HB2, North Carolina mandate to hate homosexuals.

The problem im seeing here: honest discussion does not seem possible. Mostly because we keep getting hung up on the term "mental illness".

Although I am at a loss for what to call something where you are unhappy and seek therapy/counseling. Some require medication, and others require surgery. But therapy is always the first step. If someone wants to make up a new word that won't send the conversation into a tail spin...please feel free.

Otherwise....the conversation is going to end up being an unneccessary tiptoe around feelings that tend to be hurt when no harm is intended. And that is utterly exhausting (and frustrating).

Its no wonder everyone is left scratching their head about what im trying to say. I just can't figure out how to say it without pissing off the whole world. And that's a shame.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
The problem im seeing here: honest discussion does not seem possible. Mostly because we keep getting hung up on the term "mental illness".

Who is they? Aren't you the one who keeps wanting to introduce Mental Illness into this?

Illness: means something wrong. You can't function in society. You can't be social. You can't do normal things people do in society.

Just because the brain is structured in a way it that your gender doesn't match your physical body - - - does not mean you can't live normally and do the normal things everyone does every day.

Transgenders know their brain doesn't match their physical body. There would be no issue if everyone else just accepted it.

Do transgenders require psychology? I don't know. But laws have been put in place that requires them to go.

Aren't they forced to go into counseling?

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
Its no wonder everyone is left scratching their head about what im trying to say. I just can't figure out how to say it without pissing off the whole world. And that's a shame.

I'm not sure pissed off is the right word? Irritated would be more appropriate because you haven't figured out how to just come out and say what you mean. Trans people have problems. Some are incapacitated by them with related issues of depression, anxiety, substance use, etc. Some of the problems are prejudice, discrimination and bigotry which are social problems. Is the solution to have special bathrooms or parking? No. Do gay and lesbian people need different bathrooms. No. Do people in a wheelchair or other mobility aid need a special bathroom? Yes and ramps and rails and bigger stalls and stuff.

Transgender people want to be like everyone else and have full access to society as just men and women, not marginalized or othered or segregated or fired from their job or arrested for peeing.

So what is your "logic test". Try making it using a socially oppressed person with depression rather than a trans person and see if your logic makes sense, if the argument holds up or if others can can figure what the heck you're trying to say? I'll be happy to engage politely if I can understand what you're on about. Obviously I haven't been able to figure that out yet.

a reply to: Annee

It seems to me that we are saying the same thing here: that the brain and body have a conflict. And by "brain" we mean "mind", which is the part that is really analyzed (one begets the other).

So what are the options? Align the body? What if it is otherwise perfectly healthy? Would it still be presumed the body is the issue then?

Or do you align the mind? How do you go about doing that exactly? Counseling? Drugs?

We are saying the same thing here. Its just that the term "mental illness" is taboo and throws the conversation into a tail spin.

The only reason I am bringing it up is because I want to discuss the topic. Problem is: i can't do that because bringing it up is offensive. It isn't illogical. Just offensive. Even though I am not using the term to cast aspersion, and am otherwise agreeing with the folks taking the biggest issue here. If that doesn't kind of help show how illogical it really is.

Which really puzzles me. Because using the term "mental illness" is supposed to be a taboo that is going away. If its insulting to use the term in this discussion, then its insulting to use in any discussion. And I just can't get my head around that. Mental illness is not an insult. Its not offensive.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Mental illness is not an insult. Its not offensive.

Well, it shouldn't be. But it sure as hell tends to carry a stigma.

originally posted by: Freija

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
Its no wonder everyone is left scratching their head about what im trying to say. I just can't figure out how to say it without pissing off the whole world. And that's a shame.

I'm not sure pissed off is the right word? Irritated would be more appropriate because you haven't figured out how to just come out and say what you mean. Trans people have problems. Some are incapacitated by them with related issues of depression, anxiety, substance use, etc. Some of the problems are prejudice, discrimination and bigotry which are social problems. Is the solution to have special bathrooms or parking? No. Do gay and lesbian people need different bathrooms. No. Do people in a wheelchair or other mobility aid need a special bathroom? Yes and ramps and rails and bigger stalls and stuff.

Transgender people want to be like everyone else and have full access to society as just men and women, not marginalized or othered or segregated or fired from their job or arrested for peeing.

So what is your "logic test". Try making it using a socially oppressed person with depression rather than a trans person and see if your logic makes sense, if the argument holds up or if others can can figure what the heck you're trying to say? I'll be happy to engage politely if I can understand what you're on about. Obviously I haven't been able to figure that out yet.

The biggest thing here: the law being discussed was put in place to prevent a city from forcing businesses to create special accomodations for transgendered people. At least, that is the premise of this thread. If that premise is untrue, fine. But the premise is that, essentially, a city wanted to make businesses put in other accomodations (at their expense). And the state put a stop to it. That is a move I agree with. Because....


.....people should just go into the bathroom and do their business. If you want to pass a law, pass one making it a crime to harass someone about what their gender is while going to the bathroom. That seems more appropriate, honestly. Rather than throw money at it, just force people to get along or be fined for being jerks. Case solved, lets move on to the Middle East to solve some problems now.

But to your comment "say what you mean"....i can't. Because even trying to polish it up and make it super polite gets me being accused of using 9 dollar words to hide my intolerance. Im not down with being accused of that. I know better, you may know better....but its close to a line that makes ATS less than what I signed up for. So you can see why I don't just "say what I mean".

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

There's no Illness.

Where are you getting that from?

a reply to: Freija

Logic test, plain and simple:

According to the OP, the city of Charlotte was trying to pass municipal laws that would make it a requirement to add in special accommodations for transgendered peoples. This would equate to large personal costs to businesses, as well as schools and other taxing entities. An accommodation for what is, technically and legally, a mental illness that is being resolved through physical surgical intervention that is not required to sustain the safety of life (i.e., elective).

The logical test:

If public accommodations must be made for transgendered people, due to elective surgery, would the same be said for other mental illnesses that result in elective surgery (such as BIID). Does that accommodation seem reasonable? Such as someone with BIID being given handicapped parking, maybe even before having surgery?



If you can think of a more apt comparison, im open to hearing it. However, in the end the answer is just use the bathroom and quit worrying about whats happening on the other side of the stall.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Mental illness is not an insult. Its not offensive.

Well, it shouldn't be. But it sure as hell tends to carry a stigma.

Mental = brain - - - got that.

Social issues - - - that should be obvious

Accepting oneself - - - obvious too

Illness - - - ??????????????????

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Does that accommodation seem reasonable? Such as someone with BIID being given handicapped parking, maybe even before having surgery?

No.
Those "accommodations" are a results of the ADA. The transgendered are not disabled.

a reply to: Annee

www.dsm5.org...

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Does that accommodation seem reasonable? Such as someone with BIID being given handicapped parking, maybe even before having surgery?

No.
Those "accommodations" are a results of the ADA. The transgendered are not disabled.

You and I agree.

The City of Charlotte apparently did not.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Annee

www.dsm5.org...

Show me where Illness is mentioned in that article other then at the very bottom:

APA is a national medical specialty society whose more than 36,000 physician members specialize in the diagnosis, treatment, prevention and research of mental illnesses, including substance use disorders. Visit the APA at www.psychiatry.org and www.healthyminds.org.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Mental illness is not an insult. Its not offensive.

Well, it shouldn't be. But it sure as hell tends to carry a stigma.

Mental = brain - - - got that.

Social issues - - - that should be obvious

Accepting oneself - - - obvious too

Illness - - - ??????????????????

What is predicating surgery, if not an illness?

a reply to: Annee

The word 'disorder' is used, which is the same thing as 'illness".

And you don't "diagnose" things that aren't illnesses.

And the DSM is a manual of diagnostic and treatment criteria for mental illness, so inclusion in that particular volume is pretty indicative.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
The biggest thing here: the law being discussed was put in place to prevent a city from forcing businesses to create special accomodations for transgendered people.

Well, that's where we have a fundamental difference of opinion. These laws are a planned and calculated attack against transgender students, plain and simple, formulated and lobbied for by conservative, religious right-wing groups and are an officially documented part of the RNC platform. This is in direct retribution for marriage equality and the Obama administration's interpretation of Title IX of the Education Amendments and has nothing to do with privacy and protection of women in a bathroom and is nothing more than strategic pandering.

Amid consideration in state legislatures of “papers to pee” bathroom bills aimed against transgender students, the Republican National Committee has approved a resolution endorsing the legislation.

The resolution, approved under the chairmanship of Reince Priebus, condemns as “governmental overreach” the Obama administration’s interpretation of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 to prohibit discrimination against transgender students.

“The Republican National Committee calls on the Department of Education to rescind its interpretation of Title IX that wrongly includes facility use issues by transgender students,” the resolution says. The “whereas” portion of the resolution defines gender as “the physical condition of being male or female,” saying gender is identified at birth and can be confirmed with a DNA test — which is contrary to the experience of transgender people.

The resolution also specifies Congress never included the term “gender identity” under Title IX and identifies courts that have ruled the gender provisions under the law don’t apply to transgender students.

As far as any forced business compliance for special accommodations, this would be the extent of it.

.....people should just go into the bathroom and do their business. If you want to pass a law, pass one making it a crime to harass someone about what their gender is while going to the bathroom. That seems more appropriate, honestly. Rather than throw money at it, just force people to get along or be fined for being jerks. Case solved, lets move on to the Middle East to solve some problems now.

That would be perfect. It would be even better if people did this without needing a law. The "logic test" would be why people are even talking about bathrooms.

I get it you are one of the good guys using common sense and believing in equality and fairness so why is it you seem alienated from people that want the same thing? Your head is in the right place but how you'[re wrapping it around the issue seems to be the problem? I dunno?

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
And you don't "diagnose" things that aren't illnesses.

And the DSM is a manual of diagnostic and treatment criteria for mental illness, so inclusion in that particular volume is pretty indicative.

You diagnose things to get a treatment code for insurance and many are grateful this wasn't removed from the DSM completely as was homosexuality in 1973. Incidentally, SRS is not considered elective or cosmetic surgery. In the cases where it is indicated, it is deemed medically necessary treatment.

originally posted by: Freija

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
And you don't "diagnose" things that aren't illnesses.

And the DSM is a manual of diagnostic and treatment criteria for mental illness, so inclusion in that particular volume is pretty indicative.

You diagnose things to get a treatment code for insurance and many are grateful this wasn't removed from the DSM completely as was homosexuality in 1973. Incidentally, SRS is not considered elective or cosmetic surgery. In the cases where it is indicated, it is deemed medically necessary treatment.

Right. I remember that now.

I just don't understand the insistence on this being an illness, when it clearly is not.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Freija

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
And you don't "diagnose" things that aren't illnesses.

And the DSM is a manual of diagnostic and treatment criteria for mental illness, so inclusion in that particular volume is pretty indicative.

You diagnose things to get a treatment code for insurance and many are grateful this wasn't removed from the DSM completely as was homosexuality in 1973. Incidentally, SRS is not considered elective or cosmetic surgery. In the cases where it is indicated, it is deemed medically necessary treatment.

Right. I remember that now.

I just don't understand the insistence on this bring an illness, when it clearly is not.

To me, it clearly is.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Freija

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
And you don't "diagnose" things that aren't illnesses.

And the DSM is a manual of diagnostic and treatment criteria for mental illness, so inclusion in that particular volume is pretty indicative.

You diagnose things to get a treatment code for insurance and many are grateful this wasn't removed from the DSM completely as was homosexuality in 1973. Incidentally, SRS is not considered elective or cosmetic surgery. In the cases where it is indicated, it is deemed medically necessary treatment.

Right. I remember that now.

I just don't understand the insistence on this bring an illness, when it clearly is not.

To me, it clearly is.

I don't get it. At all.

Completely out of the realm of my thought process.