Politics and Society Moderation Discussion Only Fans Thread

Definitely. Obviously simple surgery wont do it. A total transplant of the female brain with a male brain is needed to solve this incongruence.

You responded with extreme examples that are not at all analogous. Trans issues, especially regarding treatment of children with trans issues, are hot button political issues. The examples you gave are not even political issues, and this is a politics forum.

It seems to me that if there was not at least some mental illness component with people that actually feel that they are the wrong gender, then treatment for such issues would not be appropriate. We aren't talking about liposuctions or Botox, but treatments that have the potential to cause irreparable harm. If somebody suffers from an illness, then in my mind they should clearly be treated, and that can include the most extreme treatments even if they are for young people. On the other hand, if there isn't some kind of illness, then we are really just talking about cosmetic procedures, aren't we? Do you seriously not see the incongruence in the positions you are forcing on people?

You can handwave it away all you want, but I'm not the only one that has mentioned the strong implication that this an attack on people with mental illness. Your thinking is that it is a way to insult trans people, as mental illness is just so awful that to even discuss the prospect is now banned. What about everybody else with mental illness? A few months ago Lirva, who is clearly profoundly mentally ill, was talking about how he refused to go to a psychiatrist because of the stigma that surrounds mental illness. You are continuing the cycle of stigmatizing mental illness that makes it so the Lirvas of the world feel like they can't seek treatment, else it confirms that they are lesser.

One final thing: this is not Reddit, where the majority of users are teenagers. This site is pretty much exclusively frequented by middle aged people. Your entire modding philosophy is centered around this idea you have in your head that you are corralling a bunch of children. You delete posts as a punishment, talk down to users, and are now policing political speech. You mockingly assert that your policies are no big deal, but as had been pointed out several times by several people, this is a place with a small handful of posters keeping the place alive. You only have to take a look at BFI or OOT to see what happens when just a few key posters stop posting. In a vacuum, your policy that your opinion is the right one "end of discussion", may not drive away traffic by itself. Your lack of respect for the people that have posted in this forum, most of them for over a decade, will eventually have that effect.

OK. Lets walk through this.

First, there is no policy that prohibits the discussion of treatment of children with trans issues. So your citing of that is irrelevant to the new policy.

You state my example of homosexuals being killed is not an example of a political issue. Yet I can show you a video of a pastor introducing Ted Cruz at a conservative conference ranting about how thebible says just that. He says "those are gods words not mine!" Then a leading candidate for the republican nomination for president came on stage and said absolutely nothing to refute that statement or even suggest he opposed it. That was a political act at a political conference.

You state that this issue is political and therefore should be allowed. But how in the world is the determination of whether an entire group of people are mentally ill a political issue? Is that determination in any way in the realm of politicians rather than medical doctors? Why would anyone think that elected officials have either the education or expertise to make this determination? One of the leading voices of the republican party, MTG, recently told a woman who adopted her child that she was not a real mother. Is that the type of person who should be determining if a group of people have a mental illness? Should there ever even be a vote by any legislative body to determine who has a mental issue and who doesnt? . But if your point is that discussion should be allowed because this is a politcal issue, it actually isnt.

People with gender incongruence can certaily desire to have their body and mental identity match. It doesnt become gender dysphoria unless the incongruence creates so much distress and depression that it becomes debiliating. But otherwise a completely free of illness transgender person who wants to have some degree of surgery or treatments to get the two opposing elements more in alignment seems perfectly reasonable to me. Millions of women have breast implants to make themselves feel better about their body. But if a transgender woman does the same thing its a sign of mental illness?

Im not forcing any position on anyone. Each person is free to believe what they want. They just arent allowed to debate this one postion on this website.

As you state, LirvA testifies to the stigma of being known as having a mental illness. There is no doubt about it. So how can preventing people from falsely claiming that every transgender person has a mental illness be harmful to transgender people? Should we simply allow posters here to subject all transgender people to the discrimination and stigma falsely? That is somehow good for transgender people? If you believe that there is a stigma to being labeled as having a mental illness (and there clearly is) then why wouldnt you do everything possible to prevent someone with no mental illness from being subjected to that?

I am completely aware that our posters are adults. So you would think it would be easy, for example to stop them from grade school level name calling, but that has proven difficult. I dont delete posts as punishment. If anyone views a deletion as punishment they are vastly overestimating the value of their posts. I delete posts that violate forum rules. And for the same reason if someone took a **** in my living room I remove it so it doesnt continue to stink up the room, I delete those posts so they dont remain in the thread.

And finally, I still refuse to believe that there are so many posters here that feel they must be able to make the case that all transgender people are mentally ill, in contradiction to the major medical organizations and reference books, and facilitate transgender people being discriminated against that they will leave the forum. And if they choose to thats likely best for them.

The bottom line is that if there are people here that get so butthurt because they cant falsely accuse all transgender people of being mentally ill, that they feel they must leave so be it.

I think Ive addressed each of the issues you raised in your post. If I missed a point you made, pls lmk.

Browser,

There are 2 regs in this forum who have posted in this thread in support of your new rules - chez and spaceman bryce. There are many more regs who have objected to those rules, for one reason or another.

As a general point, and not related to this issue specifically - if one of your proposed rules or policies meets with widespread dissatisfaction, would you consider reversing your stance, or do you consider your position of authority in this forum as a dictatorship, and everyone just has to like it or lump it?

Thanks.

Forum policies are not decided by vote of the forum posters. That shouldnt come as a shock to anyone. That's the responsibility of the moderators as delegated by the higher admins and ultimately the owners. That said, I consider everyones feedback and have in the past modified or rescinded policies as a result of feedback.

If anyone has concerns about a mods decisions or performance, there is a mechanism for surfacing those concerns to the people who are in a position to either overrule the mods decision or remove the mod entirely. You can either pm a higher admin (blue name) or you can make a post in the ATF subforum. That will also be seen by higher ups.

So I encourage anyone who wants to make the case to the higher ups that they should be able to express their opinion that all transgender people are suffering from a mental illness or disorder to surface that case to the higher ups. They will carefully consider the case you present. I will immediately and without hesitation implement any changes to policies they direct.

It may save time if all those who feel this policy of not allowing people to state that all transgender people are mentally ill prevents them from expressing their beliefs to coordinate their concerns into a single post in ATF or a pm to an admin, and then everyone sign it by agreeing to have their name attached. I think that would carry more weight and also show just how many posters actually feel constrained by this policy. Ofcourse everyone is also free to express their concerns individually as well.

Seeking psychiatric treatment.

If it makes a difference, I also think women who want to get breast implants (or any serious cosmetic surgery) should at least seek a psychiatric evaluation before taking that step. They may be wanting larger breasts because they think they will get more attention or that it will change other negative parts of their lives that are really more of a psychological issue which could be better solved in another way.

I don't think the main problem here is just that people want to be able to say all trans people are mentally ill. The only person who has said that recently was just banned from the forum. It's more the other rules you gave along with that one, the closing of yet another trans related thread, and the worry that the rules are going to get even stiffer the next time someone says anything that doesn't go along exactly with whatever the most liberal interpretation of "giving respect to trans people" seems to be.

Personally, I have no wish to express the opinion that all transgender people are mentally ill, so you don't need to repeat it multiple times in your response in a performative manner just to demonstrate how ridiculous it is that someone might disagree with the decision. The issue I have is that you have breached a rubicon when it comes to content policing, and that it will be a slippery slope from here - more opinions will be unwelcome because you personally disagree with them.

You also didn't answer the question asked - is there a scenario under which you would reconsider your stance on a given policy if it meets with widespread dissatisfaction?

That implies that simply being transgender is a mental illness and can be "cured" with psychiatric treatment. It denies that a person is actually transgender but rather a person who has an illness to be cured and then they will be back to "normal".

Now, if you took that position and applied it only to those diagnosed with gender dysphoria, which means the gender incongruence is causing debilitating effects and depression, then that is a valid proposal. As with other mental disorders, it could be appropriate to treat gender dysphoria with some selection of therapy, medications, or surgery in order to reduce or eliminate the debilitating factors.

The key is that the treatment for gender dysphoria is designed to eliminate the debilitating effects and depression, NOT "cure" the person of being transgender. There are many transgender people who do not experience debilitating effects, and live their lives without severe mental issues. They may still seek treatments and procedures to bring the physical and mental perceptions in alignment. But they have no mental illness.

That is the key distinction in this entire debate.

It's not because of disagreement with an opinion. The rubicon is safe.

and the mods are regulars as well.

It implies that sometimes people seek to transition due to mental illness, which I don't think is a contentious opinion. There have been people who transition then realize that they made a major mistake. If they seek to understand why they want to transition first, they will be able to better make the decision.

This does not suggest that being transgender itself is a mental illness.

As far as I am aware, browser has never posted in this forum while not being a moderator of it.

I actually went back and edited my post prior to you posting this where I said that I consider all feedback and have, in the past, modified or rescinded policies based on feedback.

No rubicon has been crossed. There have always been content restrictions on this site. It has never been a free for all, any opinion goes forum. And my decision to specifically clarify this policy was not based on the fact that it is opinion I agree with. There are many, many opinions posted here that I vehemently disagree with personally yet I have in no way attempted to prohibit those opinions from being posted. So that is simply a strawman set up to attack rather than the actual policy put in place.

How could someone possibly be diagnosed with gender dysphoria without first seeking psychiatric treatment (or at least an evaluation by a psychiatrist - I'm not sure if that would be considered treatment or not)? If they don't see a psychiatrist before getting medical treatment, they won't know if they have GD or not.

I understand you believe (as does the DSM) that not all trans people have gender dysphoria. Would you say that all people with gender dysphoria are trans, or is that not necessarily true?

Im not following your point there. A transgender person who is comfortable with their situation and being transgender is not creating debilitating stress or depression wouldn't have any need to seek psychiatric care. People generally dont go to see a doctor when they have no symptoms that are bothering them.

But if a transgender person feels overwhelmed by issues created by their transgender status that is beginning to negatively affect their lives and their sense of well being, they may seek out a psychiatrist for a consultation. This is the same process that occurs when someone crosses over from just the usual sad days from life's pressures to depression they just cant shake. The symptoms are what generates the visit to the doctor. Its the same with gender dysphoria.

So the doctor may diagnose the person with gender dysphoria based on the symptoms present as compared to the diagnostic standards in the DSM. Or he may find that the depression is nit caused by the gender incongruence itself, but oerhaps by some other aspect of their life.

So there is certainly no reason a transgender person would seek a psychiatric consult to see if they have gender dysphoria without experience any of the symptoms.

Im not 100% sure but since gender dysphoria is defined as problems caused by gender incongruence, it seems likely that it is a condition of transgender people. But I dont know if there are instances of gender incongruence outside of transgender people.

Lol, Meisner clearly feels pretty strongly about this whole thing, to keep creating new accounts to post about it. Is this like the thing where the most overt homophobes are likely to be closeted homosexuals?

I think we both agree that there is a line, we just differ on where it is.

I appreciate everyones feedback. And while it did not change my position on the policy, it was all seriously considered. I spent a lot of time responding in good faith as best I can to the concerns raised. But at this point I think all the major concerns have been raised and addressed, and we may have reached the point of redundancy.

So I am going to have to limit any further responses to new concerns rather than repeating or elaborating on previous responses. Due to time constraints, I need to use my time more on reading of the actual topic threads rather than continue this debate.

Thanks again for everyones feedback.

The APA and the WHO have determined that gender dysphoria is a mental illness. They have determined that being transgender is not a mental illness. They are the organizations that get to decide. It doesn't matter if you disagree with them, since you are not the one who gets to decide.*

You can probably answer your question from the following:

From the DSM:

*Similarly, it doesn't matter what you or I believe a triangle is. Lots of definitions are like that.

In the post you quoted, I said nothing about what i believed. But obviously this whole debate is in no way similar to a debate on the definition of a triangle.

You also just quoted a description of something from the DSM, but you don't say what it is a description of.

It seems like they should have a description of Gender Dysphoria, but this appears to be a description of all trans people. It says nothing about any symptoms of mental illness such as the condition negatively affecting their lives and their sense of well being (as described by browser above).

Before the APA and WHO came around, who determined what was and wasn't mental illness? What happens when those organizations are in conflict?

That's probably not the best way to phrase what you meant.

I accidentally left off the last (and the most important) bit when I was pasting:

That is a requirement, not part of the "at least 2 of the following" list.

It was pretty random before we decided that it would be a good idea to have professional organizations define the terminology and diagnostic criteria for different disorders.

When they are in conflict it makes mapping between them slightly more difficult for insurance billing.

Both the DSM and the WHO's ICD have been published for over 70 years so I dont think it really matters what came before them. It appears that in most countries medical professionals tend to use one or another. The DSM in the US and the ICD in other countries.