5 ms·

I find this way more concerning than the Dr Seuss kerfuffle. The difference is that Dr Seuss Enterprises wanted their books off the market. I can't defend this

I find this way more concerning than the Dr Seuss kerfuffle. The difference is that Dr Seuss Enterprises wanted their books off the market. I can't defend this book, but from the 4 people I know who have hormonally changed their gender identifies, I do feel like the mental health aspects need more discussion.

fshbbdssbbgdd 6y ago
I’m having a hard time caring about the difference between a corporation that owns the rights to books Dr Seuss wrote and Amazon.
TotempaaltJ 6y ago
There's a difference between highlighting the mental health aspects and classifying something as a mental illness. The first can be done safely, the second is harmful.
- ethbr0 6y ago
  If "harmful" is the new litmus test, then Amazon should be taking down a lot more books. (Not that I think they should, but if that's the ostensible standard) https://www.amazon.com/You-Will-Not-Replace-Us/dp/B07KCFYDZL/ https://www.amazon.com/You-Will-Not-Replace-Us/dp/B07KCFYDZL...
  - shorner 6y ago
    I can safely assume that, having clicked that link, I'm going to get a slew of interesting amazon recommendations
    - ethbr0 6y ago
      Amazon's recommendation algorithms don't seem to skew as extreme as YouTube's, in my experience? Probably to be chalked up to the difference between "I'll watch something that shocks me" and "I'll buy something that shocks me."
- anonymoushn 6y ago
  Should Amazon delist the DSM-II and DSM-III for including homosexuality as a mental illness?
- PureParadigm 6y ago
  Regardless of your thoughts on whether this particular case qualifies as mental illness, we need to work to de-stigmatize mental illness. Being diagnosed with a mental illness should not be considered any more harmful than being diagnosed with any other type of illness. When you hear someone has an illness, you probably feel compassionate towards them, and mental illness should be no different in this respect.
  - bscphil 6y ago
    I'm in agreement with you about this, obviously, but I have the following additional thought. The word "illness" refers to a disease or disorder. When you have an illness, that means that there is something wrong with you, and you should try to fix it, or seek help to have it fixed. And if it's not a curable illness, it is still generally obvious to everyone, including the person with the illness, that it would be desirable for it to be cured. Mental illnesses are a bit more complicated, but the same principle still mostly applies. For instance, I have diagnosed major depression. I accept that this is an illness, something wrong with me, that I want to get better, and have taken medication and therapy to help it get better. Some sorts of extreme mental illness that affect how a person interacts with the world (claiming to be Jesus Christ, for example) aside, mental illnesses tend to be much like other illnesses. For this reason, even if you completely remove all stigma associated with mental illness, it would still be misguided and harmful to say that LGBTQ people have a mental illness. The reason is that this implies that something is wrong with them, and that they should want to change this. This is emphatically not the case for the overwhelming majority of LGBT people. * LGBT people generally do not want to be cured (with a few exceptions, mostly religious people who believe their identity is "sinful"). The "solution" to discovering that one is LGBT is generally to accept that for what it is. * Most psychiatric experts agree that LGBT people cannot be cured, but can only repress. * LGBT identities are not generally harmful to the people who have them (outside of violence and bigotry they receive from others). Trans people often want to modify their bodies, but this comes from dysphoria (which is not the same concept as being transgender), which is arguably similar to an illness - but it's widely accepted that sex reassignment surgery is the best available solution. In other words, the fact that mental illness currently carries with it a stigma is not the only reason why it's harmful and hurtful to refer to LGBT identities this way. It's also simply inaccurate.
- selfhoster11 6y ago
  Who decides where the line runs between the two?
- Blikkentrekker 6y ago
  The second is harmful only because people such as you treat the mentally ill as pariahs and lesser human beings. Do you also believe that classifying something as a corporeal illness is harmful? I can't imagine the frustration felt by psychiatrists and other mental health specialists when they see that saying that a man is in need of help to improve his life, which they can give, is now considered harmful because men such as you consider that worthy of such scorn. I happen to be mentally ill and have received treatment for that, I also happen to be physically ill and also have received treatment for that, it has definitely improved my life that treatment for my ailments exists and that I was classified as such, so that such treatment could be provided by the system of universal healthcare where I live.
chillfox 6y ago
The mental health aspect is solved by the experts in that area of the field, the treatment is known. People in the public with little knowledge about the area constantly insisting on it not being solved and that it needs discussion is a bit like arguing about if we should tell people with heart problems to hit the gym while the heart surgeon is recommending a transplant urgently. That is to say very unhelpful and possible harmful.
- leadingthenet 6y ago
  The “treatment” is FAR from a perfect solution, and you pretending this is a completely solved problem is exactly what leads to tensions when talking about this topic.
  - NestedLoopGoBrr 6y ago
    You’re right. Hormone therapy, surgical interventions, etc. — they all fail to meet the absolute goal of transition. But they’re good enough until we have something better. What is not better, is arguing that a discussion still needs to be had on whether or not we should consider transgender individuals as if they are deluded and mentally ill.
    - dmpk2k 6y ago
      > What is not better, is arguing that a discussion still needs to be had on whether or not we should consider transgender individuals as if they are [...] mentally ill. Why?
      - NestedLoopGoBrr 6y ago
        Because simply put it is arguing that people who are proven to be physically wired in a particular way are merely living a delusion. It is easy to not be fully aware of the state of research on this topic if it doesn’t affect you, but as a trans woman, I am extremely familiar with what I’m talking about.
BugsJustFindMe 6y ago
> The difference is that Dr Seuss Enterprises wanted their books off the market. Dr Seuss Enterprises wanted to not distribute a book. Amazon Inc wants to not distribute a book. I don't see the difference?
- spc476 6y ago
  Dr. Seuss Enterprices probably own the copyright to the books they don't want to distribute. Amazon Inc probably does not own the copyright to the books they don't want to distribute.
  - BugsJustFindMe 6y ago
    > Amazon Inc probably does not own the copyright to the books they don't want to distribute. I'm not sure why you think that's germane. Amazon Inc owns the privilege of choosing what they offer for sale just like any other business. This is free enterprise, my friend. Should we also demand that vegan grocers sell meat? Are we to raise a ruckus if our local 7-11 doesn't also serve eggplant parm with its taquitos?
    - carlio 6y ago
      I think the difference is one says "we don't want to sell our book" and the other says "we don't want to sell your book". Of course it's free market, I don't have a huge issue with either decision, but I think that's the nuance the above poster was getting at.
      - BugsJustFindMe 6y ago
        That doesn't explain why they think that that detail is germane to this conversation. I bet they wouldn't have a problem with someone saying "I'm ok with my spit in my mouth but not your spit." I get to decide what goes in my mouth, and you get to decide what goes in your mouth, yeah? I don't care whether you want your spit to be in my mouth. We both get to decide for ourselves.

fshbbdssbbgdd 6y ago

I’m having a hard time caring about the difference between a corporation that owns the rights to books Dr Seuss wrote and Amazon.

TotempaaltJ 6y ago

There's a difference between highlighting the mental health aspects and classifying something as a mental illness. The first can be done safely, the second is harmful.

ethbr0 6y ago
If "harmful" is the new litmus test, then Amazon should be taking down a lot more books. (Not that I think they should, but if that's the ostensible standard) https://www.amazon.com/You-Will-Not-Replace-Us/dp/B07KCFYDZL/ https://www.amazon.com/You-Will-Not-Replace-Us/dp/B07KCFYDZL...
- shorner 6y ago
  I can safely assume that, having clicked that link, I'm going to get a slew of interesting amazon recommendations
  - ethbr0 6y ago
    Amazon's recommendation algorithms don't seem to skew as extreme as YouTube's, in my experience? Probably to be chalked up to the difference between "I'll watch something that shocks me" and "I'll buy something that shocks me."
anonymoushn 6y ago
Should Amazon delist the DSM-II and DSM-III for including homosexuality as a mental illness?
PureParadigm 6y ago
Regardless of your thoughts on whether this particular case qualifies as mental illness, we need to work to de-stigmatize mental illness. Being diagnosed with a mental illness should not be considered any more harmful than being diagnosed with any other type of illness. When you hear someone has an illness, you probably feel compassionate towards them, and mental illness should be no different in this respect.
- bscphil 6y ago
  I'm in agreement with you about this, obviously, but I have the following additional thought. The word "illness" refers to a disease or disorder. When you have an illness, that means that there is something wrong with you, and you should try to fix it, or seek help to have it fixed. And if it's not a curable illness, it is still generally obvious to everyone, including the person with the illness, that it would be desirable for it to be cured. Mental illnesses are a bit more complicated, but the same principle still mostly applies. For instance, I have diagnosed major depression. I accept that this is an illness, something wrong with me, that I want to get better, and have taken medication and therapy to help it get better. Some sorts of extreme mental illness that affect how a person interacts with the world (claiming to be Jesus Christ, for example) aside, mental illnesses tend to be much like other illnesses. For this reason, even if you completely remove all stigma associated with mental illness, it would still be misguided and harmful to say that LGBTQ people have a mental illness. The reason is that this implies that something is wrong with them, and that they should want to change this. This is emphatically not the case for the overwhelming majority of LGBT people. * LGBT people generally do not want to be cured (with a few exceptions, mostly religious people who believe their identity is "sinful"). The "solution" to discovering that one is LGBT is generally to accept that for what it is. * Most psychiatric experts agree that LGBT people cannot be cured, but can only repress. * LGBT identities are not generally harmful to the people who have them (outside of violence and bigotry they receive from others). Trans people often want to modify their bodies, but this comes from dysphoria (which is not the same concept as being transgender), which is arguably similar to an illness - but it's widely accepted that sex reassignment surgery is the best available solution. In other words, the fact that mental illness currently carries with it a stigma is not the only reason why it's harmful and hurtful to refer to LGBT identities this way. It's also simply inaccurate.
selfhoster11 6y ago
Who decides where the line runs between the two?
Blikkentrekker 6y ago
The second is harmful only because people such as you treat the mentally ill as pariahs and lesser human beings. Do you also believe that classifying something as a corporeal illness is harmful? I can't imagine the frustration felt by psychiatrists and other mental health specialists when they see that saying that a man is in need of help to improve his life, which they can give, is now considered harmful because men such as you consider that worthy of such scorn. I happen to be mentally ill and have received treatment for that, I also happen to be physically ill and also have received treatment for that, it has definitely improved my life that treatment for my ailments exists and that I was classified as such, so that such treatment could be provided by the system of universal healthcare where I live.

chillfox 6y ago

The mental health aspect is solved by the experts in that area of the field, the treatment is known. People in the public with little knowledge about the area constantly insisting on it not being solved and that it needs discussion is a bit like arguing about if we should tell people with heart problems to hit the gym while the heart surgeon is recommending a transplant urgently. That is to say very unhelpful and possible harmful.

leadingthenet 6y ago
The “treatment” is FAR from a perfect solution, and you pretending this is a completely solved problem is exactly what leads to tensions when talking about this topic.
- NestedLoopGoBrr 6y ago
  You’re right. Hormone therapy, surgical interventions, etc. — they all fail to meet the absolute goal of transition. But they’re good enough until we have something better. What is not better, is arguing that a discussion still needs to be had on whether or not we should consider transgender individuals as if they are deluded and mentally ill.
  - dmpk2k 6y ago
    > What is not better, is arguing that a discussion still needs to be had on whether or not we should consider transgender individuals as if they are [...] mentally ill. Why?
    - NestedLoopGoBrr 6y ago
      Because simply put it is arguing that people who are proven to be physically wired in a particular way are merely living a delusion. It is easy to not be fully aware of the state of research on this topic if it doesn’t affect you, but as a trans woman, I am extremely familiar with what I’m talking about.

BugsJustFindMe 6y ago

> The difference is that Dr Seuss Enterprises wanted their books off the market. Dr Seuss Enterprises wanted to not distribute a book. Amazon Inc wants to not distribute a book. I don't see the difference?

spc476 6y ago
Dr. Seuss Enterprices probably own the copyright to the books they don't want to distribute. Amazon Inc probably does not own the copyright to the books they don't want to distribute.
- BugsJustFindMe 6y ago
  > Amazon Inc probably does not own the copyright to the books they don't want to distribute. I'm not sure why you think that's germane. Amazon Inc owns the privilege of choosing what they offer for sale just like any other business. This is free enterprise, my friend. Should we also demand that vegan grocers sell meat? Are we to raise a ruckus if our local 7-11 doesn't also serve eggplant parm with its taquitos?
  - carlio 6y ago
    I think the difference is one says "we don't want to sell our book" and the other says "we don't want to sell your book". Of course it's free market, I don't have a huge issue with either decision, but I think that's the nuance the above poster was getting at.
    - BugsJustFindMe 6y ago
      That doesn't explain why they think that that detail is germane to this conversation. I bet they wouldn't have a problem with someone saying "I'm ok with my spit in my mouth but not your spit." I get to decide what goes in my mouth, and you get to decide what goes in your mouth, yeah? I don't care whether you want your spit to be in my mouth. We both get to decide for ourselves.