3 ms·
That wiki link, did you read the section on psychology in it? It pretty much reinforces my opionion. Seems like most of the real understanding of it is coming f
by didibus 8y ago
That wiki link, did you read the section on psychology in it? It pretty much reinforces my opionion. Seems like most of the real understanding of it is coming from biological factors.
Now it seems that those initial psychological theories were all argued with similarly low sample and methodologically wonky studies. Just paraphrasing the wikipedia link. In effect, that probably hurt more then it helped and that's why we're starting to see things like Denmark declassifying it as no longer a mental disorder.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/where-transgender-is-no-longer-a-diagnosis/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/where-transgender...
Edit: I know I'm making a big blanket statement. As someone who does not read about all the latest psychological breakthrough, I'm saying in honesty that with my limited knowledge, the impression I get from psychological research is that its not very thorough. So I'm open to hearing that in the last 40 years this has changed, an example would be great, so that I can start maybe changing my opinion.
- alexandercrohde 8y ago1. I provided 6 separate examples of the use of psychology (3 experiments, 3 real-world use-cases). You responded to one. 2. Something being biological is not contrary to it being psychological. Your response is disingenuous. You certainly are well-aware that your blanket statement was a rash, emotional inaccuracy. Rather than concede that point, you're choosing to try to nit-pick at one sixth of the refutation. This is HN, best just to admit your mistake.