Slashdot Mirror
Russia Says Drivers Must Not Have "Sex Disorders" To Get License
mrspoonsi writes Russia has listed transsexual and transgender people among those who will no longer qualify for driving licenses. Fetishism, exhibitionism and voyeurism are also included as "mental disorders" now barring people from driving. The government says it is tightening medical controls for drivers because Russia has too many road accidents. "Pathological" gambling and compulsive stealing are also on the list. Russian psychiatrists and human rights lawyers have condemned the move. The announcement follows international complaints about Russian harassment of gay-rights activists.
http://government.ru/media/fil...
http://government.ru/media/fil...
The second page of that document contains a list of disorders, as classified by the ICD-10, that prohibit one from driving -- numbers in the right column. The descriptions are here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICD-10_Chapter_V:_Mental_and_behavioural_disorders
As you see, F60-F69 includes all of the following:
(F64) Gender identity disorders
(F64.0) Transsexualism
(F64.1) Dual-role transvestism
(F64.2) Gender identity disorder of childhood
(F65) Disorders of sexual preference
(F65.0) Sexual fetishism
(F65.1) Fetishistic transvestism
(F65.2) Exhibitionism
(F65.3) Voyeurism
(F65.4) Paedophilia
(F65.5) Sadomasochism
In the US Army, this is classified as a mental disorder, and will bar one from enlisting, or could bring adverse actions for those already enlisted.
http://www.sldn.org/pages/transgender-people-and-military-service
You're an idiot. A near miss means that you barely avoided the collision. There's no such thing as a "near hits"
False, it's a harmless side effect of a useful trait.
Ezekiel 23:20
The CD-10 is an international standard WHO document.
If the world is so hung up on this, then perhaps they can take it upon themselves to remove homosexuality as a mental disorder from their own book of definitions.
Chess, anyone?
Resident or expats, please try to fill in the blanks.
Is there simply enough anti-homosexual bias in Russian culture, as in much of the USofA, for Putin to make political "points" by picking on them?
Lived and worked there for a while.
Short answer is "yes". Putin flogs the image of the bare-chested "hero" and protector of family "values".
(The reality of course is that he's a botoxed crooked womanizer...)
But note: Most educated middle-class Russians detest Putin and his clique and are pretty nice people on the whole. Unfortunately, they're also mostly very racist and homophobic, (including the women). Of course, the same applies to many other places; India and the South of the USA spring to mind...
From Wikipedia:
(F64) Gender identity disorders
(F64.0) Transsexualism
(F64.1) Dual-role transvestism
(F64.2) Gender identity disorder of childhood
(F65) Disorders of sexual preference
(F65.0) Sexual fetishism
(F65.1) Fetishistic transvestism
(F65.2) Exhibitionism
(F65.3) Voyeurism
(F65.4) Paedophilia
(F65.5) Sadomasochism
(F65.6) Multiple disorders of sexual preference
(F65.8) Other disorders of sexual preference Frotteurism Necrophilia Zoophilia
(F66) Psychological and behavioural disorders associated with sexual development and orientation
(F66.0) Sexual maturation disorder
(F66.1) Ego-dystonic sexual orientation
(F66.2) Sexual relationship disorder
(F66.8) Other psychosexual development disorders
(F66.9) Psychosexual development disorder, unspecified
Quotes from ICD-10 itself:
Fetish objects vary in their importance to the individual. In some cases they simply serve to enhance sexual excitement achieved in ordinary ways (e.g. having the partner wear a particular garment).
Sexual orientation by itself is not to be regarded as a disorder.
In other words: If you are GAY you may drive. But if you are excited when your wife wears high heels then you are disqualified.
Full disclosure: I live in Russia.
Hopefully you mean 'near hits' because a near miss would just be a hit.
No, in English we say "near miss". It is a contraction of "it was a miss, but very near".
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it