Is the APA Playing Politics With Sexual Disorder Definition? | Print |  E-mail
Written by Dave Bohon   
Thursday, 18 February 2010 13:41

In mid-February, the American Psychiatric Association released the latest proposed changes to its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), considered the “Bible” used by mental health professionals in diagnosing patients. In addition to providing a guide for mental health diagnosis, the DSM is crucial in helping third-party payers (insurance companies) determine what they will cover under health insurance policies.

According to a report on Focus on the Family’s CitizenLink.com website, significant among the proposed changes to the fifth edition of the DSM is the re-labeling of Gender Identity Disorder (GID), also known as transsexualism, to “Gender Incongruity.” A diagnosis dictionary on the psychologytoday.com website explains that GID occurs “when a person feels as if their biological gender doesn’t accord with who they feel themselves to be,” and is defined by “strong, persistent feelings of identification with the opposite gender and discomfort with one’s own assigned sex.”

The present DSM defines Gender Identity Disorder as a “strong and persistent cross-gender identification,” while the proposed change would remove the term “disorder” and define it as a “marked incongruence between one’s experienced/expressed gender and assigned gender.”

While to the layman’s mind the proposed change may seem like a “distinction without a difference,” some critics argue that the proposal is part of a strategy designed to normalize sexual behaviors that stable societies have traditionally considered aberrations. They note that in 1973, after intense pressure from homosexual activist groups, the APA voted to remove homosexuality from sexual disorders listed in the DSM. More recently, homosexual activists — who now prefer the moniker GLBT (for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender) — insist that labeling transsexualism as a “disorder” is demeaning to a "transgendered” person, and possibly even a violation of his civil liberties.

One such lobbying group, known as the GID Reform Advocates (www.transgender.org), argues that diagnosing a sexual deviation as a “disorder” serves only to “reinforce false, negative stereotypes of gender variant people” while failing to “legitimize the medical necessity of sex reassignment surgeries (SRS) and procedures for transsexual women and men who urgently need them.”

One of the foundational issues in the push to downgrade the diagnosis and remove the “disorder” label from transsexualism is concern among “transgendered” individuals that they may lose access to “sex reassignment” procedures — also known as sex-change operations. But the folks at GID Reform Advocates insist that such concerns are unfounded. “In truth,” they insist, “transsexual individuals are poorly served by a diagnosis that both stigmatizes them unconditionally as mentally deficient and undermines the legitimacy of sex reassignment procedures that have been easily dismissed as 'elective' and 'cosmetic' by insurers, governments, and employers.”

Advocates for GID re-classification assure those suffering from transsexual issues that the reform they seek will have the double effect of removing the social stigma from what healthy societies have always considered aberrant behavior, while improving the chances that health insurers will pay for a procedure that has the cumulative effect of convincing individuals they have been transformed into persons of the opposite sex.

Dr. George Rekers, a professor of neuropsychiatry and behavioral science at the University of South Carolina medical school, told CitizenLink.com that, like its earlier decision to delete homosexuality from its list of sexual disorders, the APA is once again caving in to political pressure. “I think they are bowing to activist groups to downplay the actual psychopathology involved by just calling it gender incongruence,” he said. “They don’t want to go back to put homosexuality as the disorder. Now it looks like they’re backpedaling on Gender Identity Disorder.”
 

Trackback(0)
Comments (39)add comment
feedSubscribe to this comment's feed
OMG the " marks are taking over, Lowly rated comment [Show]

Melissa said:

0
 If its not a disorder, why do they commit suicide?
The problem with downgrading Gender Identity Disorder is the fact that many of those who suffer from it are often going through severe emotional trauma and confusion. This often leads to anxiety, depression and suicide. These individuals need mental health treatment and not just acceptance from the public. It is also a fact that aside from Sexual Reassignment Surgery, there is no cure or effective treatment for GID. It should also be understood that SRS sometimes fails to help the patient and can leave the individual in an even worse emotional state. We should be putting the health of these individuals first and leave politics out of it. The reality is that Gender Identity Disorder can be serious which can cause the patient to become suicidal or cause physical harm to themselves. When something is harmful to the patient, it is a lot more than just a condition needing greater acceptance from the public.
 
February 19, 2010
Votes: +0

D Anderson said:

0
 ...
Now I'll know to never bother reading anything in the New American again - first time and last was today. It's obviously an opinion rag without any effort at professional journalism. Saying that homosexuality was removed from the DSM "after intense pressure from homosexual activist groups" completely ignores the FACT (recognize the term?) that many many pieces of scientific evidence had throughly demonstrated that homosexuals have no fixed psychopathology nor in fact any greater amounts of psychopathology than does the heterosexual population. Same case is mounting for "GID" though research base still much slimmer there. You want to hang on to old prejudices, fine. You should change the name of the mag to "Old American."
 
February 19, 2010
Votes: +6

Whitey Lawful said:

0
 ...
That's what they're all about, take homosexuality for instance. Psychology has been dismantled, starting nearly fifty years ago with the "psychological revolution". Psycho-dynamics have further been blacklisted, for authoritarian science (genetic theory, for one) - in the age of "the mechanization of man".
 
February 19, 2010 | url
Votes: -1

Zoe Brain said:

0
 Rekers... where have I heard that name before?
Rekers... Rekers... Oh yes...
In January 2005, Pulaski County Circuit Judge Timothy White ... called Rekers' testimony "extremely suspect." He also accused Rekers of testifying solely for promoting his "own personal agenda."
And there's this:
Miami-Dade Circuit Court Judge Cindy Lederman ... said "Dr. Rekers’ testimony was far from a neutral and unbiased recitation of the relevant scientific evidence. Dr. Rekers’ beliefs are motivated by his strong ideological and theological convictions that are not consistent with the science. Based on his testimony and demeanor at trial, the court can not consider his testimony to be credible nor worthy of forming the basis of public policy."

Lederman may have been put off by the fact that Rekers said based on "research," a case could be made for banning Native Americans from adopting children.
I think there might just be more credible sources. Though they wouldn't fit your pre-conceived Lede, would they? You have to rely on crackpots eccentric witnesses, because they're the only ones that support your eccentric ideas.

You must have gone to a lot of trouble to find one that told you what you wanted to hear. Unfortunately, his notoriety as the archetypical unreliable "expert" precedes him, even in Australia.
 
February 19, 2010 | url
Votes: +10

HenryHall said:

0
 ...
Melissa wrote: "The problem with downgrading Gender Identity Disorder is the fact that many of those who suffer from it are often going through severe emotional trauma and confusion. This often leads to anxiety, depression and suicide."

The same could be said for people who suffer lung cancer. Either they should be diagnosed with Lung Cancer Identity Disorder or the transfolk should be diagnosed with Depression, Anxiety and the like - just like people with lung cancer. The mental illness (eg Depression), where it exists, is not caused by this fictional GID, it is caused by other things, including the stigma that society heaps on these people.
 
February 19, 2010
Votes: +2

Melissa said:

0
 How is GID fictional?
HenryHall's comment that GID is fictional is totally incorrect. An estimated 3 million Americans suffer from this. Most live in secret. The one's that do come out to seek medical attention are often in a very bad emotional state. By the time they get help, they are often contemplating or have attempted suicide. Particularly upsetting is the ones who have attempted self mutilation of their genitals. Obviously, Mr. Hall has never come in contact with these patients or his opinions would be quite different than what he presented here. Having been in contact with many of these individuals, I can truthfully say that GID is real and very painful for the affected individuals. Because of the lack of understanding and knowledge by society, their suffering is often further intensified.
 
February 19, 2010
Votes: +0

Elizabeth said:

0
 This is how.
Melissa what Mr. Hall is saying is that most trans people like my self feel that the mental health issues we have come from not being able to seek the life we should have. I like most feel that the medical attention we should be getting should happen sooner and should be more along the lines of transition with HRT and SRS.
Yes, i feel there is mental part to this and we should see a mental health professional, but we should not be required too. If i as a grown adult can get surgery to get cat like wishers but can't SRS with out two letters from two mental health professionals. I find that very messed up given that the AMA says that SRS is the best treatment and should be pay for by insurance http://www.ama-assn.org/ama1/p...ctions.pdf

-Beth
 
February 19, 2010
Votes: +5

Tina said:

0
 Transsexual
Melissa wrote:
The problem with downgrading Gender Identity Disorder is the fact that many of those who suffer from it are often going through severe emotional trauma and confusion. This often leads to anxiety, depression and suicide. These individuals need mental health treatment and not just acceptance from the public.
Most of the anxiety, depression, and suicidal feelings are caused by the stigmatization the person feels as a result of how society in general treats them, acceptance by society would go a long way toward alleviating these symptoms.
It is also a fact that aside from Sexual Reassignment Surgery, there is no cure or effective treatment for GID. It should also be understood that SRS sometimes fails to help the patient and can leave the individual in an even worse emotional state.
Yes that is true, sometimes SRS is not effective. Can you name a treatment for a condition that works 100% of the time and never leaves the patient in worse condition than they were in to begin with? No treatment is 100% effective for any given condition.
We should be putting the health of these individuals first and leave politics out of it.
Absolutely.
The reality is that Gender Identity Disorder can be serious which can cause the patient to become suicidal or cause physical harm to themselves. When something is harmful to the patient, it is a lot more than just a condition needing greater acceptance from the public.
As I already stated, most of the trauma a transsexual person experiences is a direct result of societies behaviour toward them and societal acceptance would go a long way toward alleviating those symptoms.
 
February 20, 2010
Votes: +4

Tina said:

0
 ...
Please forgive the typo appearing just above Melissa's name in the above post, it is unintentional. smilies/sad.gif
 
February 20, 2010
Votes: +0

Elmer said:

0
 It's not depression, it's GUILT caused by SIN. (Negative votes won't alter the truth)
most of the trauma a transsexual person experiences is a direct result of societies behaviour


Absolutely wrong. This "trauma" is called GUILT! Sexual perversion of any kind is sin. Sin brings guilt. Guilt brings depression.

Go ahead, vote it down. It won't change the truth.
 
February 20, 2010
Votes: -5

Michelle said:

0
 Bigotry
Absolutely wrong. This "trauma" is called GUILT! Sexual perversion of any kind is sin. Sin brings guilt. Guilt brings depression.


Elmer - it's clear that you have no idea about the kinds of discrimination and hostility that transsexuals face every day. Transsexuals face everything from being denied employment and residency to even something as simple as using the bathroom in public places.

Perhaps, from your self-righteous perspective this hostility is justified because of the 'sins' you claim transsexuals are committing, but you deny your own responsibility then in contributing to the marginalization of another member of society.

Lastly, I would argue that scripture does not meaningfully talk about transsexuals, and any attempt at hermeneutics that tries to encompass transsexualism with scripture is twisting the scripture beyond recognition. The simple reality is that 2,000 years ago, the society of the time simply did not have either language or concepts to embody transsexualism. So, declaring transsexualism as 'sin' is itself highly debatable.
 
February 20, 2010
Votes: +2

N. said:

0
 ...
Melissa said:

"If its not a disorder, why do they commit suicide?
The problem with downgrading Gender Identity Disorder is the fact that many of those who suffer from it are often going through severe emotional trauma and confusion. This often leads to anxiety, depression and suicide."

First of all correlation is not causation, so your argument is a fallacy.

"These individuals need mental health treatment and not just acceptance from the public."

Second, do you live in a vacuum? Most human beings are social creatures. So, try to imagine this scenario:

You have a hypothetical medical condition. Imagine not only being denied insurance coverage for treatment, but in some in some cases any treatment at all for your condition. Then imagine having to deal with with ostracization, and bigotry from people who do not believe you actually have a medical condition, as well as employers who have the legal right to fire you and landlords who the legal right to evict you from your home solely on the basis of your medical condition.

Can you honestly tell me that under those circumstances you would not be depressed, anxious, or even suicidal? Would you then conclude that your medical condition must not be a medical condition at all, but rather a mental illness, because you've become depressed, anxious, and suicidal? It's circular reasoning, but it's essentially what you are saying about trans people: that the natural human reaction to being treated horrifically by society and doctors is evidence that being trans is an indication that being trans is, in itself, a mental illness.

@Elmer -

Like Michelle, I would like to dispute your claims, but I've learned through experience that people you are addicted to self-righteousness and impervious to facts.

@D Anderson - Agreed. This is first and last time I'm visiting the Old American since they can't seem to figure out what real journalism is.
 
February 20, 2010
Votes: -1

Elmer said:

0
 Attack and deny truth. Defend sin all you want. Truth will remain.
"self-righteousness"??? Hardly! I have committed my fair share of sins, and felt the guilt. I have also repented, an act which does wonders in the realm of guilt management.

"impervious to facts"??? Hardly! Had I been impervious to the fact that God hates sin and has given His Son as the ONLY solution to sin, I would be no better off than those who wallow in sin and guilt and try to blame the rest of the world for their problems.

No, I'm not being self-righteous. I've found the solution and wish to share it with others who are mired in the same quagmire of sin in which I found myself. Yet in your stubbornness, arrogance, and feeling of self-righteousness you mock God and condemn those who wish to reveal the truth to you.

It is not wise to believe yourself impervious to the love, and eventual wrath, of God.
 
February 21, 2010
Votes: -1

Michelle said:

0
 On What Basis
@Elmer:

On what basis do you claim that being transsexual is "sin"?

You keep on throwing about the term 'sin', but you have not given me - or anyone else - the basis upon which you make this declaration.

It is one thing make such declarations, it is something altogether different to accept the challenge of actually substantiating that claim.
 
February 21, 2010
Votes: +1

Elmer said:

0
 "God, you errored and gave me the wrong body when you created me." God will laugh.
"On what basis do you claim that being transsexual is "sin"?"

I am not making any "claims"... I am merely pointing out what God has already decreed.

"the basis upon which you make this declaration."

I am not making the declaration... God made it. The absolute fact of the matter is this: transsexual == homosexual. The double "=" sign designates the concept of not "equal to", but "identical to". A honest reading of the Bible will reveal this to you. You may play semantics and create all the new terms you desire, but it won't change the facts.

"it is something altogether different to accept the challenge of actually substantiating that claim."

This is a challenge that sodomites will face when they try to justify themselves to the Almighty Creator (and Judge) who created them male and female. "Great God, you made a mistake when you created me. You gave me the wrong body." That isn't going to wash.
 
February 21, 2010
Votes: +1

Zoe Brain said:

0
 Biblical Proof of Sin.
First we take the proposition that Transsexuality is an Intersex condition - that Transexuals are born with bodies neither wholly male nor wholly female.

Evidence:

Male–to–female transsexuals have female neuron numbers in a limbic nucleus. Kruiver et al J Clin Endocrinol Metab (2000) 85:2034–2041

A sex difference in the hypothalamic uncinate nucleus: relationship to gender identity by Garcia-Falgueras et al Brain. 2008 Dec;131(Pt 12):3132-46.

-- and about 300 other papers. We can reliably cause transsexuality in experimental animals by appropriate hormonal manipulation in the womb, just as we can cause spina bifida, cleft palates etc.

OK, so what does the Bible say about Intersexed people? First that they exist - Matthew 19:12, first line, KJV version:
For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb:
Congenital Intersex conditions would have been obvious to any agricultural society that kept herd animals. That the same thing happens in humans too would be a matter of simple observation.

OK, so what does the Bible say about Eunuchs? Isaiah 56:3-5, KJV again.

3 Neither let the son of the stranger, that hath joined himself to the LORD, speak, saying, The LORD hath utterly separated me from his people: neither let the eunuch say, Behold, I am a dry tree.

4 For thus saith the LORD unto the eunuchs that keep my sabbaths, and choose the things that please me, and take hold of my covenant;

5 Even unto them will I give in mine house and within my walls a place and a name better than of sons and of daughters: I will give them an everlasting name, that shall not be cut off.

Er... maybe those who are so sure that they know what the Bible has to say on the subject should perhaps try reading it some time.
 
February 21, 2010 | url
Votes: -1

Michelle said:

0
 That constitutes argument, Elmer?
Writes Elmer:
The absolute fact of the matter is this: transsexual == homosexual.


Incorrect on all levels of understanding.

Homosexuality is about whom one is sexually attracted to.
Transsexuality is about what gender one lives in.

Ironically, in spite if the name, transsexuality isn't about someone's sexual identity.

The double "=" sign designates the concept of not "equal to", but "identical to".


If the two terms are identical, why are there two terms? (and yes, I know how to program in C and its related languages)

Next up, would you care to spend some time "revealing" the scripture that declares that transsexuality is a sin - especially in light of the fact that we've already shown your first position is logically unsustainable?

 
February 21, 2010
Votes: -1

Michelle said:

0
 Related Linkage for Definitions
Dictionary.com definitions:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/homosexual
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/transsexual
 
February 21, 2010
Votes: -1

Elmer said:

0
 ...
You confuse the terms "hermaphrodite" (or intersex) with "transsexual" (also referred to as "transgender"). A hermaphrodite is a rare (less than 1%) genetic condition. A transsexual (or sodomite) is a moral condition. Trying to redefine (or create new) terms in accordance with your "modern (in)sensibilities" does nothing to support your case.

#ifndef TRUE
#define TRUE 1
#endif
#ifndef LIAR
#define LIAR 0
#endif
main(void)
{
int God TRUE;
int man;
if (God == TRUE) {
man = LIAR;
}
else man = God;
if (man == God) {
exit(1);
}
exit(0);
}
 
February 21, 2010
Votes: +1

Elmer said:

0
 Zoe Brain
You knowledge of scripture is superficial. Do research into the Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic texts. Also research the traditional customs of the Hebrew and other cultures of the day.

Find out just what was meant by the term "eunuch". You will find several applications. Also notice the contexts in which the references are made. Your understanding will change.
 
February 21, 2010
Votes: +1

Michelle said:

0
 Provide Some Substantiation For Your Position
@Elmer:

You continue to assert things without providing relevant supporting material to substantiate your claim.

Putting badly written pseudo-code into your posts doesn't make your position substantiated.

I've asked you twice to provide substantiating material for your argument, and all we get in reply are vague exhortations to "go read the bible". I'm asking you to provide references to material that substantiates your claim that being transsexual is 'sin'.

... oh yes the logic of your 'program' above is flawed. It is an improperly formed syllogism.

From the assertion "God is True" you derive "Man is a liar". Unfortunately there is no information provided that substantiates that derivation, nor have you derived a logical contradiction.
 
February 22, 2010
Votes: -1

Elmer said:

0
 ...
"badly written pseudo-code"

You obviously don't even know what pseudo-code looks like. Had you taken my class, you would have learned that.

"Unfortunately there is no information provided that substantiates that derivation"

There are 66 books that substantiate it.
 
February 25, 2010
Votes: +1

Michelle said:

0
 Make Your Point ...
@Elmer:

(1) I'm not one of your students, and the intellectually sloppy "the proof is left as an exercise to the reader" approach to making your point is not what I'm looking for.

(2) I've said it before, and I'll repeat myself one last time:

I'm asking you to substantiate your claims with specifics. Telling me to go sift through 66 books (I presume the scripture) guessing what particular sections you believe are specifically related to transsexuality suggests isn't an adequate response.

If you are a teacher of some kind, I'm sure you wouldn't accept a paper from a student that told you to go read the textbook for the evidence that substantiates their point. I think it is quite reasonable to insist that you substantiate your position with specific references to scripture.

Your refusal to do so leaves me and others with the impression that you are doing little more than parroting something that you've heard elsewhere.
 
February 27, 2010
Votes: -1

Elmer said:

0
 A small sampling
Gen 1:26-28; Gen 3:4-5; Gen 5:2; Gen 13:13; Gen 19:4-9; Lev 18:22; Lev 20:13; Deut 22:5; Deut 23:17-18; Deut 32:4-5; Judges 19:22-26; 1 Sam 16:7; 1 Sam 18:1; 1 Sam 19:1; 1 Sam 20:3, 1 Sam 20;41; 2 Sam 1:26; Psalm 14:1-3; Psalm 72:14; Psalm 139:13-16; Prov 12:20; Prov 18:2; Prov 20:17; Eccl 7:29; Eccl 11:5; Jer 1:5; Jer 9:6; Jer 9:8; Jer 17:9; Amos 2:4; Matt 5:17-18; Matt 19:4-6; Matt 23:25-28; Mark 7:22; Mark 10:6; Rom 1:21-32; Rom 3:4; Rom 3:13; Rom 3:23; Rom 8:5-8; Gal 5:3-7; Gal 5:19-21; Eph 5:3-7; Eph 5:31-32; Col 2:8; Col 3:5; 1 Cor 11:3; 1 Cor 11:14-15; 1 Cor 6:9-11; 2 Cor 7:1; 2 Tim 3:2-5; Titus 1:16; Heb 6:18; James 1:13-15; 2 Peter 2:10-14, 17-19; 1 John 1:10; 1 John 2:4; 1 John 2:22; 1 John 4:20; 1 John 5:10; Rev 22:15
 
February 28, 2010
Votes: +1

Michelle said:

0
 Well...That's a Start
I'll go through what you cite a piece at a time. In this entry, I'll take up your citations of Genesis and a few other parts.

You cite the following:

Gen 1:26-28; Gen 3:4-5; Gen 5:2; Gen 13:13; Gen 19:4-9

Mostly you seem to be citing the "male and female he made them" line, and then toss in the "wickedness of Sodom's men" for a bit of spice.

If "male and female" is all that god made, then I'm afraid you have a significant logical problem - that is the existence of Intersex conditions which are turning out to be quite diverse in their expression. There is a cold, factual reality that there are a lot of people who are to some degree or another both male and female in the same body.

To associate transsexualism with the story of Sodom and Gomorrah (assuming that story is really about homosexual sexual activity) is stretching things to say the least. First of all, as I pointed out earlier in this thread, transsexuality isn't about sexual activity at all; second, I see nothing at all in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah that can even be remotely associated with cross-gender behaviour of any sort.

You then go on to cite Leviticus: Lev 18:22; Lev 20:13

Both of these are generally understood to be reflecting upon homosexual (particularly male homosexual) sexual activity. Again, these are irrelevant to the topic of gender identity in general. Gender Identity is not necessarily directly associated with sexuality.

Additionally, given the highly selective application of Leviticus in the modern world, I'm reluctant to consider it terribly relevant. Too many aspects of Leviticus are widely ignored even by those who cite it the most vociferously to make it terribly credible.

 
February 28, 2010
Votes: -1

Michelle said:

0
 Well ... That's a Start Part 2
Deuteronomy: Deut 22:5; Deut 23:17-18; Deut 32:4-5

At best, Deuteronomy 22:5 is the only thing you cite that arguably talks about cross-gender activity. However, Deuteronomy 22:5 falls apart when we start considering naturally occuring intersex conditions and other variations in humanity. While the notion of 'man and woman' might have been pretty cut and dried when this scripture was written, when we have chromosomal XY people who develop as normal physiological females because of various medical conditions. Is that person a 'man' or are they a 'woman'? Further, the concept of 'man' and 'woman' pertain more to social roles, and for someone who is truly transsexual, are they in fact cross-dressing when they adopt the garb of the opposite gender?

Deuteronomy 23:17-18 is talking about prostitution, and that is quite irrelevant.

Moving along to Judges, you cite: Judges 19:22-26:

I fail to see how a story describing gang rape and sexual abuse of someone has anything to do with someone being transsexual.
 
February 28, 2010
Votes: -1

Michelle said:

0
 Well ... That's a Start Part 3

Then you start into citing 1 Samuel: 1 Sam 16:7; 1 Sam 18:1; 1 Sam 19:1; 1 Sam 20:3, 1 Sam 20;41;

It's unclear to me the relevance of all but 1 Sam 16:7. For the most part, it appears to describe a homosexual love affair to some extent, but since Gender Incongruity (or transsexualism if you prefer) is not about sexual identity or activity, it seems quite irrelevant to the point.

1 Sam 16:7 reads:
16:7 But the LORD said unto Samuel, Look not on his countenance, or on the height of his stature; because I have refused him: for the LORD seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the LORD looketh on the heart.


Ironically, I think you would find that most transgender folk would argue that this passage is very much license for them to actively pursue their gender related needs since the majority of transfolk, and transsexuals in particular, seem to claim that their cross-gender identity exists at the core of their being. Would not God himself, in light of 1 Sam 16:7 demand that a person of feminine soul and male body take steps to reconcile body and soul?
 
February 28, 2010
Votes: -1

Elmer said:

0
 ...
Michael -

1. God does not make mistakes. If He created you a male, you are a male. If He created you a female, you are a female. No amount of wishful thinking, surgery, or hormones is going to change that fact.
2. God does not lie. In fact, God CAN'T lie.
3. Man does lie. Man lies particularly to himself. It is the nature of man to lie.
4. You think God made a mistake and created you male on the outside and female on the inside. See #1, then see #3.
5. Your notion that you were "made that way" is as valid as the notion that the black race was inferior to the white race (dis-proven), the the yellow race was superior to the white race (dis-proven), that the Aryan "race" was superior to other races (dis-proven), that men with an extra 'Y' chromosome were predicated to violence (dis-proven), that people with sloping foreheads were intellectually inferior to people with higher foreheads (dis-proven), and that "redskins" were by nature savages (dis-proven). You are totally lacking in any scientific justification for your wild claims. Psycho-babble is NOT science.

I won't dispute that you "feel" out of place, but that is not because of being "born that way", but being raised that way. That is, it is "learned" behavior. You can learn a new behavior, one that is consistent with what God wants (even demands) for you. Just because you don't want to isn't going to hold water when you are called to account. You will be without excuse.

Your interpretation of 1 Sam 16:7 is so ludicrous, so far off the wall, as to make me wonder just what it is you're smoking.
 
March 01, 2010
Votes: +1

Michelle said:

0
 Don't Presume
@Elmer:

Don't presume you know anything about me, my past or my present that I haven't stated explicitly.

To presume that my name was ever "Michael" is deeply offensive - not only because it's wrong.

Lastly, you are in no position to gainsay the validity of my past or present ... or future for that matter. You know nothing of my experiences in this world, and even less about me as a person. What you have written about my experiences is pure supposition, and I find that deeply offensive.

As for the "god doesn't make mistakes" line, I will say only this - bullfeathers. Tell that to every child born with spina bifida, tell that to every intersex person or anybody else who is born "different" in this world - down to those who are left-handed come to that.

I haven't made any claims about the causal origins of being transsexual in this thread. I don't believe that was the subject - last I checked, we were discussing why you insist that it is "wicked" and "sinful", and so far everything I've seen you present seems firmly rooted in your insistence on confusing gender related issues with sexuality.

On that note, I bid you adieu - it's clear that you and I are unlikely to agree on anything substantive, and all you are going to do is continue parroting whatever you've been told to believe.
 
March 01, 2010
Votes: -1

Elmer said:

0
 ...
Michael (or Frank or Peter or whatever) -

You accuse me of "parroting", yet all of your lame arguments are standard fare in the Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual/Transgender fantasy world.

You demonstrate your ignorance of God, His workings, the Bible, and the effect of sin on the human race. I repeat: God does NOT make mistakes. Man DOES make "mistakes", and mistakes have consequences.

You were NOT "born that way". There is absolutely no scientific evidence, no gene mutations, no added or missing parts which even remotely buy into such an absurd claim. People CHOOSE! Sometimes people choose wrong. Like any other "mistake", there will be consequences.

The evidence of the truth of what I say is available. You have made another choice... the choice to ignore or disregard the evidence. This is another mistake for which there WILL be consequences. I guarantee the day will come when you recognize that what I say is true. If that realization comes in time, it will be a giant burden lifted from your heart. If that realization comes too late, that burden will become eternally unbearable.
 
March 04, 2010
Votes: +1

Michelle said:

0
 Just Because You Protest It Loudly Doesn't Make It So
@Elmer:

(1) My point regarding biblical interpretation is that not everybody reads the scripture the same way you do. Deal with it.

(2) You argue that there's "no proof" for the "Born That Way" claim. I'm sorry to say that there's a difference between an absence of conclusive proof and disproval.

Where transsexualism is concerned there is a surprising amount of evidence that has been uncovered in the last ten years showing physiological differentiation between trans and non-trans populations. (far more than most people realize) Further, there is a great deal that we do not fully understand about human development in utero, especially where the brain is concerned. The human being is a surprisingly complex series of systems - I wouldn't go so far as to argue that what we haven't proven cannot be proven.

Lastly, I would appreciate it if you would use my name - it is Michelle. Your use of apparently masculine names with me is disrespectful and rude.
 
March 05, 2010
Votes: -1

Elmer said:

0
 Just Because You Protest It Loudly Doesn't Make It So - BACK AT YA! Get over it.
Michael -

"My point regarding biblical interpretation is that not everybody reads the scripture the same way you do." - Very true. Some people take it for what it says, others try to twist it around to make it say what is convenient for them. I prefer the straight forward method, myself.

I never said anything about "proof" --- I said "evidence". You claim evidence. More of your Rainbow Coalition hearsay?

I thought you said "I bid you adieu"? Apparently you were as sincere in that as you are about "being born that way".

"use my name - it is Michelle" - Is it? Michelle is just a feminine form of Michael, and according to you, transgender is normal so it really shouldn't matter. Besides, I know a girl (real girl) named Michael. I also knew a (real) guy named Cheryl. You need to be thicker skinned or you never will be happy.

Give it up. You expect to go through life without every being offended, but think nothing about how you offend other people. A world in which there is never any offense given or received is a world in which everything has been reduced to the LOWEST common denominator. That is definitely not the kind of world God has meant for us. Funny how a little thing like sin can really throw a monkey wrench into the works.
 
March 05, 2010
Votes: +1

Michelle said:

0
 Grow Up
@Elmer:

There is more than one way to read scripture ... that is my point. There are a great many different interpretations of scripture that are nominally 'christian' - and they seldom if ever converge where there are disagreements.

GET IT THROUGH YOUR HEAD.

As for talking about proof, you have been so emphatic that being transsexual cannot possibly be related to how someone is born, that constitutes an attempt at arguing that the absence of absolute proof to the contrary is somehow equivalent to refutation. It is not - and if you have any serious background in philosophy and logic, you will understand that this is the case.

As for names, Elmer, if someone uses a particular name reciprocate by using it in reference to them. It is not yours to pin a different name on someone. That is beyond rude, it is disrespectful and insulting. I don't really care who you've known with what names - that is utterly irrelevant.

However, you've proven beyond any doubt in my mind that you have no clue about the concepts of debate and discussion - much less something as simple as common courtesy.
 
March 05, 2010
Votes: -1

Elmer said:

0
 The only interpretation that matters is the correct one
There are a great many different interpretations of scripture that are nominally 'christian'...


To be nominal means to resemble or to exist in name only. I will agree that there are a great number of "nominally christian" interpretations of Holy Scripture. My position is not "nominally christian", but totally Christian. In that respect there is only ONE correct interpretation. I am not going to claim I have it "all figured out". I don't, but the basics are pretty clear. If we were talking math, I'd be saying that I'd be struggling to integrate an inverse trigonometric function, and totally lost when it came to approximating the Newtonian gravitational potential of a bounded cosmos, but I have addition and subtraction nailed. The topic of sexuality is addition and subtraction.

As for talking about proof, you have been so emphatic ... that constitutes an attempt at arguing that the absence of absolute proof to the contrary is somehow equivalent to refutation.


No. I am arguing that the absence of ANY evidence to the contrary, when weighed against the overwhelming evidence in the Bible supporting my position makes your position untenable. Your refusal to accept Scriptural evidence at face value does nothing to refute that evidence.

Even NARTH (an organization which I do not hold in particularly high esteem) differs with the APA and states "Contrary to the wishful thinking of feminists, bisexuals, and transsexuals, there are profound differences between males and females--and those differences are programmed within the DNA from the moment of conception."

They also say "The Problem Is Psychological, Not Organic". I take it further. The problem is Moral, Not Psychological or Organic.
 
March 06, 2010
Votes: +1

Michelle said:

0
 It's a Moral Problem?
No. I am arguing that the absence of ANY evidence to the contrary, when weighed against the overwhelming evidence in the Bible supporting my position makes your position untenable. Your refusal to accept Scriptural evidence at face value does nothing to refute that evidence.


Absence of evidence to the contrary?

I'll borrow from Zoe's references to respond to that:

Male-to-female transsexuals show sex-atypical hypothalamus activation when smelling odorous steroids by Berglund et al Cerebral Cortex 2008 18(smilies/cool.gif:1900-1908;

Male–to–female transsexuals have female neuron numbers in a limbic nucleus. Kruiver et al J Clin Endocrinol Metab (2000) 85:2034–2041

Sexual differentiation of the human brain: relevance for gender identity, transsexualism and sexual orientation. Swaab Gynecol Endocrinol (2004) 19:301–312.

A sex difference in the human brain and its relation to transsexuality. by Zhou et al Nature (1995) 378:68–70.

A sex difference in the hypothalamic uncinate nucleus: relationship to gender identity by Garcia-Falgueras et al Brain. 2008 Dec;131(Pt 12):3132-46.


... and there's a lot more than that. There is evidence - and quite a bit of it - that links transsexuality to biological underpinnings. In other words, your claim that there is "no evidence" is false - there is evidence, and further that evidence links the condition to some pretty fundamental aspects of our biological beings. I think given such evidence that claiming that transsexuality is "purely a 'Moral Problem'" is pretty unrealistic.
 
March 06, 2010
Votes: -1

Elmer said:

0
 ...
The studies are flawed. They confuse cause and effect. I can use the same logic to conclude that some people are genetically predisposed to being chicken farmers because tests show chicken farmers react differently (more favorably) to odors commonly found on chicken farms than life long city dwellers.

Don't take Alan (a.k.a. "Zoe") too seriously. He has an agenda to fulfill.
 
March 08, 2010
Votes: +1

HenryHall said:

0
 ...
Elmer wrote: It's not depression, it's GUILT caused by SIN. (Negative votes won't alter the truth)

Let us suppose for the sake of argument Elmer is correct on this.
The DSM expressly excludes such things from being mental disorders (DSM-IV-TR page xxxi, near end of first full paragraph).
So we at least agree it should not be called a mental disorder any more.

Now as to what is SIN, that depends on one's religion. Perhaps Elmer believes the Old Testament is the literal truth. Conversely a Christian would rely on the writings of the Apostles - Galatians 3:23 ... there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

There we have it, in the words of a man literally anointed by Christ's very own living hands - For Christians being male and/or female it makes no difference. That is the Christian view even as it may not be the Pope's view.




 
March 09, 2010
Votes: +1

Michelle said:

0
 Good Grief...
@Elmer:

Did you examine more than the first headline?

If that were the only evidence, I'd agree with you ... unfortunately for your argument, there's a lot more papers which show transsexuals having atypical physiology in a number of areas. These are independent works from different researchers, in different domains.

Sorry, but you don't get to dismiss all on the basis your interpretation of the headline of one.
 
March 09, 2010
Votes: -1

Write comment
This content has been locked. You can no longer post any comment.

busy