Psychiatrist explores the psychology of transgenderism
Scroll to see replies
Original post by donutellme
Because it will lead to disorder and the entire basis upon which we have built society will crumble.
How so? Please explain.
Original post by Smushy
How so? Please explain.
Civilisation has reached this far based on people fulfilling their roles and obeying a set hierarchy, not based on what each person wanted. There need to be rules in place for what people can and cannot do. Even though some people will be affected by these rules, you can't make everyone happy. Actions to benefit the group, not the individual.
Original post by Soldieroffortune
Would you care to show some figures for that? Since last time i checked a few anti psychotics were a lot cheaper than the micro surgery involved in creating or inverting a penis etc. plus the drug therapy.
I'm afraid I don't have the stats - that's something NICE etc don't make public. Anti-psychotics are not effective at treating gender dysphoria - they lessen some symptoms but they're not a proven effective treatment (unlike transition). In fact I doubt they've even been through the UK drug testing to allow them to be prescribed unless a trans person also has a concurrent mental health issue that they address.
Hormone therapy is cheap - as cheap as anti-psychotics in fact - and is the primary treatment provided on the NHS. Surgery is only an option after 12-18 months on hormones (and for many trans people isn't something they take up). The only treatments/surgeries that the NHS currently ration is hair removal (limited to 8 treatments for trans women) and breast augmentation (only available to trans women who have been on hormones for longer than 18 months and seen little to no breast growth). The NHS currently rarely fund facial feminisation and a handful of other surgeries.
The NHS and NICE guidance is based roughly on the WPATH Standards of Care. Which in turn is based on the best and most recent research on efficacy of treatments.
It's nice that you're concerned about the tax payer - but I'd much rather my tax money went on treating trans people with an established and well evidenced treatment path than wasting money on anti-psychotics (with up to 50% of patients suffering adverse affects https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Antipsychotic#Adverse_effects ) that leave people distressed, potentially damaging their relationships and their employment chances (not to mention the lost tax revenues from trans people taking their own lives when denied proper treatment). Taking the entire "burden" on the tax payer into account transition seems not only cost effective but something to be encouraged.
Original post by donutellme
Civilisation has reached this far based on people fulfilling their roles and obeying a set hierarchy, not based on what each person wanted. There need to be rules in place for what people can and cannot do. Even though some people will be affected by these rules, you can't make everyone happy. Actions to benefit the group, not the individual.
Fair enough, but how does that apply to this specific context? What will a small minority of people expressing their transgender identity do to society? Personally, I find it inspiring that these people dare to be different. Asides from their appearance, I do not see what sets them apart from other citizens.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by driftawaay
Who cares what one bigot says. So called respected scientists used to call homosexuality an illness and where are they now? Plenty of other scientists will say it is not a mental disorder. It is well on its way to becoming declassified as a mental disorder, I give it no more than a decade before WHO catches up. Whether you like it or not. 
I would argue that homosexuality is also a mental disorder. From an evolutionary perspective, being gay is a dysfunction.
Original post by PQ
I'm afraid I don't have the stats - that's something NICE etc don't make public. Anti-psychotics are not effective at treating gender dysphoria - they lessen some symptoms but they're not a proven effective treatment (unlike transition). In fact I doubt they've even been through the UK drug testing to allow them to be prescribed unless a trans person also has a concurrent mental health issue that they address.
I beg to differ anti psychotics and anti depressants have been shown to help as this is indeed a mental disorder and anyone who claims otherwise would be foolish as this is to do with the brain..
Depending on the Dr though they may well attribute this as a mental health condition in its own right and its a fairly safe bet if they're feeling that way they're going to be pretty bummed anyway wouldn't you say?
Hormone therapy is cheap - as cheap as anti-psychotics in fact - and is the primary treatment provided on the NHS. Surgery is only an option after 12-18 months on hormones (and for many trans people isn't something they take up). The only treatments/surgeries that the NHS currently ration is hair removal (limited to 8 treatments for trans women) and breast augmentation (only available to trans women who have been on hormones for longer than 18 months and seen little to no breast growth). The NHS currently rarely fund facial feminisation and a handful of other surgeries.
Of course, they're all off patent generics now so cost pennies I was more pointing towards the surgical costs however to put it as an example the NHS funds this treatment but not several cancer drugs because theyre too 'expensive' wouldn't the reallocation of funds from cosmetic tinkering to a life saving protocol be more apt?
It's nice that you're concerned about the tax payer - but I'd much rather my tax money went on treating trans people with an established and well evidenced treatment path than wasting money on anti-psychotics (with up to 50% of patients suffering adverse affects https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Antipsychotic#Adverse_effects ) that leave people distressed, potentially damaging their relationships and their employment chances (not to mention the lost tax revenues from trans people taking their own lives when denied proper treatment). Taking the entire "burden" on the tax payer into account transition seems not only cost effective but something to be encouraged.
I stand by my previous comparison regarding cancer fighting drugs and so on with regards to costs, I would rather my taxes go to save lives than simply making someone's a bit easier... If theyre depressed enough to take the suicide route that is a sad thing but it is insignificant compared to the certainty of dying without other medications currently withheld in this nation.
Also i'd question your methodology, if you'll pardon me, in saying that treating these people is more cost effective for the government? By all means if its covered privately or paid for by them do as they please but I stand by its a frivolous use of NHS money compared to other uses...
Original post by driftawaay
Who cares what one bigot says. So called respected scientists used to call homosexuality an illness and where are they now? Plenty of other scientists will say it is not a mental disorder. It is well on its way to becoming declassified as a mental disorder, I give it no more than a decade before WHO catches up. Whether you like it or not.
Comparing the two is a fallacy as well you should know!
And how exactly can you argue that this isn't a mental condition? whether you like it or not its a condition and its to do with how the mind is working if something thinks theyre the wrong sex anything more than that you can debate till the cows come home but this is not a question of fact it is a simple truth that is it a mental condition, to call it an illness or disorder is again debatable but still its to do with the brain and its chemistry.
Original post by Anonymous10634
I would argue that homosexuality is also a mental disorder. From an evolutionary perspective, being gay is a dysfunction.
Some would argue its natures way of trying to keep a balance on population sizes, some not all but c'est la vie. Either way my cousin has lesbian rabbits so are they retarded?
Original post by Smushy
Fair enough, but how does that apply to this specific context? What will a small minority of people expressing their transgender identity do to society? Personally, I find it inspiring that these people dare to be different. Asides from their appearance, I do not see what sets them apart from other citizens.
Would you deny it's a bit of a fad?
So many tumblrites seem to be switching genders left and right, thinking its the cool thing. Once it becomes more acceptable, it will only spread.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Anonymous10634
I would argue that homosexuality is also a mental disorder. From an evolutionary perspective, being gay is a dysfunction.
Well you can use that language if you want. It makes much more sense to use it in relation to a matter that is actually harmful to the person who has it, though.
Transgenderism clearly is seriously problematic for the individuals who have to deal with it. Whatever else it is, it seems to me entirely sensible to call it a 'disorder' given that's the case.
That's a separate question from the issue of how the issue should be treated, socially as well as medically. In terms of what's most beneficial to the individuals, I don't know the science. But I think it's worth pointing out that this is clearly a problem that merits thought, even if it's thought on the part of other people (mainly psychologists presumably). It merits some humility in relation to what the best answers might be and preferably some quietness on the part of the morons who obstruct any debate on the matter by declaring anyone who might use less 'accepting' terms, such as 'mental disorder', or propose treatment other than giving the patient what s/he thinks s/he wants as 'bigoted'.
The idea of just some guy calling a psychologist 'bigoted' for taking the incorrect view on a psychological issue is just ridiculous. How arrogant do you have to be to say something like that? They're scientists. They're supposed to interpret the facts as they see them. They may be starkly wrong in their interpretations, but to say just because you don't like their interpretations they must be bigoted makes you an idiot.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by Soldieroffortune
Common sense and any medical journal worth its salt?
Its obviously a brain disorder nothing more, the body didn't just have a hiccup in developing or theyd be a mosaic which is somewhat different.
Its obviously a brain disorder nothing more, the body didn't just have a hiccup in developing or theyd be a mosaic which is somewhat different.
So no. You don't have a source.
Frankly whether or not it's a mental disorder or not is irrelevant. What matters is utilising the most compassionate and effective treatment for the condition with the best patient outcomes. Right now if you practice evidence based medicine, (and there shouldn't be any other kind) hormones and gender reassignment surgery are part of the solution for some patients.
Yes theoretically we could waste money, time and effort attempting to come up with a magical cure to get people's brains working in a conventional manner, but at the end of the day what does that solve? Is messing around with someone's sense of self any more ethical or desirable than altering their physical appearance or making minor changes to the way their body functions? I'd argue that a person's self, their thoughts, memories, the way they think are far more sacrosanct than their natural physical appearance. It's also worth remembering that while we're pretty good at surgery these days our understanding of the brain is far less complete, and from what we do know it's clear that messing with the brain can be a very dangerous under taking. Neurons are tough but normally don't grow back if you damage them.
Don't fix what isn't broke, we have an effective way of managing symptoms and improving quality of life, maybe as the brain becomes better understood new insights will change the evidence placed practice but until then quit grousing about Trans-gendered people receiving appropriate treatment just because you find them icky. That's your problem to deal with.
Yes theoretically we could waste money, time and effort attempting to come up with a magical cure to get people's brains working in a conventional manner, but at the end of the day what does that solve? Is messing around with someone's sense of self any more ethical or desirable than altering their physical appearance or making minor changes to the way their body functions? I'd argue that a person's self, their thoughts, memories, the way they think are far more sacrosanct than their natural physical appearance. It's also worth remembering that while we're pretty good at surgery these days our understanding of the brain is far less complete, and from what we do know it's clear that messing with the brain can be a very dangerous under taking. Neurons are tough but normally don't grow back if you damage them.
Don't fix what isn't broke, we have an effective way of managing symptoms and improving quality of life, maybe as the brain becomes better understood new insights will change the evidence placed practice but until then quit grousing about Trans-gendered people receiving appropriate treatment just because you find them icky. That's your problem to deal with.
Original post by DiddyDec
So no. You don't have a source.
It's easier to reply if you speak coherently not just post a random sentence. Either way as I said go look in a medical journal as the burden of proof lies on you not me. I've told you where to look now snap to and go look and educate yourself maybe you'll notice the brain isn't just some big squishy thing and is actually rather complex.
Original post by donutellme
Would you deny it's a bit of a fad?
So many tumblrites seem to be switching genders left and right, thinking its the cool thing. Once it becomes more acceptable, it will only spread.
Posted from TSR Mobile
So many tumblrites seem to be switching genders left and right, thinking its the cool thing. Once it becomes more acceptable, it will only spread.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Do you realise what kind of violence openly transgender people are subject to?
http://www.ovc.gov/pubs/forge/sexual_numbers.html
This is a 'fad' people suffer for every day. If these people are confused about their identity, if they decide to look different, we can still respect their choices.
Original post by Soldieroffortune
I beg to differ anti psychotics and anti depressants have been shown to help as this is indeed a mental disorder and anyone who claims otherwise would be foolish as this is to do with the brain..
Depending on the Dr though they may well attribute this as a mental health condition in its own right and its a fairly safe bet if they're feeling that way they're going to be pretty bummed anyway wouldn't you say?
Depending on the Dr though they may well attribute this as a mental health condition in its own right and its a fairly safe bet if they're feeling that way they're going to be pretty bummed anyway wouldn't you say?
It's a shame that the world's experts on the subject don't agree with you
http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/files/pdfversion/CR181.pdf
"The expression of gender characteristics that are not stereotypicallyassociated with one’s assigned gender at birth is a common and culturallydiverse human phenomenon that should not be judged as inherentlypathological or negative."
Of course, they're all off patent generics now so cost pennies I was more pointing towards the surgical costs however to put it as an example the NHS funds this treatment but not several cancer drugs because theyre too 'expensive' wouldn't the reallocation of funds from cosmetic tinkering to a life saving protocol be more apt?
I stand by my previous comparison regarding cancer fighting drugs and so on with regards to costs, I would rather my taxes go to save lives than simply making someone's a bit easier... If theyre depressed enough to take the suicide route that is a sad thing but it is insignificant compared to the certainty of dying without other medications currently withheld in this nation.
I stand by my previous comparison regarding cancer fighting drugs and so on with regards to costs, I would rather my taxes go to save lives than simply making someone's a bit easier... If theyre depressed enough to take the suicide route that is a sad thing but it is insignificant compared to the certainty of dying without other medications currently withheld in this nation.
Cancer drugs are reviewed by NICE based on the amount of time they lengthen a life by to work out value for money
There have been claims through research done by the University of York that the amount of money to spend on a drug for a each additional year of life is too high already (http://www.nice.org.uk/news/blog/carrying-nice-over-the-threshold )
Despite that NICE recommended use for 63% of the cancer drugs that were reviewed last year http://www.nice.org.uk/news/nice-statistics
What really needs to happen is that pharmaceutical companies need to lower the prices charged for some of the drugs which don't provide substantial benefits/extended life....but instead you'd rather deny trans people treatment
Also i'd question your methodology, if you'll pardon me, in saying that treating these people is more cost effective for the government? By all means if its covered privately or paid for by them do as they please but I stand by its a frivolous use of NHS money compared to other uses...
I'd question your methodology - if you only see the costs of a treatment and not the benefits (and costs of inaction/alternative treatment) then of course you're going to see trans people as too expensive.
Lucky for trans people you don't get to decide - and your shoddy understanding of the psychology and medicine in trans healthcare isn't influential in making healthcare decisions.
Original post by PQ
It's a shame that the world's experts on the subject don't agree with you
http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/files/pdfversion/CR181.pdf
"The expression of gender characteristics that are not stereotypicallyassociated with one’s assigned gender at birth is a common and culturallydiverse human phenomenon that should not be judged as inherentlypathological or negative."
http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/files/pdfversion/CR181.pdf
"The expression of gender characteristics that are not stereotypicallyassociated with one’s assigned gender at birth is a common and culturallydiverse human phenomenon that should not be judged as inherentlypathological or negative."
What a load of tosh and those arent the 'worlds' experts i'd trust the chaps over at Hopkins more than these teets with this pseudo-science.
Cancer drugs are reviewed by NICE based on the amount of time they lengthen a life by to work out value for money
There have been claims through research done by the University of York that the amount of money to spend on a drug for a each additional year of life is too high already (http://www.nice.org.uk/news/blog/carrying-nice-over-the-threshold )
Despite that NICE recommended use for 63% of the cancer drugs that were reviewed last year http://www.nice.org.uk/news/nice-statistics
What really needs to happen is that pharmaceutical companies need to lower the prices charged for some of the drugs which don't provide substantial benefits/extended life....but instead you'd rather deny trans people treatment
There have been claims through research done by the University of York that the amount of money to spend on a drug for a each additional year of life is too high already (http://www.nice.org.uk/news/blog/carrying-nice-over-the-threshold )
Despite that NICE recommended use for 63% of the cancer drugs that were reviewed last year http://www.nice.org.uk/news/nice-statistics
What really needs to happen is that pharmaceutical companies need to lower the prices charged for some of the drugs which don't provide substantial benefits/extended life....but instead you'd rather deny trans people treatment
Gold star at david camp for noting that?
Yes and the rest? not to mention some are simply done on price not just effectiveness, i forget the drugs name but about 20k a tablet however very effective against renal cell carcinoma was denied.
No not really, do you have any idea how much these drugs cost to make? Billions and Billions of pounds and if the target group is small they need to charge high amounts now don't they. Yes I would prolonging or saving someone's life is more important than giving a female a penis or vis-a-vis.
I'd question your methodology - if you only see the costs of a treatment and not the benefits (and costs of inaction/alternative treatment) then of course you're going to see trans people as too expensive.
Lucky for trans people you don't get to decide - and your shoddy understanding of the psychology and medicine in trans healthcare isn't influential in making healthcare decisions.
Lucky for trans people you don't get to decide - and your shoddy understanding of the psychology and medicine in trans healthcare isn't influential in making healthcare decisions.
Your ignorance in this is hilarious you choose a mentally ill person feeling a little happier and getting a useless fastidial piece of flesh over someone's right to try and survive? You're a cold bastard arent you? Lets see if someone close to you got cancer and you found the treatment was unavailable i wonder if your childishly romantic song would change then because chemo and radio therapy don't work on a lot of cancers.
Oh yes lucky for the mentally ill we get to waste money on them at the expense of others lives where the money could actually be put to use.
Your inability to distinguish between life and a shag is troubling.
Who the hell cares, let people live their life and be who they want to be, it's pathetic. What harm are the people that want to change their gender identity doing to you.....
Original post by ActuallyIDo
Who the hell cares, let people live their life and be who they want to be, it's pathetic. What harm are the people that want to change their gender identity doing to you.....
That is a naive opinion. Social norms exist for a reason
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Anonymous10634
I would argue that homosexuality is also a mental disorder. From an evolutionary perspective, being gay is a dysfunction.
Good for you, unfortunately your 'argument' is invalid from a scientific perspective, according to science, so you can quote a homophobe next time. Goodbye.
Original post by Soldieroffortune
It's easier to reply if you speak coherently not just post a random sentence. Either way as I said go look in a medical journal as the burden of proof lies on you not me. I've told you where to look now snap to and go look and educate yourself maybe you'll notice the brain isn't just some big squishy thing and is actually rather complex.
You made the statement without evidence. The burden of proof is on you to show the evidence or accept that you made the statement without evidence.
Trying to patronise me isn't going to make your case stronger.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Quick Reply
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
