Slashdot Mirror

Addictive Disorders
The chapter also includes gambling disorder as the sole condition in a new category on behavioural addictions. DSM-IV listed pathological gambling but in a different chapter. This new term and its location in the new manual reect research findings that gambling disorder is similar to substance-related disorders in clinical expression, brain origin, comorbidity, physiology, and treatment.

Recognition of these commonalties will help people with gambling disorder get the treatment and services they need, and others may better understand the challenges that individuals face in overcoming this disorder.

While gambling disorder is the only addictive disorder included in DSM-5 as a diagnosable condition, Internet gaming disorder will be included in Section III of the manual. Disorders listed there require further research before their consideration as formal disorders. This condition is included to reect the scientific literature on persistent and recurrent use of Internet games, and a preoccupation with them, can result in clinically significant impairment or distress. Much of this literature comes from studies in Asian countries. The condition criteria do not include general use of the Internet, gambling, or social media at this time.

Source: https://www.psychiatry.org/Fil... (used autocorrect because copy&paste messed up the spelling, there still might be some deviation in the spelling)

Uhm... https://www.psychiatry.org/pat...

> You have a dumb-ass histrionic narcissistic [csbsju.edu] "supreme leader" vs a impulsive narcissistic [csbsju.edu] moron world leader.

Are you a mental health professional? Have you interviewed them in a clinical session and come to this diagnosis? You are familiar with the "Goldwater Rule"?

https://www.psychiatry.org/new...

Not trying to be an apologist for either of these two "leaders," just pointing out that diagnosis of those two disorders is unethical and at least, conjecture.

https://www.psychiatry.org/pat...

Are you sure? You even used the clinical term for it, but yet argue it isn't a diagnosable mental illness?

Regarding your sig ... isn't it reasonable to conclude that a man in drag (for purposes other than a gag like I once saw at a Halloween party) is someplace on the "transsexual spectrum", or at least is thinking about becoming a transsexual? After all men who identify as masculine and heterosexual generally don't dress in drag. Is "woman trapped in a man's body" the only criteria you recognize? How much commitment do you require before you grant the recognition: must the man take estrogen and grow breasts, or go all the way and modify the genitals with reassignment surgery?

Absolutely not. First - "men who identify as masculine and heterosexual generally don't dress in drag" - if you believe that, you're in for a REAL surprise. Some surveys put the number of males who have worn one or more pieces of woman's clothing for erotic pleasure at least once at 60%. cross-dressing is a sexual fetish, and has nothing to do with gender identity.

The APA specifically state that being gender variant is NOT the same as being transsexual. There are specific diagnostic criteria that only apply to transsexuals, and not to the "transgender community", who do not need treatment because they do not have a medical condition.

Gender dysphoria is not the same as gender nonconformity, which refers to behaviors not matching the gender norms or stereotypes of the gender assigned at birth. Examples of gender nonconformity (also referred to as gender expansiveness or gender creativity) include girls behaving and dressing in ways more socially expected of boys or occasional cross-dressing in adult men. Gender nonconformity is not a mental disorder. Gender dysphoria is also not the same being gay/lesbian.

The LGBT are pissed off that anyone would dare point out the distinction publicly, because they see it as a threat to the "unity of the community." To bad for them that 50% of female transsexuals are straight, and thus have no reason to be part of the gay "community" - or to be represented by people who continue to publicly confuse the difference between "transgender" and "transsexual" with such idiotic statements by leaders of the gay community such as "Of course we support transsexuals - we had drag queens on our Mardi Gras float."

Combine that with the far higher rates of violence, including domestic violence, in the gay community, higher rates of health-risk behavior such as smoking, higher rates of risky sex, especially among transgenders and transsexuals who are members of the LGBT community (the highest rate of HIV/AIDS of any group - 16% for latinos, 17% for whites, 56% of blacks, as well as very high rates of prostitution) - who the hell wants to be part of such a "community" if they're not gay or lesbian?

I've heard the excuses for the high rates (+50%) trans prostitution, and they don't wash. Being ridden bareback by gay men paying for anal sex is not "gender-affirming" behaviour. And the poverty argument also doesn't wash - 39% of single mothers live in poverty, but we don't see half of them engaging in prostitution as a career. But don't you dare point that out - you're somehow "transphobic" for pointing out that the "justifications" are bullshit in the face of statistics.

But to answer your question - a diagnosis of Gender Dysphoria from psychiatrists who are trained both to recognize it, and to recognize when what someone self-diagnoses as "being transsexual" is in fact not true, is the only acceptable standard. Why would you NOT want to get expert help anyway.

And no, I am not anti-LGB. Rights are rights, and everyone has a right to exist. What they don't have is a right to speak for non-gays, especially since they've proven over and over again that they just don't "get it."

I'm not calling transgendered people mentally ill.

Now, since being Transgender requires Gender Dysphoria -- so called Tumbrina "TransTrenders" aren't transgender, they're attention seeking children -- it's an unpopular, but correct, statement to say that they are people with a mental illness receiving treatment.

So...which is it?

Fortunately for me, an "unpopular" opinion is not bigotry, no matter what the authoritarian regressive post-modernists that have taken over the left in the west think.

Or it just means you're misinterpreting the disorder and blanket-applying it to all transgendered because you're now defending your bigoted views with semantic arguments.

From the DSM-5, used for diagnosis and classifications:

It is important to note that gender nonconformity is not in itself a mental disorder. The critical element of gender dysphoria is the presence of clinically significant distress associated with the condition.

But do go on about your willingness to martyr yourself to the public court by posting unpopular opinions. Let's not let facts get in the way of your sacrifice.

You calling a transgendered person "mentally ill" sounds no different than the bigots who called homosexuals "mentally ill"
How is your bigotry any more justified than theirs, bigot?

I'm not calling transgendered people mentally ill. I'm saying Gender Dysphoria is a mental illness.

http://www.ifge.org/302.85_Gen...
http://www.theravive.com/thera...
http://dsm.psychiatryonline.or...
https://www.psychiatry.org/pat...

And I'm right. Sorry, but it's true.

Now, since being Transgender requires Gender Dysphoria -- so called Tumbrina "TransTrenders" aren't transgender, they're attention seeking children -- it's an unpopular, but correct, statement to say that they are people with a mental illness receiving treatment.

Fortunately for me, an "unpopular" opinion is not bigotry, no matter what the authoritarian regressive post-modernists that have taken over the left in the west think.

+5 Funny? I was actually serious.

"However, to date there are no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological etiology for homosexuality."

Saying that's not how it works implies you know how it works. Please cite sources.

I love how hilarity comes out of misinterpreted comments on the interwebs. It's lovely. I now see the humor in my comment. Still, Please cite sources.

I don't see where the validity to this "We can't control our sexual orientation" idea came from. According to the American Psychiatry Association, "to date there are no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological etiology for homosexuality".

I suppose it's more likely it's environmental, but what we get from our environment is dependent upon our perception of it which, as many religious people have shown, is something we can freely control if we choose to. Ranging from tuning out a noise in the background to "This is the Matrix and our choices are pointless in a false, digital, world", depending on how you think our body interacts with the world.

Full Disclosure: I'm a homophobe. That means I irrationally fear homosexuals the same way I irrationally fear heights or spiders. I despise the fact that people use that as a slur, ignoring what the word actually means (reminds me of what happened to mental retardation, being a completely legitimate medical term turned into a hateful word used against people).

I mean no hatred with this comment/question. I sincerely want to know where the certainty, which saturates this entire post, comes from that it's not a choice, when a governing body that actively studies this isn't certain at all. Admittedly, that page hasn't been updated in a while, but I'd figure it would be if something as important as that were discovered to be true, and it represents a key location people who know little about the subject would go to get more information.

Being gay isn't an ideology. Disliking homosexuals is completely different from not liking capitalists, conservatives, liberals, etc. Disliking homosexuals is disliking people for something that they didn't choose and cannot change. It is not a political opinion, and it is not acceptable.

Source?

Because according to the American Psychiatric Association:

Currently there is a renewed interest in searching for biological etiologies for homosexuality. However, to date there are no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological etiology for homosexuality. Similarly, no specific psychosocial or family dynamic cause for homosexuality has been identified, including histories of childhood sexual abuse.

So I personally don't see the basis for that statement when we still haven't determined why it is a "thing". Admittedly, that web page is somewhat old, but I would figure that if such a thing were determined, since LGBT rights are such a hot topic these days, that web-page would be quick to update.