Most of the psychological community is in agreement with me. The PC crowd is not. So who is “ignorant?”
Liberal ‘Tolerance’ a Complete Joke
- Thread starter Ric Flair
- Start date
- Status
Most of the psychological community is in agreement with me. The PC crowd is not. So who is “ignorant?”
Nebfanatic
New member
I doubt 'most' of the psycological community is in agreement with you. Anyone even making conclusions on this subject can't be too sure given the research available. That said I would defer to the people going through these experience their whole over your biased 5 minute research project.
Last edited by a moderator:
knapplc
Active member
What didn't matter? That people don't see your point of view? Is that what you think "intolerance" is, when people don't conform to your worldview?
This seems like begging for an excuse to be an a$$ to people. "The truth often hurts feelings." Yes, it does, but that doesn't give a person license to be a jerk. There are ways to discuss unpopular truths without being inflammatory, condescending, or an asshat.
I posted multiple links, including those to the APA’s own research and conclusions. It doesn’t get more definitive than that.
I posted my opinions, backed by facts and evidence. Those opinions are unpopular, especially here on the Husker version of ahuffPo, but based on facts and evidence. And unpopular opinions are apparently not tolerated here. #SAD
funhusker
Active member
Here's the deal: "capitalism" is intolerant (*). Hear me out.
We like to cry that Laura Ingrahm can't say what she feels. Alex Jones is being silenced. Some reporter from a "left" publisher is pro-life and has an "in your face" way of saying it and is fired. We can yell "censorship" all we want, but you know what matters? Customers.
If I'm a manager at Walmart and my cashier is handing out Target coupons; well they will be dealt with. If I'm a salesman for a Ford dealership and talk about how GM has much better value, I'm being dealt with. These people get paid for their opinions, but there is a limit. I don't care where you lay on the political spectrum there is eventually a line between making your readers/listeners "think" and just plain "pissing them off." This isn't "intolerant", it's "business".
(*) People will be in charge of themselves, this can be a good thing. But to be a successful individual, you have to care about what others think. Fact of life, better get used to it....
We like to cry that Laura Ingrahm can't say what she feels. Alex Jones is being silenced. Some reporter from a "left" publisher is pro-life and has an "in your face" way of saying it and is fired. We can yell "censorship" all we want, but you know what matters? Customers.
If I'm a manager at Walmart and my cashier is handing out Target coupons; well they will be dealt with. If I'm a salesman for a Ford dealership and talk about how GM has much better value, I'm being dealt with. These people get paid for their opinions, but there is a limit. I don't care where you lay on the political spectrum there is eventually a line between making your readers/listeners "think" and just plain "pissing them off." This isn't "intolerant", it's "business".
(*) People will be in charge of themselves, this can be a good thing. But to be a successful individual, you have to care about what others think. Fact of life, better get used to it....
funhusker
Active member
When you start appreciating being a "part" of this forum rather than an "opponent" you may realize discussion (and even minority opinion) is appreciated.
Last edited by a moderator:
knapplc
Active member
So your problem isn't that your opinions aren't tolerated, it's that you don't understand what "tolerated" means.
BigRedBuster
Well-known member
This post basically shows the problem you are having on the site.
Hint, it’s not your opinions.
Mierin
Donor
Hey don't group me with these people. I intolerantly reported the OP for calling all the mods liberals.
NM11046
Donor
So to add to the "facts" ... the WHO (World Health Organization) evaluates the ICD (International Classification of Diseases) and makes changes when its deemed necessary. The last update was in 1990 (I think that's when this transgender number was added) and they are updating the entire book again this year. Funny thing, they have submitted that transgender should be taken out of the classification of mental disease. It's been through multiple committees and been approved, so I expect that you'll see this go away this year.
So @Ric Flair when the APA guidelines change as planned, will that change your opinion of these folks and where they belong in society?
The funny part is, they bucketed transgender into the mental disease group because of the "if you have it and it makes you distressed" definition. After doing clinical trials and looking at data they found out that it wasn't the transgender part that distressed them, it was the social rejection and violence - NOT being transgendered.
So expect the new codes to include gender incongruence in sexual diagnosis, not mental disorders. And it will be viewed as a medical and biological disorder. Exactly like homosexuality has moved and "hysteria" (often used for labelling women) and then have both fallen off all together. The reason gender incongruence will still be included will be so that these folks can get the medical help they need. And not just for surgical sex changes and hormones (I"m assuming that will be what you question immediately).
So in a nutshell - the society around these folks are what is really a mental illness - not them.
I anticipate that your opinion will stay the same, similar to the thoughts you've expressed about abortions. Even though that is a medically approved procedure you think it's indefensible and should be curbed. So that medical coding procedure, and all the opinions and data hasn't made you feel differently about it. I'd expect when this changes you will hold your position as it too seems deeper than a definition in a billing book or a medical procedure to you.
Last edited by a moderator:
Danny Bateman
Donor
This thread is a pretty solid counterpoint to the argument made in the National Review article about this Williamson guy in the OP.
Last edited by a moderator:
Enhance
Administrator
@Ric Flair, let's go ahead and set this record straight once and for all.
First, and most importantly, the APA removed gender identity disorder (GID) as a listed mental disorder in 2012. They publish the DSM. They replaced it with something new called "gender dysphoria" to help diagnose and treat people who are stressed by the gender mismatch between their identity and body. The intent with this move was to destigmatize transgenders, help spur better health care and recognize that the mismatch between someone's birth gender and identity may not be pathological. The cornerstone for your argument is essentially a misunderstanding of the DSM and the APA's position, along with the position of other leading health care professionals.
Second, in the early release of the World Health Organization's ICD-11, they've moved gender identity disorders from the classification of 'mental and behavioral disorders' to a new category called 'gender incongruence.'
Third, you were suspended for two reasons last month:
1) You were trolling a thread
2) You explicitly referred to transgenders as mentally ill while ignoring the highly controversial and potentially offensive nature of doing so. You presented your opinion from a position of intolerance. The way you posted your opinion was interpreted as a violation of board rule number five.
Finally, I have personally told you once before that there is a place on this board in the Woodshed for airing grievances about warnings and suspensions. Consider this the last time we will politely ask to not pollute the board or a thread with misgivings about suspensions.
First, and most importantly, the APA removed gender identity disorder (GID) as a listed mental disorder in 2012. They publish the DSM. They replaced it with something new called "gender dysphoria" to help diagnose and treat people who are stressed by the gender mismatch between their identity and body. The intent with this move was to destigmatize transgenders, help spur better health care and recognize that the mismatch between someone's birth gender and identity may not be pathological. The cornerstone for your argument is essentially a misunderstanding of the DSM and the APA's position, along with the position of other leading health care professionals.
Second, in the early release of the World Health Organization's ICD-11, they've moved gender identity disorders from the classification of 'mental and behavioral disorders' to a new category called 'gender incongruence.'
Third, you were suspended for two reasons last month:
1) You were trolling a thread
2) You explicitly referred to transgenders as mentally ill while ignoring the highly controversial and potentially offensive nature of doing so. You presented your opinion from a position of intolerance. The way you posted your opinion was interpreted as a violation of board rule number five.
Finally, I have personally told you once before that there is a place on this board in the Woodshed for airing grievances about warnings and suspensions. Consider this the last time we will politely ask to not pollute the board or a thread with misgivings about suspensions.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status