Rebuttals for Gender Theory

[buffalo]

The Cardinal Virtues: Temperance The Cardinal Virtues: Temperance | The Catholic Gentleman

 

[buffalo]

The Holy Family is the ultimate role model.

 

[MPat]

If your definition of mental health informal, it does not follow that transgendered people have mental disorders by definitions. I think you can work out the logic.

You know, maybe you should argue for your position yourself instead of trying to get someone else to do your job for you?

For no, just because I didn’t take the trouble to formalise the definition does not mean that it inevitably has to be completely useless.

Also, it would be nice to see it side to side with your definition.

Your impression is wrong.

I’m afraid that this your answer does not explain much. In what way is my impression wrong? Maybe I just didn’t make it sufficiently clear that I did use hyperbole there?

Your example fails. There are eleven symptoms of “alcohol use disorder” while there are no physical symptoms of gender dysphoria and none for SSA.

And?

Is there some reason why that would be relevant?

Is there even a strong reason to think that this difference is real? Maybe no one actually looked for physical symptoms hard enough?

Not to mention this your claim in another post:

Rather, the DSM-5 includes a number of conditions with a clearly physical component such as in the case of gender dysphoria. (American Psychiatric Association, 2013)

So, do you claim that physical symptoms exist, or that they do not exist?

If you want to learn more about mental health disorders you can do so here: DSM V

And if you want to actually argue for your position, you can do it here.

Seriously, if that link has anything that is relevant here (in your opinion), feel free to cite it. And to explain why you think it relevant. And to explain why you consider that source to be good.

How is that distinguished from a moral disorder? Surely one could have a temptation to sin without having a moral disorder, no? Do you believe the terms “moral disorder” and “psychological disorder” to mean exactly the same thing?

I guess a man who thinks he’s Napoleon is likely to have a mental disorder that is not a moral disorder.

So, they are unlikely to mean precisely the same thing, but yes, overlap sure seems to be possible. As is misidentifying one for another.

 

[edwest211]

“Whereas previously a man who “self-identified” as a woman (or vice versa) could have been classified as mentally ill, now the DSM-5 uses the term “gender dysphoria,” which means it is only a mental illness if you’re troubled by this self-identification. Elated activists in the “LGBT” community had lobbied the APA for the change for years.”

Lobbying to have a classification changed is neither scientific or rational.

Source: http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/psychiatrys-new-normal-transgendered-persons

 

[daverod]

what the heck is ‘gender theory’ or ‘gender ideology’?

Do i need to possess a Ph.D in order to know what my own gender is?

is this some new ‘PHILOSOPHY’???

‘i HAVE A CHEST, THEREFORE i MUST BE A CERTAIN GENDER, RIGHT?’, THEORY

or is it, ‘Not all Chests are created equal?’ theory?

I use ‘chest’ because it is a chestful of knowledge and wisdom and good things.

What’s in YOUR chest? What’s in YOUR drawer?

‘Stop!!! That which is in my chest is too weak to resist that which is in your drawer… Stop!’

Your drawer ful of arguments is ruining my chest full of life…

And visa versa… ‘Your chest full of life is ruining my drawer ful of happiness.’

All of these statements are for personal use only… Please disregard if you are not personable.

 

[frobert]

If our definition of mental health informal, it does not follow that transgendered people have mental disorders by definitions. I think you can work out the logic

You are the person who made the claim. You have no standard to measure it against except your own definition.

A. MPat says transgendered people have mental disorders by definition
B. MPat uses his own informal definition of mental disorder as the standard
C. Therefore A is true.

You know, maybe you should argue for your position yourself instead of trying to get someone else to do your job for you?

For no, just because I didn’t take the trouble to formalise the definition does not mean that it inevitably has to be completely useless.

Also, it would be nice to see it side to side with your definition.

My position is simple. A psychological state is considered a mental disorder only if it causes significant distress or disability. Do you find it strange that a psychologist adheres to and utilizes the APA definition of mental illness?

I’m afraid that this your answer does not explain much. In what way is my impression wrong? Maybe I just didn’t make it sufficiently clear that I did use hyperbole there?

Your impression is wrong. See definition of mental disorder above. Do you believe everyone who a significant distress or disability needs to be has to be locked up? I don’t.

Rather, the DSM-5 includes a number of conditions with a clearly physical component such as in the case of gender dysphoria. (American Psychiatric Association, 2013)

Gender dysphoria is a mental disorder. Being transgendered is not.

If you want to learn more about mental health disorders you can do so here: DSM V

And if you want to actually argue for your position, you can do it here.

Seriously, if that link has anything that is relevant here (in your opinion), feel free to cite it. And to explain why you think it relevant. And to explain why you consider that source to be good.

I was not the one who made the claim that transgendered people have a mental disorder by definition. You offered only your own definition for support for that claim. You are basically saying that transgendered people have a disorder because MPat says they have.

 

[MPat]

You are the person who made the claim. You have no standard to measure it against except your own definition.

A. MPat says transgendered people have mental disorders by definition
B. MPat uses his own informal definition of mental disorder as the standard
C. Therefore A is true.

My position is simple. A psychological state is considered a mental disorder only if it causes significant distress or disability. Do you find it strange that a psychologist adheres to and utilizes the APA definition of mental illness?

So, the form of your argument is the same as “mine”. The only difference is that you use the definition given by APA.

And thus, the objection you make is simply that I am not the authority on the matter, and you or APA are an authority on it. (Would it have been hard to put it like that?)

Now, of course, being a random anonymous user on the Internet, I am not an authority. Neither are you - for the same reason.

As for APA, I’m afraid that it is even less of an authority than a random anonymous user on the Internet.

Psychology is yet just a protoscience (like alchemy in Middle Ages). Yes, psychologists occasionally stumble upon something true or useful - just as alchemists did. But their grand theories are mostly worthless. And “psychological research” has been shown to be mostly worthless as well. For example, it notoriously lacks repeatability - see Open Science Collaboration “Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science”, “Science”, 2015 - http://science.sciencemag.org/content/349/6251/aac4716.

As you can see, Psychology (as protoscience) isn’t worth much even without political pressure. And here we do have political pressure. So, it’s even worse.

Also, “my” definition has an obvious advantage. Let’s see it.

Your impression is wrong. See definition of mental disorder above. Do you believe everyone who a significant distress or disability needs to be has to be locked up? I don’t.

So, I was right in guessing that you missed the fact that I was using hyperbole. (Do you see that hyperbole now?)

And I was pointing out one problem with “APA” definition: under it there can be no such thing as a “mild form of mental disorder”. You can only have a form that already causes something significantly bad. I’d say that is a bad feature for a definition. Would you disagree?

 

[po18guy]

Gender regards language. Sex is in the DNA and describes humans.

 

[edwest211]

The APA has become politically involved with LGBT groups and individuals. While it has collected many decades’ worth of material for review, it has been compromised. So psychological disorders of various kinds do exist. I’ve been in treatment for a while and been hospitalized twice. Between what my psychiatrists have told me (a few have retired) and what I observed first-hand, it is not logical to refer to a transgendered person as he when their anatomy after X-Ray would clearly show a female bone structure.

 

[Bruised_Reed]

Gender regards language. Sex is in the DNA and describes humans.

Not so simple. Using “sex” or “sexual” where “gender” is used would change the meaning of the phrase. For example “sexual expression” and “gender expression” mean two different things. Gender and sexual are not interchangeable here.

 

[frobert]

The difference is the APA has standardized diagnostic criteria for mental health disorders which is used by mental health professionals. It would be unethical for mental health professionals to substitute MPat opinions in diagnosing and treating their patients.

You are misinformed. While you can believe anything you want, when you spread misinformation about mental disorders the misinformation has the potential to do harm.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

While you can believe anything you want, when you spread misinformation about mental disorders the misinformation has the potential to do harm.

If the psychologists have it wrong, then spreading TRUE information about their classification scheme has the potential to do harm, too.

 

[jackofalltopics]

If gender does not reflect sex, then gender is meaningless.

 

[frobert]

frobert:

While you can believe anything you want, when you spread misinformation about mental disorders the misinformation has the potential to do harm.

If the psychologists have it wrong, then spreading TRUE information about their classification scheme has the potential to do harm, too.

How would a mental health professional determine what is true and what is false about the APA classification of mental disorders? As always I respect your opinion.

 

[frobert]

what the heck is ‘gender theory’ or ‘gender ideology’?

Do i need to possess a Ph.D in order to know what my own gender is?

You don’t need a PhD but if you want to add to your knowledge about gender it is helpful to learn from perspectives outside of your comfort zone.

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3097144?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

 

[MPat]

The difference is the APA has standardized diagnostic criteria for mental health disorders which is used by mental health professionals.

So, now you claim that the advantage of “APA” definition is that it is “standardized”? That’s it?

I’m afraid that’s not worth much.

Certainly not enough to outweigh the impossibility of “mild form” - the disadvantage you ignored.

It would be unethical for mental health professionals to substitute MPat opinions in diagnosing and treating their patients.

Oh, really? Why?

Take up the Catechism and find what kind of sin is supposed to be that. After all, it is “standardized”, and used by “spiritual health professionals”.

Oh, and, naturally, I assume that we are not dealing with using something else while claiming to be using standards of APA. That, of course, would be lying.

How would a mental health professional determine what is true and what is false about the APA classification of mental disorders?

Are you sure he has to determine what is true and what is false? It is sufficient to take a realistic (humble) view of his own profession. He is not really much of a “mental health professional”, he is mostly just a man who is willing to be paid for listening to other men. That is already a useful role: sometimes that really helps, and not everyone is willing to listen to insane people, even for money.

But those “mental health professionals” must not think that they actually know much about “mental illness” or “human psychology”. No, they generally know as much about all that, as anyone else. When they think otherwise, most of the things they “know” are false (see that article about psychological research), and, therefore, in those cases opinions of “mental health professionals” on “mental health” rank less than those of random strangers.

Perhaps Chesterton’s “Eugenics and Other Evils” (Eugenics and Other Evils) would be somewhat relevant: “The second thing to be noted is this: that it is only by the unanimity of sane men that we can condemn this man as utterly separate.”, “That which can condemn the abnormally foolish is the normally foolish. It is when he begins to say and do things that even stupid people do not say or do, that we have a right to treat him as the exception and not the rule.”.

 

[frobert]

The difference is the APA has standardized diagnostic criteria for mental health disorders which is used by mental health professionals.

So, now you claim that the advantage of “APA” definition is that it is “standardized”? That’s it?

I’m afraid that’s not worth much

Thanks for the feedback. I guess my post-grad degree in psychology isn’t worth much then.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

How would a mental health professional determine what is true and what is false about the APA classification of mental disorders? As always I respect your opinion.

And I respect yours. My point is that – presuming there are FACTS about what is mental illness and what is not mental illness – any errors in the DSM would plausibly harm people. And thus spreading news of the DSM diagnoses would harm them, too.

 

[MPat]

Thanks for the feedback. I guess my post-grad degree in psychology isn’t worth much then.

If you think it is worth much, why aren’t you successfully persuading me here?

After all, if it would certify actual understanding of how humans think and behave, wouldn’t it give a significant advantage in discussions? Especially in such discussions in which you try to defend the value of Psychology?

Also, wouldn’t it be useful in avoiding misunderstandings? But look:

frobert:

MPat:

frobert:

MPat:

And I get an impression that you count someone as having a “mental disorder” when we get close to the point where that “someone” has to be locked into an asylum and stay there. On the other hand, I’m counting much milder forms and disorders taken under control (but not completely treated) as well.

Your impression is wrong.

I’m afraid that this your answer does not explain much. In what way is my impression wrong? Maybe I just didn’t make it sufficiently clear that I did use hyperbole there?

Your impression is wrong. See definition of mental disorder above. Do you believe everyone who a significant distress or disability needs to be has to be locked up? I don’t.

So, I was right in guessing that you missed the fact that I was using hyperbole. (Do you see that hyperbole now?)

And I was pointing out one problem with “APA” definition: under it there can be no such thing as a “mild form of mental disorder”. You can only have a form that already causes something significantly bad. I’d say that is a bad feature for a definition. Would you disagree?

I’m afraid that I did “diagnose” the misunderstanding, and you did not (even after being told what happened). It looks like Psychology was not very useful here…

And that is not an uncommon experience: psychologists seem to show superior understanding of how humans think and behave suspiciously rarely. They seem to show substandard understanding far more often.

Then again, why should that be surprising, given that Psychology is just a protoscience (at best)? Of course decisions based on false theories will tend to be bad (worse than “intuitive” decisions).

So no, I do not see much value in degrees in Psychology. Certainly not enough for “arguments from authority” (unless, of course, the proposition was specifically about opinions of psychologists). Even if they were easy to verify.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

And that is not an uncommon experience: psychologists seem to show superior understanding of how humans think and behave suspiciously rarely. They seem to show substandard understanding far more often.

Oh? And why would you say that?