I’m seeing a little bit of teleology in here, when you talk about a part used for its “intended” purpose, and even when you describe something as “perfectly good.”
In theory, my ideal is for folks to be able to live their lives according to their own interests, what will make them feel most satisfied, happy, and right-living according to their own criteria. When I learn about transgender folk and how SRS helps them attain these goals, that’s what makes me think it’s a good thing. I don’t really feel qualified to have an opinion on whether a particular body part was functional or not prior to surgery. That’s for the individual to decide.
If someone shows me that amputating a hand leads to a BIID person attaining those goals, that’s what would matter to me. The primary difference I see at this point isn’t between “perfectly good” and not perfectly good body parts; it’s that I’ve not seen strong evidence that amputation is the best way for BIID folks to attain happiness, satisfaction, and a sense of right-living.
Not in and of itself, no. The importance of the studies on brain structures isn’t that it points us to an objective test to “prove” if someone is really transsexual or not, the importance is that it demonstrates that intersex conditions do not always present themselves in externally obvious ways. Before these studies existed, we knew there were people with ambiguous genitalia, or who developed inconsistent secondary sexual characteristics. Now we know that these differences can exist in people who, externally, appear to be physically “normal.” But the brain is still a very poorly understood organ. Just because we’ve found this particular structural difference doesn’t mean we’re in a position to declare that that’s the only possible difference, or that transsexuality can only be caused by this particular difference.
Gender identity appears to be pretty clearly hardwired. Gender expression is culturally derived. Humans appear to naturally sort themselves into two genders, for the most part. What we decide is appropriate for each gender is cultural. There is no psychological drive to wear make-up. There is a psychological drive to identify as female, and if make-up is a social marker for being female, then people whose psychology drives them to identify as female are likely to want to wear make-up.
Lots of mental illnesses do not present themselves as physical differences in the brain. Lots of them do. I’ve no idea which of them BIID fits in to.
BIID is not limited to those wanting limbs removed. I got introduced to the condition when I read about it in the context of those seeking to live as a person with a spinal cord injury (either just by living as a SCI patient or actually becoming wheelchair-dependent).
Anorexia kills people. “Accepting” them just means turning a blind eye to a potentially fatal condition. I don’t believe this is even a serious response. Too bad, I really was hoping to continue this discussion.
Would it be fair to describe transgendered individuals as experiencing a type of body dysmorphia? Seeing something as different than what it actually is? I for example have been carrying around a sizeable guy for the past 25 years, but I still think of myself as the thinner person I used to be. When I see myself in pictures I am snapped into reality.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I think you have raised a good point. I am a largish person and carry some work muscle, I like to be at peace with the world and be well mannered. The problem is that people see me as a big feller so in their minds I am trouble and avoid me. It must be a total destruction of a persons self worth for a transgender to be seen as a freak by a large section of the community. It is the behaviour of the bigots that cause mental health issues not a persons sexual orientation.
[QUOTE=National Health Service]
Body dysmorphic disorder (BDD), or body dysmorphia, is an anxiety disorder that causes sufferers to spend a lot of time worrying about their appearance and to have a distorted view of how they look.
[/QUOTE]
whereas
[QUOTE=National Health Service]
Gender dysphoria is a condition where a person experiences discomfort or distress because there is a mismatch between their biological sex and gender identity…This mismatch between sex and gender identity can lead to distressing and uncomfortable feelings that are called gender dysphoria. Gender dysphoria is a recognised medical condition, for which treatment is sometimes appropriate.
[/QUOTE]
Therefore: A person with dysmorphic disorder misperceives or misinterpret how they look, while a person with dysphoria is all to well aware of how they look. There is no distortion in their perception of their bodies.
I didn’t get it either, at first, and to an extent I still don’t. But I seriously considered what the people on this board told me and I took it to heart. My first notion when I heard that someone was “confused” about their gender was that they should just look in a mirror (actually, I wrote something much more hateful than that). My misunderstanding was that they were somehow unable or unwilling to acknowledge reality - that is to say, they were somehow denying reality (as if they were hallucinating or something). This is not correct.
The transsexual person understands reality. They know how they look, and therefore there is no dysmorphia involved.
This is quite accurate. BIID is not a recognized condition by the [American] Psychiatric Associations/DSM. The OP’s article/link (indirectly) hints at this by noting that the term is recognized by many “psychologists and neurologists”.
The correct term would be Body Dysmorphic Disorder, which is recognized in the DSM5. The key is those with BDD tend to have an almost psychotic level of thinking about their body- it’s a delusional fixed belief that something is wrong with said body part. Often times they may pursue plastic surgery, extreme dieting/exercise, or even more drastic means to “fix themselves”- the problem is that even with the surgeries or such- their level of delusion means they are usually STILL unsatisfied with the way they look after correction. It’s one of the primary disorders that Plastic Surgeons screen for- as they are the ones most likely to have repeat surgeries over and over trying to look “just right” but because it’s a delusional belief, a simple surgery will not fix it. So those who do harm themselves, though they may remove the limb or such drastic measures- they will likely find another aspect of themselves which is not “perfect” and this becomes the next focus for them.
So to go back to your Headline Question: The answer is “No.” Transgenderism (Gender Noncomformity) is NOT a mental illness.
The reasoning for why it is classified in the DSM-5 though at all is presented in the link: it’s allow those with Gender Nonconformity (and those thusly with Gender Dysphoria) to get the services and treatments they need, otherwise insurance companies would label their surgeries, hormone treatments, and even therapy as “cosmetic” and would not offer coverage for them.
Okay, even if it’s true (which is hotly debated given scientists have trouble telling CIS male and female brains apart except in post-mortem), so what? There are other things considered mental illnesses and are in the DSM that involve brain structure differences too, like Schizophrenia and ADHD.
This is certainly a large can of worms but I think that there is room for a couple more. This years Olympics’ has raised an issue with one young lady who has natural testirone
levels nearly as high as a man. The issue is that does she compete as a man or a woman, taking into consideration that physically and mentally she is a woman. The label unisexual has been used and a opinion given that there are other suspected unisexual’s competing in the games. As this is a known issue is the answer to recognise that there are three genders male, unisex and female (and all shades in between)
The second worm. Is the so called sex change operation really corrective surgery?
What matters is not so much the absolute level of testosterone but what effect it has on the person. There are various androgen-insensitivity syndromes, the most extreme of which means that testosterone essentially has NO effect on the person, they could have 10 times the normal level for men and they’d still be a woman in appearance (including external genitals) and get zero muscle boost from it. In other cases, higher than normal testosterone in a woman could indicate a tumor of some sort which might need medical treatment, or just abnormally high production of the hormone that, while not pathological, nonetheless does give the woman a natural boost in some respects. Which maybe is as significant as being over six feet tall is a boost to basketball players, or being five foot tall or shorter is of benefit to women gymnasts. Yes, some people have traits advantageous for certain activities, and you’re going to find a lot of those folks at the Olympics.
Suspected? Over the decades there have certainly been such women competing. Despite fears of a naturally occurring “unnatural” advantage most of these women have not in fact won medals. Some have, but it’s no guarantee because there’s more to making a champion than just hormone levels.
Not sure if we’d want to call it corrective or not, but the real question is whether or not it’s beneficial to the patient.
I’d been hoping for a thread that would mention the Olympics here. I did not think I knew enough to start my own.
One other thing with the Olympics is that I heard is that Castor was previously allowed to take drugs that would lower her testosterone to comply. If so, I really can’t see why they can’t do that. That deals with the AIS perfectly, since not having it isn’t going to hurt.
All I know is that any system that tries to say she doesn’t qualify for the “Women’s” team or that she must try out for the “Men’s” team is wrong. You cannot tell her she is not a woman or that she si really a man. I hope they can find a mutually satisfactory solution, but that is not it.
The reason it’s okay to gender segregate in sports is the same as why it’s okay for restrooms: both sides have agreed. So that’s why it’s not sexist. We need both sides to agree in this situations, too.
Yeah, but the distinction here is that the physical structure of the brain of a transwoman looks like the physical structure of the brain of a cisgendered woman. If some guy is claiming to be Napoleon, he’s probably delusional. If you did brain surgery on him, and found out that he actually has Napoleon’s brain in his skull… maybe not so delusional?
If post-mortems on transpeople revealed unique brain structures only found in transpeople, or if they found the brain looked similar to the brain of a person with schizophrenia, that could be evidence for treating transexuality as a mental illness. But when a person who looks like a man says, “I feel like a woman,” and it turns out his brain actually resembles a woman more than a man, that seems to be a pretty powerful confirmation of the external reality of their feelings.
If a man identified as a woman for the (unspoken) purpose of competing in women’s sports, or vice versa, what would be the philosophical grounds to prevent him/her?
Considering doping is illegal, and considering some Russian females have been banned in the past for having had enough testerone in their systems to technically render them male, I would think this is a concern.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk