Hmmm. One argument put forth in this thread seems to be that society should have the right (obligation?) to prevent people with damaged mental situations from having kids on the grounds that the kids might suffer (unspecified) harm in their homes. Having met a number of bigots and their children, I suspect that I might be open to such an argument that we should prevent bigots from adopting and, perhaps, remove chidren from the homes of bigots.
I don’t believe that transgender or transsexuality are diseases because I don’t see them as pathological. I see them as part of the variation in human gender, and my experience tells me that equating identity to genitals is simply not a useful way to view humankind.
It’s true that a transsexual person who is prevented from physically transitioning is going to suffer all kinds of problems. I think that those are the pathology, caused by the denial of a basic need.
I don’t think transgender or transsexuality have much to do with gender role; if it were, there would be no such thing as a butch trans woman or a femme trans man, and there are. It’s not a matter of you get femmer and femmer and femmer and suddenly you want to be a woman. I’m femme, and genderqueer if it comes to that, but I am not a woman and feel no desire to be one.
To answer the original question first: No, it cannot be classified as a mental illness BECAUSE it causes no danger to self or others AND because the individual can maintain a completely normal lifestyle while having this particular thought pattern.
IANAPsychologist, but my Abnormal Psyche class pounded in to me that one of the PRIMARY indications of mental illness is that it is directly responsible for disruptions to daily life: that line is included in practically every DRM diagnosis.
Ergo, homosexuality and trans-gender cannot be, by themselves, a classifiable mental illness.
I find it interesting to find that jtgain has done a great job, as the thread progesses, of assuming more and more of his position, that is, each successive post treats homosexuality as a disease as more of a given, rather than a point of debate.
The best that’s been agreed to is that there is a definite differing of function: however, differing function does not in itself constitute a disease or a dangerous abnormality: as pointed out, transgendered people may very well have physical basis for thinking as they do, if this is really the case, then discriminating against them is the same as discriminating against somebody born with only one arm. It’d be ridiculous, assuming that the person is fully qualified for the job.
Others have already addressed this, but I’ll contribute by pointing out that the development of sexual characteristics in gestation is an extremely complicated one (in fact, the fetus’s entire development is a complex interplay of genes and hormones and the number of natural miscarriages and birth defects should stand as clear evidence the process is not a perfect one) and though the physical genitalia may conform to one gender, other parts of the body including certain brain structures and glands may mismatch, tending toward the other gender, creating the internal conflict that drives some individuals to seek surgical correction.
Does any of that seem impossible to you?
Crazy people can and do have children.
Gay people can and do have children.
My four siblings and I grew up in a crazy, dysfunctional, abusive two parent home.
My sister the lesbian’s six children grew up in a loving, stable environment.
Guess which side I’m on.
Because the research shows no ill effects on children. As to marriage, I’m not sure who you think that’s hurting.
While I’ve seen many trans people in clinical practice, I have worked on 4 psychiatric inpatient units and have never seen a poerson who identified as a dog. The two are not comparable phenomenon.
Children OUGHT to be exposed to all sorts of interesting and fantastic spectra of human behavior. I would say it goes along the same notion as teaching kids about sex – if you don’t teach them, it’s not like they’re going to be released from your house into a convent.
Go to a big city and you’ll find women who identify as men, men who identify as women, women who spell the word wyth a y so they can free themselves from the shackles of patrimony, witches, Buddhists, fundamentalist Christians, fundamentalist Muslims, freaks, geeks, millionaires, swingers, self-mutilators, AIDS victims, Crohn’s disease sufferers, asthmatics, and the mentally challenged. On any street. In any workplace. I’ve worked with or been friends with most of the above (to my knowledge I don’t actually KNOW any fundamentalist Muslims, but Austin’s population is not that big?) Who are the normal people? Who are the people so mightily stable that they can be agreed upon to raise America’s children?
I know a transgendered lady who was once father and is now mother to three beautiful children. They appear to be bright, joyful, and well-behaved. What’s she doing wrong? Being outside the norm? Big whoop.
Two things and only two things should be on the mind of an employer when finding a new employee. Can the person do the job well? Will they get on with the other employees? I’m failing to see how ‘and do they have a willie under their skirt?’ is even remotely relevant.
Nice work. I was trying to think of a way to say this, but I couldn’t do it.
That is one reason why the home-schooling movement exists.
I could see how it’s relevant if the job title is “prostitute”, but other than that…
How far are we going to take this? I don’t believe in the “man working, woman staying home”, “housework is women’s work” and “women shouldn’t wear pants” version of gender roles. Should I not be allowed to have kids or talk about my lifestyle with other people’s kids? Should people who do believe in that version of what gender roles be be allowed to have kids?
Several of the 9/11 widows were pregnant. I guess we should have given them a year to remarry and if they didn’t, taken their babies away :eek:
Children need good parents. They do not necessarily need a good mother and a good father.
When the Defense of Marriage Act was being considered, I went to a hearing at the capital that was about it, and one of the debating politicians managed to back himself in to a corner just like this. He basically implied there was no possible successful family structure other than a married husband and wife. The backpedaling when he realized what he said was hilarious.
One study after another has shown that children do best in traditional families: a mom, a dad and the kids. A child brought up by a gay couple or a single mom won’t necessarily get so screwed up as to be a basket case, but it certainly seems to be in society’s best interest to encourage traditional marriages and families.
Cite?
No, this is not what the research shows. The empirical, long-term, large-scale, well-documented research shows that an acrimonious divorce, poverty, and violence are detrimental to children. Gay parents are not. Angry, contemptuous parents are.
Children no doubt do best in wealthy families: better schools, more extracurricular activities, better peer acceptance, better living conditions, better medical care, better education, more material items. So let’s take all children away from poor people.
ETA: In a society where a majority of children are being raised in non-traditional families, I don’t see how you can “prove” it’s bad for them.
Yours?
Where can we review these studies?
Gladly. What claim of mine do you want cited?
You’re the one who answered his question-“what harm does it do?” How can he provide a cite for that.
YOU made the claim. YOU back it up.