Is "Transgendered" identity a mental illness?

[goku_neo_superman]

I saw this on reddit and I think this guy may have a point even though it's super taboo to suggest such a thing at the moment.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/michael-w-chapman/johns-hopkins-psychiatrist-transgender-mental-disorder-sex-change

Edited August 31, 2015 by Saru
Trimmed for length - please avoid reproducing whole news articles

[Iron_Lotus]

http://www.transadvocate.com/clinging-to-a-dangerous-past-dr-paul-mchughs-selective-reading-of-transgender-medical-literature_n_13842.htm

leaving this here and done with this thread, a dinosaur of a doctor with old world views that cherry picks his information and evidence.

[Kenemet]

No. It's not a mental illness. It is a term that covers a wide range of experiences: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender

Ancient people, in fact, acknowledged that there were "men born in women's bodies and women born in men's bodies." In tribal societies they usually became shamans (or the equivalent.) In societies where one is expected to follow a role for each gender (or where it's demanded and harsh punishments (from shunning to death) are handed out), the two-souled person often finds life stressful.

Some choose to change to the other gender through surgery, some don't. It's an individual thing.

One term used in many Native American communities is "two-souled" though "berdache" is also used (see Wikipedia here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-Spirit)

This is not the same thing as being gay. That's a separate thing. The two-souled woman may be attracted to other women (I know one like this) or be attracted completely to men (I know several like this and count myself as one.)

[GlitterRose]

Well, the latest DSM disagrees with him.

https://www.google.c...NKAANIB_yrUMR5A

Naturally, there have been differing opinions on what should be classified as a disorder. But we do seem to evolve, ever-slowly, in the direction where such things are no longer viewed that way.

Obviously, some of us are quicker at that whole process than others.

Edited August 31, 2015 by ChaosRose

[Ashotep]

Do I believe all transgender people are mentally ill, no, do I believe none are, no.

I found this comment at the bottom of the page of the OP article interesting.

MJ Stiles • 4 days ago

My step-son is severely mentally ill <psychotic and="" personality="" disorder=""> and now believes he is trans-gender. There is no way that he should have been given a rubber stamp of acceptable mental health, in order to proceed with the surgical process but, that seems to be exactly what has happened. This whole trend means big business for the butcher surgeons who're performing this butchery AND for unscrupulous mental health professionals who "rubber stamp" people for the procedures. The surgeons give them kick-backs from the proceeds, etc... The big losers are the poor mentally ill patients who need real help. The suicide rate for post-op transsexuals is astronomical and I <sadly> we expect this will be the final end result for the young man that I know. STOP this madness now!!

So at least some are suffering from mental illness.

[GlitterRose]

Do I believe all transgender people are mentally ill, no, do I believe none are, no.

I found this comment at the bottom of the page of the OP article interesting.

So at least some are suffering from mental illness.

Some people, in general, are suffering from mental illness.

That's not what this topic is really about, though. It's about whether or not being transgendered equates with being mentally ill.

I would also like to see the proof that surgeons give mental health professionals kickbacks. There's obviously no way to be certain if anything in the comment is true or not.

Edited August 31, 2015 by ChaosRose

[goku_neo_superman]

No. It's not a mental illness. It is a term that covers a wide range of experiences: https://en.wikipedia...iki/Transgender

Ancient people, in fact, acknowledged that there were "men born in women's bodies and women born in men's bodies." In tribal societies they usually became shamans (or the equivalent.) In societies where one is expected to follow a role for each gender (or where it's demanded and harsh punishments (from shunning to death) are handed out), the two-souled person often finds life stressful.

Some choose to change to the other gender through surgery, some don't. It's an individual thing.

One term used in many Native American communities is "two-souled" though "berdache" is also used (see Wikipedia here: https://en.wikipedia...wiki/Two-Spirit)

This is not the same thing as being gay. That's a separate thing. The two-souled woman may be attracted to other women (I know one like this) or be attracted completely to men (I know several like this and count myself as one.)

Interesting, well then perhaps there is a middle ground here between trying to create a false sense that they can be given the body of the opposite sex (which is playing God in my opinion) and the sense that they are "sick" people.

Certainly though one doesn't "decide" their gender, they are either born in the body of the opposite sex or not.

[GlitterRose]

Interesting, well then perhaps there is a middle ground here between trying to create a false sense that they can be given the body of the opposite sex (which is playing God in my opinion) and the sense that they are "sick" people.

Certainly though one doesn't "decide" their gender, they are either born in the body of the opposite sex or not.

Meh...you could argue that any doc is "playing God." Maybe I was supposed to die when I was born a preemie, but those egotistical b******* had to go and put me in an incubator. What gave them the right? Lol.

The point is...we're not born perfect beings. We have defects. Sometimes modern medicine can help. Sometimes it tries to help, but it falls short. It's ever-evolving.

It used to be that those unfortunate "in between" kids would just get made into whatever the doc felt they were closest in resemblance to. At least now they wait until the kid can actually tell them, hey, this is what I feel like. Or even consider that it might be their choice to stay just the way they are.

Edited August 31, 2015 by ChaosRose

[Ashotep]

Some people, in general, are suffering from mental illness.

That's not what this topic is really about, though. It's about whether or not being transgendered equates with being mentally ill.

I would also like to see the proof that surgeons give mental health professionals kickbacks. There's obviously no way to be certain if anything in the comment is true or not.

You could also say there is no way to be certain the doctor in your article is right either. In both cases we are just going by what they are claiming to be true.

[GlitterRose]

You can actually read the DSM V. It's not an "article."

It's the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Illness. Anyone who takes even an introductory class on counseling has to look at it. It's the American Psychiatric Association's diagnostic tool.

There's no debate about what's in it. The DSM V, which all psychiatrists and psychologists use to diagnose disorders, does not consider the transgendered to have a disorder.

Edited August 31, 2015 by ChaosRose

[seaturtlehorsesnake]

no.

[vDominai]

I don't think so.

But I would like to know what it means when someone claims to be "no gender" or "all genders".

And if otherkin (people who claim to be animals) are counted as legit.

[lightly]

there are several members here with transspecies identities. One thinks he's a moose born in a man's body. ;

* ohya, anyway, he's not mentally ill ... nice guy too.

Edited August 31, 2015 by lightly

[TonopahRick]

You are what your DNA says you are.

[+HerNibs]

No, it isn't.

My source? Me and one of my children just beginning the process of physically transitioning to the other sex.

Nibs

[PrisonerX]

You can actually read the DSM V. It's not an "article."

It's the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Illness. Anyone who takes even an introductory class on counseling has to look at it. It's the American Psychiatric Association's diagnostic tool.

There's no debate about what's in it. The DSM V, which all psychiatrists and psychologists use to diagnose disorders, does not consider the transgendered to have a disorder.

There's plenty of debate to be had. The root of the condition has yet to be determined.

The DMV 5 reclassification itself received criticism from professionals within the APA. The sex and gender workshop failed to even meet their target number of clinician participation, with the majority of those that signed up failing to ever enroll any patients.

You can more or less attribute this reclassification to social factors, because there's nothing scientifically conclusive that is backing the change in your psych Bible.

Edited September 1, 2015 by PrisonerX

[GlitterRose]

There's plenty of debate to be had. The root of the condition has yet to be determined.

The DMV 5 reclassification itself received criticism from professionals within the APA. The sex and gender workshop failed to even meet their target number of clinician participation, with the majority of those that signed up failing to ever enroll any patients.

You can more or less attribute this reclassification to social factors, because there's nothing scientifically conclusive that is backing the change in your psych Bible.

It isn't "my psych bible." But it is the diagnostic manual used by all psychiatrists and psychologists. It's the universal authority, at least here in the US, by which all psychiatric diagnoses are made. So if the question is whether or not the transgendered are mentally ill simply because they are transgendered...it's a good place to look. That's where everyone who actually makes the crazy call is going to look. And according to the DSM V, people who happen to be transgendered are not necessarily mentally ill, and should not be automatically viewed and treated as such.

Edited September 1, 2015 by ChaosRose

[Leonardo]

There's plenty of debate to be had. The root of the condition has yet to be determined.

Which means it cannot be stated as being a "mental illness", right?

To me, this is more about what "mental illness" actually is. Is it any condition that causes behaviour that deviates from some 'normalised standard'? In which case 99.9999999% of the world's population can be classified as "mentally ill" - because we all exhibit behaviours that deviate from some fictional "normal behaviour".

For myself, the only "conditions" I would consider to be classified as constituting a mental illness, are those where the condition results in the desire to self-harm or harm others, or the situation of being dys-/non-functional as a human being. Any other behaviour may be considered to be "non-standard" (whatever that might mean) but does not constitute being "mentally ill".

[PrisonerX]

It isn't "my psych bible." But it is the diagnostic manual used by all psychiatrists and psychologists. It's the universal authority, at least here in the US, by which all psychiatric diagnoses are made. So if the question is whether or not the transgendered are mentally ill simply because they are transgendered...it's a good place to look. That's where everyone who actually makes the crazy call is going to look. And according to the DSM V, people who happen to be transgendered are not necessarily mentally ill, and should not be automatically viewed and treated as such.

The Society for Humanistic Psychology released an open letter scrutinizing the lack of psychologist participation. It was signed by over 15,000 people, including other divisions of the APA. Not even all psychologists agree.

The DSM - V is a good place to look if you want to know the latest social trend in regards to this particular topic, not if you want to know whether or not it really IS or ISN'T an actual mental illness ; that is still very much up for debate (regardless of the false sense of conclusiveness that the DSM reclassification is giving people).

Which means it cannot be stated as being a "mental illness", right?

To me, this is more about what "mental illness" actually is. Is it any condition that causes behaviour that deviates from some 'normalised standard'? In which case 99.9999999% of the world's population can be classified as "mentally ill" - because we all exhibit behaviours that deviate from some fictional "normal behaviour".

For myself, the only "conditions" I would consider to be classified as constituting a mental illness, are those where the condition results in the desire to self-harm or harm others, or the situation of being dys-/non-functional as a human being. Any other behaviour may be considered to be "non-standard" (whatever that might mean) but does not constitute being "mentally ill".

My only point was to make it known that whether or not it is a mental illness is still in question, despite the DSM reclassification and what it is leading people to believe. So I would agree that stating with certainty, either way, would be unjustified.

[GlitterRose]

The Society for Humanistic Psychology released an open letter scrutinizing the lack of psychologist participation. It was signed by over 15,000 people, including other divisions of the APA. Not even all psychologists agree.

The DSM - V is a good place to look if you want to know the latest social trend in regards to this particular topic, not if you want to know whether or not it really IS or ISN'T an actual mental illness ; that is still very much up for debate (regardless of the false sense of conclusiveness that the DSM reclassification is giving people).

My only point was to make it known that whether or not it is a mental illness is still in question, despite the DSM reclassification and what it is leading people to believe. So I would agree that stating with certainty, either way, would be unjustified.

It seems like you're trying to claim that the criticism of the DSM V was about the change in classification for the transgendered. I'm not seeing where that's what these people were saying.

There are two main interrelated criticisms of DSM-5:

• an unhealthy influence of the pharmaceutical industry on the revision process
  
• an increasing tendency to "medicalise" patterns of behaviour and mood that are not considered to be particularly extreme
  

https://www.google.c...dW6iUOmQR3livJw

Edited September 1, 2015 by ChaosRose

[PrisonerX]

It seems like you're trying to claim that the criticism of the DSM V was about the change in classification for the transgendered. I'm not seeing where that's what these people were saying.

There are two main interrelated criticisms of DSM-5:

• an unhealthy influence of the pharmaceutical industry on the revision process
  
• an increasing tendency to "medicalise" patterns of behaviour and mood that are not considered to be particularly extreme
  

https://www.google.c...dW6iUOmQR3livJw

I'm saying that the Sex and Gender workshop responsible for the change was not without criticism. Not that it was the main criticism of the DSM overall.

Edited September 1, 2015 by PrisonerX

[Leonardo]

My only point was to make it known that whether or not it is a mental illness is still in question, despite the DSM reclassification and what it is leading people to believe. So I would agree that stating with certainty, either way, would be unjustified.

That's not a valid position. At present, studies do not suggest transgenderism is classifiable as a "mental illness", therefore it can only be classified as "not a mental illness". There is no "we don't know" classification.

[PrisonerX]

That's not a valid position. At present, studies do not suggest transgenderism is classifiable as a "mental illness", therefore it can only be classified as "not a mental illness". There is no "we don't know" classification.

Current classification is not necessarily reality. There are no studies at all that have gotten to the root of the condition. Brain scan studies are inconclusive.

There is a "we don't know" stance, which is the reality, regardless of the classification; which was more a result of social factors than anything scientifically conclusive.

[GlitterRose]

I'm saying that the Sex and Gender workshop responsible for the change was not without criticism. Not that it was the main criticism of the DSM overall.

Well, you certainly mentioned these 15,000 people as if that was their focus. It isn't even mentioned in their critique. Their critique just says something about insurance coverage not being their concern, but it is certainly a concern of the patients involved.

Even if it was their focus, which it clearly wasn't, there's the point that the overwhelming majority of psychologists did not have a problem with the DSM V. There are over 106,000 psychologists in the US. I went to that petition, and it lists a lot of people who aren't even from the US.

This is kind of like how people claim that there "is no consensus" on global warming. And yet, there is.

Edited September 1, 2015 by ChaosRose

[PrisonerX]

Well, you certainly mentioned these 15,000 people as if that was their focus. It isn't even mentioned in their critique. Their critique just says something about insurance coverage not being their concern, but it is certainly a concern of the patients involved.

Even if it was their focus, which it clearly wasn't, there's the point that the overwhelming majority of psychologists did not have a problem with the DSM V. There are over 106,000 psychologists in the US. I went to that petition, and it lists a lot of people who aren't even from the US.

This is kind of like how people claim that there "is no consensus" on global warming. And yet, there is.

One would expect the majority within the society to support the change, when it is societal factors responsible for the change itself.