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

[Ice_nine]

I could be wrong about this, but I don't think that's the reasoning. The studies done on homosexuals show they aren't different from straight jakes in daily functioning. You can be super gay and run a business, keep steady relationships, etc. You can't really do as much if you have schizophrenia and you're experiencing an episode. 

 

You're right. Is the patient distressed by problem x and is the patient's functioning affect by problem x are criteria for pretty much every mental illness. Except maybe for antisocial personality.

[CatholicsAreKewl]

You're right. Is the patient distressed by problem x and is the patient's functioning affect by problem x are criteria for pretty much every mental illness. Except maybe for antisocial personality.

 

True. That would mean that it involves more than just how it affects that specific individual's quality of life in some cases. But I'm sure there is so much we still don't know about. Certain disorders get taken out of the DSM based on new understandings of the conditions. One example is the latest DSM taking out sexual addiction. I don't think anyone on this thread, including me, actually knows what they're talking about. To be fair, I don't think many clinicians do either. 

Edited July 26, 2014 by CatholicsAreKewl

[Ice_nine]

True. That would mean that it involves more than just how it affects that specific individual's quality of life in some cases. But I'm sure there is so much we still don't know about. Certain disorders get taken out of the DSM based on new understandings of the conditions.

 

That's kind of what I meant when I say psychology, esp clinical psychology, is a soft-science. It changes just as what is "normal" changes. At one point in the past, and perhaps in many places today, homosexuality was considered deviancy and was much more likely to cause distress and inability to function in and social environment. Not so much the case today, at least not across the board.

[Ice_nine]

I also know many professionals think the new DSM is a cluster and still use the DSM IV-TR.

[CatherineM]

My husband functions fine. He takes his meds as prescribed. That's all it takes.

[superblue]

just wanted to say thanks for the responses it has been good food for thought.

 

[PhuturePriest]

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. 

 

Your post shows clear misunderstanding of Church teaching, starting off with the fact that you think "disorder" means mental disorder, and going into the fact that you think the Church is against homosexual acts because it believes homosexual acts aren't normal in nature.
 

[StMichael]

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm

 

Chastity and homosexuality

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,¹⁴¹ tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."¹⁴² They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

 

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

 

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

[StMichael]

The year was 1974:

 

"In 1970 gay activists protested against the APA convention in San Francisco.  These scenes were repeated in 1971, and as people came out of the “closet” and felt empowered politically and socially, the APA directorate became increasingly uncomfortable with their stance.  In 1973 the APA’s nomenclature task force recommended that homosexuality be declared normal.  The trustees were not prepared to go that far, but they did vote to remove homosexuality from the list of mental illnesses by a vote of 13 to 0, with 2 abstentions.  This decision was confirmed by a vote of the APA membership, and homosexuality was no longer listed in the seventh edition of DSM-II, which was issued in 1974.

 

What’s noteworthy about this is that the removal of homosexuality from the list of mental illnesses was not triggered by some scientific breakthrough.  There was no new fact or set of facts that stimulated this major change.  Rather, it was the simple reality that gay people started to kick up a fuss.  They gained a voice and began to make themselves heard.  And the APA reacted with truly astonishing speed.  And with good reason. They realized intuitively that a protracted battle would have drawn increasing attention to the spurious nature of their entire taxonomy.  So they quickly “cut loose” the gay community and forestalled any radical scrutiny of the DSM system generally."

 

Sigmund Freud, consider to be a father, if not the father of psychology, concluded, to whatever end, that paranoia and homosexuality were inseparable. 

 

This group is so small, yet so loud and focused on one thing, normalizing their sexual preference, which, I do not care if you want to dress up like a unicorn or believe you are Spider Man, I don't need to know, I don't need to make special concessions for you and I don't need you to tell me I have to accept anything. 

 

While I give this little thought, I would believe it is one thing to be attracted to the same sex as opposed to wanting to cosmetically change yourself from what God made you (male to female, female to male) and then you have those who simply see the world as a lustful want regardless of sex, age, etc. 

 

End of times?

 

 

 

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.

 

[veritasluxmea]

You're right. Is the patient distressed by problem x and is the patient's functioning affect by problem x are criteria for pretty much every mental illness. Except maybe for antisocial personality.

No, that's the criteria for a disability, not a mental illness. There's a difference. Anorexia is a mental illness which is not (usually) a disability. Paralysis is a disability which is not a mental illness. Depression is both a mental illness and (sometimes) a disability. 

 

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.

Eh, just because something is genetic and natural doesn't mean it's good. Lots of things are a natural phenomenon which are bad for you. Isn't is actually a fallacy to claim that just because something is natural means it's good/harmless? I've read a lot of anti-naturopathic medicine people label it as such.

 

animals do a lot of weird stuff, like eat their own poop, which we don't exactly want to imitate. What constitues "homosexual behavior" in animals? I'm a big dog lover and I've had dogs (and rabbits) who liked to mount members of the same sex as a form of stress relief, dominance play, and insecurity with their environment. I don't think that has much to do with human homosexuality. Human sexuality and animal "sexuality" are to very different things, which is why a dog barely notices what's missing after being neutered while a human would be very traumatized. 

[CrossCuT]

Your post shows clear misunderstanding of Church teaching, starting off with the fact that you think "disorder" means mental disorder, and going into the fact that you think the Church is against homosexual acts because it believes homosexual acts aren't normal in nature.
 

 

I didnt really mention anything about church teaching in that post...I talked about the studies done and the last part was about the APA not the church.

[Semper Catholic]

No, that's the criteria for a disability, not a mental illness. There's a difference. Anorexia is a mental illness which is not (usually) a disability. Paralysis is a disability which is not a mental illness. Depression is both a mental illness and (sometimes) a disability.

Eh, just because something is genetic and natural doesn't mean it's good. Lots of things are a natural phenomenon which are bad for you. Isn't is actually a fallacy to claim that just because something is natural means it's good/harmless? I've read a lot of anti-naturopathic medicine people label it as such.

animals do a lot of weird stuff, like eat their own poop, which we don't exactly want to imitate. What constitues "homosexual behavior" in animals? I'm a big dog lover and I've had dogs (and rabbits) who liked to mount members of the same sex as a form of stress relief, dominance play, and insecurity with their environment. I don't think that has much to do with human homosexuality. Human sexuality and animal "sexuality" are to very different things, which is why a dog barely notices what's missing after being neutered while a human would be very traumatized.

So your saying we should treat people like people and not use garbage like "Natural law" as an excuse for discrimination? Thank you you're my hero.

[Luigi]

So your saying we should treat people like people and not use garbage like "Natural law" as an excuse for discrimination? Thank you you're my hero.

 

Natural law treats people like people, and animals like animals. 

 

 

Try as it might, intentionally simplistic misinterpretation just can't make someone say what they didn't say. 

[CrossCuT]

Later today, I'll post here some of the latest research on the cause of transsexualism.  It is not a psychiatric condition in the sense that many people think.  (It is not a delusion, for instance.)  Mounting scientific evidence shows that most transsexuals have brain structures characteristic of the other sex.  Here's why.  The hormonal environment in the womb determines the brain sex during the second half of pregnancy, after the genitals have been formed in the fetus.  For XY males, there is an androgen bath that is supposed to take place.  This masculinizes the brain.  If this is impeded or does not happen, the brain remains female, which is the default sex.

 

Thank you for contributing a new perspective to the discussion Clare! I am very curious about the studies that have been done on this topic and I intend to read the ones you posted as soon as I get a chance! I am aware of androgens and what role they play in development as well as maintaining an adult body, but I feel there is still a genetic basis to the trans mentality - or why they feel they are a different gender than their physical body. No functions or characteristics are just magical happenstances; there is a root to everything.

 

What you find personally more plausible is information about you, but it does not provide the rest of us with objective evidence.

 

And putting "the most recent scientific research" in quotes will not change the fact that it is the most recent scientific research.

 

I would encourage people who are interested in this issue to read the current research for themselves, rather than rely on Perigrina's characterizations or subjective feelings of plausibility.

I agree in encouraging people to do their own research. I think a big problem on the internet in general are social or information cascades. When people lack personal information on the topic that they are much more likely to be swayed by another persons stance even if it is contradictory to the truth. But none the less I am glad Perigrina contributes to the conversation as well! Bring in all the perspective! 

 

No, that's the criteria for a disability, not a mental illness. There's a difference. Anorexia is a mental illness which is not (usually) a disability. Paralysis is a disability which is not a mental illness. Depression is both a mental illness and (sometimes) a disability. 

 

Eh, just because something is genetic and natural doesn't mean it's good. Lots of things are a natural phenomenon which are bad for you. Isn't is actually a fallacy to claim that just because something is natural means it's good/harmless? I've read a lot of anti-naturopathic medicine people label it as such.

 

animals do a lot of weird stuff, like eat their own poop, which we don't exactly want to imitate. What constitues "homosexual behavior" in animals? I'm a big dog lover and I've had dogs (and rabbits) who liked to mount members of the same sex as a form of stress relief, dominance play, and insecurity with their environment. I don't think that has much to do with human homosexuality. Human sexuality and animal "sexuality" are to very different things, which is why a dog barely notices what's missing after being neutered while a human would be very traumatized. 

 

I understand your argument, but science is indifferent. It says "This is natural", its a fact. The church and morality however fill in what they think is moral. The church can look at natural phenomena and say "Hmm, this is probably not good" or "this is awesome!" They cant however say something is unnatural in the physical world because it is not in ther realm of expertice. 

Some other people were kind of musing on the topic as well. but it brings up a fair question imo. Does the church have the authority to deem a certain "condition" as a disorder or not? Is that their place? Or are they simply a moral compass? And if you say yes, they can do that,..then what else can they do? Is it their place to dictate science through moral teaching and the bible? Is it their place to fulfill other non religious roles in society?

[Clare Brigid]

Thank you for contributing a new perspective to the discussion Clare! 

You're welcome, CrossCuT.  What I find interesting about PhatMass is that, even though the ethos is somewhat "young," the relative openness and willingness to have a real conversation is at a fairly mature level.

 

I'm glad to be here.

Edited July 27, 2014 by Clare Brigid

[Credo in Deum]

I understand your argument, but science is indifferent. It says "This is natural", its a fact. The church and morality however fill in what they think is moral. The church can look at natural phenomena and say "Hmm, this is probably not good" or "this is amesome!" They cant however say something is unnatural in the physical world because it is not in ther realm of expertice.

So what? The Church dictates what is a disorder and what is not based on Natural Law; the law which applies to humans who are made both body and soul, with an intellect and a will. The law in which humans must follow to fulfill the purpose for which they are made; to love, honor, and serve God. Take for example: Lemmings. They jump off of a cliff and into the ocean where they die. This is natural for them. They are made with this inclination and their instincts drive them to that end. It's not a disorder for them because they do not have free will and cannot deny their instincts. Now let's say a small percent of humans were created with this same inclination and let's say the cause for this is genetic. However even though it's genetic, it has not removed their ability to deny their natural inclinations. Now let's say some of these humans have decided to follow this inclination. They say because it's natural they should be allowed to act it out. Would you actually still hold that their conscious decision to follow this natural inclination was not disordered, even despite the fact that they could have chosen not to follow it? Edited July 27, 2014 by Credo in Deum

[Perigrina]

Thank you for contributing a new perspective to the discussion Clare! I am very curious about the studies that have been done on this topic and I intend to read the ones you posted as soon as I get a chance! I am aware of androgens and what role they play in development as well as maintaining an adult body, but I feel there is still a genetic basis to the trans mentality - or why they feel they are a different gender than their physical body. No functions or characteristics are just magical happenstances; there is a root to everything.

 

 

Even if it turns out that abnormal androgen levels during fetal development are a significant factor in causing transgenderism, this does not prove that surgery is a good treatment for it.  The empirical evidence regarding that question suggests that surgery is ineffective and that pschological treatment is required.

 

This is not surprising.  In my experience, post-operative transsexuals rarely look attractive or believable in their chosen sex.  It is extremely difficult for them to find partners with normal sexuality, although some people have kinks that draw them to the sexually unusual.   Surgery does nothing to prevent transsexuals from facing lives filled with loneliness and unhappiness.  It is no wonder they have the suicide rate that they do.

 

Since this condition has been politicized and framed as a matter of rights, nothing is being done to actually help them.  The movement is based on the unfounded assumption that surgery will help these people and they have a right to it.  Any compassionate person should be objecting to it.

[Ice_nine]

No, that's the criteria for a disability, not a mental illness. There's a difference. Anorexia is a mental illness which is not (usually) a disability. Paralysis is a disability which is not a mental illness. Depression is both a mental illness and (sometimes) a disability. 

 

Since you bring up depression:
 

Major Depressive Disorder requires two or more major depressive episodes.

Diagnostic criteria:

Depressed mood and/or loss of interest or pleasure in life activities for at least 2 weeks and at least five of the following symptoms that cause clinically significant impairment in social, work, or other important areas of functioning almost every day

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK64063/

 

Similar language is used in nearly all (if not all) diagnoses. I've studied abnormal psych a bit.

Edited July 27, 2014 by Ice_nine

[CrossCuT]

So what? The Church dictates what is a disorder and what is not based on Natural Law; the law which applies to humans who are made both body and soul, with an intellect and a will. The law in which humans must follow to fulfill the purpose for which they are made; to love, honor, and serve God. Take for example: Lemmings. They jump off of a cliff and into the ocean where they die. This is natural for them. They are made with this inclination and their instincts drive them to that end. It's not a disorder for them because they do not have free will and cannot deny their instincts. Now let's say a small percent of humans were created with this same inclination and let's say the cause for this is genetic. However even though it's genetic, it has not removed their ability to deny their natural inclinations. Now let's say some of these humans have decided to follow this inclination. They say because it's natural they should be allowed to act it out. Would you actually still hold that their conscious decision to follow this natural inclination was not disordered, even despite the fact that they could have chosen not to follow it?

 

I dont think the Church has any sort of monopoly on "dictating" what is or isnt a disorder...especially not based on Natural Law. Remember the church is a spiritual institution. If they want to say that homosexuality or transgenderism is immoral (which of course they already do), then great! That is within their area of expertise. However I dont believe the church has the authority to define what is and isnt a disorder any more than I have the authority to dictate the science of worm holes or dark matter.

 

I also think your definition regarding the lemmings and animals vs humans is sketchy...its your opinion of course, but its kind of weird. Humans are animals. We simply have a free will. Would you go so far as to say that the rest of the animal kingdom minus humans have 0 disorders then?

I also dont think that free will is the single and only deciding factor between disorder and non disorder. Maybe you can elaborate.

[CrossCuT]

Even if it turns out that abnormal androgen levels during fetal development are a significant factor in causing transgenderism, this does not prove that surgery is a good treatment for it.  The empirical evidence regarding that question suggests that surgery is ineffective and that pschological treatment is required.

Did you mean to reply to me? I didnt mention anything about what is and isnt good treatment for transgenderism.