I am. Others are free to look it up as well.
On matters of faith and morals, I will stick by my church.
Actually, no.
I understand your frustration.
It is difficult to argue in favor of something that causes so much harm.
- Status
It is difficult to argue in favor of something that causes so much harm.
P
phil19034
Guest
To be fair, I think the word “prevalent” is a little subjective. Some people can make the argument that 5% is prevalent while others would make the argument that 50+% is required.
A more “archaic” definition of the word, according to Merriam-Webster is “Powerful.” One can seriously argue that this a “powerful” argument against transition surgery.
Dictionary.com says “effectual or efficacious” for its archaic definition.
Definition of PREVALENT
generally or widely accepted, practiced, or favored : widespread; existing or occurring frequently : common; being in ascendancy : dominant… See the full definition
PREVALENT Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com
PREVALENT definition: widespread; of wide extent or occurrence; in general use or acceptance. See examples of prevalent used in a sentence.
www.dictionary.com
H
HarryStotle
Guest
You aren’t claiming that confusion, in general (or ignorance or lack of awareness) are medical conditions, are you?HarryStotle:
Is there doubt that it is a “medical condition”? If not - how would you describe gender dysphoria strong enough to lead to depression and risk of suicide?
Social pressures to conform along with confusion in the mind of the individual as to how to cope with those social pressures can be classified as dysphoria serious enough to lead to depression and suicide.
Take bullying, for example. The victim or target might be seriously depressed and even suicidal as a result. That does not mean, however, that the depression or suicidal ideation are medical conditions to be resolved by treating the victim. Sometimes confusion and depression, and even suicidal thoughts are caused by a flawed or abnormal society or social environment and not the individual living in it.
Let’s not presume that it isn’t the social psyche that has the problem. How is the ‘brain’ of society to be treated, in that case? Or does the DSM-5 deal with that at all. Eh, @Thorolfr? Perhaps Kandel should write a new book called The Disordered Society, if he is going to view the problem in its fullness.
To assume every problem, or even this one in particular, lies in the individual, would seem to be a presumption and not a fact that has been established, apart from pure presumption.
Last edited:
H
HarryStotle
Guest
A couple of points.vz71:
It’s not a delusion, nor a falsehood. Being delusional in fact eliminates a diagnosis of transgenderism. Have you actually read any of the medical literature on the subject, or the WPATH standards if care?
The only treatment for delusional thoughts is truth. And that begins with the fundamental premise within every thinking being that truth and reality are… well… fundamental.
To begin with the idea that delusions or false beliefs are somehow to be treated by therapeutic intervention is, itself, a delusion.
How about we just begin to think clearly to treat false notions, rather than take medications, have a lobotomy to remove the part of the brain that isn’t reasoning clearly, or even refer to the DSM-5 to achieve clarity?
I suppose believing that only the experts are capable of clarity of thought excuses everyone else from having that responsibility’ but that may well explain the mess we have gotten ourselves into – i.e., trusting that the experts know or have access to something significant that eludes the rest of us.
O
OraLabora
Guest
Again it’s not a delusion. The transgendered are keenly aware that their bodies are physiologically normal for their birth gender. They are keenly aware that this does not jive with their internal self-perception, and they are keenly aware of the implications of transition, and the implications of no transition, which is why so many commit suicide.
WPATH standards plainly state that from a psychiatric standpoint, the transgendered are not delusional. What’s delusional is persistently refuting medical science by saying the transgendered are delusional. You’re trying to make the evidence fit your foregone conclusion instead of letting the evidence inform your knowledge.
Getting closer.
Internal self-perception does not jive with the physical reality.
No matter the physical evidence, they believe something different.
That is the very definition of delusional.
T
Thorolfr
Guest
The point that some of us have been trying to make is that the internal sense of gender which might be at odds with the person’s anatomical sex is probably also a physical problem having to do with the way that person’s brain was wired, something which involves real physical neurons in their brain.
T
Thorolfr
Guest
True delusions are typical of psychotic disorders such as schizophrenia or bipolar disorder and these disorders definitely need therapeutic intervention almost always involving medication. When people with these disorders stop taking their medication, the delusions return because they suffer from real malfunctions in their brains that need to be treated. Telling a person with schizophrenia the “truth” isn’t going to make their delusions go away.
Last edited:
T
Thorolfr
Guest
There are often medical treatments that cause harm but are still the best treatment available. If a patient has cancer, he might be given chemotherapy which will make him sick and can cause some permanent damage to his body. But the hope is that the chemo will be able to kill the cancer before the cancer kills the patient and before the side effects of the chemo become intolerable to the patient and hopefully the harm the chemo drugs do to the patient is something that they will recover from after the cancer is eliminated. All sorts of other medications or treatments have negative side effects and the hope is that the benefit to the patient from the medication or treatment outweighs the possible harm that it might cause.
Last edited:
R
Rau
Guest
If a person asserts he is Napoleon Bonaparte, I’ll support your view he is delusional. If a typical looking boy asserts he has beautiful female breasts, I’ll support your view he is delusional. If a boy’s sense of self is as a girl - that’s explainable in other ways. The only evidence for “sense of self” is what an individual experiences and reports.
Treatment options are limited and for some sufferers, the condition is debilitating to the point of risk of suicide. The “transitioning” process is an accommodation. No one needs to deny their actual biology (which would be delusional).
No one is claiming a change in biology results from surgery.
L
libbeylu
Guest
I am so sorry for “trans teen regrets his ‘Frankenstein’ transition.” Here is a O (hug) from me…this is all I can offer because I am lost for words. I don’t understand the transgender condition…and don’t understand homosexuality either…for example, in a friend’s family…his brother is homosexual…his sister has a lesbian daughter, his other sister has a lesbian daughter, and his third sister has a homosexual son. This is very disturbing to me because of the lack of information psychologists say about gays…they should just accept their condition…this is not genetic…then why are there so may gays in one family? Anyone…please advise…if there is an answer let me know…shocked and very confused…
R
Rau
Guest
I think you are intentionally avoiding the explanation given to you. You want to wrap up everything in the words “male” or “female” - as represented in biology. Thus if someone’s sense of self is “not male”, you judge they are questioning their obvious biology and must be delusional. Now while I might agree that the human “specs” nominate only 2 variants, we know things go “wrong”. The current medical judgement is that the brains of males / females are formed (all going well) a little differently. And if the formation appropriate to biology does not occur, there’s a problem. Not a delusion - but a problem.
It is a shocking & horrendous answer. But in serious cases - should it be outlawed no matter what? What is the better option?
O
OraLabora
Guest
Re: delusions and transgenderism. From the Standards of Care:
Straw man.
T
Thorolfr
Guest
How is that a straw man? Harry said: “The only treatment for delusional thoughts is truth…To begin with the idea that delusions or false beliefs are somehow to be treated by therapeutic intervention is, itself, a delusion…How about we just begin to think clearly to treat false notions, rather than take medications.” That is obviously not true for most people who suffer from delusions and so I only pointed that out in response to what he had written.Thorolfr:
Straw man.
Last edited:
H
HarryStotle
Guest
It isn’t clear to me that merely “being keenly aware” of something – I.e., being thoroughly convinced about that thing – is sufficient to rule out delusion. There are many in institutions of higher learning who are thoroughly convinced (and delusional) about many things precisely BECAUSE of their expertise.HarryStotle:
Again it’s not a delusion. The transgendered are keenly aware that their bodies are physiologically normal for their birth gender. They are keenly aware that this does not jive with their internal self-perception, and they are keenly aware of the implications of transition, and the implications of no transition, which is why so many commit suicide.
WPATH standards plainly state that from a psychiatric standpoint, the transgendered are not delusional. What’s delusional is persistently refuting medical science by saying the transgendered are delusional. You’re trying to make the evidence fit your foregone conclusion instead of letting the evidence inform your knowledge.
Might I suggest that trusting medical science always and everywhere might itself be a delusion?
H
HarryStotle
Guest
You claim “is probably” as if you have some kind of certainty about the physiological grounds upon which individuals come to believe things to be true.vz71:
The point that some of us have been trying to make is that the internal sense of gender which might be at odds with the person’s anatomical sex is probably also a physical problem having to do with the way that person’s brain was wired, something which involves real physical neurons in their brain.
If the way the brain is wired is the determiner for what anyone comes to believe what they do, you may as well lump all pretensions to having knowledge of the truth as being delusional because according to your lights we are caused by the way our brain is wired to believe things. That implies logical grounds as precedents to beliefs or knowledge are ruled out a priori because beliefs, according to you, are merely caused to occur by brain chemistry and neural wiring.
We don’t, then, have reasons to believe what we do, we are merely caused to believe what we do.
Perhaps we have all been deluded into thinking what we do based on brain circuitry, and nothing is really true – not even the proposition that brain chemistry causes our beliefs.
R
Rau
Guest
I’m struggling to work out your point here. Noone’s brain is telling them their biology is not what it is. Observation of matters biological enable establishment of the truth about one’s biology. And yet there are individuals (who know and accept that truth) yet experience a different sense of self. They are not at all deluded about their biology. Something is amiss.
That’s quite wrong, as explained.
Last edited:
H
HarryStotle
Guest
Perhaps what is amiss is that you are reading a response that I gave to @Thorolfr without reading what he wrote. Let me help you out.HarryStotle:
I’m struggling to work out your point here. Noone’s brain is telling them their biology is not what it is. Observation of matters biological enable establishment of the truth about one’s biology. And yet there are individuals (who know and accept that truth) yet experience a different sense of self. They are not at all deluded about their biology. Something is amiss.
So, yes, someone was indeed attempting to make the case that their “brain is telling them their biology is not what it is.”
Of course, that’s “quite wrong” – that was my point in responding to him – but feel free to speak to @thorolfr about that. Perhaps you can add your own reply to his post?HarryStotle:
That’s quite wrong, as explained.
Last edited:
- Status