I thought it’s widely-agreed that gender dysphoria is a mental illness. The debate lies in how to treat it—try to realign the busy with the mind or the mind with the body.
Zeezee already has a great reply. I’d also like to add that gender dysphoria isn’t the same as being trans, it’s possible to be trans and not have dysphoria
It may seem like a pedantic difference but you are missing a key part of what’s going on here. Nobody is challenging that gender dysphoria is a bad thing to experience… This policy is saying it’s kosher to proclaim “transness is a mental illness” which means in effect that encompasses gender euphoria and all expressions of gender incongruity as symptoms of a mental illness. It’s a subtle linguistic difference but one makes it possible to publicly derride trans people as being delusional or harmful to people around them or dangers to themselves and push for “curing” all transness by approaching being trans as a failure state.
It depends on the “science of the times.” Crazy concept, I know.
It’s why psychology is considered a “soft science” and doesn’t deserve the authority that hard sciences have.
It’s a crazy concept to apply “science of the times” to only psychology, but not every other branch of science and medicine, as there are huge holes in understanding everywhere.
I have no idea what sciences would be considered “hard” in this definition.
Not really. Psychology has a massive reproducibility issue right now.
You’re right, all other fields have been completely unaffected!
Psychology stands out with how many results are not reproducible.
While in physics, we can fundamentally change our theoretical understanding of very core concepts without impacting the reproducibility of experiments, and any new theory must also satisfy existing, reproducible experiments.
Same goes for chemistry, computer science, geology, etc. You can discover differences in core, fundamental concepts without invalidating existing experiments.
Math is pretty solid
Actually that’s a common misconception - while gender dysphoria is listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) - it’s not actually a mental disorder (similar to how the DSM includes physiological and environmental issues like Insomnia or Social Exclusion) - main reason it’s there is for admin purposes and to facilitate treatment access.
However, a condition like body dysmorphia (think Anorexia Nervosa) is considered a mental disorder because the issue is the mind incorrectly perceiving the body - therefore it can be treated using psychotherapy which enables the mind to correctly perceive the body and prevent harm.
People who experience gender dysphoria on the other hand - actually correctly perceive their body (that’s where the distress comes from) so psychotherapy doesn’t work to alleviate this - as you can’t therapy away an accurate perception (think gay conversion therapy)
Which is why after many decades of research the only treatment that’s been found to work is aligning the body with the mind - as at that point the mind continues perceiving the body correctly but this time it’s congruent with it’s mental model which alleviates the distress.
Hope this helps :)
Which is why after many decades of research the only treatment that’s been found to work is aligning the body with the mind - as at that point the mind continues perceiving the body correctly but this time it’s congruent with it’s mental model which alleviates the distress.
Just because the best treatment involves physical alteration doesn’t change whether it’s a mental disorder. You don’t classify disorders by how they’re addressed, you classify them as where they occur. Whether we term it a disorder, incongruence, etc, the fact remains that the distress happens in the mind.
That said, not all disorders (or whatever you want to call them) need to be “fixed” (i.e. made to be in line w/ the majority), they’re merely a way to distinguish one group of the population from another. Sometimes the best treatment is no treatment, sometimes is physical alteration, sometimes it’s medication, and sometimes it’s psychotherapy.
The average person shouldn’t really care what treatment option an individual chooses to alleviate their symptoms, and the “best” option can very well vary by person. Whether we call it a “disorder” isn’t the issue, the issue is the social impact of assigning a label (i.e. how others react to it). So to me, calling it a disorder should never be against any forum rules, the rules should instead focus on banning harassment, and calling it a disorder could constitute harassment given context.
So why leave this comment? You yourself identify the social impact of “assigning a label (i.e. how others react to it)” - so for what purpose are you arguing for what labels are to be assigned?
Can you not just accept that the people impacted by this label (and the scientific community) have recognized that this label is harmful to individuals and not feel the need to chime in?
Or do you feel your desire for pedantry is more important than the negative impact such a label can have on marginalized groups?
What’s gained by insisting on potentially harmful labels?
Even by your own admission, labels have social impact. So why are you choosing to argue for harmful ones?
EDIT: If you’re actually arguing for better acceptance of people with mental disorders - I would recommend volunteering at a mental health institution or defending people’s right to self-determination.
for what purpose are you arguing for what labels are to be assigned?
I believe in freedom of speech, and I don’t think any particular phrases, terms, or verbiage is absolutely unacceptable.
If you ban certain words, people will just substitute them for others with the same underlying meaning. Look at how people dance around YouTube’s TOS to communicate the same thing without using certain words (unalive, “super mario brothers,” etc). Banning people for using certain terminology or discussing certain topics completely misses the point, which is eliminating intolerance.
this label is harmful
It’s not the label that’s harmful, it’s the intent and meaning behind it. Policies for a platform should be based on the root of the issue, not the symptoms.
So your argument is “people will break the rules so we shouldn’t have any rules because it doesn’t matter”?
This is the classic nazi bar argument - which has been proven time and time again that “free speech absolutism” consistently leads to spaces becoming hostile to marginalized groups
I see you have your heart in the right place but by insisting on everyone having equal rights to say anything - you are inherently favoring the oppressor over the oppressed.
I don’t think we’ll come to an agreement so I’ll stop replying as this feels futile to argue over.
EDIT: Just FYI this is what you’re defending in this instance
This has always been the case.
Zuckerberg has mental illness.
Zuckerberg has a moral defect. Evil is not a medical problem.
Well, evil is a medical problem for other people, like those with profitably denied insurance claims.
Zuck is one of humanity’s cancers
Maybe the next Luigi can fix the Z problem
might as well kill the tr*mp and the couch fucker
What do you mean “now?” I’ve been seeing people say that for years.
It’s just they’re updating their terms now that Trump is in power. Hate started to rise since the beginning of GenAI on the platform, I highly suspect due to the backlash from socially progressive people against it, and techbros didn’t appreciate that. They’re going mask off now after the elections.
Yeah the left wants things that actually hinder the oligarchs, the right wants to complain about them but will settle for people they don’t like being hurt. Tech companies understand that.
There’s also the fact that the bay area has spent quite a while having the sort of people who love to treat equal rights as a thought exercise
Yup, and if you reported it as hate speech they’d review it and say it doesn’t go against community guidelines.
And then YOU get banned for “abusing the report feature”.
Reported a blatantly bigoted post saying that all gays should be burnt alive and I got a 30 day account suspension.
I feel comfortable decreeing conservatives are a mental illness.
More of a logic plague
A fairly large percentage of straight people definitely have mental illness. Likely the same ones that will be saying the same thing about gay/trans.
I mean… We do sometimes. 🤷🏻♂️
For example I have ADHD, autism and BPD.
Mental disorder would be more fitting.
When people talk about “LGBTQ+ people have mental illness” they don’t mean any of that.
They mean “being LGBTQ+ is a mental illness, and these people first need to be attempted to be cured, if that fails then need to be removed from society”.
The problem here isn’t necessarily labeling being LGBTQ+ as a mental illness, the problem is the assumed solution. I’m not a psychologist or a psychiatrist, nor have I talked to one at length about gender or sexual orientation, but I do know that having an illness does not imply that the illness needs to be “fixed,” only the discomfort associated with the illness needs to be addressed. Sometimes “fixing” a problem is the best solution (e.g. a broken bone, depression, etc), and sometimes accepting a problem is the best solution (e.g. blindness, autism spectrum, etc).
You can only be cured of a mental disorder if you want to be cured. My understanding is that most LGBTQ+ don’t see their divergence as something to be cured, so whether we classify it that way is irrelevant, the best treatment here is social acceptance and maybe physical alteration (hormonal therapy, surgery, etc). That has been proven time and time again, and unless someone comes up with a better solution, it’s the prudent option to take.
So I don’t see being LGBTQ+ as a “problem” to be “solved,” rather I see intolerance of LGBTQ+ people as a problem to be solved. LGBTQ+ people don’t harm themselves or others by being the way they are, but intolerant people absolutely harm LGBTQ+ people by treating them the way they do.
So does Lemmy.
😱
Not really, although we should.
I left facebook after years of having meta not do anything about blatant transphobia and ableism that I reported to them. I got a death threat late last year and that was the final straw for me
They put Dana White who heads the UFC on the board, all because Zuckerberg did Jujitsu… Jujitsu and the UFC has stange political affiliations to chechen forces Putin sometimes employs.
They’re a hyper masculine male traditionalist culture. So it all ties back into that BS.
As a MMA enjoyer, Dana White being put in charge of anything is fucking scary. He is an extremely evil and ruthless man. He is so open about treating fighters like complete shit saying “its better to keep them hungry because then they are more motivated to preform”.
Dana is at the forefront of Saudi sportswashing and pushing right wing culture on young men. He hooked trump up with Nelk and got Trump infront of massive influencers and their audiences.
Hearing Zuck speak longform a few years ago I actually thought he was left leaning and a reasonable guy. But that was bullshit, the guys morals are about as strong as a wet paper bag.
because Zuckerberg did Jujitsu
LMFAO that coordination failure of a leek I have to see that.
I can’t believe this exists. Watch carefully how Lex Fridman (yes that one) goes to great lengths to not kill Zuckerberg in training.
As to martial arts in general and assholery, I’ll just leave this here.
Okay 🤷♂️.
The problem is that people want to censor what they don’t want to see for others.
“If I don’t like it, then neither should you.”
There is little to no repercussions for Meta.
On facebook and Twitter and others, we cannot say whatever we want. Truth is suppressed while disinformation is allowed. Saying LGBTQ+ people are mentally ill is allowed but mentioning even the word “cisgender” is suppressed. LGBTQ+ content will get removed for being “sexual content” but straight content that’s equivalent will be allowed. LGBTQ+ people face repeated harrassment on these platforms, sometimes to the level of terrorism; if they don’t feel safe posting about LGBTQ+ topics, they cannot say whatever they want. Hell, they get doxed but there’s rarely repercussions for the doxers.
Imagine if I spread lies about you, call you a pedophile, doxx you and then someone SWATs you; would you still feel like you can say anything?
Equality and fairness does not exist on these social platforms.
The problem is that people are vulnerable to disinformation and now there is little to no pushback on these platforms.
In a world where people are expert critical thinkers with no biases and perfect rationality it wouldn’t matter, but that isn’t how people work in the slightest.
Who gets to decide what’s disinformation?
Once upon a time, scientific consensus classified homosexuality as a mental disorder.
This is why psychology is a soft science and not worthy of the authority afforded to hard sciences.
oooh. now do economics!!
Social sciences are important even if finding truth is messier and happens over a longer period.
In any case, misinformation is often not something that can argued as just a difference of opinion. There are obvious cases like outright lies about the occurrence of events such as “immigrants eating pets en masse” or “the bowling green massacre”, or that the “greenhouse warming effect” doesn’t exist.
Fact checking doesn’t have to be outright removal either, it just needs a critical analysis of the facts, and people can make up their own minds.
No, no, no. Some people can say as they choose, some cannot. In any case, we’re all forced to listen to it and participate.
Who’s forcing you to read half baked reckons on FB?
Exactly my point. No one is forced to read bullshit on FB.
“It’s not right that things can be said on TV or the floor of Congress, but not on our platforms,”
I somewhat respect that statement actually.
When we start to say “bad things” about the oligarchy watch hoe fast they shut that down
The problem with western oligarchs is that they rarely step foot on public land …so it’s really hard to track their schedules let alone get a shoot shot off.
A fun non-lethal approach is to just try to sabotage their planes while they’re on the ground. Shooting a hole in the window of a flying aircraft, generally frowned upon. Shooting a hole in a billionaire’s sky yacht while it’s empty in it’s hangar…well that’s just property damage that happens to prevent them from poisoning the atmosphere.
Mark was never a source of good in this world.
According to the text messages, Zuckerberg wrote, “Yeah, so if you ever need info about anyone at Harvard, just ask me. I have over 4,000 emails, pictures, addresses, SNS.”
In response, a friend inquired, “What? How did you manage to obtain all that?”
To which Zuckerberg callously replied, “People just submitted it. I don’t know why they ‘trust me.’ Dumb f****.”
