Are Transsexuals Mentally Ill?

[Irishman]

@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]

@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]

@Irishman

Their gonads and identity aren’t in synch. Which one is “incorrect”?

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

@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.

@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]

@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]

@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]

@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]

@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]

@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]

@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]

@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:
[QUOTE=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.
[/quote]

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]

@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]

@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]

@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]

@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:

@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.

[UltraVires]

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?