstitutional, many enlightened people were against it. That didn't make them right

We are left wondering what is coming down the road that we must accept in society under penalty of law.

Ah, there's that slippery slope again.

[Una Persson]

Originally Posted by jtgain

My question is how far must everyone else go to play along with the person's incorrect thoughts.

Because it's such an inconvenience to everyone else?

Must transgendered people be given protection in job situations?

Yes, morally and ethically. Legally, it depends on where you live (or if you work for the Feds, I believe Title VII now covers transsexual employees due to court order).

And unlike your examples of alcoholism and sleep apnea, being transsexual should normally not impact job performance nor impact job safety (it may impact job performance in the case of a client-facing job). Depending upon the improved feelings and attitude of the person in transition, as a result of having treatment, it is possible to significantly improve both of those factors.

If I've known a man for 30 years as Bob and one day at the job he tells me that he is really Sally Jones, a woman, MUST I legally indulge him/her? If I'm the boss do I have to allow him to use the ladies' restroom and send emails to her as Ms. Jones?

If they legally change their name and gender marker on their government issued ID, you really have no choice in the matter in a workplace, no matter how inconvenient that is to you. Deliberately and consistently referring to a woman with legal gender markers as "sir" or "Mr" in a workplace environment is the sort of thing which creates a hostile workplace environment and which makes litigating lawyers rub their hands together with glee.

If they are legally female then they use the women's toilets regardless of which state you are in.

The only question arises for people who are in transition. In that case you can keep referring to them as "Mr. Jones" if you want to be a rude asshole, and in most states you can force a person presenting as a woman in a skirt and heels to use the men's room. I mean, if the goal is to slyly punish them by making both them and your male employees uncomfortable...Well, I'll note that transsexual counselors who I have worked with vehemently insist that transwomen presenting en femme use the women's toilets whenever possible, due to harassment, violence, and even rape which has occurred as a result of them using the men's toilets while presenting as women.

If I use the male pronoun to address him or accidentally call him Bob should he have a right to sue me and the company? (And see, I unintentionally said "him" twice in the last sentence).

"Accident" is different from "on purpose." I can't imagine any fallout from a simple or innocent accident.

[Irishman]

Originally Posted by jtgain

I've been reading this thread with interest. I tend to agree that there is definitely "something" wrong with a person who has a penis and two testicles, but nonetheless believes that he/she is a woman.

"Something wrong" carries far to much of a judgmental tone for me to be comfortable with. I will acknowledge a disconnect between identity and gonads involves a mental disorder of some sort, but is that a chemical imbalance or the nature of a biological miswiring?

If we had enough of an understanding to know "this chemical combo will reset the identity", then we would be in a situation where it might matter. But then again, we could easily see a situation like that where people might elect to transform back and forth, just for the experience. Hey, if it's as easy as flipping a switch, why not try it out? The gonadal transform would be the more difficult aspect, in that situation.

My question is how far must everyone else go to play along with the person's incorrect thoughts.

Their gonads and identity aren't in synch. Which one is "incorrect"?

Must transgendered people be given protection in job situations? I can see the "yes" argument, but if you go down that road, we should also protect alcoholics, people with sleep apnea, and overweight people as well.

What do you mean by "protection in job situations"? Requiring employers treat them as any other employee, and not fire them for having a sex change?

Alcoholics already get some protection, in the form of job protection if they voluntarily seek treatment and reform the behaviors that interfere with their job. What protection to people with sleep apnea need?

If I've known a man for 30 years as Bob and one day at the job he tells me that he is really Sally Jones, a woman, MUST I legally indulge him/her? If I'm the boss do I have to allow him to use the ladies' restroom and send emails to her as Ms. Jones? If I use the male pronoun to address him or accidentally call him Bob should he have a right to sue me and the company? (And see, I unintentionally said "him" twice in the last sentence).

If you've known a woman for 20 years, and suddenly she announces that she's gotten married, and she tells you that instead of Sally Smith, she'd now prefer to be addressed as Sally Jones, MUST you legally indulge her? What if she wants to go by Sally Smith-Jones?

If you've known Bob for 30 years, and one day he comes to you and says that he's legally changed his name to "Hossenpfeffer", MUST you legally indulge him?

Seems to me if a person has an identity change, then yes, you must legally recognize that identity change.

Getting used to an identity change on someone you have known and have a history of dealing with might be a bit of an issue and prone to accidental pronoun slips, but what if the company hires Sally Smith, who happens to have formerly been Bob, but you didn't know Bob? Being aware of Sally's pronoun preference, shouldn't you be able to make that connection?

Why is someone going to sue you over one or two accidental pronoun misuses? Whereas a systemic case of pronoun misuses suggests you are doing so purposefully, which is a form of harassment.

We are left wondering what is coming down the road that we must accept in society under penalty of law.

I agree, the problem is society, and the best solution is to change our society's way of thinking so that transgendered are seen as a variation of normal, and we just accept and move on.

You don't have to be attracted to a transwoman to treat her as a woman, any more than you have to be attracted to a ciswoman to treat her as a woman.

[AHunter3]

Originally Posted by Jragon

No, you did have a mental illness. I don't mean transsexuality, I mean that anybody with severe depression and suicidal thoughts has a mental illness, regardless of its cause. I'm happy you're better, really, but even if you were understandably suicidal because your entire family was murdered in front of your eyes, suicidal thoughts are still a mental illness.

I'm sorry if the premise of the thread offended you. Know that I said "mental illness" for a reason, it's not a value judgment

Referring to someone's thoughts and behaviors as being attributable to a "mental illness" is absolutely nothing if not a value judgment. You're saying that unlike the thoughts and behaviors of the rest of us, which are manifestations of who we are and our intentionalities and purposes and so on, those of this person are manifestations of a brain sickness. So the person is not responsible for them and the rest of us should avert our eyes and just ignore them or at least not bother to think about them as intentional behaviors or thoughts with a meaning and a purpose.


Oh, and there is nothing inherently wrong with suicide. People who are fully competent and have fully rational and sensible reasons have concluded at various times and places that they should become dead.

[Doctor Why]

Originally Posted by Irishman

Their gonads and identity aren't in synch. Which one is "incorrect"?

That's the problem; It could go either way.

Originally Posted by AHunter3

Referring to someone's thoughts and behaviors as being attributable to a "mental illness" is absolutely nothing if not a value judgment.

I disagree.

Originally Posted by Una Persson

"Accident" is different from "on purpose." I can't imagine any fallout from a simple or innocent accident.

I was on a messageboard about ten years ago where a pre-op transwoman was a regular contributor. She had her picture as her avatar and if you didn't know, it just looked like a guy wearing makeup. Whenever someone referred to her with a masculine pronoun, they got a scathing rant in return. Most of the instances of this that I saw were from newbies that seemed like honest mistakes, either from being unaware of her situation or just not knowing the proper protocol. I can imagine her suing someone who made more than one slip-up. I don't remember if anyone slipped up more than once, though.

[Powers]

Originally Posted by Doctor Why

Whenever someone referred to her with a masculine pronoun, they got a scathing rant in return. Most of the instances of this that I saw were from newbies that seemed like honest mistakes, either from being unaware of her situation or just not knowing the proper protocol. I can imagine her suing someone who made more than one slip-up.

That's the Internet for ya.


Powers &8^]

[Jragon]

Originally Posted by AHunter3

Referring to someone's thoughts and behaviors as being attributable to a "mental illness" is absolutely nothing if not a value judgment. You're saying that unlike the thoughts and behaviors of the rest of us, which are manifestations of who we are and our intentionalities and purposes and so on, those of this person are manifestations of a brain sickness. So the person is not responsible for them and the rest of us should avert our eyes and just ignore them or at least not bother to think about them as intentional behaviors or thoughts with a meaning and a purpose.

If I say you're physically ill am I just saying your body just isn't good enough? That it's crapping out on you and you should be ashamed? No, I'm just making an observation that your body isn't functioning optimally. Same with mental illnesses, in general the root cause of the depression and anxiety that plagues transsexual people is a severe mind/body disconnect. It makes them very sad, frustrated, and often confused. There's no value judgment about whether it's right or wrong for them to think they're the other gender, it's just noting that the dysmorphia has severe negative effects on their psyche until they can be treated -- whether it be by crossdressing, hormone therapy, surgery, a magical pill that changes their gender identity, whatever.

Oh, and there is nothing inherently wrong with suicide. People who are fully competent and have fully rational and sensible reasons have concluded at various times and places that they should become dead.

Well yes, if you were in a situation where you had to shoot yourself yourself to save your child, or to stop somebody from hitting New York with an atomic bomb, then you have a point. But we're not talking about a situation like that, we're talking about a situation where you're depressed and trying to kill yourself because everything feels hopeless and sad. I've been there, it's a mental illness. I'm not even saying that killing yourself for those reasons should be illegal or is immoral, hell, killing yourself is a treatment, you're not gonna be sad anymore if you're dead (granted you won't be HAPPY either), but the feeling still generally comes from an illness.

[Una Persson]

Originally Posted by Doctor Why

I was on a messageboard about ten years ago where a pre-op transwoman was a regular contributor. She had her picture as her avatar and if you didn't know, it just looked like a guy wearing makeup. Whenever someone referred to her with a masculine pronoun, they got a scathing rant in return. Most of the instances of this that I saw were from newbies that seemed like honest mistakes, either from being unaware of her situation or just not knowing the proper protocol. I can imagine her suing someone who made more than one slip-up. I don't remember if anyone slipped up more than once, though.

Well, anyone can sue anyone for almost anything at any time, so on one sense it's right, but on another sense it's not. It seems highly doubtful that outside of TV land an attorney would risk an assload of expense taking on a case of "Excuse me sir, err, ma'am, sorry" when there are oodles and oodles of transwomen who are the victims of real, purposeful, and hurtful discrimination and abuse every single day. So yeah, it's possible, but for the case of a simple accident in the real, non-message board world, it seems so unlikely as to be a red herring for the discussion.

[AHunter3]

Originally Posted by Jragon

... if you were in a situation where you had to shoot yourself yourself to save your child, or to stop somebody from hitting New York with an atomic bomb, then you have a point. But we're not talking about a situation like that, we're talking about a situation where you're depressed and trying to kill yourself because everything feels hopeless and sad. I've been there, it's a mental illness. I'm not even saying that killing yourself for those reasons should be illegal or is immoral, hell, killing yourself is a treatment, you're not gonna be sad anymore if you're dead (granted you won't be HAPPY either), but the feeling still generally comes from an illness.

Not necessarily. Let's suppose you live in a sucky society with no significant possibility of either escape or self-realization. You aren't sick, you're completely healthy, you just don't want to continue to be alive under those circumstances.

[gamerunknown]

By the way, jtgain, part of the treatment for gender dysphoria is social transition to the desired gender, which most definitely isn't the case for alcoholism.

[Doctor Why]

Originally Posted by Una Persson

So yeah, it's possible, but for the case of a simple accident in the real, non-message board world, it seems so unlikely as to be a red herring for the discussion.

I'll grant you that. Being worried about a single mistake escalating is like being afraid of flying. Something bad is almost certain to happen at some point, but the odds of it affecting an individual are so very slim that it really shouldn't be considered as a factor.

[Learjeff]

Originally Posted by AHunter3

Referring to someone's thoughts and behaviors as being attributable to a "mental illness" is absolutely nothing if not a value judgment.

That assumes that we think that a mental illness is necessarily a bad thing. Would it be a value judgement if it (a) were attributable to an abnormal development process and (b) we called it that?

BTW, I'd prefer to call it a condition, conflict, or disorder, and leave "mental" out of it. Also, I think the term "mental illness" carries a lot of unnecessary baggage. But in any case, it (possibly) is a case of the brain developing in a way that's very different from what normally happens.

Mid-century social science abounded with folks who believed that the brain is mostly just raw "thinking stuff", and could be conditioned or programmed or socialized into being or doing nearly anything. Experience and better science has gone a long way to contradict that, while still admiring the amazing flexibility and plasticity of the brain. I'm confident that a lot of people have brain/body gender conflicts, which produce mind/body gender conflicts. But I wouldn't rule out the possibility that in some cases the conflict couldn't be attributed to a brain development issue.

In any case, whether we call it a "mental illness" depends on what we mean by that, and whether we intend to imply all the baggage that goes along with that term. But IMHO it certainly fits the definition meaning "a disorder with a significant mental component." It's psychosomatic, in the purest sense of the word: "mind/body". Not "all in your head", which too many people think it means.

[AHunter3]

Originally Posted by Learjeff

That assumes that we think that a mental illness is necessarily a bad thing. Would it be a value judgement if it (a) were attributable to an abnormal development process and (b) we called it that?

Let me reiterate:

Originally Posted by AHunter3

You're saying that unlike the thoughts and behaviors of the rest of us, which are manifestations of who we are and our intentionalities and purposes and so on, those of this person are manifestations of a brain sickness. So the person is not responsible for them and the rest of us should avert our eyes and just ignore them or at least not bother to think about them as intentional behaviors or thoughts with a meaning and a purpose.

I consider that to be a non-neutral assessment. Hence a value judgment. If you want to argue that it's not an undesirable situation to be treated in this manner, I'll listen to your argument.

[PaterDeus]

Originally Posted by Measure for Measure

Narrow clarification: actually eunuchs are mentioned in the Bible: in fact Jesus of Nazareth opines on the subject: So there are three types of eunuchs, those who were born that way, those who had it done to them and... those who voluntarily snipped themselves for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Eunuchs were vilified at the time, and Jesus chose to put those who transitioned to eunuchhood in the best possible light. He added that he recognized that this point would be difficult to accept by many.

Later, the passage was interpreted as an endorsement of priestly celibacy. But it doesn't say that now, does it?

My interpretation was that judging people negatively for actions which do not harm others is not something a compassionate person should do. A truly compassionate person would accept a person's lifestyle choice if it did not negatively impact society. He also admits that not all people are compassionate in this way.

[Irishman]

Originally Posted by PaterDeus

A truly compassionate person would accept a person's lifestyle choice if it did not negatively impact society.

But negatively impacting society is a bit vague. I mean, to some people, just the existence of homosexuality is negatively impacting society. Nevermind the existence of transgenders. Heck, being female is negatively impacting society, to some societies (e.g. old-fashioned men's clubs - not "gentlemen's clubs", but places like country clubs).

[DocCathode]

Originally Posted by PaterDeus

My interpretation was that judging people negatively for actions which do not harm others is not something a compassionate person should do. A truly compassionate person would accept a person's lifestyle choice if it did not negatively impact society. He also admits that not all people are compassionate in this way.

You may be on to something here. Loss of a body part is one of the many things that made one ritually impure. The Torah also says (more or less) 'No cutting off your balls for the sake of G-d! If somebody cuts off his balls it makes G-d sad, and that person should be kicked out of the community'. So, this could be another case of Jesus saying that the law gets in the way of compassion.

[ravensron]

Mental illness is a very fluid concept, and the label is as often for the purpose of carrying out the economic/political concerns of the one bestowing the label as for planning on helping the recipient of the label in some way. You've identified the situation accurately, that "are they happy?" (or at least "able to cope better with the world") is of interest not "are they mentally ill?" according to some abstract criteria. Not being a practicing psychologist or sociologist, my personal acquaintance with people who once had the appearance and outward sexual organs of a different gender is limited: but all have stated unequivocally they're now much "happier."

[Learjeff]

Originally Posted by AHunter3

You're saying that unlike the thoughts and behaviors of the rest of us, which are manifestations of who we are and our intentionalities and purposes and so on, those of this person are manifestations of a brain sickness. So the person is not responsible for them and the rest of us should avert our eyes and just ignore them or at least not bother to think about them as intentional behaviors or thoughts with a meaning and a purpose.

Actually, he was NOT saying that. You're arguing against your own definition of "mental illness".

First, as I said above, I'd prefer other terms for this case. But even in the case of conditions that can be diagnosed using DSM, it should NOT imply any of the above.

* There are a lot of conditions that can be diagnosed that do not equate to "legally insane" i.e., not responsible for one's actions.

* The rest of us shouldn't "avert our eyes and just ignore them ", not for this kind of condition, or for truly troubling conditions like depression, or even for dangerous ones like sociopathy. Shame on you for implying we should! Have a little compassion! (OK, I mean that with a wink. But really: I hope you don't feel the above for people who are seriously mentally ill, and Jragon has pointed out that he does not.)

* We shouldn't undermine anyone's behaviors, even if it's based on biology. For example, we have strong instincts to find a mate. Should we think nothing of mating behavior? Hell no. And likewise, we shouldn't trivialize behavior in others regardless of whether it has a biological basis (whether normal or atypical).

Your objection to Jragon's post had nothing to do with his post, but more to your ideas of what mental illness is, or what you think he thinks it is.

I totally agree with your main point, which is that we should respect the choices, proclivities, and personalities of others, even if we find them unusual.

For me, the bottom line is this:

Originally Posted by PaterDeus

A truly compassionate person would accept a person's lifestyle choice if it did not negatively impact society.

I say that holds true even if the lifestyle choice is based on a developmental condition, rather than say a choice between chocolate and vanilla, when one likes both. Note that a developmental condition isn't dictatorial. One can choose to live any number of ways, even ways that conflict with one's nature. Regardless, we should respect the choices, and not condemn whatever underlying conditions that might or might not have led to them.

[1998Luvr]

I am new user,and thought I would post when I am not busy.I'll share my own expereince.

I am only 25,and when I was a child I was often mistaken for a girl.Sometimes I had long hair,but many other times I had short hair,wore regular clothes and acted very much like a boy.Yet I was asked if I was a boy or a girl,by both adults and other kids.In fact I was told by few boys during those years that they had a crush on me and my point is that while I have no gender identity issues and am a "normal"(whatever that means guy),I was never offended and even till this day when I look back,it really flatters me.

Sometimes I miss being mistake for a girl,I always found it flattering.Means you are beautiful to be mistaken for a female.

[John W. Kennedy]

I'm an Episcopalian who is sometimes mistaken for a rabbi.

[Irishman]

At least you're not mistaken for a rabbit.

[jtgain]

I can't understand why this is even an argument. Bob is a man. He has testicles and a penis. He has an XY chromosome. He is factually and biologically a man. And even if he has his male organs removed, he is still a man the same as if a man was injured in war and had those parts blown off.

But he thinks he is a woman and wants to be called Sally. Why do we all have to indulge his mental illness under penalty of law?

Yes, the slippery slope is a logical fallacy, which only means that the argument is not foolproof, but it is useful for examining what else might result from our choices if we set a standard that can be met by the next step down the slope.

What if Bob wants to be addressed as "Your excellency"? Still legal and moral protection?

[Una Persson]

Originally Posted by jtgain

I can't understand why this is even an argument.

Your points were already addressed earlier in the thread, the last time you brought them up.

[Irishman]

Originally Posted by jtgain

I can't understand why this is even an argument. Bob is a man. He has testicles and a penis. He has an XY chromosome.

There are people with XY chromosomes that had a hormonal triggering event that caused them not to have a penis and testicles. They grow up female. But biological testing shows them male. What do you call them?

But he thinks he is a woman and wants to be called Sally. Why do we all have to indulge his mental illness under penalty of law?

Because law is an encoding of social interaction.

What if Bob wants to be addressed as "Your excellency"? Still legal and moral protection?

In some places, "Your excellency" or such are legally and morally mandated. After all, there's that English lady we're supposed to refer to as "Your Majesty". If it's encoded in the law, then yes, you are supposed to comply.

[Powers]

Originally Posted by jtgain

I can't understand why this is even an argument. Bob is a man. He has testicles and a penis. He has an XY chromosome. He is factually and biologically a man.

This is the definition of biological sex. You have failed to address psychological gender.


Powers &8^]

[packergirl]

Actually, I never think about it, don't really care, not my business. It's very confusing and complicated, and we people, always wanting to show what smart little monkeys we are, love to over complicate matters. Personally, I have never met a man in my life, (and I've done a little living mind you) who thought his day would brighten if his penis were gone. Never. So I think we are talking about a small percentage of our population, but never-the-less, I believe "everyone" has a right to their happiness as long as what makes them happy doesn't hurt others. What's confusing is a woman, who is uncomfortable being a woman and wants to be a man, who is uncomfortable with women? So you are a gay man now? So in essence you are a woman who wants to have sex with a man but you think it will be a better experience is you too have a penis?????? What the what? It's like watching Victor/Victoria in drag. I mean we are talking about sex organs here right? It is about sex isn't it? If the equipment God (figure of speech, don't get excited) gave you, works, I mean really works...why would you mess with that? Don't orgasms make people happy too? (not to mention the countless other benefits). How do you know the new equipment will work the same? If the equipment doesn't work I say fix it or get new equipment; but, if it ain't broke why fix it? Why not just find out what really turns you on and as long as everyone is a consenting adult and you're not in the park doing it in front of my kids... go for it. I'm more concerned about the tarnishing of the Hippocratic Oath, when Dr's play God for a buck. Just because we can do something doesn't mean we should.

[Una Persson]

Originally Posted by packergirl

What's confusing is a woman, who is uncomfortable being a woman and wants to be a man, who is uncomfortable with women? So you are a gay man now? So in essence you are a woman who wants to have sex with a man but you think it will be a better experience is you too have a penis?????? What the what?

It's not difficult: gender identity and sexual preference are separate, but have an influence on each other. Statistics vary widely, but about 1/3-1/2 of transwomen are exclusively lesbian, and the balance are either heterosexual or bi. I believe the numbers are much lower for transmen, something like 1/10-1/6 are exclusively gay. The root cause has been speculated on extensively but only studied peripherally, possibly because it's sort of small potatoes in the grand scheme of things. Unfortunately, the relatively high number of lesbian transwomen is often seized upon as "proof" that they're just autogynephilic men (such as by Dr. Anne Lawrence, whose opinions I disagree with).

It's like watching Victor/Victoria in drag.

Don't be insulting towards transwomen.

If the equipment doesn't work I say fix it or get new equipment; but, if it ain't broke why fix it?

If only we lived in a world where shopworn adages could remove the uncertainty, confusion, fear, self-hatred, outright terror, and inconsolable sadness of gender dysphoria. If only.

I'm more concerned about the tarnishing of the Hippocratic Oath, when Dr's play God for a buck. Just because we can do something doesn't mean we should.

Oddly, a very large number of physicians feel quote strongly that removing the horror show of gender dysphoria and allowing people to have a darned good chance at happy and productive and fulfilling lives is right in line with the Hippocratic Oath.

[stevenova]

The point is, is that they have severe body dysmorphia, and the psychology field has completely fallen for politically correctness.

They now have laws that FORCE other people to deny reality, right now in the US they are only civil in nature, but soon it will be considered a "hate crime" to deny a person with a penis from using the woman's bathroom if they feel like they are.

The doctors who "treat" them are criminals. They are just like if a doctor gave vomiting techniques and laxatives to someone who is anorexic or bulemic. They ENABLE these people's mental illness. I feel bad for transsexuals, they have some severe issues that the psychology field currently can't deal with, so instead they enable it.

Imagine if I thought I was black, despite being white. Do you think I could get laws passed to FORCE people to believe my twisted world view? Would I also benefit from affirmative action, quotas etc if I believe I'm something that I'm not, and can FORCE others to accept my twisted beliefs?

[penumbrage]

Just like homosexuals, there are undoubtedly transsexuals whose root causes are psychological issues generated due to sexual abuse or other severe mental traumas, for whom years or decades of appropriate therapy may (or may not) resolve their gender dysphoria.
And, just like homosexuals, there are undoubtedly transsexuals whose root causes are known (or as yet unknown) intersex conditions that generate a mismatch between their mental and genetic or physical genders, for whom any duration of therapy would prove as useless as sending a dwarf to a psychologist so he could grow taller.
Since we’ve known for thousands of years that a small fraction of the population are not born strictly male nor strictly female (with decades of research having uncovered dozens of medical and genetic conditions responsible for many of our intersex individuals) and that the extremely young field of brain gender physiology already casts doubt on a one-size-fits-all male/female interchangeable brain, I’d have to conclude that it’s the people who fail to acknowledge the full spectrum of human sexuality and gender and who insist (incorrectly and sometimes stridently) that every single person must be 100% male or 100% female who are actually the ones in denial of reality.

[Una Persson]

Originally Posted by stevenova

The point is, is that they have severe body dysmorphia, and the psychology field has completely fallen for politically correctness.

Sure...because tens of thousands of psychologists and psychiatrists around the world are all under the jackboot of political correctness, in every modern industrialized nation...

They now have laws that FORCE other people to deny reality

I agree. It's terrible that we have laws which FORCE not recognizing the reality of transsexuals and which deny them or omit legal rights and protection.

...but soon it will be considered a "hate crime" to deny a person with a penis from using the woman's bathroom if they feel like they are.

If they feel like they are what? A penis, or a woman's bathroom?

I feel bad for transsexuals

I sincerely doubt it. Your entire post reeks of hatred and intolerance.

Imagine if I thought I was black, despite being white.

Incorrect analogy. Aside from the fact that race is an arguable characteristic to assign anyone, transsexuals not only feel they are transsexual, they are transsexual.

Do you think I could get laws passed to FORCE people to believe my twisted world view? Would I also benefit from affirmative action, quotas etc if I believe I'm something that I'm not, and can FORCE others to accept my twisted beliefs?

You really have a thing about using the word FORCE in all capital letters, don't you?

No one is wanting to FORCE anyone to accept transsexuals. Just to allow them the medical resources to improve their lives using the most effective treatment there is - gender identity matching - and equal treatment under the law as befits their gender identity. I know that's such a burden to everyone, but maybe with the help of Jesus, and the inspiration of our heroic fighting men and women overseas, we'll all be able to pull together as a nation and get through this "transsexual crisis" with a minimum of casualties to our American Way of Life^TM.

In other words,

[stevenova]

Do you really think that someone who has a penis can be female?

These "laws" are trying to force other people to live in the sick mind of people who refuse to accept what they are.

You think it's okay to force other people to deny reality? I mean doesn't it seem like a MOTHER F'ING huge clue that if you have a dick that you are male?

What other scenario besides circumcision to people cut off perfectly working body parts, then take drugs like hormones, which are proven to cause cancer and heart disease, to make them seem like the sex they weren't born as?

I thought if these people really believe they are the other sex, why do they do the hormones and sex change operations (and no doubt, liberals will make taxpayers fund these surgeries in the future)???? To fool other people?

Penis = male.

If someone can't accept that ,they are severly mentally disturbed.

If they are hermaphrodites, that's a completely different story and can choose to be one or the other and have surgeries. But in the case of just transgenders, it's criminal for doctors to do what they do. Unethetical, criminal to remove body parts that work fine, or to give drugs that have such consequences for a non medically necessary reason. Enable anorexics like they do transgenders and they'd lose their medical licenses and probably face criminal charges.

It's completely due to political correctness, and the psychology field is severely hurting it's reputation by doing this.

[Jragon]

Penis =/= male. I'm on my phone so I can't go into too much detail, but there are several documented cultures with more than two genders. Often this third gender is something like "effeminate male" and they could be wives to the male gender. In one culture it was called berdace (spelling may be a tad off) and it was important, only this third gender were allowed to be shaman.

Gender is tied to sex, you can't say it's independent, but there's a lot of culture in there too.