The Slope is Slippery

[Etype]

Just how I expected people would react. Now if the transgender in that situation calls the police, the women could possibly be charged with harassment. If they touched them, assault and battery, and then whatever other laws there are out there.

Is it so absurd that women would be creeped out by a guy playing dress up, and in their bathroom???

That's exactly what he was doing.

 

[Devildoc]

It will take a while but legislation on such issues will eventally fall toward tolerance and acceptance, I think.

Part of my problem. You cannot force tolerance and acceptance. You can legislate it, I suppose, but does anyone honestly think laws are going to change anyone's opinions on this?

Part of my problem. This is all part of sexual deviance. Statistically, biologically. A very, very small percentage of the overall population. Big Government is telling everyone "hey, it's OK, it's who these people are, and now you have to make room at the Table of Equality."

 

[Ooh-Rah]

All the politics of this aside, here is what I see the eventual outcome of this being - most people won't even notice. Creepy molester dude is not really going to change his habits, and most of the men who identify as women have likely been using the ladies room anyway. I just hope I have my camera phone going when I'm standing in line at a restaurant or sporting event when one gender's restroom is FULL and folks of the other sex "decide" they feel like the other sex to avoid long lines. I know some dudes who would absolutely do this, singing "I feel like a woman" all the way into the stall. Especially once alcohol comes into play, that will absolutely happen.

 

[DocIllinois]

Part of my problem. This is all part of sexual deviance. Statistically, biologically. A very, very small percentage of the overall population. Big Government is telling everyone "hey, it's OK, it's who these people are, and now you have to make room at the Table of Equality."

The American Psychiatric Association states that "gender nonconformity is not in itself a mental disorder."

I will be interested in the ad hominem attacks on the APA that may now ensue.

GD Fact Sheet

 

[Devildoc]

The American Psychiatric Association states that "gender nonconformity is not in itself a mental disorder."

I will be interested in the ad hominem attacks on the APA that may now ensue.

I know all about the DSM. I also know that before each edition is published the APA far from unified; it's even far from being a consensus. But that's not going to change. And now, April, 2016, we are all OK with it. But what is the next acceptable deviant behavior? Bestiality, because I feel like my dog is my equal and I have a sexual attraction? Where is the line, any line, that says a behavior is OK or not OK?

Edited to add: generally I think the APA does a pretty good job. But it's an institution made of men like any other, and as such I think susceptible to socio-political pressure.

Big Government is, in fact, pushing it. Ramming it. Forcing it (via legislation). Still, my argument stands: it is biologically and statistically deviant behavior.

 

[DocIllinois]

I know all about the DSM. I also know that before each edition is published the APA far from unified; it's even far from being a consensus. But that's not going to change. And now, April, 2016, we are all OK with it. But what is the next acceptable deviant behavior? Bestiality, because I feel like my dog is my equal and I have a sexual attraction? Where is the line, any line, that says a behavior is OK or not OK?

Edited to add: generally I think the APA does a pretty good job. But it's an institution made of men like any other, and as such I think susceptible to socio-political pressure.

Big Government is, in fact, pushing it. Ramming it. Forcing it (via legislation). Still, my argument stands: it is biologically and statistically deviant behavior.

Ad hominem attack on the DSM-V itself, which would include the hundreds evaluating of researchers, editors and administrators, 15-20 APA appointed criteria review committees covering each category, those commissioned for field trials for any research gaps keeping the evidence from sufficient strength, and the final review by the DSM Task Force; didn't see that one coming. Bravo.

Although, even if all of that weren't in place, its still the reference for guiding clinical decisions in the mental health field. Contact the D.C. office of the APA with suggested changes, to include presentation of greater supporting evidence than what underlies a particular entry determination.

 

[Devildoc]

Ad hominem attack on the DSM-V itself, which would include the hundreds evaluating of researchers, editors and administrators, 15-20 APA appointed criteria review committees covering each category, those commissioned for field trials for any research gaps keeping the evidence from sufficient strength, and the final review by the DSM Task Force; didn't see that one coming. Bravo.

Although, even if all of that weren't in place, its still the reference for guiding clinical decisions in the mental health field. Contact the D.C. office of the APA with suggested changes, to include presentation of greater supporting evidence than what underlies a particular entry determination.

Well, golly. You got me. Because I don't agree in lock-step therefore I must be a knuckle-dragging troglodyte. The shrinks always get it right. Always. Since you dig using Latin, may I suggest we declare a Modus Vivendi?

 

[Diamondback 2/2]

 

[TLDR20]

Well, golly. You got me. Because I don't agree in lock-step therefore I must be a knuckle-dragging troglodyte. The shrinks always get it right. Always. Since you dig using Latin, may I suggest we declare a Modus Vivendi?

I always think it is funny when people in positions in science, particularly in my field of Nursing, are very quick to take the scientific evidence on lets say Hospital Acquired Infections, or utilizing EBP. But when the science doesn't agree with their personal beliefs on another issue, they are simply being questioning scientists... I had a conversation with a girl(fellow bachelor of science student) about how she believes only some of what science says about stuff. So she believes in the citric acid cycle, but not biological evolution. She believes in schizophrenia, but not gender dysmorphia. Key words there are BELIEVE. Not evidence. You seem to be towing that line awfully closely.

 

[AKkeith]

I always think it is funny when people in positions in science, particularly in my field of Nursing, are very quick to take the scientific evidence on lets say Hospital Acquired Infections, or utilizing EBP. But when the science doesn't agree with their personal beliefs on another issue, they are simply being questioning scientists... I had a conversation with a girl(fellow bachelor of science student) about how she believes only some of what science says about stuff. So she believes in the citric acid cycle, but not biological evolution. She believes in schizophrenia, but not gender dysmorphia. Key words there are BELIEVE. Not evidence. You seem to be towing that line awfully closely.

Well. People and scientist of their time said the world was flat. If no one ever questioned that we'd have been in for a big surprise when we sent someone to space.

Same thing with the Earth being the center of the universe and the Sun orbiting us.


How can you say it's wrong for people, Especially people in science, to question what we Think we know as fact?

 

[TLDR20]

Well. People and scientist of their time said the world was flat. If no one ever questioned that we'd have been in for a big surprise when we sent someone to space.

Same thing with the Earth being the center of the universe and the Sun orbiting us.


How can you say it's wrong for people, Especially people in science, to question what we Think we know as fact?

Your argument is terrible, but I will go along with it.

People still believe the earth is flat, should I give them credence because they choose to question the vastly believed reality?

People believe vaccines are unsafe. Should I give that belief credence even though there are thousands of studies refuting it?

Some things are researched to the point where you/me/anyone as a non-expert no longer get to chime in. I don't get to say the citric acid cycle is bullshit because I don't believe it. I don't get to question if stars are made of what I'm told they are, becuase I don't have a background in physics and chemistry

As was pointed out, if it were bullshit, people are welcome to do their own research, have that research peer reviewed, and publish that research. The whole point of science is to do disprove what someone else said is true. But you don''t just get to say something. Not without evidence, particularly if you should know better.

Also I don't think people have thought the earth is flat as much as you thought. Surely some people did, but it was observed a pretty long time ago that the earth was round. The ancient greeks were the first to describe the earth as spherical. The flat earth thing you are talking about being proposed by scientists is not even accurate.

 

[Devildoc]

I always think it is funny when people in positions in science, particularly in my field of Nursing, are very quick to take the scientific evidence on lets say Hospital Acquired Infections, or utilizing EBP. But when the science doesn't agree with their personal beliefs on another issue, they are simply being questioning scientists... I had a conversation with a girl(fellow bachelor of science student) about how she believes only some of what science says about stuff. So she believes in the citric acid cycle, but not biological evolution. She believes in schizophrenia, but not gender dysmorphia. Key words there are BELIEVE. Not evidence. You seem to be towing that line awfully closely.

Believe me, I am fully aware, or try to be, of my own perspectives in this area. And like you, I have my ear to the ground with regard to what other people in healthcare think, and I have heard enough people with enough questions regarding this issue to think it's not 100% settled science. So while I am aware of my own perspectives, I try to balance them with the barometer of what's going on around me. I note the irony that we (people in the medical field) are asked to use critical thinking, challenge the status quo, keep asking questions, and when we do the answer is often "because science." So as to not advertise where I work (and you know), this place is as bad as any and worse than some.

As for GD, specifically, I guess where I am challenged is whereas the DSM states "gender nonconformity is not in itself a mental disorder" but the critical element of gender dysphoria is the presence of clinically significant distress associated with the condition, is the extraordinary latitude in defining "clinically significant distress" and a wide variance in how it is treated. So having it is OK; not a psychiatric disorder, but being sad over it is?

To be fair, I am engaged in this area in a couple of other areas: my cousin's son, a teen, is somewhere on the GD spectrum; a former coworker, formerly Ned, is now Leann. We all have frank and civil dialogue on this, so while I fully note I may not be "in agreement" I like to think my position isn't so lock-stepped as to be totally obstinate.

 

[Devildoc]

Also I don't think people have thought the earth is flat as much as you thought. Surely some people did, but it was observed a pretty long time ago that the earth was round. The ancient greeks were the first to describe the earth as spherical. The flat earth thing you are talking about being proposed by scientists is not even accurate.

It is also Biblical and predates the Greeks.

 

[Etype]

It is also Biblical and predates the Greeks.

There are strong arguments in the Bible to the earth being round.

eta- just noticed that's what you meant, I'll shut up.

 

[AWP]

eta- just noticed that's what you meant, I'll shut up.

That's not how the internet* works.

* - I no longer have to capitalize it, Grammar Nazis

 

[TLDR20]

It is also Biblical and predates the Greeks.

Yeah, I don't think so. Does the Bible Teach a Spherical Earth

 

[Devildoc]

Yeah, I don't think so. Does the Bible Teach a Spherical Earth

Honestly the Bible teaches neither a flat nor round Earth; however, most of the scriptures taken in context with observation of the Earth's relationship to the sky indicates a belief the Earth was round. As I am off for the evening I can attach relevant info tomorrow. It is easy to interpret in belief one way or the other, though. To me the arguments for a round Earth are compelling enough.

 

[AWP]

I can't wrap my head around using the Bible as scientific evidence of anything anymore than other religious texts or even "histories" of the Greek and Roman eras.

 

[TLDR20]

I can't wrap my head around using the Bible as scientific evidence of anything anymore than other religious texts or even "histories" of the Greek and Roman eras.

That isn't what anyone was doing. We were simply pointing out that almost no one has thought the earth was flat for the past 2000 years at least.

 

[AWP]

That isn't what anyone was doing. We were simply pointing out that almost no one has thought the earth was flat for the past 2000 years at least.

You just had a brief back and forth about the Bible and spherical vs. flat.