5 ms·

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

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.
  - istinetz 6y ago
    Daltonism also cannot be fixed (for now). Do you want to celebrate it?
  - shantara 6y ago
    >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. I don't claim LGBTQ to be an illness, nor do I presume to speak for everyone, but it's disingenuous to claim people don't want to be cured, when there's no realistically available "cure". What if in a near future a new drug becomes available that would allow people to change their gender identity? If people get offered a voluntary choice to either take a medicine and alter their mind to fit their body, or undergo a physical surgery and alter their body to fit their mind, or do neither - can you claim to know which percentage of people would pick which option? I don't, and I won't assign a label on any of the groups, or declare them traitors to some abstract cause just because their decision won't fit my own mindset, or currently prevalent liberal ideology.
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.

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.
- istinetz 6y ago
  Daltonism also cannot be fixed (for now). Do you want to celebrate it?
- shantara 6y ago
  >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. I don't claim LGBTQ to be an illness, nor do I presume to speak for everyone, but it's disingenuous to claim people don't want to be cured, when there's no realistically available "cure". What if in a near future a new drug becomes available that would allow people to change their gender identity? If people get offered a voluntary choice to either take a medicine and alter their mind to fit their body, or undergo a physical surgery and alter their body to fit their mind, or do neither - can you claim to know which percentage of people would pick which option? I don't, and I won't assign a label on any of the groups, or declare them traitors to some abstract cause just because their decision won't fit my own mindset, or currently prevalent liberal ideology.

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.