Point one: Stop editing your posts to add more arguments afterwards; it makes threads in "Serious" incredibly difficult to follow and raises the possibility that you might be removing points you've already made. You literally just did that twice with the post I'm quoting. Point two: You have provided adequate evidence to support my opinion that you are not worth the time and effort to debate. Suggesting - no, outright stating that homosexuality is abnormal is incredibly degrading and offensive. As if being gay means that there's something wrong with you and "you're not like the rest of us". I realise that the latter is effectively putting words in your mouth - you didn't specifically say those exact words (although it's hard to know for certain when you edit your posts so often) - but that is precisely what you're implying, whether you mean to or not. Your arguments are not supported by logic or reason, and you clearly have little empathy.
I see your point Nexxo but when they start to cut pieces off and sew pieces back on, and when they resort to hormone treatment, and when many of them also end up committing suicide, then I'd say it's a mental disorder and that they are in need of help.
@ BEARD Point one: My edit was done roughly a minute after. Point two: You have provided adequate evidence to support my opinion that you are not worth the time and effort to debate. You stole my line right there. Point three: My arguments are well supported, they just don't care about your feelings. Neither does the definition of the word abnormal (which you used when I said glitch, not me) and the definition of normal. From now on don't bother me.
They must have transformed the entire country into America the last time I took a transatlantic flight. Just get in the air, circle around and wait for the transformation to complete. No wonder it takes so long.
That entirely depends on the reasons for these actions. Are their actions a struggle to conform to societal binary gender norms? Would they be more happy to just be who they are if they grew up and lived in a society where their experience of gender and sexuality was accepted as OK? Put it this way: is cross-dressing a mental disorder, or a sign of dysfunctional societal gender roles? Are girls' struggles with body image a mental disorder, or a result of societal obsession with unrealistic ideals of feminine beauty?
Except that all the treatment they receive is to adjust the body to match the brain, with no choice being available to adjust the brain to match the body. But if you want to classify it as a mental disorder then shouldn't the treatment be for the brain rather than everything else?
Er, no. As a clinician who works with mental disorder I can tell you that is not the definition of mental disorder. A disorder is a harmful dysfunction. So it is harmful, you will note, by definition. It also implies that dysfunctions do not have to be harmful, in which case they are not disorders. To wit: Albinoism is outside of the norm, and a dysfunction of the body's pigmentation, but is not in itself harmful. Unless you live in a place like Africa, possibly, which neatly demonstrates that the harmfulness of disorder can be determined by environmental factors rather than those inherent to the dysfunction. Tricky, no? If ADHD you grew up in a tribe where everybody was ADHD, would it still be experienced as a disorder? If said tribe functioned in a high-threat environment where a constant switching of attention and high arousal were distinct survival advantages, would ADHD still be dysfunctional? like I said: Tricky.
DSM > some dictionary (this appeal to dictionary argument I see so often on the internet is getting a bit tiring, dictionaries are not infallible sources of truth) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3101504/table/T1/
@jrs77: Refer to point 4 and 6 in your dictionary. Norm has nothing to do with it. Harm to function does. Then refer to a proper reference in this context, like Pliqu3011 has, such as the DSM. Albinism does not necessarily come with harmful dysfunction. The Wiki page says that as well. And your point about ADHD demonstrates again the difficulties in defining what is a 'disorder'.
I'd argue that labelling transgender people as having a mental disorder is exactly why this law is needed.
Just because a bunch of uninformed people believe something to be so, doesn't make it so. Scientific definitions exist for a reason. Then those psychologists better read up their textbooks again to learn what the definition of mental disorder is. Again, uninformed opinion is not a valid standard. By applying subjective standards? Yeah, we've had enough of experts! I think Byron C is right on the money. You've just argued for your LGBTQ+ friends to be labeled as mentally disordered based purely on the basis of popular prejudice. And then you accuse the C16 bill of fascism? The irony is strong with this one.
I gave you a few reasons... When transsexuals start to cut pieces off and sew pieces back on, and when they resort to hormone treatment etc, and with many of them also end up committing suicide, then it's a mental disorder and they are in need of help. Adhering to their mental disorder whilst telling them they are healthy and normal isn't helpful. You can't be out on the fringe and expect to be viewed as normal either. As for the societal norm of the sexes you mentioned those are based in biology which in turn is the foundation for how society and family structure itself is organized, it is hardwired, it's not going anywhere. Say attacking it and trying to undermine it wouldn't be beneficial for either sex, or for society at large. In truth, it wouldn't be beneficial to those very few who don't fall within this norm to begin with. Edit. Let alone that of attacking children from an early age in school with the idea that they can not only choose their sex, but also choose to identify with what ever it is that they "want" to identify with. Currently you have around 50 different ones to choose from, at best it's make believe. We're not talking about children who were left alone and untampered with, who in their teenage years discovered that something wasn't' quite right. See that's very much different. Essentially it's an all out war on the minds of these children, even adults at this point.
Remind me. I'm not sure what behaviour you are referring to. Sex reassignment surgery and accompanying hormone treatment is standard medical practice. All kinds of people commit suicide for all kinds of reasons. So I am unclear what you are getting at. Clearly not so. The Mosuo in China have very different gender roles than, say, certain Muslim communities in rural Afghanistan, who again have very different gender roles than Western communities in, say, Scandinavia. And gender roles are already changing because societies are, relying less on brawn and more on brains. Have been for the last 60 or so years. Actually children have a pretty strong sense of their sex by age three --they just know whether they are a boy or girl. That is not a matter of choice for them. What it means to them in terms of gender roles is socioculturally determined, but generally scientific consensus is that when you leave kids to it, they work out their gender identity just fine for themselves; when you indoctrinate them with a very distinct and narrow gender role, they turn out less well adjusted. Your LGBTQ+ friends agree with you that they are suffering from a mental disorder?
No, I'm not following you. There's a difference. QED. By the way, one of my colleagues has a certified IQ of 153, which is on the 0.02 %ile (one in every 4873 people, and about 43.5 times rarer than schizophrenia) and thus also way outside the norm. Mental disorder? Now show me where in the text of the C16 bill it says that it is a criminal offence not to address a person by their chosen pronoun.
I think what he is trying to say is the general population don't like having to change the way they address/speak/treat people because other people "intellectuals" say they have to.
The next time I want to diagnose a mental disorder I'll consult the locals at the pub across from the hospital. Oh wait, no; I won't. Because public opinion, it turns out, is pretty useless at understanding complex issues. And there's law professors and lawyers that say it can't be. Opinions eh? Everybody has one (and yes, until someone has actually been convicted for addressing someone by their non-preferred gender pronoun, it is opinion, not proof). So this has nothing to do with bill C16, but with how some people choose to interpret it. You are challenging an issue that doesn't exist. Nobody has been sent to prison yet by addressing someone by their 'non-preferred' ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation etc. So why should it suddenly happen with gender pronouns?
You and they seem to be missing a key aspect of the law though, that for Bill C-16 to be applied in that way requires that a discriminatory act to have taken place, it's the fact that you're being discriminatory that could see you appearing in front of a judge not that you used the incorrect gender specific pronoun. The Canadian Bar associations has been pretty clear on the matter, if the professional body who represents lawyers disagrees then it's probably safe to say these law-professors and lawyers in the videos you posted are misrepresenting the facts.
