HS girls stage a walkout as trans teen uses girls bathroom (2 Viewers)

[Ditkaless Wonders]

One kid i dealt with was 16. A boy who believed he was a girl and wanted a sex change.

Problem was, the kid would not talk to anyone. Not the nurses or doctors. Nobody. Never did. The hormone therapy was given anyway at the word of the kids mother. This kid had several other psych issues, like many others do, yet they went along with it anyway.

Was a really jacked up form of munchausens that the doctors fed into

That's a messed up situation. Assuming all of this is the whole story, in a few years, if the kid has issues with what was done, that's the kind of medical malpractice case I'd take. Here's a question - if the kid never talked to doctors or nurses, how do you know the kid wanted the sex change and identified as a girl?

We didnt know. Thats why it was so messed up. Like i said, they went on the word of the mother.

And frankly, in adolescenty psychiatry, MUCH of the diagnosis is based on what the parents say, if not all of it.

Adolescent psychiatry is easily the most inexact science of any known science.

Psychology and psychiatry make use of the scientific method and statistical analysis, from time too time. That does not make them sciences, at least in my book.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Hopefully recognizing the civil rights of individuals will make us stronger as a society. I fear, sometimes, that we can go too far, that we glorify the individual to the point where perhaps they feel so sovereign that they have no connection or obligation to perhaps the only society on earth that would grant them their civil rights. I wonder whether we are strengthening the metal of society by testing it, tempering it, or whether we are stressing the fabric leading to inevitable failure.

I am getting along in years. Perhaps that makes me more reticent to accept change. Perhaps my personality will not allow me to see this trend as progress. Then again, perhaps I will.

I think you're doing fine, but what do I know?

Personally, I think society in general is steel, not silk. That the shifting and changing nature of the social contract requires that it be steel, and that it as we hammer it into new shapes, allow it to cool, and test it we will find it as strong as ever, if not moreso. Or that the curtains can be replaced, the rod remains.

You had to start with the sexy talk, didn't you!

 

[dparker713]

Consequently, discrimination on the basis of gender identity is "literally" discrimination on the basisof sex. Schroer v. Billington, 577 F. Supp. 2d 293,306-07 (D.D.C. 2008)

So, the gender of an individual is an entirely subjective determination?

Who exactly can determine someone's gender identity other than the person in question? As you've already stated, transition neither needs to be completed or even attempted. I fail to see any way to objectively determine the gender of an individual given your criteria. If that's the case, its an entirely worthless term for the purposes of the law.

Why? If someone determines he's a Christian, we have to respect his sincerely held religious beliefs. How do you objectively measure his religious beliefs?

We're allowed to look towards outward indicia of a person's religion and religious beliefs to determine if they're sincerely held. You've already established that none of the outward indicia of gender or sex are necessary for a person to identify with a gender. You've held the proclamation of the person as paramount and everything else, even if contradictory, as irrelevant.

 

[ghostguy123]

And you keep using the word "reasonable".

Reasonable would be to require penises in the mens room and vajs in the ladies room in the public schools.

Reasonable would be to let someone actually make it to puberty and maybe experience puberty before they are in any frame of mind to make lifelong decisions about their birth gender.

Reasonable would be to look at the entire situation rather than go to extremes to accomodate the very few with total disregard for the other 99.999%.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

I guess maybe we are in pretty good shape if we are arguing between the strength of steel or silk. I have heard it said, though I don't know if it is true, that silk actually has a stronger tensile strength than steel.

 

[dparker713]

So you agree that kids shouldnt get hormone therapy yet you just told me to leave it to the doctors. Which is it?

No, I agree that unless there's a medical reason kids shouldn't get hormone therapy. Which is why we should leave it to the doctors to diagnose and treat.

So what is the diagnosis and medical reason a 14 year old gets hormone therapy in these cases?

Gender dysphoria disorder is a psychiatric condition, treatment for which can include hormone therapy and/or full transitional surgery. You don't deal with this stuff much, I take it. Well, clearly you do not.

How many other delusions is the treatment for said delusion to make it reality?

Good point. It's almost like the treatment is a result of not identifying the gender dysphoria as a "delusion."

Odd then that so much of the description of the symptoms also describe a delusion.

 

[ghostguy123]

Some of them are delusional, some not.

Example, a boy who truly believes he is a female is delusional.

However, a boy who truly believes he was meant to be a female and lives as a female, while realizing that he is actually currently male, is not delusional. Or should I say WANTS to be a female.

 

[ghostguy123]

Not AS delusional anyway

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Gender dysphoria disorder is a psychiatric condition, treatment for which can include hormone therapy and/or full transitional surgery.

Just a question out of curiosity, because you seem to have a significant professional background with this stuff.

Do you see gender dysphoria as a "real" psychiatric condition, like schizophrenia, or do you think that in the future it will be seen as falling somewhere on the continuum of normal personality variation, like how we view homosexuality today? This question has nothing to do with whether an adult should be free to seek hormone treatment or surgery to re-make their body as they see fit, and the whole bathroom / locker room issue doesn't hinge on this either, at least IMO. I'm just wondering what your thoughts are on this.

 

[Eminence]

Ghostguy is killing it!

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

So the test here is a public declaration, investigated or inquired upon and solemnized by a court, and the passage of a time element to assure the sincerity and permanent nature of the intent through actions consistent with the declaration. One might inquire then, given the time element, why it is one year. Why not one year or until the person reaches the age of majority whichever comes later or until both coincide? We know, or believe we know that minds and brains continue to develop through around 25 years of age. Perhaps we should assure that the mind in question has at least reached a fair distance on that developmental journey. Of course, sexuality and identity start forming earlier, so perhaps the test is reasonable. It is interesting to me that this civil right has that time element and sincerity element. I am glad that I am not called upon to make these determinations.

If we waited until at least the age of majority before having to accommodate belief, or reality, whichever it may be, and I tend to accept your arguments for the later, we would then free the schools from this debate except in the rarer cases of older or held back students. I don't know if that is a benefit. Perhaps we need to confront these issues and putting it off, while maybe freeing some school resources, would be counterproductive nonetheless.

 

[trogg78]

All you can really do is hope for the breast and prepare for the wurst.

 

[Henry Ford]

Consequently, discrimination on the basis of gender identity is "literally" discrimination on the basisof sex. Schroer v. Billington, 577 F. Supp. 2d 293,306-07 (D.D.C. 2008)

So, the gender of an individual is an entirely subjective determination?

Who exactly can determine someone's gender identity other than the person in question? As you've already stated, transition neither needs to be completed or even attempted. I fail to see any way to objectively determine the gender of an individual given your criteria. If that's the case, its an entirely worthless term for the purposes of the law.

Why? If someone determines he's a Christian, we have to respect his sincerely held religious beliefs. How do you objectively measure his religious beliefs?

We're allowed to look towards outward indicia of a person's religion and religious beliefs to determine if they're sincerely held. You've already established that none of the outward indicia of gender or sex are necessary for a person to identify with a gender. You've held the proclamation of the person as paramount and everything else, even if contradictory, as irrelevant.

No I haven't. I just said that you don't have to cut off your penis to be a woman. Absolutely outward indicia are allowed to be taken into consideration - but again, much like Christians, no single outward indicator is determinative. Don't go to church? "Where two or more gather in my name..." Don't give to charity? Not determinative... etc... etc. Same with this. That's all.

 

[ghostguy123]

That has to be my new sig.

"You dont have to cut off your penis to be a woman"

 

[Henry Ford]

Gender dysphoria disorder is a psychiatric condition, treatment for which can include hormone therapy and/or full transitional surgery.

Just a question out of curiosity, because you seem to have a significant professional background with this stuff.

Do you see gender dysphoria as a "real" psychiatric condition, like schizophrenia, or do you think that in the future it will be seen as falling somewhere on the continuum of normal personality variation, like how we view homosexuality today? This question has nothing to do with whether an adult should be free to seek hormone treatment or surgery to re-make their body as they see fit, and the whole bathroom / locker room issue doesn't hinge on this either, at least IMO. I'm just wondering what your thoughts are on this.

I think there's probably a range. I'm not a doctor, obviously, but I've seen the gamut.

I had a client who truly "felt" like a woman. All lifelong, until 50s-ish age. Could never shake the feeling. Genetically, interestingly, the client was right - client had a penis, but was xx - at the time the client was born, the general protocol was "if it has a penis, it's a boy, and we do other surgeries and never tell the kid, even while growing up." So, in that instance, it's clearly not a psychiatric illness to me, but definitely a medical condition.

I've also seen people who I don't know any kind of background at all like that about who were overwhelmingly unable to function while living as their birth sex. If that's a psychiatric condition, then it needs treatment.

Also, some people who just wanted funbags.

 

[Henry Ford]

So the test here is a public declaration, investigated or inquired upon and solemnized by a court, and the passage of a time element to assure the sincerity and permanent nature of the intent through actions consistent with the declaration. One might inquire then, given the time element, why it is one year. Why not one year or until the person reaches the age of majority whichever comes later or until both coincide? We know, or believe we know that minds and brains continue to develop through around 25 years of age. Perhaps we should assure that the mind in question has at least reached a fair distance on that developmental journey. Of course, sexuality and identity start forming earlier, so perhaps the test is reasonable. It is interesting to me that this civil right has that time element and sincerity element. I am glad that I am not called upon to make these determinations.

If we waited until at least the age of majority before having to accommodate belief, or reality, whichever it may be, and I tend to accept your arguments for the later, we would then free the schools from this debate except in the rarer cases of older or held back students. I don't know if that is a benefit. Perhaps we need to confront these issues and putting it off, while maybe freeing some school resources, would be counterproductive nonetheless.

Yeah, I don't know. Honestly, those are really tough questions. And it's times like that I (sadly) have to defer to treating physicians. They create a standard through their practice, a determination of a standard of care has been developed, and living as the other gender for a year is the current standard.

 

[Henry Ford]

I know the question of rights is likely to turn on the really hardcore cases - the person who was raised male but genetically turns out to be female, or who has old,dusty medical records showing a childhood hysterectomy to "cure" hermaphroditism, or who is so overwhelmingly incapable of living as a man/woman that the only viable treatment is to become a woman/man. And people will just casually dismiss the people who just decided "hey, you know what? I've wanted to become a woman for a long time, and I'm going to do it!" I don't really see an important difference between them, though, from a gender standpoint. It's remarkably fluid these days. I blame David Bowie.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

So the test here is a public declaration, investigated or inquired upon and solemnized by a court, and the passage of a time element to assure the sincerity and permanent nature of the intent through actions consistent with the declaration. One might inquire then, given the time element, why it is one year. Why not one year or until the person reaches the age of majority whichever comes later or until both coincide? We know, or believe we know that minds and brains continue to develop through around 25 years of age. Perhaps we should assure that the mind in question has at least reached a fair distance on that developmental journey. Of course, sexuality and identity start forming earlier, so perhaps the test is reasonable. It is interesting to me that this civil right has that time element and sincerity element. I am glad that I am not called upon to make these determinations.

If we waited until at least the age of majority before having to accommodate belief, or reality, whichever it may be, and I tend to accept your arguments for the later, we would then free the schools from this debate except in the rarer cases of older or held back students. I don't know if that is a benefit. Perhaps we need to confront these issues and putting it off, while maybe freeing some school resources, would be counterproductive nonetheless.

Yeah, I don't know. Honestly, those are really tough questions. And it's times like that I (sadly) have to defer to treating physicians. They create a standard through their practice, a determination of a standard of care has been developed, and living as the other gender for a year is the current standard.

Eventually the facts will arise where that standard gets put to a hard test. In the end any standard here is going to be an artificial construct. Also, it is easy to forget that standards are not necessarily hard and fast rules, but rather guidelines along the way to sound decision-making. for instance I am certain that some treating physicians find cause to delay treatment beyond that standard, and some, I am certain, find cause to treat before that timeframe has passed.

It is an interesting area in which you practice.

 

[Henry Ford]

So the test here is a public declaration, investigated or inquired upon and solemnized by a court, and the passage of a time element to assure the sincerity and permanent nature of the intent through actions consistent with the declaration. One might inquire then, given the time element, why it is one year. Why not one year or until the person reaches the age of majority whichever comes later or until both coincide? We know, or believe we know that minds and brains continue to develop through around 25 years of age. Perhaps we should assure that the mind in question has at least reached a fair distance on that developmental journey. Of course, sexuality and identity start forming earlier, so perhaps the test is reasonable. It is interesting to me that this civil right has that time element and sincerity element. I am glad that I am not called upon to make these determinations.

If we waited until at least the age of majority before having to accommodate belief, or reality, whichever it may be, and I tend to accept your arguments for the later, we would then free the schools from this debate except in the rarer cases of older or held back students. I don't know if that is a benefit. Perhaps we need to confront these issues and putting it off, while maybe freeing some school resources, would be counterproductive nonetheless.

Yeah, I don't know. Honestly, those are really tough questions. And it's times like that I (sadly) have to defer to treating physicians. They create a standard through their practice, a determination of a standard of care has been developed, and living as the other gender for a year is the current standard.

Eventually the facts will arise where that standard gets put to a hard test. In the end any standard here is going to be an artificial construct. Also, it is easy to forget that standards are not necessarily hard and fast rules, but rather guidelines along the way to sound decision-making. for instance I am certain that some treating physicians find cause to delay treatment beyond that standard, and some, I am certain, find cause to treat before that timeframe has passed.

It is an interesting area in which you practice.

Just one of many. Tilting at windmills for years. Always get excited when the windmill starts to show signs of capitulation. A lot of my work has been in the realm of trying to get insurance companies to pay for surgery. Which used to be basically impossible.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

I blame David Bowie.

A sound policy and one I personally endorse.

 

[dparker713]

So the test here is a public declaration, investigated or inquired upon and solemnized by a court, and the passage of a time element to assure the sincerity and permanent nature of the intent through actions consistent with the declaration. One might inquire then, given the time element, why it is one year. Why not one year or until the person reaches the age of majority whichever comes later or until both coincide? We know, or believe we know that minds and brains continue to develop through around 25 years of age. Perhaps we should assure that the mind in question has at least reached a fair distance on that developmental journey. Of course, sexuality and identity start forming earlier, so perhaps the test is reasonable. It is interesting to me that this civil right has that time element and sincerity element. I am glad that I am not called upon to make these determinations.

If we waited until at least the age of majority before having to accommodate belief, or reality, whichever it may be, and I tend to accept your arguments for the later, we would then free the schools from this debate except in the rarer cases of older or held back students. I don't know if that is a benefit. Perhaps we need to confront these issues and putting it off, while maybe freeing some school resources, would be counterproductive nonetheless.

Yeah, I don't know. Honestly, those are really tough questions. And it's times like that I (sadly) have to defer to treating physicians. They create a standard through their practice, a determination of a standard of care has been developed, and living as the other gender for a year is the current standard.

The treating physicians are not the ones ultimately making these decisions. Its the guardians of these minors, atleast until the age of majority. And considering how important a person's thoughts are to this diagnosis, waiting until they're atleast old enough to legally make the decision seems fairly sound.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

So the test here is a public declaration, investigated or inquired upon and solemnized by a court, and the passage of a time element to assure the sincerity and permanent nature of the intent through actions consistent with the declaration. One might inquire then, given the time element, why it is one year. Why not one year or until the person reaches the age of majority whichever comes later or until both coincide? We know, or believe we know that minds and brains continue to develop through around 25 years of age. Perhaps we should assure that the mind in question has at least reached a fair distance on that developmental journey. Of course, sexuality and identity start forming earlier, so perhaps the test is reasonable. It is interesting to me that this civil right has that time element and sincerity element. I am glad that I am not called upon to make these determinations.

If we waited until at least the age of majority before having to accommodate belief, or reality, whichever it may be, and I tend to accept your arguments for the later, we would then free the schools from this debate except in the rarer cases of older or held back students. I don't know if that is a benefit. Perhaps we need to confront these issues and putting it off, while maybe freeing some school resources, would be counterproductive nonetheless.

Yeah, I don't know. Honestly, those are really tough questions. And it's times like that I (sadly) have to defer to treating physicians. They create a standard through their practice, a determination of a standard of care has been developed, and living as the other gender for a year is the current standard.

Eventually the facts will arise where that standard gets put to a hard test. In the end any standard here is going to be an artificial construct. Also, it is easy to forget that standards are not necessarily hard and fast rules, but rather guidelines along the way to sound decision-making. for instance I am certain that some treating physicians find cause to delay treatment beyond that standard, and some, I am certain, find cause to treat before that timeframe has passed.

It is an interesting area in which you practice.

Just one of many. Tilting at windmills for years. Always get excited when the windmill starts to show signs of capitulation. A lot of my work has been in the realm of trying to get insurance companies to pay for surgery. Which used to be basically impossible.

You're like Donkey Hote.

 

[Henry Ford]

So the test here is a public declaration, investigated or inquired upon and solemnized by a court, and the passage of a time element to assure the sincerity and permanent nature of the intent through actions consistent with the declaration. One might inquire then, given the time element, why it is one year. Why not one year or until the person reaches the age of majority whichever comes later or until both coincide? We know, or believe we know that minds and brains continue to develop through around 25 years of age. Perhaps we should assure that the mind in question has at least reached a fair distance on that developmental journey. Of course, sexuality and identity start forming earlier, so perhaps the test is reasonable. It is interesting to me that this civil right has that time element and sincerity element. I am glad that I am not called upon to make these determinations.

If we waited until at least the age of majority before having to accommodate belief, or reality, whichever it may be, and I tend to accept your arguments for the later, we would then free the schools from this debate except in the rarer cases of older or held back students. I don't know if that is a benefit. Perhaps we need to confront these issues and putting it off, while maybe freeing some school resources, would be counterproductive nonetheless.

Yeah, I don't know. Honestly, those are really tough questions. And it's times like that I (sadly) have to defer to treating physicians. They create a standard through their practice, a determination of a standard of care has been developed, and living as the other gender for a year is the current standard.

Eventually the facts will arise where that standard gets put to a hard test. In the end any standard here is going to be an artificial construct. Also, it is easy to forget that standards are not necessarily hard and fast rules, but rather guidelines along the way to sound decision-making. for instance I am certain that some treating physicians find cause to delay treatment beyond that standard, and some, I am certain, find cause to treat before that timeframe has passed.

It is an interesting area in which you practice.

Just one of many. Tilting at windmills for years. Always get excited when the windmill starts to show signs of capitulation. A lot of my work has been in the realm of trying to get insurance companies to pay for surgery. Which used to be basically impossible.

You're like Donkey Hote.

I prefer to think of myself as a Pancho Sanchez.

 

[Henry Ford]

As a side note, the psychiatric diagnosis in the DSM would probably go away tomorrow if insurance companies would pay for the surgery without a medical diagnosis. Or at least be significantly less applied - and lead to a much more honest conversation about gender identity, like Ivan was suggesting the future may bring.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

So the test here is a public declaration, investigated or inquired upon and solemnized by a court, and the passage of a time element to assure the sincerity and permanent nature of the intent through actions consistent with the declaration. One might inquire then, given the time element, why it is one year. Why not one year or until the person reaches the age of majority whichever comes later or until both coincide? We know, or believe we know that minds and brains continue to develop through around 25 years of age. Perhaps we should assure that the mind in question has at least reached a fair distance on that developmental journey. Of course, sexuality and identity start forming earlier, so perhaps the test is reasonable. It is interesting to me that this civil right has that time element and sincerity element. I am glad that I am not called upon to make these determinations.

If we waited until at least the age of majority before having to accommodate belief, or reality, whichever it may be, and I tend to accept your arguments for the later, we would then free the schools from this debate except in the rarer cases of older or held back students. I don't know if that is a benefit. Perhaps we need to confront these issues and putting it off, while maybe freeing some school resources, would be counterproductive nonetheless.

Yeah, I don't know. Honestly, those are really tough questions. And it's times like that I (sadly) have to defer to treating physicians. They create a standard through their practice, a determination of a standard of care has been developed, and living as the other gender for a year is the current standard.

Eventually the facts will arise where that standard gets put to a hard test. In the end any standard here is going to be an artificial construct. Also, it is easy to forget that standards are not necessarily hard and fast rules, but rather guidelines along the way to sound decision-making. for instance I am certain that some treating physicians find cause to delay treatment beyond that standard, and some, I am certain, find cause to treat before that timeframe has passed.

It is an interesting area in which you practice.

Just one of many. Tilting at windmills for years. Always get excited when the windmill starts to show signs of capitulation. A lot of my work has been in the realm of trying to get insurance companies to pay for surgery. Which used to be basically impossible.

You're like Donkey Hote.

I prefer to think of myself as a Pancho Sanchez.

Wasn't he the Cisco Kid's sidekick?

 

[Henry Ford]

So the test here is a public declaration, investigated or inquired upon and solemnized by a court, and the passage of a time element to assure the sincerity and permanent nature of the intent through actions consistent with the declaration. One might inquire then, given the time element, why it is one year. Why not one year or until the person reaches the age of majority whichever comes later or until both coincide? We know, or believe we know that minds and brains continue to develop through around 25 years of age. Perhaps we should assure that the mind in question has at least reached a fair distance on that developmental journey. Of course, sexuality and identity start forming earlier, so perhaps the test is reasonable. It is interesting to me that this civil right has that time element and sincerity element. I am glad that I am not called upon to make these determinations.

If we waited until at least the age of majority before having to accommodate belief, or reality, whichever it may be, and I tend to accept your arguments for the later, we would then free the schools from this debate except in the rarer cases of older or held back students. I don't know if that is a benefit. Perhaps we need to confront these issues and putting it off, while maybe freeing some school resources, would be counterproductive nonetheless.

Yeah, I don't know. Honestly, those are really tough questions. And it's times like that I (sadly) have to defer to treating physicians. They create a standard through their practice, a determination of a standard of care has been developed, and living as the other gender for a year is the current standard.

Eventually the facts will arise where that standard gets put to a hard test. In the end any standard here is going to be an artificial construct. Also, it is easy to forget that standards are not necessarily hard and fast rules, but rather guidelines along the way to sound decision-making. for instance I am certain that some treating physicians find cause to delay treatment beyond that standard, and some, I am certain, find cause to treat before that timeframe has passed.

It is an interesting area in which you practice.

Just one of many. Tilting at windmills for years. Always get excited when the windmill starts to show signs of capitulation. A lot of my work has been in the realm of trying to get insurance companies to pay for surgery. Which used to be basically impossible.

You're like Donkey Hote.

I prefer to think of myself as a Pancho Sanchez.

Wasn't he the Cisco Kid's sidekick?

You're thinking of Dirty Sanchez and the Crisco Kid.

 

[dparker713]

As a side note, the psychiatric diagnosis in the DSM would probably go away tomorrow if insurance companies would pay for the surgery without a medical diagnosis. Or at least be significantly less applied - and lead to a much more honest conversation about gender identity, like Ivan was suggesting the future may bring.

As I understand it, the surgery and its follow up treatment are extremely expensive. Why should insurance companies be paying for the treatment if it is not medically necessary?

 

[Henry Ford]

As a side note, the psychiatric diagnosis in the DSM would probably go away tomorrow if insurance companies would pay for the surgery without a medical diagnosis. Or at least be significantly less applied - and lead to a much more honest conversation about gender identity, like Ivan was suggesting the future may bring.

As I understand it, the surgery and its follow up treatment is extremely expensive. Why should insurance companies be paying for the treatment if it is not medically necessary?

Agreed. And I think in order to get it paid for, a number of people push themselves, or psychiatrists push them, further down the diagnostic line than they perhaps belong. And I think a good bit of that is resulting from the public opinion of "you have to get the surgery or you're still a man and can't live as a woman."

But maybe I'm just old and crotchety.

 

[ghostguy123]

Gender dysphoria disorder is a psychiatric condition, treatment for which can include hormone therapy and/or full transitional surgery.

Just a question out of curiosity, because you seem to have a significant professional background with this stuff.

Do you see gender dysphoria as a "real" psychiatric condition, like schizophrenia, or do you think that in the future it will be seen as falling somewhere on the continuum of normal personality variation, like how we view homosexuality today? This question has nothing to do with whether an adult should be free to seek hormone treatment or surgery to re-make their body as they see fit, and the whole bathroom / locker room issue doesn't hinge on this either, at least IMO. I'm just wondering what your thoughts are on this.

I think there's probably a range. I'm not a doctor, obviously, but I've seen the gamut.

I had a client who truly "felt" like a woman. All lifelong, until 50s-ish age. Could never shake the feeling. Genetically, interestingly, the client was right - client had a penis, but was xx - at the time the client was born, the general protocol was "if it has a penis, it's a boy, and we do other surgeries and never tell the kid, even while growing up." So, in that instance, it's clearly not a psychiatric illness to me, but definitely a medical condition.

I've also seen people who I don't know any kind of background at all like that about who were overwhelmingly unable to function while living as their birth sex. If that's a psychiatric condition, then it needs treatment.

Also, some people who just wanted funbags.

Cool, treat them. If there is DNA showing girl yet there is a weeny, go for it. Surgery it up. Have a ball. It is a medical condition. Correct it.

Either way, take this same person and put them in high school................penis = boys room.

 

[ghostguy123]

As a side note, the psychiatric diagnosis in the DSM would probably go away tomorrow if insurance companies would pay for the surgery without a medical diagnosis. Or at least be significantly less applied - and lead to a much more honest conversation about gender identity, like Ivan was suggesting the future may bring.

No, it would not. Not even close.

There are an incredible number of variances in these cases, and not to sound mean, but you make yourself sound very silly here by saying what you just said.

 

[Henry Ford]

As a side note, the psychiatric diagnosis in the DSM would probably go away tomorrow if insurance companies would pay for the surgery without a medical diagnosis. Or at least be significantly less applied - and lead to a much more honest conversation about gender identity, like Ivan was suggesting the future may bring.

No, it would not. Not even close.

There are an incredible number of variances in these cases, and not to sound mean, but you make yourself sound very silly here by saying what you just said.

Sorry, you don't think gender dysphoria - which you didn't know existed until today - would be less diagnosed if it wasn't necessary to get surgery paid for?

 

[Ditka Butkus]

Have we decided if a Regina is required to enter a woman's bathroom yet?

 

[T J]

So the test here is a public declaration, investigated or inquired upon and solemnized by a court, and the passage of a time element to assure the sincerity and permanent nature of the intent through actions consistent with the declaration. One might inquire then, given the time element, why it is one year. Why not one year or until the person reaches the age of majority whichever comes later or until both coincide? We know, or believe we know that minds and brains continue to develop through around 25 years of age. Perhaps we should assure that the mind in question has at least reached a fair distance on that developmental journey. Of course, sexuality and identity start forming earlier, so perhaps the test is reasonable. It is interesting to me that this civil right has that time element and sincerity element. I am glad that I am not called upon to make these determinations.

If we waited until at least the age of majority before having to accommodate belief, or reality, whichever it may be, and I tend to accept your arguments for the later, we would then free the schools from this debate except in the rarer cases of older or held back students. I don't know if that is a benefit. Perhaps we need to confront these issues and putting it off, while maybe freeing some school resources, would be counterproductive nonetheless.

Yeah, I don't know. Honestly, those are really tough questions. And it's times like that I (sadly) have to defer to treating physicians. They create a standard through their practice, a determination of a standard of care has been developed, and living as the other gender for a year is the current standard.

Eventually the facts will arise where that standard gets put to a hard test. In the end any standard here is going to be an artificial construct. Also, it is easy to forget that standards are not necessarily hard and fast rules, but rather guidelines along the way to sound decision-making. for instance I am certain that some treating physicians find cause to delay treatment beyond that standard, and some, I am certain, find cause to treat before that timeframe has passed.It is an interesting area in which you practice.

Just one of many. Tilting at windmills for years. Always get excited when the windmill starts to show signs of capitulation. A lot of my work has been in the realm of trying to get insurance companies to pay for surgery. Which used to be basically impossible.

So yer a #### in real life too? Gotcha.And let me be more direct. I don't respect your position on this and I don't respect what you advocate in general. Your mindset is exactly the type of thing I view as a huge problem, not a solution. You are an enabler and I don't care for those people. Always crying foul. Good for business for you I guess but zero kudos from me.

 

[tommyboy]

One kid i dealt with was 16. A boy who believed he was a girl and wanted a sex change.

Problem was, the kid would not talk to anyone. Not the nurses or doctors. Nobody. Never did. The hormone therapy was given anyway at the word of the kids mother. This kid had several other psych issues, like many others do, yet they went along with it anyway.

Was a really jacked up form of munchausens that the doctors fed into

That's a messed up situation. Assuming all of this is the whole story, in a few years, if the kid has issues with what was done, that's the kind of medical malpractice case I'd take. Here's a question - if the kid never talked to doctors or nurses, how do you know the kid wanted the sex change and identified as a girl?

We didnt know. Thats why it was so messed up. Like i said, they went on the word of the mother.And frankly, in adolescenty psychiatry, MUCH of the diagnosis is based on what the parents say, if not all of it.

Adolescent psychiatry is easily the most inexact science of any known science.

Psychology and psychiatry make use of the scientific method and statistical analysis, from time too time. That does not make them sciences, at least in my book.

This is true and i say that as a Psy degree. Not sure if they still teach it this way but they made it quite clear Psy was a social science, and not a hard science

 

[PlasmaDogPlasma]

Fun fact: less than 100 years ago, it was illegal for men to show their nipples in public.

Fun fact: It's still illegal from a man to have an erection in public, even if covered by clothing, in Allentown, PA.

Well I'm living here in Allentown

And it's hard to keep a good man down

But I won't be getting up today

 

[ghostguy123]

As a side note, the psychiatric diagnosis in the DSM would probably go away tomorrow if insurance companies would pay for the surgery without a medical diagnosis. Or at least be significantly less applied - and lead to a much more honest conversation about gender identity, like Ivan was suggesting the future may bring.

No, it would not. Not even close.

There are an incredible number of variances in these cases, and not to sound mean, but you make yourself sound very silly here by saying what you just said.

Sorry, you don't think gender dysphoria - which you didn't know existed until today - would be less diagnosed if it wasn't necessary to get surgery paid for?

Less diagnosed doesnt mean it goes away.

What is gender dysphoria? Never heard of it. Is that some new recipe for pasta?

 

[ghostguy123]

Oh and as for insurance paying for this. Hell no. Unless there is an actual medical reason related to health, no way. Hormone therapy and surgery is ELECTIVE.

I will have to ask more of the parents what has been covered and what hasnt.

If sex changes are covered I will vomit.

 

[ghostguy123]

Ghostguy is killing it!

Oh.........crap

 

[Henry Ford]

So the test here is a public declaration, investigated or inquired upon and solemnized by a court, and the passage of a time element to assure the sincerity and permanent nature of the intent through actions consistent with the declaration. One might inquire then, given the time element, why it is one year. Why not one year or until the person reaches the age of majority whichever comes later or until both coincide? We know, or believe we know that minds and brains continue to develop through around 25 years of age. Perhaps we should assure that the mind in question has at least reached a fair distance on that developmental journey. Of course, sexuality and identity start forming earlier, so perhaps the test is reasonable. It is interesting to me that this civil right has that time element and sincerity element. I am glad that I am not called upon to make these determinations.

If we waited until at least the age of majority before having to accommodate belief, or reality, whichever it may be, and I tend to accept your arguments for the later, we would then free the schools from this debate except in the rarer cases of older or held back students. I don't know if that is a benefit. Perhaps we need to confront these issues and putting it off, while maybe freeing some school resources, would be counterproductive nonetheless.

Yeah, I don't know. Honestly, those are really tough questions. And it's times like that I (sadly) have to defer to treating physicians. They create a standard through their practice, a determination of a standard of care has been developed, and living as the other gender for a year is the current standard.

Eventually the facts will arise where that standard gets put to a hard test. In the end any standard here is going to be an artificial construct. Also, it is easy to forget that standards are not necessarily hard and fast rules, but rather guidelines along the way to sound decision-making. for instance I am certain that some treating physicians find cause to delay treatment beyond that standard, and some, I am certain, find cause to treat before that timeframe has passed.It is an interesting area in which you practice.

Just one of many. Tilting at windmills for years. Always get excited when the windmill starts to show signs of capitulation. A lot of my work has been in the realm of trying to get insurance companies to pay for surgery. Which used to be basically impossible.

So yer a #### in real life too? Gotcha.And let me be more direct. I don't respect your position on this and I don't respect what you advocate in general. Your mindset is exactly the type of thing I view as a huge problem, not a solution. You are an enabler and I don't care for those people. Always crying foul. Good for business for you I guess but zero kudos from me.

I'll try to regain my composure once the true weight of your opinion has really sunk in.

 

[Henry Ford]

As a side note, the psychiatric diagnosis in the DSM would probably go away tomorrow if insurance companies would pay for the surgery without a medical diagnosis. Or at least be significantly less applied - and lead to a much more honest conversation about gender identity, like Ivan was suggesting the future may bring.

No, it would not. Not even close.

There are an incredible number of variances in these cases, and not to sound mean, but you make yourself sound very silly here by saying what you just said.

Sorry, you don't think gender dysphoria - which you didn't know existed until today - would be less diagnosed if it wasn't necessary to get surgery paid for?

Less diagnosed doesnt mean it goes away. What is gender dysphoria? Never heard of it. Is that some new recipe for pasta?

"Or at least be significantly less applied..."

 

[Henry Ford]

Ghostguy is killing it!

Oh.........crap

Yup.

 

[T J]

So the test here is a public declaration, investigated or inquired upon and solemnized by a court, and the passage of a time element to assure the sincerity and permanent nature of the intent through actions consistent with the declaration. One might inquire then, given the time element, why it is one year. Why not one year or until the person reaches the age of majority whichever comes later or until both coincide? We know, or believe we know that minds and brains continue to develop through around 25 years of age. Perhaps we should assure that the mind in question has at least reached a fair distance on that developmental journey. Of course, sexuality and identity start forming earlier, so perhaps the test is reasonable. It is interesting to me that this civil right has that time element and sincerity element. I am glad that I am not called upon to make these determinations.

If we waited until at least the age of majority before having to accommodate belief, or reality, whichever it may be, and I tend to accept your arguments for the later, we would then free the schools from this debate except in the rarer cases of older or held back students. I don't know if that is a benefit. Perhaps we need to confront these issues and putting it off, while maybe freeing some school resources, would be counterproductive nonetheless.

Yeah, I don't know. Honestly, those are really tough questions. And it's times like that I (sadly) have to defer to treating physicians. They create a standard through their practice, a determination of a standard of care has been developed, and living as the other gender for a year is the current standard.

Eventually the facts will arise where that standard gets put to a hard test. In the end any standard here is going to be an artificial construct. Also, it is easy to forget that standards are not necessarily hard and fast rules, but rather guidelines along the way to sound decision-making. for instance I am certain that some treating physicians find cause to delay treatment beyond that standard, and some, I am certain, find cause to treat before that timeframe has passed.It is an interesting area in which you practice.

Just one of many. Tilting at windmills for years. Always get excited when the windmill starts to show signs of capitulation. A lot of my work has been in the realm of trying to get insurance companies to pay for surgery. Which used to be basically impossible.

So yer a #### in real life too? Gotcha.And let me be more direct. I don't respect your position on this and I don't respect what you advocate in general. Your mindset is exactly the type of thing I view as a huge problem, not a solution. You are an enabler and I don't care for those people. Always crying foul. Good for business for you I guess but zero kudos from me.

I'll try to regain my composure once the true weight of your opinion has really sunk in.

You do that.

 

[Apple Jack]

Good ol' TJ and his condescending upward routine. Always entertaining.

 

[Henry Ford]

So the test here is a public declaration, investigated or inquired upon and solemnized by a court, and the passage of a time element to assure the sincerity and permanent nature of the intent through actions consistent with the declaration. One might inquire then, given the time element, why it is one year. Why not one year or until the person reaches the age of majority whichever comes later or until both coincide? We know, or believe we know that minds and brains continue to develop through around 25 years of age. Perhaps we should assure that the mind in question has at least reached a fair distance on that developmental journey. Of course, sexuality and identity start forming earlier, so perhaps the test is reasonable. It is interesting to me that this civil right has that time element and sincerity element. I am glad that I am not called upon to make these determinations.

If we waited until at least the age of majority before having to accommodate belief, or reality, whichever it may be, and I tend to accept your arguments for the later, we would then free the schools from this debate except in the rarer cases of older or held back students. I don't know if that is a benefit. Perhaps we need to confront these issues and putting it off, while maybe freeing some school resources, would be counterproductive nonetheless.

Yeah, I don't know. Honestly, those are really tough questions. And it's times like that I (sadly) have to defer to treating physicians. They create a standard through their practice, a determination of a standard of care has been developed, and living as the other gender for a year is the current standard.

Eventually the facts will arise where that standard gets put to a hard test. In the end any standard here is going to be an artificial construct. Also, it is easy to forget that standards are not necessarily hard and fast rules, but rather guidelines along the way to sound decision-making. for instance I am certain that some treating physicians find cause to delay treatment beyond that standard, and some, I am certain, find cause to treat before that timeframe has passed.It is an interesting area in which you practice.

Just one of many. Tilting at windmills for years. Always get excited when the windmill starts to show signs of capitulation. A lot of my work has been in the realm of trying to get insurance companies to pay for surgery. Which used to be basically impossible.

So yer a #### in real life too? Gotcha.And let me be more direct. I don't respect your position on this and I don't respect what you advocate in general. Your mindset is exactly the type of thing I view as a huge problem, not a solution. You are an enabler and I don't care for those people. Always crying foul. Good for business for you I guess but zero kudos from me.

I'll try to regain my composure once the true weight of your opinion has really sunk in.

You do that.

Maybe just one kudo?

 

[T J]

So the test here is a public declaration, investigated or inquired upon and solemnized by a court, and the passage of a time element to assure the sincerity and permanent nature of the intent through actions consistent with the declaration. One might inquire then, given the time element, why it is one year. Why not one year or until the person reaches the age of majority whichever comes later or until both coincide? We know, or believe we know that minds and brains continue to develop through around 25 years of age. Perhaps we should assure that the mind in question has at least reached a fair distance on that developmental journey. Of course, sexuality and identity start forming earlier, so perhaps the test is reasonable. It is interesting to me that this civil right has that time element and sincerity element. I am glad that I am not called upon to make these determinations.

If we waited until at least the age of majority before having to accommodate belief, or reality, whichever it may be, and I tend to accept your arguments for the later, we would then free the schools from this debate except in the rarer cases of older or held back students. I don't know if that is a benefit. Perhaps we need to confront these issues and putting it off, while maybe freeing some school resources, would be counterproductive nonetheless.

Yeah, I don't know. Honestly, those are really tough questions. And it's times like that I (sadly) have to defer to treating physicians. They create a standard through their practice, a determination of a standard of care has been developed, and living as the other gender for a year is the current standard.

Eventually the facts will arise where that standard gets put to a hard test. In the end any standard here is going to be an artificial construct. Also, it is easy to forget that standards are not necessarily hard and fast rules, but rather guidelines along the way to sound decision-making. for instance I am certain that some treating physicians find cause to delay treatment beyond that standard, and some, I am certain, find cause to treat before that timeframe has passed.It is an interesting area in which you practice.

Just one of many. Tilting at windmills for years. Always get excited when the windmill starts to show signs of capitulation. A lot of my work has been in the realm of trying to get insurance companies to pay for surgery. Which used to be basically impossible.

So yer a #### in real life too? Gotcha.And let me be more direct. I don't respect your position on this and I don't respect what you advocate in general. Your mindset is exactly the type of thing I view as a huge problem, not a solution. You are an enabler and I don't care for those people. Always crying foul. Good for business for you I guess but zero kudos from me.

I'll try to regain my composure once the true weight of your opinion has really sunk in.

You do that.

Maybe just one kudo?

I know you're just being a smart-###, and I know you don't care, which is fine, but seriously, I don't in the least respect your efforts. My feelings on what you're advocating are the exact opposite of yours on this specific issue.

 

[Henry Ford]

I know you're just being a smart-###, and I know you don't care, which is fine, but seriously, I don't in the least respect your efforts. My feelings on what you're advocating are the exact opposite of yours on this specific issue.

What about a kudu?

 

[RBM]

Alright lock it up

 

[Zow]

So the test here is a public declaration, investigated or inquired upon and solemnized by a court, and the passage of a time element to assure the sincerity and permanent nature of the intent through actions consistent with the declaration. One might inquire then, given the time element, why it is one year. Why not one year or until the person reaches the age of majority whichever comes later or until both coincide? We know, or believe we know that minds and brains continue to develop through around 25 years of age. Perhaps we should assure that the mind in question has at least reached a fair distance on that developmental journey. Of course, sexuality and identity start forming earlier, so perhaps the test is reasonable. It is interesting to me that this civil right has that time element and sincerity element. I am glad that I am not called upon to make these determinations.

If we waited until at least the age of majority before having to accommodate belief, or reality, whichever it may be, and I tend to accept your arguments for the later, we would then free the schools from this debate except in the rarer cases of older or held back students. I don't know if that is a benefit. Perhaps we need to confront these issues and putting it off, while maybe freeing some school resources, would be counterproductive nonetheless.

Yeah, I don't know. Honestly, those are really tough questions. And it's times like that I (sadly) have to defer to treating physicians. They create a standard through their practice, a determination of a standard of care has been developed, and living as the other gender for a year is the current standard.

Eventually the facts will arise where that standard gets put to a hard test. In the end any standard here is going to be an artificial construct. Also, it is easy to forget that standards are not necessarily hard and fast rules, but rather guidelines along the way to sound decision-making. for instance I am certain that some treating physicians find cause to delay treatment beyond that standard, and some, I am certain, find cause to treat before that timeframe has passed.It is an interesting area in which you practice.

Just one of many. Tilting at windmills for years. Always get excited when the windmill starts to show signs of capitulation. A lot of my work has been in the realm of trying to get insurance companies to pay for surgery. Which used to be basically impossible.

So yer a #### in real life too? Gotcha.And let me be more direct. I don't respect your position on this and I don't respect what you advocate in general. Your mindset is exactly the type of thing I view as a huge problem, not a solution. You are an enabler and I don't care for those people. Always crying foul. Good for business for you I guess but zero kudos from me.

I think we may have identified a delusional one here.

 

[Henry Ford]

It's come to my attention through discussions with other people on this topic that some male opppnents of transgender rights don't know what a ###### is. I'm genuinely laughing my ### off in my office right now. Thank you, FFA, for causing me to discover this.

 

[matttyl]

A what?