Why are we told to embrace transsexualism?

Now, I predict a number of people are going to call me "transphobic" for this (even though I have absolutely no fear or hatred of transsexuals), but hear me out, and maybe you can answer my question.

Why, when it comes to disorders such as schizophrenia, dissociative identity disorder and body integrity identity disorder, are these treated and regarded as negative mental problems, whereas gender identity disorder is promoted as something to be socially entertained and accepted? We don't issue people with D.I.D. multiple passports and several social insurance numbers, and we don't regard it as politically incorrect or 'schizophobic' to try and repress the delusions of schizophrenics or to medicate them. However, when a man experiences mental dissociation with his genitalia, for example, and views himself as being trapped in the wrong body, it is then politically correct to embrace this and is unacceptable for others to reject his mental delusions. Why not seek to suppress or reverse them, as with other mental disorders? I'm curious.

Please note that I am referring to transsexualism here rather than the more ambiguous 'transgenderism' -- which could potentially be whatever bizarre identity some socially awkward teenage tumblrite happens to identify with any given year (oh, the stink I'm going to get for that ).

Now, I predict a number of people are going to call me "transphobic" for this (even though I have absolutely no fear or hatred of transsexuals), but hear me out, and maybe you can answer my question.

Why, when it comes to disorders such as schizophrenia, dissociative identity disorder and body integrity identity disorder, are these treated and regarded as negative mental problems, whereas gender identity disorder is promoted as something to be socially entertained and accepted? We don't issue people with D.I.D. multiple passports and several social insurance numbers, and we don't regard it as politically incorrect or 'schizophobic' to try and repress the delusions of schizophrenics or to medicate them. However, when a man experiences mental dissociation with his genitalia, for example, and views himself as being trapped in the wrong body, it is then politically correct to embrace this and is unacceptable for others to reject his mental delusions. Why not seek to suppress or reverse them, as with other mental disorders? I'm curious.

Please note that I am referring to transsexualism here rather than the more ambiguous 'transgenderism' -- which could potentially be whatever bizarre identity some socially awkward teenage tumblrite happens to identify with any given year (oh, the stink I'm going to get for that ).

I think that gender dysphoria should be seen as more of a physical ilness than a mental one. Look at it as someone having the wrong body rather than the wrong mind, which makes it very different to things like schizophrenia.

Half-agree, half-disagree.

Perhaps it is better to treat them as if they have the wrong body and of course you should allow them to live as whichever sex they choose without hatred and discrimination, but the amount of times people say you are being transphobic if you don't want your girlfriend to have been born with a penis or if scientifically, you still believe they are their the sex they were born with. The people who have these attitudes really need to piss off and/or blog about it on their tumblr.

They are still the same sex, you can't change your sex. There is nothing transphobic about saying that.

What, in your opinion, is 'sex'?

Sex is a biological term. Humans are a species that reproduces by sexual reproduction. The population is divided into two sexes, which we call "male" and "female". Your sex is determined firstly by your chromosomes and secondly by what gametes you are able to produce.

If your sex is determined by your chromosomes then why do we not test babies for this? And why is it based on what gametes you are able to produce at at all?

They are still the same sex, you can't change your sex. There is nothing transphobic about saying that.

Edit: I also unclear what you mean. Are these both used in conjunction as determining factors? As in are they weighed against one another? Is one more determinate?

Much of the trans* community use the term 'assigned sex' to emphasise the fact that they may now identify with the opposite sex to which they were assigned at birth.

Off the record, I would agree that the 'sex' of a (pre-op at least) trans woman is male, but I would seek to avoid using that exact turn of phrase. I would instead say that said trans woman 'was assigned male at birth'.

Much simpler and clearer to use the terminology correctly, and say they are sex male, gender female (SMGF) or vice versa.

Obfuscation and deliberate misuse of terminology helps no-one.

Because its too expensive and costly - in 99% of circumstances, you can observe the correct answer merely by inspection of genital anatomy.

Of course there are numerous examples of doctors assigning sex based on inspection of anatomy and this later turning out to be incorrect.

Because that is the definition of "sex". Ask yourself why we as a species are divided into two sexes. A simple biology textbook should suffice.

I can understand that it might be costly, but we don't really know how many people fit the chromosomal make up that you seem to think is indicative of sex. How many people are XY or XX? How many have some mutation that makes that altered?

This is something which occurs and what I am getting at is since we aren't relying on chromosomes per se then why are you saying that is what is the basis of biological sex?

The irony of being told in thread based on the idea "don't take things just because you are told" to just take something because I am told.

They are still the same sex, you can't change your sex. There is nothing transphobic about saying that.