Transgenderism to be declared mental illness by ACP in Summer 2016 statement

[Lion_IRC]

If it is only a “tiny minority,” then how does one know whether it is statistically significant enough to prove a correlation let alone causation?

You don’t need to ‘prove’ correlation. The data is what it is.
Event ‘A’ and event ‘B’ are both simultaneously true.
The point here is that children who are sexually abused have a greater statistical likelihood of becoming abusers.
And whether it’s a majority or a minority, the main difference is the arithmetic of how many abuse cases are statistically likely to result in the future.

Further, what about straight people who were sexually abused as children? Wouldn’t some of them also go on to be sexual abusers?

Yes that seems likely based on the data. And of course we would want to know the background of the person who abuses in those cases as well.

If so, what is your point?

This is bigger than just one single point. The social pathologies of sexual abuse and mental/sexual disorders are like a monster with many heads.

Fortunately, abnormal and undesirable sexual inclinations or addictions can be treated and managed in many cases - reparative therapy.

Do you believe that sexually abused children become only or mainly gay when they are adults?

No. Do you?
What we do know is that gay people are statistically more likely to have been abused as children. A fact which may partially explain their higher rates of self-harm, partner-on-partner violence, substance abuse…

And what does all of this have to do with transgender people?

Well, you would have to ask the other posters who raised the issue.
But I think the LGBTQIA acronym is deliberately meant to be inclusive and it’s not clear to me whether there’s a clear line of demarcation between bisexual/homosexual/transsexual

 

[edwest2]

Good info for those doing apologetics on this issue:

The ACP statement, written by the ACP’s president Michelle A. Cretella, vice president Quentin Van Meter, and Johns Hopkins psychiatrist Paul McHugh, listed eight reasons why the ideology believing in gender transitioning is harmful. …

Fourth, using puberty-blocking hormones to reverse a natural biological sexual trait can be dangerous both physically and mentally.

Fifth, up to 98% of gender ambiguous boys and 88% of gender ambiguous girls are likely to accept their biological sex after passing through puberty naturally, according to the APA.

Sixth, “Children who use puberty blockers to impersonate the opposite sex will require cross-sex hormones in late adolescence.”

Full article at Daily Wire

Thank you for posting that.

Ed

 

[Bruised_Reed]

Yes. Of course I can. You think I invented those? LOL

I don’t think you made them up by yourself; I think you are repeating erroneous information. I used to hear the same thing and believed it.

But before I do, could you tell me what difference it will make? Will it change anything?
Often, people are shown surprising facts only to subsequently dismiss them as irrelevant.

I will dismiss them if they are from a poor source. I just question that you can make a bold statement like that, say you can back it up with data but yet you have yet to do so.

Suppose it’s true that gay men are much more likely to have been sexually abused as children.
How would that change your attitude to gay men or the ACP

My answer is probably similar to yours when you find out that the majority of men have not been sexually abused. The ACP has no credibility to me at this time.

You don’t think its true that children who have been sexually abused are much more likely to sexually offend in later life. You don’t think there is such a thing as a cycle of abuse?

Yes, but not regarding this topic. There isn’t a lot of evidence for it.

What on earth do think IS the cause otherwise?

The cause of what exactly? Being molested? Being a pedophile? Being a child molester?

 

[Lion_IRC]

Lion IRC;14062850:

Yes. Of course I can. You think I invented those? LOL But before I do, could you tell me what difference it will make? Will it change anything?
Often, people are shown surprising facts only to subsequently dismiss them as irrelevant.

…I will dismiss them if they are from a poor source. I just question that you can make a bold statement like that, say you can back it up with data but yet you have yet to do so.

“poor sources”?
That sounds ominously like shooting the messenger rather than appraising the message itself.
Facts are facts even if you dislike the “source”.
Isn’t that the point of science? That data is either empirical or it isn’t. And whether the science is done by an atheist or a Christian or a homophile or a homophobe the scientific method cuts across your bias against “poor sources”.
Are you free to pick and choose what sources you personally believe are acceptable?
How does that work? What happens when someone says your sources are “poor”?

Lion IRC;14062850:

Suppose it’s true

that gay men are much more likely to have been sexually abused as children.
How would that change your attitude to gay men or the ACP…My answer is probably similar to yours when you find out that the majority of men have not been sexually abused.

What do you mean? I haven’t asserted otherwise. Please re-read my posts carefully.
I’ve never claimed that the majority of gay men have been sexually abused.
/me waves goodbye to the strawman.

The ACP has no credibility to me at this time.

That’s nice. But you see we aren’t talking about your bias against certain sources which you personally deem to be “poor” - or perhaps you are accusing the ACP of blatant dishonesty. I don’t know. And I don’t really care except to say that when you ask for sources/citations I don’t think you can reserve the right to selectively pick and choose which you will accept.
Hence my reason for qualifying in advance whether it was worth going to the trouble of playing “Google Bus Boy” for you if I was wasting my time.

Lion IRC;14062850:

You don’t think its true that children who have been sexually abused are much more likely to sexually offend in later life. You don’t think there is such a thing as a cycle of abuse?
What on earth do think IS the cause otherwise?

…The cause of what exactly? Being molested? Being a pedophile? Being a child molester?

The cause of the cycle of sexual abuse.
I argue that sexually abused children are statistically more likely to become offenders because of their childhood experience.
If that is not the causal factor - and if you dispute this claim - then what do you otherwise believe causes the tendency?

 

[Rau]

Facts are facts even if you dislike the “source”.

Lion, statements often pretend to portray facts, when they don’t. Non-experts in a given field judge the veracity of statements (alleged facts) by various means, but chief among them is the credibility of the source. In matters scientific, credible sources are typically those with the following characteristics: Independent of vested interests, respected widely as an authority, peer reviewed.

It’s reasonable to be quite circumspect in accepting as scientific “fact” information from sources lacking these characteristics.

 

[Lion_IRC]

I guess I should ask to see the credentials of anyone who claims to be the arbiter of what is and is not a “poor source”.

Otherwise how will I know who to trust when someone on an Internet forum asserts that a certain source isn’t credible[sup]TM[/sup]

 

[Rau]

I guess I should ask to see the credentials of anyone who claims to be the arbiter of what is and is not a “poor source”.

Otherwise how will I know who to trust when someone on an Internet forum asserts that a certain source isn’t credible[sup]TM[/sup]

We should all be able to make judgements about the credibility of sources. Otherwise, one can only guess as to the reliability of information.

 

[Lion_IRC]

OR…
We could use the empirical scientific method and not dismiss facts based on personal bias.

I guess I’m bothered by the accusation of dishonesty implicit in rejecting fact claims NOT because there’s conflicting/competing evidence or uncertainty in how those facts can be variously interpreted - but because the people who present those scientific facts aren’t trusted.

We can’t have two sides of an academic argument each dismissing one another’s evidence on the basis of a preconceived mistrust of the other side’s motive.
That’s not enlightened debate. It’s a nil-all-draw which won’t get you anywhere because your opponent will simply match your talk-to-the-hand gainsaying.

#fedeism

 

[Rau]

…I guess I’m bothered by…rejecting facts…because the people who present those scientific facts aren’t trusted.

On what basis are statements to be accepted as fact absent an objective conclusion about the credibility of the source? When I read a paper by well known reputable scientists published in the journal Nature - why might I be inclined to believe their assertions and conclusions? Because the source is credible. When the source is NOT known to me, or far less established (or worse, tainted in some way), I don’t necessarily reject the facts, rather I maintain a very cautious and non-committal position. And I think that is entirely rational and fair-minded.

 

[edwest2]

The APA reclassified Gender Identity Disorder (Transgendered) from a disorder to a dysphoria, which meant that if it didn’t bother you, no problem. The issue I have is that they presented no scientific data, but were apparently lobbied by LGBT activists for years to have the diagnosis changed. Lobbying to turn a disorder into not a disorder is not scientific or rational.

ncregister.com/daily-news/psychiatrys-new-normal-transgendered-persons

Ed

 

[Rau]

The APA reclassified Gender Identity Disorder (Transgendered) from a disorder to a dysphoria, which meant that if it didn’t bother you, no problem. The issue I have is that they presented no scientific data, but were apparently lobbied by LGBT activists for years to have the diagnosis changed. Lobbying to turn a disorder into not a disorder is not scientific or rational.

ncregister.com/daily-news/psychiatrys-new-normal-transgendered-persons

Psychiatry is somewhat hobbled by its lack of an understanding of the underlying factors which drive various conditions. If by “disorder” we mean conditions which:

• put someone at risk; or
• cause distress; or
• prevent a person operating in society

well so be it. But what underpins their condition? What is “wrong”? Can it be avoided, eased or overcome?

For me, the issue is not the classification as a disorder, or a different term, but the view as to whether anything is even wrong! For homosexuality, many deny anything is wrong. I don’t think we’re quite there with “gender identity”, but only because a significant number of the persons involved know there is something wrong as they are distressed.

 

[ricmat]

For me, the issue is not the classification as a disorder, or a different term, but the view as to whether anything is even wrong! For homosexuality, many deny anything is wrong.

Even if science says homosexuality is OK / normal / terrific we need to look at the moral questions.

Those who say it is OK echo the words of the serpent - “You certainly will not die.” This appeals to a lot of people, just as it did to Adam and Eve.

The first step to repentance is to admit the sin. If you believe that there is no sin, there is no need for repentance, and the process of getting to Heaven stops right there.

Morally, SSA is not a sin, but acting on it inappropriately is a sin (just as acting on opposite sex attraction inappropriately is a sin).

Helping bring new human life into the world and the next is one of God’s greatest gifts to humanity. Sexuality is fundamental to that gift. It is a gift that the serpent desperately wants to disfigure and destroy. Look where all the focus is these days - abortion, contraception, trans-humanism (live forever by downloading your memories into a computer), same sex “marriage”, “Heather has 2 Mommies”, Bruce Jenner, “if it feels good, do it.” And on and on.

SSA may be a “normal” thing in that it is a brain malfunction, or chemical imbalance. But it’s not an excuse to do unholy things. No matter how appealing that sounds.

 

[Rau]

My point is that it should be self-evident that something is wrong. The moral issues are a distinct issue.

 

[edwest2]

It is apparent that something is wrong. Who does anyone think provides judges with what they call evidence to declare something is not wrong? The APA.

apa.org/news/press/releases/2010/08/support-same-sex-marriage.aspx

It’s clearly about judges and politics now. By force of law, judges decided who gets to use which bathroom.

Gender identity? Facebook has 58 options which came from… where?

abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2014/02/heres-a-list-of-58-gender-options-for-facebook-users/

Ed

 

[Rau]

…SSA may be a “normal” thing in that it is a brain malfunction, or chemical imbalance.

At most, one could posit that there is some naturally occurring phenomenon at work. But it is plainly not normal.