Why Is Transgender(ism ?) Homosexuality Not A Mental Disorder

[Credo in Deum]

Homosexual acts have been observed in other species.  Homosexuality has not been.  That is unless you're claiming that animals make a conscious decision which sexuality to identify themselves as?  Last time I checked animals do not this because they are not capable of doing this. Which is probably why we do not assign a moral outlook toward the actions of animals.  A tiger that eat's its young is not a bad tiger.  It is just a tiger.  A human that eats it's young is a bad human, because humans have the ability to look at themselves and make decisions that can be contrary to their instincts whether for better or for worse.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited July 25, 2014 by Credo in Deum

[CrossCuT]

Homosexual acts have been observed in other species.  Homosexuality has not been.  

 

Are you trying not to make sense? Im assuming you separate the acts from the "relationship". Having homo sex  vs homosexuality implying a relationship. 

You wont really find that relationship in pretty much ANY species in the same sense that we apply it to humans because humans are one of the extremely few species that have monogamous relationships. Its perfectly normal for animals to  have multiple partners and not retain a "relationship" for a long time. Its difficult to compare the two in that sense but same sex intercourse does indeed happen which would culminate as a homosexual "relationship" for them. Maybe thats not what you meant. It really didnt make sense to me so if you care to elaborate.

 

 

 

That is unless you're claiming that animals make a conscious decision which sexuality to identify themselves as?  Last time I checked animals do not this because they are not capable of doing this. Which is probably why we do not assign a moral outlook toward the actions of animals.  A tiger that eat's its young is not a bad tiger.  It is just a tiger.  A human that eats it's young is a bad human, because humans have the ability to look at themselves and make decisions that can be contrary to their instincts whether for better or for worse.

The whole reason people argue that homosexuality is present in other animals is to prove that it's a naturally occurring thing, and that its not a decision that anyone makes. Seems like you agree. Animals cant make conscious decisions against their nature which would indicate to me that homosexuality is naturally occurring and not a product of choice. 

[polskieserce]

If you go by me, all of psychology is a pseudoscience. 

 

Psychology is an infant science since we are not even close to understanding how the brain truly works.  But just because it's in its infancy doesn't mean it's not science.

 

I believe the church will always be a step behind on this topic merely because they are less apt to accept any scientific evidence that would suggest anything other than their current view.

The most recent publishes studies on the topic are in agreement with previous studies from 1993 that say homosexuality is rooted in genetics...which honestly is not a shock since both mental and non mental disorders (or anything for that matter) is all rooted in genes in some way. The only thing I dont understand is how something gets voted on as being a mental disorder; its something ill have to look into.

 

Homosexuality has been observed in over 1500 species and well documented in about 500 species. There are many plausible theories as to why it is passed down and not selected against in gene pools. Which brings us to the "natural" debate which the church also evades because they encompass the spiritual realm and thus have a different definition. I dont think they are equipped to handle this topic right now...I really dont. 

 

In my mind, the physical world has informed me that this is indeed a natural phenomena in regards to attraction and sexuality. I personally do not believe homosexuality is disordered.

 

 

My guesses as to why homosexuality is no longer considered a mental disorder by the APA is because its now considered socially normative. Just a guess at least...based on the definition I found on Wiki. 

 

And what makes you say that homosexuality has not been selected against?  Clearly it has since homosexual are in the minority.  The explanation is rather simple if you think about it.  The mechanism by which homosexuality arises might be very sensitive.  So even though homosexuality is always being selected against, there are more on the way.  Just like down syndrome or mental retardation, we could exterminate all of those people hypothetically in a mass euthanasia program, but there would still be more people born with those problems after that.

 

Even going by the definition of a disorder you listed, homosexuality is a disorder because it impacts the person's ability to reproduce.  If a man an woman have unprotected sex, they will have a child.  If two guys do it, the only thing they might get is a disease.

 

Homosexual acts have been observed in other species.  Homosexuality has not been.  That is unless you're claiming that animals make a conscious decision which sexuality to identify themselves as?  Last time I checked animals do not this because they are not capable of doing this. Which is probably why we do not assign a moral outlook toward the actions of animals.  A tiger that eat's its young is not a bad tiger.  It is just a tiger.  A human that eats it's young is a bad human, because humans have the ability to look at themselves and make decisions that can be contrary to their instincts whether for better or for worse.

 

Animals act on instincts.  Homosexuality is an an instinct.  Does that mean it's not a sin?  Of course not.  But animals are prone to the same disorder.

 

The one bright spot in all of this is that if/when the cause of homosexuality is 100% identified, it can be eradicated from the population.

[Luigi]

The one bright spot in all of this is that if/when the cause of homosexuality is 100% identified, it can be eradicated from the population.

 

I disagree. We know at least some causes of many conditions - deafness, cerebral palsy, multiple sclerosis, etc. -  but we still can't eradicate them. Some people think it's better to eradicate these conditions by prenatal testing and then aborting children who have a condition.

 

I am not among those people. I doubt that homosexuals would be among those people, either.

[polskieserce]

I disagree. We know at least some causes of many conditions - deafness, cerebral palsy, multiple sclerosis, etc. -  but we still can't eradicate them. Some people think it's better to eradicate these conditions by prenatal testing and then aborting children who have a condition.

 

I am not among those people. I doubt that homosexuals would be among those people, either.

 

We know the causes but we don't have the technology for the cures.  It will still be some time before we fully understand homosexuality.  By then, technology will have advanced that we will have the ability to eradicate the condition.

[CrossCuT]

And what makes you say that homosexuality has not been selected against?  Clearly it has since homosexual are in the minority.  The explanation is rather simple if you think about it.  The mechanism by which homosexuality arises might be very sensitive.  So even though homosexuality is always being selected against, there are more on the way.  Just like down syndrome or mental retardation, we could exterminate all of those people hypothetically in a mass euthanasia program, but there would still be more people born with those problems after that.

 

We dont know for sure why homosexuality is able to be passed on because if we are going by the basic rules of selection, then it should have been gone. Guess what, its not. So there are other hypotheses that look into why about 5-15% of the population exhibit homosexuality. One of the hypotheses is looks into balanced polymorphisms which essentially state that there are certain circumstances in which a variant is favorable and certain circumstances where it is not. For example, take sickle cell anemia...that is bad. Most of the time it is selected against and eliminated, however in areas of the world where malaria is more prevalent, it is actually an advantage to have sickle cell because it wards off the malaria infection. So even while a condition which is seemingly bad, it actually comes advantageous in certain circumstances. Which is effing cool!

 

Another idea is sexually antaganistic genes which basically means that one gene offers an advantage to one gender over the other. They hypothesized that there are "man-loving" genes that will cause a female to mate earlier and have more children. If these male loving genes were passed from the mother to a male offspring then he would also have an inclination to men stronger than that of another sibling. 

 

A geneticist by the name of Dean Hamer (who first came out after his 1993 research to say that homosexuality is genetic) actually said he believes the gene may be associated with the X chromosome. So a there is a ton of interesting info out there. Still no concrete proof of how homosexuality is passed down but all we know is that it does.

 

 

The one bright spot in all of this is that if/when the cause of homosexuality is 100% identified, it can be eradicated from the population.

And that is what we call eugenics. Your reaction is exactly what is predicted by scientists. That the christian extremists will want to eliminate certain unworthy traits from the human race. Are you going to start supporting genetic selection in the womb? Or start prescreening embryos before fertilization? Do you feel that is morally acceptable? Playing God?

Even if you dont like it, its in God's plan that these people are homosexuals.

Edited July 25, 2014 by CrossCuT

[Benedictus]

Was listening to the radio the other day, and the topic briefly came up, about how equality is a double standard in regards to transgenders and homosexuals, meaning, those that support it, either want or demand that everyone else be either accepting of it and accept peoples views on the matter that do support it, but when it comes to those who are against , those people who are unaccepting, or just have a different view on the matter those people are not given respect by those who support or are of this topic... Thusly a caller chimed in with mental disorder on the matter, how those with multiple personalities are thusly not given a pass and special treatment to do what they want etc etc, they are just labeled as a mental disorder and they have to bite it, no one has to be accepting of them ..  AN I am roughly translating paraphrasing to get to the title of the thread....

 

Which now here we go,

 

Does the Church consider being a transgender person or homosexuality a mental disorder; why or why not.

 

Thusly, if the Church does consider both to be a mental disorder versus why doesn't the Church simply state that position publicly ? ( I assume for the Church to publicly label both such would be a P.R nightmare and would probably cause more problems than the issue is worth )

 

That is it, I got nothing more to add or rebuttle ( spell check )

 

In my opinion all people deserve respect for their worth and dignity as persons. It doesn't matter what I think about what they do or believe, that's a different issue.

The church isn't in a position to say what is mentally disordered. It's beyond its expertise. It can, and does, come to a notion of disorder based on theology and philosophy. But masturbation is also, in this latter sense, viewed as disordered. So are many other things.

In most countries those who seek a sex change need to see a specialist psychiatrist and have counselling before it can go ahead. The prime aim is to see if they have gender dysphoria, or whether there are other issues that need addressing. So they need to get this diagnosis before they can, in most cases, progress onto getting treatment (transition therapy). It's important that the diagnosis is accurate before any treatment occurs, and this is why the full transition, with surgery, can take many years.

 

Homosexuality isn't seen as a mental disorder but those with gender dymorphia are. But there are those who think this should change and not be viewed as a mental health problem. There's lots of reasons for this. Additional points: not all people who dress in ways that don't conform with gender norms have gender dysmorphia. It also has zero to do with sexuality.

In terms of how the church should respond: well it has its official line I'm sure. In the dioceses around where I live and work there are at least two or three Catholic LGBT pastoral groups. One of these joins a specific church mass each week, and then once a month it also has a meeting afterwards. They do this with the support of the Archbishop, and he has visited and led mass a few times. There are a fair number of individuals who are transgender who attend this. But many attend their local parishes most of the time. The vast majority of the congregations are supportive.

Edited July 25, 2014 by Benedictus

[Benedictus]

We know the causes but we don't have the technology for the cures.  It will still be some time before we fully understand homosexuality.  By then, technology will have advanced that we will have the ability to eradicate the condition.

 

You see it as a problem to be cured, others don't. Unless the person is somehow mentally troubled by their sexuality I don't see why a treatment would be necessary.  I'd imagine many people would view your suggestion as deeply offensive.

[Credo in Deum]

 

The whole reason people argue that homosexuality is present in other animals is to prove that it's a naturally occurring thing, and that its not a decision that anyone makes. Seems like you agree. Animals cant make conscious decisions against their nature which would indicate to me that homosexuality is naturally occurring and not a product of choice. 

Yes, I understand this CrossCut.  The problem though is most use this to mean humans do not have a choice in their behavior which, unlike animals, is not the case.  The Church does not need to know the genesis of homosexuality, since it's clear that homosexuality does not take away a persons ability to either act or not act on their desires.  In the end people can present all of the birds, mammals, and fish they want.  Nothing is going to take away the truth that they can control their actions even if they can't control their sexuality. 

[Benedictus]

I believe the church will always be a step behind on this topic merely because they are less apt to accept any scientific evidence that would suggest anything other than their current view.

The most recent publishes studies on the topic are in agreement with previous studies from 1993 that say homosexuality is rooted in genetics...which honestly is not a shock since both mental and non mental disorders (or anything for that matter) is all rooted in genes in some way. The only thing I dont understand is how something gets voted on as being a mental disorder; its something ill have to look into.

 

Homosexuality has been observed in over 1500 species and well documented in about 500 species. There are many plausible theories as to why it is passed down and not selected against in gene pools. Which brings us to the "natural" debate which the church also evades because they encompass the spiritual realm and thus have a different definition. I dont think they are equipped to handle this topic right now...I really dont. 

 

In my mind, the physical world has informed me that this is indeed a natural phenomena in regards to attraction and sexuality. I personally do not believe homosexuality is disordered.

 

 

My guesses as to why homosexuality is no longer considered a mental disorder by the APA is because its now considered socially normative. Just a guess at least...based on the definition I found on Wiki. 

 

I think they understand the scientific views very well, they have advisors on everything.  But I think, and I know I'm not alone, is that they won't progress for other reasons. The major one is likely to unity. They don't want to lose numbers, especially in the developing world, to harsher extremes of the faith. They also don't want to alienate people with sudden changes that don't fit in with what has been normative for their generation. I think the church will wait and see, mostly letting the protestant denominations break the ice. Once the dust settles and the timing is right I think they'll edge a different way bit by bit. It's a sofly soflty approach to change but I think it will be painful. It will be a juggling act to manage the changes and keep all sides engaged. I suepect it will carry on for a few decades yet.

In terms of the APA -  yes, I'd agree on changes in attitudes, although research has helped. There are issues with how cultural mindsets determine what is normative or not, and I guess that's a question that continues to challenge the relevant professions. How mental health workers viewed women and people with certain illnesses has changed over the years also etc.

 

[Amppax]

The American Psychological Association is the professional association of psychologists, psychiatrists, maybe counselors, and so forth. They publish a book - I forget the title, but someone on PM will know - which lists all the mental disorders. 

 

From the very beginning, homosexuality was defined as a mental disorder by the APA. Then in 1970-something, they decided it wasn't. And they removed it from their book of diagnoses. A history has been written about what happened, but the upshot is that one of the high-ranking leaders of the APA was homosexual himself, and he engineered the change from defining homosexuality as a psychological disorder to a "lifestyle." 

 

In terms of the Church's definition, the Church has always labeled homosexuality as an "objective disorder," meaning that the homosexual person's affections are directed an an inappropriate object. A man's love/intimacy/sexual desire should be directed at the appropriate object (a woman), and vise versa for a woman (the object would be a man). The idea is that every human faculty has a proper object - the proper object of the eyes is light, the proper object of the nose is smell, the proper object of the tongue is taste.

 

The Church has not defined homosexuality as a psychological disorder because it came up with its understanding of homosexuality well before the field of psychology ever developed.

 

DSM; I think we're up to DSM-V; or IV. I forget, I'm not a psych major. 

 

:doh: , and this is why it's important to read threads. 

Edited July 25, 2014 by Amppax

[CrossCuT]

 

 

Yes, I understand this CrossCut.  The problem though is most use this to mean humans do not have a choice in their behavior which, unlike animals, is not the case.  The Church does not need to know the genesis of homosexuality, since it's clear that homosexuality does not take away a persons ability to either act or not act on their desires.  In the end people can present all of the birds, mammals, and fish they want.  Nothing is going to take away the truth that they can control their actions even if they can't control their sexuality. 

 

 

Ok, so youre just saying that because we have a free will we can choose to NOT follow what is natural - Since you are no longer arguing that science has shown that homosexuality is a natural phenomena. 

 

I would say, yes, people can choose to resit their homosexual actions but they cant resist being homosexual since it is written in their genes no more than a person cant simply stop having green eyes.

I think this poses other implications for mental health when people have to deny certain parts of their being because the Church says its wrong based on arbitrary bible stories. 

 

You are also making a moral argument and not a scientific one. So you should make sure that it is clear that you are following the churches interpretation of what is moral and not necessarily what is natural in the physical world.

Edited July 25, 2014 by CrossCuT

[CrossCuT]

I think they understand the scientific views very well, they have advisors on everything.  But I think, and I know I'm not alone, is that they won't progress for other reasons. The major one is likely to unity. They don't want to lose numbers, especially in the developing world, to harsher extremes of the faith. They also don't want to alienate people with sudden changes that don't fit in with what has been normative for their generation. I think the church will wait and see, mostly letting the protestant denominations break the ice. Once the dust settles and the timing is right I think they'll edge a different way bit by bit. It's a sofly soflty approach to change but I think it will be painful. It will be a juggling act to manage the changes and keep all sides engaged. I suepect it will carry on for a few decades yet.

In terms of the APA -  yes, I'd agree on changes in attitudes, although research has helped. There are issues with how cultural mindsets determine what is normative or not, and I guess that's a question that continues to challenge the relevant professions. How mental health workers viewed women and people with certain illnesses has changed over the years also etc.

 

 

You might be right, I do not claim to understand the motives of the church as an institution, but I do know they have faltered in the scientific arena in the past. I do have a small glimmer of hope that someday they will look past all of this and learn to integrate homosexuals into the community in a healthy and productive way. As of right now, they are only harboring resentment and fear which translates into a lot of other bad outcomes. 

 

All I can do is sit and wait for the church to catch up I suppose.

[Luigi]

 

 

 

 

Ok, so youre just saying that because we have a free will we can choose to NOT follow what is natural - Since you are no longer arguing that science has shown that homosexuality is a natural phenomena. 

 

I would say, yes, people can choose to resit their homosexual actions but they cant resist being homosexual since it is written in their genes no more than a person cant simply stop having green eyes.

I think this poses other implications for mental health when people have to deny certain parts of their being because the Church says its wrong based on arbitrary bible stories. 

 

You are also making a moral argument and not a scientific one. So you should make sure that it is clear that you are following the churches interpretation of what is moral and not necessarily what is natural in the physical world.

 

 

Yes, that's the point. A person may indeed be born homosexual - I can't really speak to that, and even the experts are proposing only hypotheses, not known fact. If indeed it's an innate trait, then you're correct that one can't change it any more than one can change the color of one's eyes.

 

A person can be born homosexual but s/he doesn't have to act on those impulses. A person can be born deaf, or blind, or with one leg shorter than the other, too - people with these conditions must learn to deal with those conditions one way or another. There's no changing it, but one can live with the condition. I realize that these conditions are morally neutral, so there are some differences here. But a person can also be born with (or develop through life experience-psychological imprinting-emotional trauma, etc.) a desire to do lots of things that they shouldn't act on. Serial killers, cannibals, people who torture animals, heterosexuals with pornography, people who beat their children senseless - all have urges that they need to learn to control rather than act on.

 

And Christians don't consider Bible stories to be arbitrary. They consider them to be the inspired word of God. And conscientious Christians, at least, feel impelled to obey-follow-live the inspired word of God.

[Credo in Deum]

You might be right, I do not claim to understand the motives of the church as an institution, but I do know they have faltered in the scientific arena in the past. I do have a small glimmer of hope that someday they will look past all of this and learn to integrate homosexuals into the community in a healthy and productive way. As of right now, they are only harboring resentment and fear which translates into a lot of other bad outcomes. 

 

All I can do is sit and wait for the church to catch up I suppose.

 

Are you referring to the Galileo incident?  As far as I know this is the only scientific flop the Church has been accused of, and IMO, to an unreasonable degree.   One flop since 33 AD, that must be a record!

 

Also here is list of Catholic Scientists. 

 

http://www.catholicbook.com/AgredaCD/MyCatholicFaith/mcfc014a.htm

 

 

Looks like for a long time the Church has been at the pioneering side of science. 

[Ice_nine]

Crosscut are you straight? You don't have to answer that question, I'm just wondering because in my experience it's usually straight people who have never questioned their sexuality who say things like this:

 

I would say, yes, people can choose to resit their homosexual actions but they cant resist being homosexual since it is written in their genes no more than a person cant simply stop having green eyes.

 

Again, you don't need to answer and I hope you aren't offended, but I reject this statement out of hand based on my experience. There are some people I imagine, who are either attracted to the opposite sex, or the same sex very early on in life. There are others, like myself, who have experienced quite different modes of attraction during different stages in their life, and whose objects of attraction have changed with circumstances, hormonal/biological changes, and yes prayerful discipline.

 

Now, there are those who will say I'm just confused, or was confused, and there are certainly many things that bewilder me, but as someone who has never really felt honest saying "yes I'm gay" or "yes I'm straight" or even "yes I'm bi/asexual/cis/whateverthehellelse" I do find it funny that a lot of solidly straight folk pontificate on how a homosexual must experience his or her orientation, e.g. "it's like having green eyes."

 

 

I think the lgbqt movement is shifting away from the "your born with it" argument anyway.

 

 

[God the Father]

Both are, but this truth is politically uncomfortable.

[Ice_nine]

 

I think the lgbqt movement is shifting away from the "your born with it" argument anyway.

 

*headdesk*

 

I deserve The Oatmeal

[CrossCuT]

Crosscut are you straight? You don't have to answer that question, I'm just wondering because in my experience it's usually straight people who have never questioned their sexuality who say things like this:

 

 

Again, you don't need to answer and I hope you aren't offended, but I reject this statement out of hand based on my experience. There are some people I imagine, who are either attracted to the opposite sex, or the same sex very early on in life. There are others, like myself, who have experienced quite different modes of attraction during different stages in their life, and whose objects of attraction have changed with circumstances, hormonal/biological changes, and yes prayerful discipline.

 

Now, there are those who will say I'm just confused, or was confused, and there are certainly many things that bewilder me, but as someone who has never really felt honest saying "yes I'm gay" or "yes I'm straight" or even "yes I'm bi/asexual/cis/whateverthehellelse" I do find it funny that a lot of solidly straight folk pontificate on how a homosexual must experience his or her orientation, e.g. "it's like having green eyes."

 

 

I think the lgbqt movement is shifting away from the "your born with it" argument anyway.

 

I dont really know why you have a problem with what I said, maybe you are taking more meaning from it than there is meant to be. And yes, you are born with it. Regardless of if the culture has turned that phrase into a colloquialism is irrelevant to the fact that it is true.  However I do not believe that it is an all or nothing scenario as your experience seems to confirm as well; I believe homosexuality is a spectrum and you can fall on that spectrum and have homosexual attraction to varying degrees.

 

I think it is entirely possible for someone to feel an attraction to the same or different sex at one point in their life but as they grow older and they mature they might change their mind. It doesnt mean their genes have changed, it just means that maybe the more dominant preference is shining through.

 

Nothing I am saying right now is at all factual and I have nothing to back i up. It is simply my speculation based on the little I know from the published research as well as experiences with others. For example, we have all had friends that at one point in their life (maybe high school or something) who may have believed they were gay/straight but after 10 years, going through college, experience different things, they have ultimately decided they are the opposite. And thats fine. It doesnt mean they are confused, it doesnt mean something changed, it just mean that they might have a higher affinity for one sex over the other and are simply trying to understand where they fall.

 

I have a friend right now who is 27 and felt she was straight all her life. She is now in her first lesbian relationship. I do not think she is confused but I do believe that she is finally comfortable enough to realize that part f her and try it.

 

And from what geneticists understand about homosexuality is that its not as simple as a single gene that makes you gay or straight. Its similar to eye color in that there are multiple factors that are in play which give you he color of your eyes. This is one of the reasons I think it is a spectrum. 

 

I hope that explanation helps. And O M G this background is effing with my tablet. Goodness.

[Benedictus]

Crosscut are you straight? You don't have to answer that question, I'm just wondering because in my experience it's usually straight people who have never questioned their sexuality who say things like this:

 

 

Again, you don't need to answer and I hope you aren't offended, but I reject this statement out of hand based on my experience. There are some people I imagine, who are either attracted to the opposite sex, or the same sex very early on in life. There are others, like myself, who have experienced quite different modes of attraction during different stages in their life, and whose objects of attraction have changed with circumstances, hormonal/biological changes, and yes prayerful discipline.

 

Now, there are those who will say I'm just confused, or was confused, and there are certainly many things that bewilder me, but as someone who has never really felt honest saying "yes I'm gay" or "yes I'm straight" or even "yes I'm bi/asexual/cis/whateverthehellelse" I do find it funny that a lot of solidly straight folk pontificate on how a homosexual must experience his or her orientation, e.g. "it's like having green eyes."

 

 

I think the lgbqt movement is shifting away from the "your born with it" argument anyway.

 

There are plenty of Gay people who say the same thing as CrossCut. Her sexuality makes no difference, unless you're saying heterosexuals are somehow unique in not having the same developments and processes as Gay people do. Heterosexuality and Homosexuality are merely identity labels for attractions. There's lots of scope inbetween that and in how people decide to identitfy. Not all bisexuals identify as such, as an example. Culture and religion (plus other factors) impact how people identify as well. But it doesn't change the underlying issues.

To illustrate the point I'd suggest looking up the Kinsey Scale (a bit dated now, but helpful), and the Klein Sexual Orientation Grid. There's others also. Basically there's lots of work in this area, by sexologists and others. The answer is: people don't easily fit easily into binary frames or label boxes, even when they try to do so. Such is life.

I'm not sure the LGBT movement is moving away from a genetic basis. It seems they are open to any causes/factors, although the consensus is, as far as I can tell from scientists, is that it's caused largely by genetic factors and probaly others things also.The change I think that's happening is that more people are thinking 'so what?' Regardless of the causes they just want to be respected for the person they are and get on with living a happy life. Understanding the causes, and the genetic base, was a phase in the evolution, a reaction even, to gain evidence (and understanding) that orientation isn't merely a defective behaviour. Now the focus has changed, which is to be expected. Different times raise new challenges and interests.
 

Edited July 26, 2014 by Benedictus