6 ms·

Not really - we now create stable identities from what is essentially a form of mental illness. We no longer say that someone suffers from "body dysmorphia", in

Not really - we now create stable identities from what is essentially a form of mental illness. We no longer say that someone suffers from "body dysmorphia", instead we say that they were "assigned the wrong body at birth". It's similar to those deaf parents of deaf children who are against giving them a cochlear implant lest they lose their "deaf culture".

freemint 4y ago
> We now create stable identities from what is essentially a form of mental illness. Yes. And? A stable identity is preferable for the sufferers. Can you explain the problem with that?
- poszlem 4y ago
  The problem with that is the same as we would get if we decided that the way to treat anorexia is by allowing the patients to starve themselves to death. They would die thin and happy, but I don't think many people would agree with it being the "preferred solution to that problem".
  - fzeroracer 4y ago
    You're comparing apples and oranges though. We know that anorexia can generally be treated with cognitive therapy and help restore people to a healthy and comfortable body weight. Those same treatments fail when applied to people with BIID. And they way they cause harm is different as well, since failing to treat anorexia results in starvation. While refusing to treat BIID results in people taking dangerous risks to amputate themselves. I don't see much of an actual solution to these issues in your arguments other than some hand waving about politics as some sort of root cause.
  - freemint 4y ago
    I fail to see the parallel. Anorexia as "starving themselves to death" is not a stable identity, it is an identity in decline with ongoing suffering and temporary highs. Should taking of legs be the first treatment option? No. Should people get therapy, medication and other treatment? Yes. Should those treatments be refined and improved, sufferers of BIID experimented on to improve treatments? Yes. If society is unable to come up with a treatment that works for years should society deny sufferers this radical treatment forever? No. That is imposing the majority world view on a minority when the difference in world view poses no harm. Yes, society would need to address potential cognito hazards/memes and make sure there are no people doing this for economic incentives or other mental illnesses for which treatments exists. If society would let people get the treatment, that would not be capitulation. That would be acknowledging that while society has interest in being able to treat that, that interest can not forever outweigh the benefits the radical operation has for the sufferer. Capitulation would be if society stops trying to find a treatment besides radical operation and handed operations out without scrutiny.
    - freebreakfast 4y ago
      How does one distinguish between a stable identity and an identity in decline?
      - nickmooney 4y ago
        One way to do that would be to look at outcomes of patients who have received the therapy to see if they feel their needs are met, like this study did.
JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> we are now creating stable identities from what is essentially a form of mental illness Defining mental illness is imprecise. We’ve gotten it horribly wrong before, from diagnosing intelligent women as hysterics to gay men and women as deviants. We also have a long, failed history of well-meant prohibition. If we’re seeing preliminary evidence that a surgery makes miserable people happy, I say we follow the lead without prejudice. Maybe we find these peoples’ bodies are picking up on precancerous signs? (Airball.) Probably, we don’t. But my peers’ botox has visibly reduced their faces’ expressiveness; is that mental illness? Out of all of our emotions, I trust my sense of social disgust least. The world in which it evolved is no more. If I can’t find reason beyond discomfort to question someone’s decisions about themselves, I broadly tend towards letting them be. (Side note: appreciate the discussion.)
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
curious-im 4y ago
All things you write - looks like you getting you data from conservative media. "assigned the wrong body at birth" - even in trans community considered huge simplification and wrong narrative. It's used only to explain the feeling to people who knows nothing about the issue. Gender dysphoria - yes, people suffer form it. Transition is the way to lower this suffering. That's the 'cochlear implant' equivalent from your example.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > looks like you getting you data from conservative media Not OP. But this seems unfair. Not only does the language surround trans persons vary from decade to decade, city to city, it’s also—understandably—guarded. Someone far from knowing “nothing about the issue,” and moreover, wishes to learn more, could innocuously use language that is offensive in some circles but tolerated—even encouraged—in others.
- poszlem 4y ago
  I am sorry, but no, that's not coming from the conservative media. See for example "sex assigned at birth" https://service-manual.nhs.uk/content/inclusive-content/sex-gender-and-sexuality https://service-manual.nhs.uk/content/inclusive-content/sex-... as an example from a mainstream medical institution, the British National Health Service. And transition is not "the cochlear implant", the implant would be "an implant that makes you not dysphoric". Transition is "learning how to live as a deaf person".
  - pmyteh 4y ago
    That NHS data collection recommendation says nothing about "wrong body", though. They're trying to elicit accurate information about something potentially medically relevant (assigned biological sex). Their concern is that if you ask a trans person simply "male or female" you'll get an answer that either reflects the gender someone is living in, or the sex on their birth certificate. The former is useless if you're trying to assess the risk of chromosomal disorders, the latter if you're trying to work out how to politely address them.
- 4y ago

freemint 4y ago

> We now create stable identities from what is essentially a form of mental illness. Yes. And? A stable identity is preferable for the sufferers. Can you explain the problem with that?

poszlem 4y ago
The problem with that is the same as we would get if we decided that the way to treat anorexia is by allowing the patients to starve themselves to death. They would die thin and happy, but I don't think many people would agree with it being the "preferred solution to that problem".
- fzeroracer 4y ago
  You're comparing apples and oranges though. We know that anorexia can generally be treated with cognitive therapy and help restore people to a healthy and comfortable body weight. Those same treatments fail when applied to people with BIID. And they way they cause harm is different as well, since failing to treat anorexia results in starvation. While refusing to treat BIID results in people taking dangerous risks to amputate themselves. I don't see much of an actual solution to these issues in your arguments other than some hand waving about politics as some sort of root cause.
- freemint 4y ago
  I fail to see the parallel. Anorexia as "starving themselves to death" is not a stable identity, it is an identity in decline with ongoing suffering and temporary highs. Should taking of legs be the first treatment option? No. Should people get therapy, medication and other treatment? Yes. Should those treatments be refined and improved, sufferers of BIID experimented on to improve treatments? Yes. If society is unable to come up with a treatment that works for years should society deny sufferers this radical treatment forever? No. That is imposing the majority world view on a minority when the difference in world view poses no harm. Yes, society would need to address potential cognito hazards/memes and make sure there are no people doing this for economic incentives or other mental illnesses for which treatments exists. If society would let people get the treatment, that would not be capitulation. That would be acknowledging that while society has interest in being able to treat that, that interest can not forever outweigh the benefits the radical operation has for the sufferer. Capitulation would be if society stops trying to find a treatment besides radical operation and handed operations out without scrutiny.
  - freebreakfast 4y ago
    How does one distinguish between a stable identity and an identity in decline?
    - nickmooney 4y ago
      One way to do that would be to look at outcomes of patients who have received the therapy to see if they feel their needs are met, like this study did.

JumpCrisscross 4y ago

> we are now creating stable identities from what is essentially a form of mental illness Defining mental illness is imprecise. We’ve gotten it horribly wrong before, from diagnosing intelligent women as hysterics to gay men and women as deviants. We also have a long, failed history of well-meant prohibition. If we’re seeing preliminary evidence that a surgery makes miserable people happy, I say we follow the lead without prejudice. Maybe we find these peoples’ bodies are picking up on precancerous signs? (Airball.) Probably, we don’t. But my peers’ botox has visibly reduced their faces’ expressiveness; is that mental illness? Out of all of our emotions, I trust my sense of social disgust least. The world in which it evolved is no more. If I can’t find reason beyond discomfort to question someone’s decisions about themselves, I broadly tend towards letting them be. (Side note: appreciate the discussion.)

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

curious-im 4y ago

All things you write - looks like you getting you data from conservative media. "assigned the wrong body at birth" - even in trans community considered huge simplification and wrong narrative. It's used only to explain the feeling to people who knows nothing about the issue. Gender dysphoria - yes, people suffer form it. Transition is the way to lower this suffering. That's the 'cochlear implant' equivalent from your example.

JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> looks like you getting you data from conservative media Not OP. But this seems unfair. Not only does the language surround trans persons vary from decade to decade, city to city, it’s also—understandably—guarded. Someone far from knowing “nothing about the issue,” and moreover, wishes to learn more, could innocuously use language that is offensive in some circles but tolerated—even encouraged—in others.
poszlem 4y ago
I am sorry, but no, that's not coming from the conservative media. See for example "sex assigned at birth" https://service-manual.nhs.uk/content/inclusive-content/sex-gender-and-sexuality https://service-manual.nhs.uk/content/inclusive-content/sex-... as an example from a mainstream medical institution, the British National Health Service. And transition is not "the cochlear implant", the implant would be "an implant that makes you not dysphoric". Transition is "learning how to live as a deaf person".
- pmyteh 4y ago
  That NHS data collection recommendation says nothing about "wrong body", though. They're trying to elicit accurate information about something potentially medically relevant (assigned biological sex). Their concern is that if you ask a trans person simply "male or female" you'll get an answer that either reflects the gender someone is living in, or the sex on their birth certificate. The former is useless if you're trying to assess the risk of chromosomal disorders, the latter if you're trying to work out how to politely address them.
4y ago