Women's Issues

Bill Cosby is at 20+ women.

Ugh.

Edit : Errrr, my English may be coming across in a way that offends people, I have had that happen before, so I will try another wording? Sorry if I bother any one.

...

Want to explain that one? It does not seem like something that can be discredited.

edited 26th Jan '15 9:30:57 PM by Imca

Right, I know what GID is, but what I am trying to say is that by discrediting that are they saying that trangenderisim is not a thing? Or is it something else.

That is what I am curious about, but now confused, sorry.

No, not really, but what is currently being discussed is how hegemonic gender constructions stem more heavily from parental oversight and environmental contact, though neuro-chemical triggering mechanisms also play a role.

Two things to watch out for: be careful with the difference between gender identity and the genetic markers associated with sex. Also watch out for the use of the term "natural". It has a more specific meaning when dealing with socialization and biological triggering mechanisms. Dr. Emily W. Kane has written some fairly reliable essays on the subject of transgenderism. I can't remember his first name (Peter, I think?), but there's a certain Dr. La Freniere who has written on social categorization of gender dynamics. I think he might be one of the big players in transgender studies.

It's not about discrediting gender identity and transgender identity issues as a whole, but in revising the original research methodologies and the conclusions made from that information. I'm using the the term "original" very loosely.

EDIT: What Sixthhokage1 said below me.

edited 26th Jan '15 9:42:00 PM by Aprilla

The point of me quoting that paragraph was for the part about declassification.

Oh, sorry....

Yea, still not able to make much sense of it... I think basically the part I am trying to ask is that one of my friends is FtM transgender, does the declassification mean there trying to say he is not actually a guy? But rather some variation of something? Because that seems to be counter productive and worse for them.

Very confused right now, sorry.

edited 26th Jan '15 9:48:20 PM by Imca

To use an analogy, think of it kind of like autism. There are researchers and people with autism who find its identification as a disorder inaccurate. Referring to something like female-to-male transgenderism as a disorder can have unintentionally negative connotations. It's basically the "gay people are just confused and need treatment" argument, which is pertinent because homosexuality, like femininity, has often been regarded as a malady in many societies.

Ohhhh, okay, so the declassification is not to say "Your not really a dude" but to remove that as an argument? In that case it makes more sense, but when terms like non-binary gender are put in, it becomes a lot more confusing.

Very sorry about that. >.<

Well, some of the confusion comes from the way the DSM-V is organized, but you get the gist of it. Some of the psychology tropers here can probably explain it better.

I feel the declassification is basically trying to disentagle gender dysphoria from the idea that it is a "problem" that needs a "cure", talking gender roles and stuff, I don't know how to ask thing better phrased:

Like, if gender is, a social construction that we implant into children very early in their development, how can things like third gender, non-binary and transgender identities appear in cultures where they don't have actual third genders as part of the normative gender construction, like, if we are socialized from the very beginning to be boys or girls by family and peers, how does it appear at all?

OK: approaching conditions and disorders from another angle.

In biology and anatomy, you can spot a dysfunction and call it a disorder with quite a bit of confidence: that which restricts the orderly function of a body is a problem, more often than not. One you go about trying to fix or alleviate. This has been medicine's MO for millenia.

Psychology and psychiatry share this background of "find the thing going wrong; fix". The problem is... sometimes, the "wrong" isn't restricted to the patient. Society plays a major part in deciding which behaviours are "right" and "wrong" and exerts pressure on individuals... which impacts their wellbeing.

But, the majority isn't always consistent. Or in the right. And, many behaviours that don't fit in one social context or time period might well be advantageous in another. This social aspect to psychology makes the medical template used in treatment and diagnosis a little... inadequate. <_<

Hence the rethinking going on.

edited 26th Jan '15 11:23:39 PM by Euodiachloris

So it's not saying transgenderism isn't a thing, it's working out how the boop they're meant to classify it?

O and on the pony talk. I had a pony when I was younger, ponies are awesome, for boys and girls.

edited 27th Jan '15 2:19:12 AM by Silasw

Bingo. You can divide "mental illness" into rough groups: obvious physical impairment (brain damage, insensitivity to specific nerotransmitters, developmental quirks well outside the median... that kind of thing); not-so-obvious physical impairment (the "needle and haystack" brigade); social impairment that can be detrimental to patient health (or those around them) which may or may not be linked with anything physical (learned behaviour can be very maladaptive, sometimes); not-so-obvious social impairment (education can mask a lot of problems and gaps without addressing real issues); odd stuff that is neither good nor bad for individual health, given a little thought and which may just be an alternate expression of "human", but which society around the patient chooses to label a problem (and their fault, usually). Or "a mix of any or all". <_<

Keep in mind how many surplus daughters and sons get/got locked into asylums, workhouses, orphanages, attics, etc... mainly because caring for them was/is not deemed a family or community priority (particularly if they ran into trouble of the poverty, politics or unexpected baby kind). Regardless of how ill they were or weren't. A few years being isolated and treated as a pariah... Well, that'll make you crazy. -_-

edited 27th Jan '15 3:20:59 AM by Euodiachloris

Scholarly classification is important because it can be used in legal terminology as well. A court-testified person with a disorder that is not really a disorder can have really sad consequences. To put an example of the past which is something I hope we never see again, there is the case of Alan Turing, that upon being discovered as being gay, he was forced to go into chemical castration.

So the mere possible reclassification of GID into not a disorder but just abnormal behavior that does not impede a person's functioning (her I am using abnormal in the statistical sense, simply refering to it as something uncommon) would go a ways towards undermining certain legal procedures against alleged disorders.

The main concern with declassification of GID is coverage of trans-specific healthcare. This is why the ideology of trans-medicalism (with all the bullshit in it towards nonbinary and non-dysphoric trans folk) is clung to by some.

Correct but I do not think they are trying to declassify it, just reclassify it. Not as a disorder, but as something else.

Why the UFC is treating female fighters better than almost any other sport. From Joel Snape in the New Statesman.

Arson, Murder, and Jaywalking example right here ladies and gents. Also she is basically my new heroine. Thanks for sharing Ach.

Here is the issue, there is ways that someone can claim to be transgender, but actually be mentally ill, so there has to be some allocation on the books to allow treatment and diagnosis for legal and medical reasons.

Example: A girl who was severely abused as a child may push for gender reassignment because if she was a man, people wouldn't hurt her anymore.

(This is a real case I read about in grad school.)

She wasn't actually transgender, she was just trying to deal with what happened to her. Changing the language allows for the foundation to legitimately treat people like her while not demonizing actual transgender people but still giving them legal and medical protections for the care they may need: ex. allowing a legitimate defense that a transgender person using the bathroom of what they identify as to prevent mental and emotional distress.

What makes for an actual transgender then? How do you know for sure if they mean it? (I'm legitimately curious)

Well in that last specific case, Gab, she seems to fit more on a PTSD sort of classification rather than true gender disforia assuming the other criteria were also filled. So at least psychological classiffication wise she would not have been defenseless depending on how her doctors and law protection treated her case...

I don't agree with policing whether people are "really" trans or not.

If someone says they're trans, you should assume they're telling the truth.

In social situations, yes.

When you are trying to include this in healthcare programs, I would dare say it is important.

Transgender people aren't some discrete group populated by individuals who all experience it in the same way, but, in general, a good guideline is that someone is transgender if they find themselves more comfortably residing within the performance of the gender of that we have, culturally, connected to the sex opposed to their own. So someone who is of the male sex who finds themselves more comfortable in the performance of femininity are transgender, irregardless of if they actually experience dysphoria or not.

Generally, when someone finds themselves within other performances, such as androgyny or bigender or genderqueer, we speak of them as nonbinary rather than transgender.

edited 27th Jan '15 7:29:42 AM by deathpigeon