3 ms·
I wouldn't use this as a supporting argument. Didn't DSM-3 classify homosexuality as a disorder?
by jahabrewer 8y ago
I wouldn't use this as a supporting argument. Didn't DSM-3 classify homosexuality as a disorder?
- vehementi 8y agoReally? A widely recognized reference manual is blanket discredited because it made a mistake in the past (1952-1974, not DSM-3)?
- jacquesm 8y agoThat makes it a book in which some statements are social reflections rather than statements rooted in good science, which makes other such statements somewhat suspect. It doesn't mean you should reject the whole thing out of hand but it might be a good idea to try to figure out how much of it is todays bias rather than good science in cases where that is warranted.
- krageon 8y agoI'd contend that the most useful ground state for most of us, being people with no knowledge in the field whatsoever, is to assume that the DSM is broadly correct. From there you can, given some evidence, conclude that parts might not be.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- lujim 8y agoI'm not sure, but I bet you're right. It is a medical reference that will change over time as better information becomes available. It's still the definitive manual for classifying mental and personality disorders.
- lopmotr 8y agoThat's political. Of course it's a disorder in the sense that it causes abnormal poor performance (reproduction is harder!). Peadophilia is also still called a disorder but only if it negatively affects the person's life. It hardly matters how we classify them. Everyone has some inferiority that they might want to improve, so we could all say we have disorders. Or we could all accept everyone as just-how-they-are.