# "Gender identity" is mental illness **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 23, 2013, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gender-identity-is-mental-illness/667011 "2013-08-23T22:38:26Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 18
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2013, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gender-identity-is-mental-illness/667011/341 "2013-09-02T20:31:29Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > Again, those are medical bodies, not bodies of professional biologists. Why are biologists the determining body here, and not doctors? ---
**Author:** ![EverwonderWhy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ee59a6/32.png) [@EverwonderWhy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EverwonderWhy)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2013, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gender-identity-is-mental-illness/667011/342 "2013-09-02T20:46:46Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > Why are biologists the determining body here, and not doctors? Because **Martin** has _personally_ defined them as such, of course. Right along with his other _personal_ definitions that are unsupported by mammalian biologists, medical science, veterinary science et al. Regardless, his erroneous claims are a pointless threadjack. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2013, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gender-identity-is-mental-illness/667011/343 "2013-09-02T21:37:44Z")
And for whatever reason, no matter how clearly multiple posters explain it to him, and provide citations, **Martin** still does not (or refuses to or pretends not to) comprehend the difference between the “determination of sex” and the “definition of sex.” In mammals sex is usually, but not always _determined_ on a chromosomal basis. Sex is _defined_ by biologists and physicians on the basis of physical pheontype and in some species behavior. “Determined” means that it is what causes the sex, i.e. the specific physical and behavioral phenotype, to occur. The biological sex of a mammal _is_ that collection of features which is the phenotype. So yes, in humans, as in other mammals, the physical features that are the biological sex of the organism, such as which gonads are present and where and what the external genitalia look like and hip structure, etc. are usually determined on a chromosomal basis. **Martin** , I am not trying to make you “appear fundamentally ignorant.” You don’t need my help. ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2013, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gender-identity-is-mental-illness/667011/344 "2013-09-02T22:39:56Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Noting that a point has been covered in previous debates provides one who was not involved the opportunity to take the time to look them up rather than forcing one’s opponents to re-enter all the same information a second, (third, fourth, etc.) time. > > Since there are a number of topics that come back to this forum repeatedly, there is really nothing wrong with noting that specific points have been addressed. Both sides could reduce the hostility, one side by providing links and the other by seeking such links through a search or even by requesting them. However, neither the failure to provide a link nor the failure to seek one validates the notion that previous discussions are irrelevant. I think there is a lot of merit to the idea that if someone has made a point before, they can link to it to avoid having to reargue every detail. But that seems to me incumbent upon the person wanting to avoid repeating themselves. I see no reason why the person who did not engage in the debate earlier should feel any need to look up old threads. I assume the board is designed to promote threads that are recently posted on to the top for a reason. That is, current discussion is privileged over old inactive discussion. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2013, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gender-identity-is-mental-illness/667011/345 "2013-09-02T23:02:23Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > This demonstrate you are behaving **dishonestly** in this thread. > . . . **dishonest** desire to win an argument. . . . > > . . . I can only view you as a **dishonest** participant. . . . > > . . . you are being a dishonest participant in this discussion. > [@DSeid](#): > > **Martin** , I am not trying to make you “appear fundamentally ignorant.” You don’t need my help. Both of you knock it off or take it to The BBQ Pit. [/Moderating] ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2013, 11:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gender-identity-is-mental-illness/667011/346 "2013-09-02T23:09:40Z")
To expand on my last post: \*In mammals \*the Y chromosome, or more precisiely one particular section of the Y chromosome, usually determines the cascade of events (utilizing genes located elsewhere and creating structures that further differentiate in an experience-expectant way) that results in differentiation into one or the other biological sex (the phenotypic state). A wide variety of circumstances result in situations of biological sexual ambiguity, sometimes referred to as intersex. Differentiation into one completely congruent set of sexual features in these cases does not occur. Chromosomally the individual may have a Y chromosome but the physical features that define biological sex are not all male or female. Please note: this ambiguous state, often referred to as “intersex” does not only occur in humans, it occurs in and has been studied in [other mammals](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168952500021260) as well (“Mammalian sex reversal and intersexuality: deciphering the sex-determination cascade.” - note these biologists are not referring to these mammals reversing their chromosomes.) Here’s [another article](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1236093/) specific that also discussed incongruent behavior. One part of the body is physically and functionally dimorphic in mammals is the brain. In most mammals the effects of this dimorphism is noted as differences in structure and in behavior; if these non-human mammals have a gender identity we have no way of assessing it. Of note [varying hormone levels at different points in gestation](http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2826.2009.01832.x/full) > [@](#): > > demonstrated that genital anatomy and specific behaviours are independently sexually differentiated. Such studies demonstrate that, for a variety of behaviours, including juvenile mounting and rough play, individuals can have the genitals of one sex but show the behaviour more typical of the other sex. Humans of course have many factors, in partuclar many cultural and sociologic factors, that impact behavior and thus behavior gets classified as “gender role.” But “gender identity” does _seem to be_ substantialy biologically based and (this much IMHO) an aspect of biological sex almost as much many external features. (And able to be incongruent just like differnet external features can be.) That last cite puts it fairly well: > [@](#): > > What is clear is that the effects of prenatal hormones on behavioural development reflect a complex interaction between their effects and reproductive anatomy, neural differentiation and the responsiveness of others in the infant’s environment to the characteristics of the infant, both anatomical and behavioural. > > From the work reviewed here, it is clear that biological sexual differentiation is more than just the simple determination of genital anatomy, which in turn biases the behavioural responses of others. Behaviour can be affected independently of genital anatomy, and specific behaviours are affected independently of one another, with differential dependencies on the duration, timing and level of prenatal androgen exposure. Future research most likely will reveal additional factors that are important in determining psychological sexual differentiation. For example, differences in receptor gene expression could determine the response to androgens, even when the levels of androgen exposure are comparable between individuals. Although we do not yet know all of the factors involved in the complex interactions determining sexual differentiation of behaviour, we now know that there is little purpose in debating whether nature or nurture is the source of sexual differentiation because it is apparent that such differentiation results from nature interacting with nurture. It is valuable, however, to understand the relative contributions of nature and nurture to the interaction. Although there is increasing appreciation, particularly in humans, of this developmental interaction, we still have insufficient information to determine which endpoints result from relatively small biological inputs amplified through experience and which reflect large biological inputs little shaped by experience. A lack of conclusive information still makes the process of sex assignment of infants with ambiguous genitalia a difficult judgment for the clinician. However, the time has passed when we could believe with confidence that social experience solely determines gender and gender differences. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2013, 12:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gender-identity-is-mental-illness/667011/347 "2013-09-03T00:02:31Z")
Tom, Direction noted (and I will behave) but dang, that’s a hard set up to resist! ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2013, 12:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gender-identity-is-mental-illness/667011/348 "2013-09-03T00:07:45Z")
I’m trying to figure out how\*\* Martin\*\* is remaining confused (assuming such is the actual case). I am serious here and not trying to be snarkey. **Martin** , are you thinking that “determine” means like looking at an individual and determining which sex it is? As in “I’d like to determine if this is a male or a female dog so I’ll lift it up and see if there is a penis or not.”? If so please note that such is not what “determine” means in the context of sexual differentiation. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2013, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gender-identity-is-mental-illness/667011/349 "2013-09-03T16:34:51Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Noting that a point has been covered in previous debates provides one who was not involved the opportunity to take the time to look them up rather than forcing one’s opponents to re-enter all the same information a second, (third, fourth, etc.) time. > > Since there are a number of topics that come back to this forum repeatedly, there is really nothing wrong with noting that specific points have been addressed. Both sides could reduce the hostility, one side by providing links and the other by seeking such links through a search or even by requesting them. However, neither the failure to provide a link nor the failure to seek one validates the notion that previous discussions are irrelevant. IMO, someone who wants to refer to previous threads as a shorthand is fine, if they actually link to the specific part of the a prior thread which addresses the specific point under discussion. What isn’t nearly as fine is what’s happening here, in which people - led by you, IIRC - have simply linked to a dozen or so prior threads (some or all of which are likely long and discuss many aspects of the issue) and said “hey read through all this stuff and you’ll see that you’re wrong”. I mean, you can use the prior threads as an excuse for not bothering to debate the issue in this one. But I don’t think you can make a big deal or harp on someone else for his or her refusal to read a voluminous amount of material just because you claim that somewhere in that vast literature they will find the refutation to their argument. ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2013, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gender-identity-is-mental-illness/667011/350 "2013-09-03T20:20:16Z")
Exactly. If they are tired of debating it, no one is forcing them to continue. But the logical consequence of their argument is that posting volume here should steadily decrease as more and more stuff has “already been covered”; and that younger/newer posters should, as time goes by, be increasingly hesitant to post for fear of covering ground already trod. I doubt that is really what this site’s owners want. ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2013, 1:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gender-identity-is-mental-illness/667011/351 "2013-09-07T13:26:19Z")
Wait, so this “tiny fringe” you guys were dismissing includes Germaine Greer and Gloria Steinem? > [@](#): > > No so-called sex-change has ever begged for a uterus-and-ovaries transplant; if uterus-and-ovaries transplants were made mandatory for wannabe women they would disappear overnight. The insistence that man-made women be accepted as women is the institutional expression of the mistaken conviction that women are defective males… > [@](#): > > In other words, transsexuals are paying an extreme tribute to the power of sex roles. In order to set their real human personalities free, they surgically mutilate their own bodies…Instead of serving more lifesaving but often less lucrative needs for their surgical and hormone-therapy skills, some physicians are aiding individuals who are desperately trying to conform to an unjust society…feminists are right to feel uncomfortable about the need for and uses of transsexualism. Even Steinem’s bete noire [Camille Paglia](http://dailyxtra.com/canada/news/camille-paglia-disses-chaz-bono) seems to feel the same way. All three are high profile figures. I had no idea; but now I think some of you have been a bit disingenuous about this, perhaps trying to sweep these objections under the rug. I also found interesting and edifying the following comments on [Slate](http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2013/08/28/michigan_womyn_s_music_festival_the_butch_strut_the_femme_parade_and_the.html): > [@](#): > > It is sad that there is so much misunderstanding and accusations of “transphobia” on this issue. Radical feminists believe that, while the fact of someone’s natal sex is a physical reality, the concept of “gender” is an artificial imposition of sex stereotypes designed to limit and control those born with pregnancy potential. They believe that no human beings should be limited to any kind of sex stereotyped behaviors; the full range of human potential is only realized when we abandon these archaic notions of gender stereotypes. > [@](#): > > Those of you who keep asking whether the “real” problem is that many of us womyn don’t consider MTF trans, including those trans with a full set of male sex organs, “real” women, I will answer honestly for myself. > > Yes, I do consider MTF trans to be men. Why? Because, as I have gotten to know more MTF trans, I have found that they act like men. They dominate conversations, get nasty when argumentative, and threaten violence when opposed. Certainly there are women who are capable of all that, and men who are not like that, but your average MTF is far more “male” acting than your average woman-born-woman. > [@](#): > > The tendency toward anorexia is also thought to be innate. It may be a delusion, but so is gender dysphoria. They are related disorders (check out some of those articles you like so much). Anorectics truly suffer – not only are they 100% convinced that they are not like other people and that they cannot eat like other people, they are tormented by others who criticize them for their eating habits and treated with derision by the large people they identify with. ---
**Author:** ![WhyNot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c77e96/32.png) [@WhyNot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WhyNot)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2013, 2:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gender-identity-is-mental-illness/667011/352 "2013-09-07T14:04:59Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > Wait, so this “tiny fringe” you guys were dismissing includes Germaine Greer and Gloria Steinem? Yes. Lovely people who did an amazing amount of work to make my life as a woman in the USA a whole lot more equitable and bearable, and to whom I will always be profoundly grateful. But old people, who have not kept up with the latest medical theories, and are indeed therefore “fringe” on this particular issue. Their names don’t lend more numbers, and so yes, they are part of the “tiny” fringe. ---
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2013, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gender-identity-is-mental-illness/667011/353 "2013-09-07T16:47:58Z")
\ SlackerInc, having taken a look at Slate’s terms of service I think quoting comments from the site wholesale is a little bit much. I’ve trimmed them down and those interested can take a look through the link. \ ---
**Author:** ![DocCathode](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/doccathode/32/18773_2.png) [@DocCathode](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DocCathode)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2013, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gender-identity-is-mental-illness/667011/354 "2013-09-07T17:16:36Z")
> [@](#): > > No so-called sex-change has ever begged for a uterus-and-ovaries transplant; This is simply wrong. I can’t remember the case off the top of my head, but at least one of the early transwomen to undergo srs had such a transplant. It failed spectacularly. As the state of medicine advanced, a successful transplant seemed _less_ probable. That is the reasons you don’t hear about transplants. It is not that they aren’t desired. It is they are not possible. ---
**Author:** ![Lamia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Lamia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamia)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2013, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gender-identity-is-mental-illness/667011/355 "2013-09-07T17:50:28Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > All three are high profile figures. I had no idea; but now I think some of you have been a bit disingenuous about this, perhaps trying to sweep these objections under the rug. It’s interesting that you did not see fit to provide sources for these quotes. A quick Google indicates that the Greer quote is from the '90s and the Steinem quote is from the '70s. I think it’s likely that many posters here were unfamiliar with these quotes, and that anyone who did remember them didn’t think quotes that old were relevant to a discussion of feminist attitudes _today_. I don’t know or care much about what Gloria Steinem thinks about transwomen now, but Google also produced [this 2012 _Time Out_ interview](http://www.timeoutchicago.com/things-to-do/15106819/gloria-steinem-interview) where she’s asked about the '70s quote: > [@](#): > > **In a ’70s essay that’s often been quoted, you say feminists are right to feel uncomfortable about the need for transsexualism. There’s your famous quote: “If the shoe doesn’t fit, must we change the foot?”** > > No, I don’t think we feel uncomfortable. Actually I think quite the contrary. Transsexuals are often gender-role revolutionaries because they show that gender is a fiction. Here’s an example of the shoe and the foot that is troublesome: In Iran, apparently the homophobia is so severe that to have a lesbian child or a gay child is a disgrace and so they have sex-change operations because to have a son or a daughter then seems more normal. The point is free will over one’s own body. > > **So that’s a change in your views?** > > No, it’s the same point. It’s the same point because I think I said, “Must we change the foot?” So if you want to change the foot, okay. [Laughs] So regardless of what she may have believed in the '70s, it sounds like Steinem now thinks transgender people should be able to have sex-change operations if they want to and that the only thing she really objects to is people who don’t conform to traditional gender roles being pressured into sex-change operations. > [@](#): > > I also found interesting and edifying the following comments on [Slate](http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2013/08/28/michigan_womyn_s_music_festival_the_butch_strut_the_femme_parade_and_the.html): So your cites for your claims about the views of contemporary feminists on transwomen thus far are 1) a blog post, 2) some quotes that prominent feminists made in decades past, and 3) comments by two anonymous posters in response to a Slate column. ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2013, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gender-identity-is-mental-illness/667011/356 "2013-09-07T22:01:39Z")
> [@WhyNot](#): > > Their names don’t lend more numbers, and so yes, they are part of the “tiny” fringe. I strongly suspect their towering position in the feminist movement automatically lends credibility and thus numbers to pretty much any arguable position. And that credibility automatically makes them not “fringe”, regardless of numbers. > [@Lamia](#): > > A quick Google indicates that the Greer quote is from the '90s and the Steinem quote is from the '70s. Isn’t the Steinem book from 1984? And I love how the '90s is treated as ancient history, LOL. > [@](#): > > I don’t know or care much about what Gloria Steinem thinks about transwomen now, but Google also produced [this 2012 _Time Out_ interview](http://www.timeoutchicago.com/things-to-do/15106819/gloria-steinem-interview) where she’s asked about the '70s quote: > > So regardless of what she may have believed in the '70s, it sounds like Steinem now thinks transgender people should be able to have sex-change operations if they want to I don’t think she ever thought they should be legally prohibited from doing so. (But wait: do you not know or care what she thinks now, or you do know something about it and do care to discuss it?) And the first word out of her mouth when asked if she has changed her views is “No”. I also note with interest that in that interview she takes the same position I do on BDSM, which I have gotten raked over the coals for when expressing it online amongst people I’d generally consider progressive. She’s nearly four decades older than I am, but I guess I’m just “old school” or something. I’ll accept that: the newer fashion of thought is not always more correct (as I assume pro-choice feminists would agree when seeing the poll numbers on abortion going increasingly against them). ---
**Author:** ![Lamia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Lamia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamia)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2013, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gender-identity-is-mental-illness/667011/357 "2013-09-07T22:23:00Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > Isn’t the Steinem book from 1984? If you’re referring to _Outrageous Acts and Everyday Rebellions_ then it was published in 1983, but it looks like the essay “Transsexualism” was first published in 1977. Even if you thought the quote was from 1984, that’s still 29 years ago. It’s a bit funny that, in the same post where you accused others of trying to sweep inconvenient facts under the rug, you chose to post these quotes without saying how old they were. ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2013, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gender-identity-is-mental-illness/667011/358 "2013-09-07T23:40:41Z")
Get back to me with her repudiation of those views. I see nothing wrong with quoting from books that were not just written. If I hear an undated quote from someone, I won’t be shocked that it came from way back in their misspent youth, when they were fifty. Nor do I expect people to have radically different views as they age. Is there not a common belief that thinkers do their best work early in their lives? ---
**Author:** ![Lamia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Lamia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamia)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2013, 12:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gender-identity-is-mental-illness/667011/359 "2013-09-08T00:31:26Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > I see nothing wrong with quoting from books that were not just written. There is if you’re trying to pass these quotes off as representative of the views of people today. The claim that you were asked to support with a cite was this (emphasis added): > [@SlackerInc](#): > > There are obviously older and more conservative women who would vote “nay” on M to F transgendered people; but **from recent research it appears there are a decent number of feminists and lesbians who are also hostile to these people as perceived interlopers.** A 1977 quote from Gloria Steinem may be indicative of what a decent number of feminists believed in the 1970s, but it is not evidence of anything about the present. The quality of your cites has been so poor that they strike me as better evidence against you than for you. I’m sure there are _some_ feminists and lesbians who are hostile towards transwomen, but if the best evidence you can come up with is a blog post, a couple of comments on _Slate_, and some old quotes then it seems unlikely that this is a widespread view today. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2013, 3:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gender-identity-is-mental-illness/667011/360 "2013-09-08T03:33:00Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > IMO, someone who wants to refer to previous threads as a shorthand is fine, if they actually link to the specific part of the a prior thread which addresses the specific point under discussion. What isn’t nearly as fine is what’s happening here, in which people - led by you, IIRC - have simply linked to a dozen or so prior threads (some or all of which are likely long and discuss many aspects of the issue) and said “hey read through all this stuff and you’ll see that you’re wrong”. It’s a perfectly fine thing to do if the person is seeing information about an issue. But you are correct that its less effective if the person is pushing an agenda, as is the case here. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gender-identity-is-mental-illness/667011.md?page=17) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gender-identity-is-mental-illness/667011.md?page=19)