Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

http://lgbpsychology.org/html/facts_mental_health.html

Homosexuality was listed in the DSM as a mental illness until 1973. At this time several thousand psychologists with the backing of a strong gay movement attempted to have it dismissed as a mental illness.

What say you? Is it a mental illness or not?

I personally believe in some cases it may be an illness as it is more associated with narcissim, bi polar, and borderline personality(outlined in numerous sources) but i'm sure many cases are not.

Up until the 90's it was still listed in an illness in one form or another...so what changed?

I'm a straight guy and am seriously offended by this absurd law. One of my cousins is gay and this disgusting bigotry is offensive. Sounds like something Trump would support.

#Never Trump

what law? dsm is a medical book. i have a gay cousin and a gay uncle (RIP). this isn't a law. it's just a question on what people think

I don't think it's any more or less of a mental illness than any other sexual preference. Be it for people older or younger or of a different skin colour or body shape or whatever. I do think that it's possible that people with sexual preferences not of the mainstream are more likely to suffer from other mental illnesses brought on by internal conflictions because they live their lives knowing people may react negatively to them if they were to make known their differing sexual preferences. That's probably why it was classed as a mental illness

Originally posted by jaden101
I don't think it's any more or less of a mental illness than any other sexual preference. Be it for people older or younger or of a different skin colour or body shape or whatever. I do think that it's possible that people with sexual preferences not of the mainstream are more likely to suffer from other mental illnesses brought on by internal conflictions because they live their lives knowing people may react negatively to them if they were to make known their differing sexual preferences. That's probably why it was classed as a mental illness

Bingo. yeah i think maybe the stigmitism may cause other mental illnesses, especially BPD possibly or what may appear to be bi polarism.

Some 'mental illnesses' are just personality traits that go against the preconceived notion of 'normality' dictated by the society of that time. So it's not a surprise that homosexuality was treated as a sickness back then, when they were so... not accepted.

That's just my take on it, though.

Originally posted by Darth Truculent
I'm a straight guy and am seriously offended by this absurd law. One of my cousins is gay and this disgusting bigotry is offensive. Sounds like something Trump would support.

#Never Trump whyvdoes it sound like something trump would support?

Originally posted by Adam Grimes
Some 'mental illnesses' are just personality traits that go against the preconceived notion of 'normality' dictated by the society of that time. So it's not a surprise that homosexuality was treated as a sickness back then, when they were so... not accepted.

That's just my take on it, though. this opens up the door of what we consider a "mental illness".

If most of them are preconceived notions of being against normality, then you are absolutely right that homosexuality was considered mental illness because it went against the norm.

My understanding of normality might differ to some people, but I personally feel that given the biological record of heterosexual activity reproducing all mammalian species on the ****ing planet (some of which have proven to be useful, horses for example) vs. the degeneracy of homosexuality, it's no contest as to which one is normal, or at the very least, rational.

There is a clear argument as to why homosexuality is an illness based on this evolutionary fact.

In that case, heterosexual oral, anal and really any sex acts that cannot lead to reproduction are acts of 'mental illness'

Also find it hilarious that you call homosexual acts 'degenerate', bit of the ole self-hate today, eh

Originally posted by Robtard
Also find it hilarious that you call homosexual acts 'degenerate', bit of the ole self-hate today, eh
If homosexuality isn't bad, then why are you using it as an insult?

Yes, Robtard they are degenerate acts. I'm glad you're taking note. Heterosexual oral and anal however, does maintain healthy relationships between a man and a woman given the acts are consensual. Homosexuality is very different however, which I will explain.

The fact that homosexuality doesn't reproduce offspring and is degenerate illness should not be a surprise to anyone. Homosexuals do not reproduce. Offspring does not occur due to homosexuality, that is what heterosexuality is for.

Unless you want to argue the case for sperm donations, surrogate mothers or any other scientific advancements that help homosexuals reproduce offspring, I'm all for it. If you just want to attack my character, then I don't understand why you come here.

Originally posted by It's xyz!
whyvdoes it sound like something trump would support?

this opens up the door of what we consider a "mental illness".

If most of them are preconceived notions of being against normality, then you are absolutely right that homosexuality was considered mental illness because it went against the norm.

My understanding of normality might differ to some people, but I personally feel that given the biological record of heterosexual activity reproducing all mammalian species on the ****ing planet (some of which have proven to be useful, horses for example) vs. the degeneracy of homosexuality, it's no contest as to which one is normal, or at the very least, rational.

There is a clear argument as to why homosexuality is an illness based on this evolutionary fact. That's a flawed reasoning to say the least, and makes you sound a bit homofobic. But just a little.

Originally posted by Adam Grimes
That's a flawed reasoning to say the least, and makes you sound a bit homofobic. But just a little. can you explain the flawed reasoning?

Originally posted by It's xyz!
Yes, Robtard they are degenerate acts. I'm glad you're taking note. Heterosexual oral and anal however, does maintain healthy relationships between a man and a woman given the acts are consensual. Homosexuality is very different however, which I will explain.

The fact that homosexuality doesn't reproduce offspring and is degenerate illness should not be a surprise to anyone. Homosexuals do not reproduce. Offspring does not occur due to homosexuality, that is what heterosexuality is for.

Unless you want to argue the case for sperm donations, surrogate mothers or any other scientific advancements that help homosexuals reproduce offspring, I'm all for it. If you just want to attack my character, then I don't understand why you come here. Why do you believe producing offspring is particularly important given that we're in no shortage of couples that are producing offspring?

Originally posted by NemeBro
Why do you believe producing offspring is particularly important given that we're in no shortage of couples that are producing offspring?
I don't think he argues that it's a conscious decision.

Originally posted by It's xyz!
can you explain the flawed reasoning? We, as humans, should be well past the point where our concept of what's normal is entirely based on how we reproduce. Leave that to the animals who don't know any better.

It's not like we're going extinct any time soon...

Originally posted by NemeBro
Why do you believe producing offspring is particularly important given that we're in no shortage of couples that are producing offspring? given the fact that it's essential for our survival, I find it pretty important.

I don't know how many couples are reproducing, but I'm glad we're reproducing as a species.

Originally posted by It's xyz!
given the fact that it's essential for our survival, I find it pretty important.

I don't know how many couples are reproducing, but I'm glad we're reproducing as a species. Why do you think homosexuals reproducing is essential to our survival?

Originally posted by Adam Grimes
We, as humans, should be well past the point where our concept of what's normal is entirely based on how we reproduce. Leave that to the animals who don't know any better.

It's not like we're going extinct any time soon... I feel that normality is subjective, and usually based on ones upbringing. It's a poor word to use, imo.

What I was getting at was reproduction is generally good for the survival of the species, and acts that don't reproduce are degenerate. This is from an objective biological perspective. I then focuses on illness, which we know to be something that inhibits survival. The logic is, heterosexuality creates reproduction and survival, homosexuality does not, and is therefore, illness.

Originally posted by NemeBro
Why do you think homosexuals reproducing is essential to our survival? i think homosexuals can live however they want to live. I'm in no position to tell homosexual people how to live their life.

Originally posted by It's xyz!


I don't know how many couples are reproducing, but I'm glad we're reproducing as a species.

Unless they're muslims doing it though aye?

damn i made a good thread

Originally posted by jaden101
Unless they're muslims doing it though aye?
Or Jews.

Top b8

Originally posted by It's xyz!
I feel that normality is subjective, and usually based on ones upbringing. It's a poor word to use, imo.

What I was getting at was reproduction is generally good for the survival of the species, and acts that don't reproduce are degenerate. This is from an objective biological perspective. I then focuses on illness, which we know to be something that inhibits survival. The logic is, heterosexuality creates reproduction and survival, homosexuality does not, and is therefore, illness. An illness inhibits the survival of an individual afflicted with it.

Not reproducing doesn't inhibit that individual's survival. Nor does being homosexual, since homosexuals were not distinguishable from heterosexuals in functioning when tested, which is why the DSM no longer lists it as a mental disorder.

Also, what do you mean acts that don't reproduce? Any act? So doing anything that isn't dedicated directly toward reproduction is degenerate (there is no reason to assume this btw, but you state it like it's a given)? So listening to music in private, being that it isn't for the purpose of reproduction, is that degenerate? Is watching a movie? Be more specific. What kind of act is degenerate if it doesn't reproduce? Actions that relate solely to romance? Based on what philosophical literature? Because what you're talking about isn't from a "biological perspective", by the way. "Degenerate", in the context you are using it, means "having low moral standards". Your point is not a scientific one, it's moralistic.

Originally posted by NemeBro
An illness inhibits the survival of an individual afflicted with it.

Not reproducing doesn't inhibit that individual's survival. Nor does being homosexual, since homosexuals were not distinguishable from heterosexuals in functioning when tested, which is why the DSM no longer lists it as a mental disorder.

Also, what do you mean acts that don't reproduce? Any act? So doing anything that isn't dedicated directly toward reproduction is degenerate (there is no reason to assume this btw, but you state it like it's a given)? So listening to music in private, being that it isn't for the purpose of reproduction, is that degenerate? Is watching a movie? Be more specific. What kind of act is degenerate if it doesn't reproduce? Actions that relate solely to romance? Based on what philosophical literature? Because what you're talking about isn't from a "biological perspective", by the way. "Degenerate", in the context you are using it, means "having low moral standards". Your point is not a scientific one, it's moralistic. I'm pretty sure homosexuality does inhibit an individual's survival on a social perspective. This is probably why homosexuality and mental illness correlate.

I'd need to know more of these tests to make an informed judgement.

I state it as bold fact. Degenerate means against generation. Any sexual act that isn't for the purpose of generating offspring is, by definition, degenerate.

As for cultural activities, they are not relevant to biological production. I'm talking about sex here. This is my position, anyway.

That's not what degenerate means. You are making words up again.

Words are subject to interpretation there, Bards.

Originally posted by It's xyz!
I'm pretty sure homosexuality does inhibit an individual's survival on a social perspective.

The homosexuality itself isn't responsible for that, the people within society who ostracize them are. You wouldn't consider a black man in the Jim Crow era to be suffering from an illness due to his ethnicity making him less likely to survive in society, would you? Why would you consider homosexuality an illness based on the actions of other people?



Probably.



You would, so why are you posting about it?



Let's pretend for a moment that you're not changing the definition of "degenerate" to suit your own agenda. Let us pretend for a moment that degenerate does, in fact, mean "against generation" based on a literal interpretation of the prefix "de" which can mean "removal of" or "reversal of".

Your labeling still does not work. A homosexual couple performing sexual acts that don't reproduce is not against reproduction. To generate, in this context, means to produce life, correct? What would being against it, or removing or reversing it, be then? That's right, it would be taking life away.

Now that we've established that your own biased interpretation of the word is bunk based on the very reasoning you used to interpret it as such, let's be clear here: no, that is not the definition of degenerate, you can't change the English language because you feel like it.



In what way is two dykes rubbing their ***** together relevant to biological production? They can't reproduce. Why does this bother you, my son?

i have third grade education and i got you rubes hating
lol. jk. masters degree

Originally posted by NemeBro
The homosexuality itself isn't responsible for that, the people within society who ostracize them are. You wouldn't consider a black man in the Jim Crow era to be suffering from an illness due to his ethnicity making him less likely to survive in society, would you? Why would you consider homosexuality an illness based on the actions of other people?
A black man in the Jim Crow era had a problem, that problem was white Americans. This was a matter of race and economics, however. Homosexuality is not a race. It's not like two homosexuals have sex and create another homosexual. Homosexuality is responsible for being ostracised because it is they who ostracise themselves. Most people are social, straight and generally pleasant. Homosexuals do not wish to partake in social norms so have their own night clubs because they want their own night clubs. Straight people did not segregate homosexuals and gave them their own bar because they originated from a different continent. Homosexuals create their own bars. Homosexuals make their own consensual sex as free individuals. Their lack of reproduction and subsequent difficulties in life are not the fault of straight people.


sure, ok. But homosexuality does slow the species down from reproduction. I guess a more appropriate word is disease? It is detrimental to survival though.


it it isn't relevant to biological reproduction. Two dykes rubbing their ***** together sounds pretty homosexual to me. It doesn't bother me in the slightest.

Originally posted by Pwn N00bs
Really? Even if 8 out of 10 kids grow up to be worthless pieces of crap? I for one am less glad.


At least have the decency and self awareness to stop copying websites word for word and passing them off as their own, instead of just linking the source.

http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/publications/observer/2011/october-11/psychology-yesterday-and-today-evelyn-hooker.html worthless pieces of crap biodegrade into the soil.

Seriously tho, reproduction is good!

Originally posted by It's xyz!
A black man in the Jim Crow era had a problem, that problem was white Americans. This was a matter of race and economics, however. Homosexuality is not a race. It's not like two homosexuals have sex and create another homosexual. Homosexuality is responsible for being ostracised because it is they who ostracise themselves. Most people are social, straight and generally pleasant. Homosexuals do not wish to partake in social norms so have their own night clubs because they want their own night clubs. Straight people did not segregate homosexuals and gave them their own bar because they originated from a different continent. Homosexuals create their own bars. Homosexuals make their own consensual sex as free individuals. Their lack of reproduction and subsequent difficulties in life are not the fault of straight people.

And the problem of homosexuals is intolerant heterosexuals, or to be more accurate, homophobes.

Homosexuals did not create their own bars and night clubs for the sake of doing so, they did it to have a place to have a good time without having to deal with the bigotry of people who irrationally disapprove of their sexuality. They want their own night clubs so they can have their own night clubs? Please, don't be so ignorant. That's circular reasoning.

Do not wish? Are you implying homosexuality is a choice? You're really behind the times my son.

The lack of reproduction isn't, but any difficulties resulting from people hating them and discriminating against them is solely the fault of the discriminators.



There is no reason to assume anything you just said. We live in a society where consensual sex between two heterosexual people is not required to have a child. If a homosexual couple wanted children, there are several avenues they could take to get one. The same is true of heterosexual couples.

Your rhetoric has no basis in reality.



So if it isn't, why do you label homosexual activity a mental illness, and not cultural activities?

Also, what is up with your obsession with breeding anyway? Our race is in no danger of dying out, and many people are already starving for resources. We're in no high demand for more people.

Originally posted by NemeBro
And the problem of homosexuals is intolerant heterosexuals, or to be more accurate, homophobes.

Homosexuals did not create their own bars and night clubs for the sake of doing so, they did it to have a place to have a good time without having to deal with the bigotry of people who irrationally disapprove of their sexuality. They want their own night clubs so they can have their own night clubs? Please, don't be so ignorant. That's circular reasoning. I don't think it's irrational to disapprove of homosexuality. It's pretty disgusting to a lot of people. But it's still not comparable to Jim Crow laws. One is segregation of race, the other is a group of people who share a common interest that the majority do not like. End up finding a bar just for people who like such a thing.

A gay club is more like a goth club or tumblr.

I said wish, not choose.

And no. It's not the bigots. It's not the discriminators. The problem with homosexuals is the very culture itself. Men or women trying to flirt with members of their own sex when usually the other person isn't interested is why homosexuals made their own night club so they knew that everyone there was gay and therefore, more inclined. I understand that men and women can harass members of the opposite sex too, but this is usually forgiven. People who flirt with their own sex is usually repulsive. Again, I'll point to heterosexuality being the main cause of evolution and homosexuality as against reproduction.



it very much is the reality. If consensual sex between a man and a woman is not required for a child, why is it the most common way children are made, and the one practised over millions of years? Probably because it's the most effective and pleasurable. Any other form of creating a child is used as a last resort because of some biological defect, usually. I am of course talking about straight couples here. I don't know how many gay people raise children.



people are not a resource! They are a species we are a part of and for millions of years have survived through breeding. Millions of years of evolution and we have a focused group of people who are not attracted to the opposite sex. Sounds like a mental illness to me.

But this depends on the definition of mental illness, as I have stated before.

Nemebro never said people were resources. You have a problem with words.

Originally posted by It's xyz!
I feel that normality is subjective, and usually based on ones upbringing. It's a poor word to use, imo.

What I was getting at was reproduction is generally good for the survival of the species, and acts that don't reproduce are degenerate. This is from an objective biological perspective. I then focuses on illness, which we know to be something that inhibits survival. The logic is, heterosexuality creates reproduction and survival, homosexuality does not, and is therefore, illness. No, it's not. Society dictates in a large part what's considered as 'normal' or acceptable, with just a little room for subjectiveness in minor behaviours. And it's a good word to use because it's simple and helps us to not deviate from the subject like you do with your 'interpretation' of words.

Ok, so making use of any anticonceptive method signals a mental disorder?

Being gay is technically abnormal, merely because most people aren't gay. The question really comes to..is being abnormal inherently wrong? Which the answer is no.

Originally posted by Adam Grimes
No, it's not. Society dictates in a large part what's considered as 'normal' or acceptable, with just a little room for subjectiveness in minor behaviours. And it's a good word to use because it's simple and helps us to not deviate from the subject like you do with your 'interpretation' of words.

Ok, so making use of any anticonceptive method signals a mental disorder? homosexuality is illness in an evolutionary context. Normality is not a good word to use. Everyone has a different idea of normal.

Being attracted to your own biological sex and not the opposite is a mental disorder.

It's not that there's anything wrong with that. Everyone has their quirks and fetishes, but homosexuals do not wish to reproduce with the other sex. I'm pretty sure most people in the world, a huge percentage would want to find a member of the opposite sex and raise a family. That's normal. It's understandable, even on a scientific level.

Homosexuality, is very abnormal. It's a mental disorder. It's illness.

it's been officially labeled as a mental disorder. so yeah, pretty easy to sell. politics played a large part on why it was removed and it took two decades to do it.

ok. so if the whole world was homosexual then humans would eventually seek to exist. is this not degenerate and an anomaly by definition?

Originally posted by Raisen
ok. so if the whole world was homosexual then humans would eventually seek to exist. is this not degenerate and an anomaly by definition?
That would be the opposite of an anomaly...

It's political correctness.

If you look at the cold hard facts, it's easy to logically deduce that heterosexuals are superior to homosexuals in every way.

Comparing a sexual desire to black people was pretty funny tho. "Yo, we are oppressed like the blacks under Jim Crow laws".

Erm, no. Blacks and whites originated from different continents and had very different cultures in the USA due to slavery. You are not a race or even a heritage, nor were you ever slaves. The lgbtqs+ whatever is just a community of overgrown children, imo.

Ironically, the most advocates against the community are homosexual males who think it's been usurped by transgenders and SJW.

It's only a matter of time before some fat spoild trans woman lesbian trans black talks about not getting respect because of no privilege.

Originally posted by Slay
That would be the opposite of an anomaly... in the given context of evolution over millions of years and suddenly everyone becomes homosexual, yes. That is precisely an anomaly.

Originally posted by It's xyz!
in the given context of evolution over millions of years and suddenly everyone becomes homosexual, yes. That is precisely an anomaly.
When was this context given? Oh, it wasn't? Ok, gotcha.

Even in the 'given context' it wouldn't really be an anomaly.

Actually, homosexuality in reality is more of an anomaly than it would be in the hypothetical situation proposed by Raisen.

1% of humans are not breeders = anomaly
1 generation out of millions of evolution where no one breeds = what anomaly?

Dope.

is it a mental disease

Originally posted by It's xyz!
1% of humans are not breeders = anomaly
1 generation out of millions of evolution where no one breeds = what anomaly?

Dope.
That's not at all what he said though, that's something of your own device that you've just added. Raisen simply stated that if the whole world was homosexual it would be an anomaly by definition. You people need to start realising that words mean things.

Originally posted by Slay
That's not at all what he said though, that's something of your own device that you've just added. Raisen simply stated that if the whole world was homosexual it would be an anomaly by definition. You people need to start realising that words mean things. ive mentioned it in posts previous to his. Hence, context.

Originally posted by Raisen
is it a mental disease the red pill is sweet.

Originally posted by It's xyz!
It's political correctness.

If you look at the cold hard facts, it's easy to logically deduce that heterosexuals are superior to homosexuals in every way.

Comparing a sexual desire to black people was pretty funny tho. "Yo, we are oppressed like the blacks under Jim Crow laws".

Erm, no. Blacks and whites originated from different continents and had very different cultures in the USA due to slavery. You are not a race or even a heritage, nor were you ever slaves. The lgbtqs+ whatever is just a community of overgrown children, imo.

Ironically, the most advocates against the community are homosexual males who think it's been usurped by transgenders and SJW.

It's only a matter of time before some fat spoild trans woman lesbian trans black talks about not getting respect because of no privilege.

Ebin troll +1 xDDd upvoted

*tips fedora*

i believe so too. why are homosexual men generally so promiscuous? it creates a bad environment that welcomes disease.

Lol now the stereotypes. How long till you start with the less than brilliant 'two gays on a bus...' jokes?

never heard that joke. there is plenty of evidence that homosexual males are promiscuous. you don't want to believe it but it's true. not all. but more promiscuous than heterosexuals. the rampant spread of hiv and bath houses say enough bro. sometimes the truth hurts but we shouldn't deny it

Originally posted by It's xyz!
homosexuality is illness in an evolutionary context. Normality is not a good word to use. Everyone has a different idea of normal.

Being attracted to your own biological sex and not the opposite is a mental disorder.

It's not that there's anything wrong with that. Everyone has their quirks and fetishes, but homosexuals do not wish to reproduce with the other sex. I'm pretty sure most people in the world, a huge percentage would want to find a member of the opposite sex and raise a family. That's normal. It's understandable, even on a scientific level.

Homosexuality, is very abnormal. It's a mental disorder. It's illness. I don't see people walking naked in public and expecting to get away with it because 'that's normal for me!!'

I guess using anticonceptive methods is something only a mentally ill would do. Heterosexual people who actively don't want kids should be locked up or medicated too.

Originally posted by Raisen
never heard that joke. there is plenty of evidence that homosexual males are promiscuous. you don't want to believe it but it's true. not all. but more promiscuous than heterosexuals. the rampant spread of hiv and bath houses say enough bro. sometimes the truth hurts but we shouldn't deny it Rampant spread of HIV is gay's fault? Enlighten me bro.

Originally posted by Adam Grimes
Lol now the stereotypes. How long till you start with the less than brilliant 'two gays on a bus...' jokes? you do realise that most stereotypes have elements of truth into them and are actually exaggerations, rather than myths.

Take the stereotypical australian, for example.

Drunk, racist and yolo, but even the Australian members of this board would admit it before lolling about these bigots who should tell the joke about the Australian and the emu.

Originally posted by It's xyz!
ive mentioned it in posts previous to his. Hence, context.

Not within this thread.

Either way, there's no point in arguing semantics with you, as you've proven to not care about the actual meaning of words and just give them whatever meaning you want.

Besides the whole semantics side of this, what's the point of even proposing that hypothesis? It's so far removed from reality that it really serves no purpose in this discussion.

I think most people would be willing to accept that homosexuality is an abnormality or a deviation of the norm. But as Surtur said, this isn't inherently negative. Your whole argument is centered around homosexuals' inability to reproduce and presenting it as if it's actually some sort of unwillingness to contribute to the growth of the human population, i.e. your own definition of 'degenerate behaviour'. This isn't the case and even if it were, the world is currently overpopulated as it is so it definitely would not be causing humanity any issues.

Originally posted by Adam Grimes
I don't see people walking naked in public and expecting to get away with it because 'that's normal for me!!'

I guess using anticonceptive methods is something only a mentally ill would do. Heterosexual people who actively don't want kids should be locked up or medicated too. locked up and medicated?

Dude, I have a serious problem with what you've just said. Is this the mental illness stigma? Because I've said from page one that mental illness is its own problem in itself.

I've had issues with mental illness, let me tell you, it ain't crazy people they're locking ping up and medicating.

Originally posted by It's xyz!
whyvdoes it sound like something trump would support?

this opens up the door of what we consider a "mental illness".

If most of them are preconceived notions of being against normality, then you are absolutely right that homosexuality was considered mental illness because it went against the norm.

My understanding of normality might differ to some people, but I personally feel that given the biological record of heterosexual activity reproducing all mammalian species on the ****ing planet (some of which have proven to be useful, horses for example) vs. the degeneracy of homosexuality, it's no contest as to which one is normal, or at the very least, rational.

There is a clear argument as to why homosexuality is an illness based on this evolutionary fact. Originally posted by It's xyz!
given the fact that it's essential for our survival, I find it pretty important.

I don't know how many couples are reproducing, but I'm glad we're reproducing as a species. Originally posted by It's xyz!
I feel that normality is subjective, and usually based on ones upbringing. It's a poor word to use, imo.

What I was getting at was reproduction is generally good for the survival of the species, and acts that don't reproduce are degenerate. This is from an objective biological perspective. I then focuses on illness, which we know to be something that inhibits survival. The logic is, heterosexuality creates reproduction and survival, homosexuality does not, and is therefore, illness. Originally posted by It's xyz!
A black man in the Jim Crow era had a problem, that problem was white Americans. This was a matter of race and economics, however. Homosexuality is not a race. It's not like two homosexuals have sex and create another homosexual. Homosexuality is responsible for being ostracised because it is they who ostracise themselves. Most people are social, straight and generally pleasant. Homosexuals do not wish to partake in social norms so have their own night clubs because they want their own night clubs. Straight people did not segregate homosexuals and gave them their own bar because they originated from a different continent. Homosexuals create their own bars. Homosexuals make their own consensual sex as free individuals. Their lack of reproduction and subsequent difficulties in life are not the fault of straight people.


sure, ok. But homosexuality does slow the species down from reproduction. I guess a more appropriate word is disease? It is detrimental to survival though.


it it isn't relevant to biological reproduction. Two dykes rubbing their ***** together sounds pretty homosexual to me. It doesn't bother me in the slightest. Originally posted by It's xyz!
I don't think it's irrational to disapprove of homosexuality. It's pretty disgusting to a lot of people. But it's still not comparable to Jim Crow laws. One is segregation of race, the other is a group of people who share a common interest that the majority do not like. End up finding a bar just for people who like such a thing.

A gay club is more like a goth club or tumblr.

I said wish, not choose.

And no. It's not the bigots. It's not the discriminators. The problem with homosexuals is the very culture itself. Men or women trying to flirt with members of their own sex when usually the other person isn't interested is why homosexuals made their own night club so they knew that everyone there was gay and therefore, more inclined. I understand that men and women can harass members of the opposite sex too, but this is usually forgiven. People who flirt with their own sex is usually repulsive. Again, I'll point to heterosexuality being the main cause of evolution and homosexuality as against reproduction.



it very much is the reality. If consensual sex between a man and a woman is not required for a child, why is it the most common way children are made, and the one practised over millions of years? Probably because it's the most effective and pleasurable. Any other form of creating a child is used as a last resort because of some biological defect, usually. I am of course talking about straight couples here. I don't know how many gay people raise children.



people are not a resource! They are a species we are a part of and for millions of years have survived through breeding. Millions of years of evolution and we have a focused group of people who are not attracted to the opposite sex. Sounds like a mental illness to me.

But this depends on the definition of mental illness, as I have stated before. Originally posted by It's xyz!
homosexuality is illness in an evolutionary context. Normality is not a good word to use. Everyone has a different idea of normal.

Being attracted to your own biological sex and not the opposite is a mental disorder.

It's not that there's anything wrong with that. Everyone has their quirks and fetishes, but homosexuals do not wish to reproduce with the other sex. I'm pretty sure most people in the world, a huge percentage would want to find a member of the opposite sex and raise a family. That's normal. It's understandable, even on a scientific level.

Homosexuality, is very abnormal. It's a mental disorder. It's illness. Slay, here are all my posts where I've mentioned evolutionary context. Practically all leading up to raisen's post.

But, I'm not one to speak for another person who is scared to debate, it was just my opinion.

Originally posted by Slay
Not within this thread.

Either way, there's no point in arguing semantics with you, as you've proven to not care about the actual meaning of words and just give them whatever meaning you want.

Besides the whole semantics side of this, what's the point of even proposing that hypothesis? It's so far removed from reality that it really serves no purpose in this discussion.

I think most people would be willing to accept that homosexuality is an abnormality or a deviation of the norm. But as Surtur said, this isn't inherently negative. Your whole argument is centered around homosexuals' inability to reproduce and presenting it as if it's actually some sort of unwillingness to contribute to the growth of the human population, i.e. your own definition of 'degenerate behaviour'. This isn't the case and even if it were, the world is currently overpopulated as it is so it definitely would not be causing humanity any issues. also, you're denying reality in that post.

Originally posted by It's xyz!
locked up and medicated?

Dude, I have a serious problem with what you've just said. Is this the mental illness stigma? Because I've said from page one that mental illness is its own problem in itself.

I've had issues with mental illness, let me tell you, it ain't crazy people they're locking ping up and medicating. You really need to step up your reading comprehension.

Originally posted by Adam Grimes
You really need to step up your reading comprehension. ok, it was just it'd what you said in general. Mental illness is not the stereotypical crazies who need medication and imprisonment. That's pretty insensitive, you know?

Originally posted by It's xyz!
ok, it was just it'd what you said in general. Mental illness is not the stereotypical crazies who need medication and imprisonment. That's pretty insensitive, you know? Someone told me once that stereotypes are just an exaggeration of truths. So lol it off bro!

Originally posted by It's xyz!
Slay, here are all my posts where I've mentioned evolutionary context. Practically all leading up to raisen's post.

But, I'm not one to speak for another person who is scared to debate, it was just my opinion.
Nice strawman. I've never said that you didn't mention evolutionary context at all in this thread. You implied to have mentioned Raisen's hypothesis - including the 'evolutionary context' you later attributed to it - earlier in the thread, which you didn't. Even if we were to assume that I simply misunderstood what you meant to say, it would still be a pointless discussion as I was replying to Raisen's post, in which he mentioned no ''evolutionary context'' whatsoever. If Raisen did intend to place his hypothesis in the context which you later provided for it, he should have done so himself when proposing it. I suggest we drop this pointless discussion as it's not much more than derailing from the topic at hand which is as follows:

Originally posted by It's xyz!
also, you're denying reality in that post.
Elaborate.

This entire thread is disgusting and you should all be ashamed of yourselves for even considering that homosexuality is a "mental illness".

There are certain interests that are considered mental illnesses, such as pedophillia and incest, as well as being taboo, they are definitely mental illnesses. Homosexuality is completely normal and there is nothing wrong with it.

Another thing is, Homosexuality is there while the baby is inside the damn womb. Sure, he can try to go after women all he likes in his early days, but unless he's legit genetically modified to like women, it isn't gonna happen.

Originally posted by Adam Grimes
Someone told me once that stereotypes are just an exaggeration of truths. So lol it off bro! no, don't lol it off. Think about those specific exaggerations and isolate them.

Originally posted by Slay
Nice strawman. I've never said that you didn't mention evolutionary context at all in this thread. You implied to have mentioned Raisen's hypothesis - including the 'evolutionary context' you later attributed to it - earlier in the thread, which you didn't. Even if we were to assume that I simply misunderstood what you meant to say, it would still be a pointless discussion as I was replying to Raisen's post, in which he mentioned no ''evolutionary context'' whatsoever. If Raisen did intend to place his hypothesis in the context which you later provided for it, he should have done so himself when proposing it. I suggest we drop this pointless discussion as it's not much more than derailing from the topic at hand which is as follows:


Elaborate. ok that's between you and raisen.

The reality that homosexuals don't contribute to reproduction. Ie, the most important survival tool for over millions of years.

Originally posted by Jmanghan
This entire thread is disgusting and you should all be ashamed of yourselves for even considering that homosexuality is a "mental illness".

There are certain interests that are considered mental illnesses, such as pedophillia and incest, as well as being taboo, they are definitely mental illnesses. Homosexuality is completely normal and there is nothing wrong with it.

Another thing is, Homosexuality is there while the baby is inside the damn womb. Sure, he can try to go after women all he likes in his early days, but unless he's legit genetically modified to like women, it isn't gonna happen. you need to explain more about homosexuality starting in the womb and the genetics argument. Do you have any research to refer me regarding irreversible prenatal homosexual genes?

This is quite the evolutionary anomaly, I must say.

Originally posted by Raisen
http://lgbpsychology.org/html/facts_mental_health.html

What say you? Is it a mental illness or not?



No.

There certainly is a mental disorder on display in this thread, but it isn't homosexuality.

I'm not saying a group of members are reacting to views they disagree with due to their preconceived notion of normal and abnormal.....

Originally posted by It's xyz!
no, don't lol it off. Think about those specific exaggerations and isolate them.

ok that's between you and raisen.

The reality that homosexuals don't contribute to reproduction. Ie, the most important survival tool for over millions of years.

you need to explain more about homosexuality starting in the womb and the genetics argument. Do you have any research to refer me regarding irreversible prenatal homosexual genes?

This is quite the evolutionary anomaly, I must say. Because its been confirmed by everyone who ever researched it ever???

I'm not gonna research something thats common knowledge. Unless you're one of those people who are like "Thats what they want you to think".

this is what is wrong with this world. we can't have a civil debate without being called some kind of monster. homosexuality was considered a mental illness for a long time by a vast pool of psychologists. things change with time but we should be able to have discourse without all this emotional dribble.

Originally posted by Jmanghan
Because its been confirmed by everyone who ever researched it ever???

I'm not gonna research something thats common knowledge. Unless you're one of those people who are like "Thats what they want you to think". im not sure what you're referring to.

With regard to stereotypes, they hold truth, but one should know where those truths are in relation to where the stereotype came about. Specifically, homosexual stereotypes and mental illness stereotypes, as they relate to the topic of the thread.

Originally posted by Jmanghan
This entire thread is disgusting and you should all be ashamed of yourselves for even considering that homosexuality is a "mental illness".

There are certain interests that are considered mental illnesses, such as pedophillia and incest, as well as being taboo, they are definitely mental illnesses. Homosexuality is completely normal and there is nothing wrong with it.

Another thing is, Homosexuality is there while the baby is inside the damn womb. Sure, he can try to go after women all he likes in his early days, but unless he's legit genetically modified to like women, it isn't gonna happen. This post is hilarious at every section.

Indeed it is.

Originally posted by One Big Mob
This post is hilarious at every section.

is the guy tarded?

Because someone doesn't agree with your simple-minded, immoral views, then they're retarded?

So not questioning homosexuality as a whole makes you retarded?

This entire thread's existence is highly offensive to every homosexual on KMC.

Free Speech is one thing, but when you use it to question someone's sexuality, in terms, calling every homosexual mentally ill because of their sexuality in general, thats a bit ****ed up and insensitive.

Thats the shit that Star kept getting banned for (among other things).

Well it depends on your definition on mental illness.

In a strictly broad sense, yes it is a mental illness. In fact, sometimes it's just a "phase" or an "experiment", instead of the lifestyle, but It could be classified as something unnatural like depression, anxiety, necrophilia or cannibalism and therefore is a mental illness.

The term "Mental illness" has moved on since the 70s, as has "homosexuality" and the culture associated with it. I think it's spelt LGBTQSYP+ or something. By today's standards, homosexuality is not considered a mental illness and everybody knows that.

Lighten up for ****s sake. We need to understand homosexuality if we're going to discuss it.

As far as I can tell, it's having sex with the same gender as yourself. Now that's fine between consenting adults in today's world, but aren't we a species that has evolved for millions of years due to heterosexuality, hence the reason we have two sexes in the first place, nee, the reason sex ****ing exists?

It's a bit more complex than say, homosexuals aren't ill and we should be tolerant. What about transgender people who have hormone therapy and genital mutilation to feel better about themselves? Are they gay? Is Caitlin Jenner gay, mentally ill, or both?

Originally posted by It's xyz!
Now that's fine between consenting adults in today's world, but aren't we a species that has evolved for millions of years due to heterosexuality, hence the reason we have two sexes in the first place, nee, the reason sex ****ing exists?

Why do you insist on using words you don't know the meaning of? Why can't you just be like Donald Trump and stick to the 800 you understand?

I don't know if Donald trump only knows 800 words, but your attempt at humour is really pathetic. I know what nee means. I'm pretty sure you understand the context as well.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Why do you insist on using words you don't know the meaning of? Why can't you just be like Donald Trump and stick to the 800 you understand?
Prepare for a page-long discussion about semantics in which he'll refer to his misuse of words as poetry...

Bit late mate.

Originally posted by Astner
So does rape, pedophilia, necrophilia and inter-special mating. But that does not make them natural by our definition of the word.


What overpopulation problem? The Japanese government is very concerned with the decline of Japan's birthrate. In fact it's considered a financial crisis for the country. Key word 'Japan', mate. That's not an argument when you know the situation ion Japan.

And yeah, those other things are natural. That is the definition of natural. That is literally the definition of natural. 'Good' and 'Natural' are not mutual terms. Things that are natural can be good and bad for humans, and, as I said, homosexuality is one of the good things, as it helps us keep overpopulation down. And don't start going on about Japan, like I said, that really isn't an argument. No other country is having that problem.
Originally posted by It's xyz!
I know what nee means. No, you really don't, xyz.

Originally posted by Scribble
Key word 'Japan', mate. That's not an argument when you know the situation ion Japan.

And yeah, those other things are natural. That is the definition of natural. That is literally the definition of natural. 'Good' and 'Natural' are not mutual terms. Things that are natural can be good and bad for humans, and, as I said, homosexuality is one of the good things, as it helps us keep overpopulation down. And don't start going on about Japan, like I said, that really isn't an argument. No other country is having that problem.
No, you really don't, xyz. its a prefix for a mothers maiden name. Usual context: Jenny Bridges nee Samson.

The word fits, don't be pedantic.

Originally posted by It's xyz!
i used the wrong word to sound edgy. There we go.



Anyway, back to the gays...

They are guaranteed to never have an abortion or beat up their wife.

That's pretty cool.

Originally posted by Astner
If homosexuality isn't bad, then why are you using it as an insult?

I didn't.

Originally posted by Raisen
http://lgbpsychology.org/html/facts_mental_health.html

Homosexuality was listed in the DSM as a mental illness until 1973. At this time several thousand psychologists with the backing of a strong gay movement attempted to have it dismissed as a mental illness.

What say you? Is it a mental illness or not?

I personally believe in some cases it may be an illness as it is more associated with narcissim, bi polar, and borderline personality(outlined in numerous sources) but i'm sure many cases are not.

Up until the 90's it was still listed in an illness in one form or another...so what changed?

What changed is that people who identify themselves as gay gained more political, social, and legal power.

I personally don't think being gay is a mental illness. I do think transgender people have a mental illness and it worries me some states spend money on helping people achieve this. I just don't think homosexuality is what mental health professionals need to be focusing on.

I agree with surtur but transgender people are practically the new "gay" imo.

I think a better title for the thread would be homosexuality is a disease.

I believe homosexuality is a disease, prove me wrong. Pro-tip, you can't.

Originally posted by It's xyz!
I agree with surtur but transgender people are practically the new "gay" imo.

I think a better title for the thread would be homosexuality is a disease.

I believe homosexuality is a disease, prove me wrong. Pro-tip, you can't.

You really are trying way too hard for attention, role it back about 50-75% percentage, as to not make it so obvious. YW.

Originally posted by Robtard
You really are trying way too hard for attention, role it back about 50-75% percentage, as to not make it so obvious. YW.

^

Originally posted by Robtard
You really are trying way too hard for attention, role it back about 50-75% percentage, as to not make it so obvious. YW. the arrogance here is beyond belief. Like, if you really think I'm seeking attention, you probably shouldn't give me it.

Not humoring your trolly attention seeking points is denying you the attention you're seeking though. It's the reason why you're frustrated right now.

Originally posted by Surtur
I personally don't think being gay is a mental illness. I do think transgender people have a mental illness and it worries me some states spend money on helping people achieve this. I just don't think homosexuality is what mental health professionals need to be focusing on. Yeah, trannys are weirdos.

You'd think "I want to cut my dick off and turn it into a vagina" would be met with heavy therapy at the least.

Originally posted by One Big Mob
Yeah, trannys are weirdos.

You'd think "I want to cut my dick off and turn it into a vagina" would be met with heavy therapy at the least.

iirc, a person seeking gender reassignment surgery needs to complete 'X' amount of hours with a therapist and said therapist needs to sign-off that the person is of sound mind before a surgeon can perform the surgeries.

I'm laughing at you. Giving me attention by calling me an attention seeker is not denying me attention, bro. Originally posted by Robtard
Not humoring your trolly attention seeking points is denying you the attention you're seeking though. It's the reason why you're frustrated right now.

Then why are you coming off as angry and frustrated?

You think I'm angry and frustrated, I'm not.

You call me an attention seeker and your way to get back at me is giving me attention. The irony being you're only attacking me for your own attention. Keep replying. I'm loving it.

Originally posted by It's xyz!
You think I'm angry and frustrated, I'm not. http://i.imgur.com/SYTcgqg.jpg

Originally posted by Robtard
iirc, a person seeking gender reassignment surgery needs to complete 'X' amount of hours with a therapist and said therapist needs to sign-off that the person is of sound mind before a surgeon can perform the surgeries.

Why would anyone trust a therapist so lacking in knowledge and wisdom that said therapist cannot convince a man he can solve the problems in his life unless he surgically alters himself to look like a woman?

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Why would anyone trust a therapist so lacking in knowledge and wisdom that said therapist cannot convince a man he can solve the problems in his life unless he surgically alters himself to look like a woman?

This assumes that gender reassignment is inherently wrong/unhealthy to a person's mentality. A silly assumption.

Originally posted by Robtard
This assumes that gender reassignment is inherently wrong/unhealthy to a person's mentality. A silly assumption.

Assuming a person who wants to hack off their genitals is unhealthy is a silly assumption?

Let me ask you a question, if you went up before a crowd of people and said exactly what I just said outloud, would you feel the slightest bit silly afterwards?

if the sun goes out is that a problem ?
if plants stop growing is that a problem ?

if a man or women goes against the grain why is that not a problem ?

Originally posted by Surtur
Assuming a person who wants to hack off their genitals is unhealthy is a silly assumption?

Let me ask you a question, if you went up before a crowd of people and said exactly what I just said outloud, would you feel the slightest bit silly afterwards?

You're comparing someone who has gone through hours and hours of mental and hormone therapy before they're even allowed to have a series of surgeries done by a professional as being the same as someone who one day picks up a knife and whacks off his whacker. That's silly, imo.

I personally don't know if said gender assignment people are happier post surgery to pre, but to assume they're all just nutters is stupid. Is it possible that they're actually happier having a body that matches what they are mentally or see themselves as?

Originally posted by Robtard
You're comparing someone who has gone through hours and hours of mental and hormone therapy before they're even allowed to have a series of surgeries done by a professional as being the same as someone who one day picks up a knife and whacks off his whacker. That's silly, imo.

I personally don't know if said gender assignment people are happier post surgery to pre, but to assume they're all just nutters is stupid. Is it possible that they're actually happier having a body that matches what they are mentally or see themselves as?
http://articles.latimes.com/2014/jan/28/local/la-me-ln-suicide-attempts-alarming-transgender-20140127

Originally posted by Robtard
You're comparing someone who has gone through hours and hours of mental and hormone therapy before they're even allowed to have a series of surgeries done by a professional as being the same as someone who one day picks up a knife and whacks off his whacker. That's silly, imo.

I personally don't know if said gender assignment people are happier post surgery to pre, but to assume they're all just nutters is stupid. Is it possible that they're actually happier having a body that matches what they are mentally or see themselves as?

I remember hearing a guy on the radio talking about the high rates of suicide even post operation. Also even though I phrased it poorly I wasn't actually talking about someone who will just randomly grab a knife and cut their own dick off. So I'll rephrase it and say someone who wants a surgeon to cut off their genitals is not healthy.

Also remember in some states you can actually get tax payers to pay for you to get your dick cut off.

Originally posted by One Big Mob
http://articles.latimes.com/2014/jan/28/local/la-me-ln-suicide-attempts-alarming-transgender-20140127

From your article:

"Law found that the risk of attempting suicide was especially severe for transgender or gender nonconforming people who had suffered discrimination or violence, such as being physically or sexually assaulted at work or school."

"Among transgender people who became homeless because of bias against their gender identity, 69% said they had tried to kill themselves. Out of those who had been turned away by a doctor because they were transgender or gender-nonconforming, 60% had attempted suicide sometime in their lives, the survey found."

"Suicide attempts were less common among transgender and gender-nonconforming people who said their family ties had remained strong after they came out."

"Researchers wrote that being recognized as transgender by other people probably made them a target of more discrimination, putting them at greater risk -- a finding that echoes earlier research."

"Researchers cautioned that it remains unclear whether the earlier survey, which included more than 6,400 people, was representative of the entire transgender and gender-nonconforming population of the United States. However, other surveys in the U.S. and abroad have also suggested "an unparalleled level of suicidal behavior among transgender adults," they wrote."


Being seen as a pariah can affect someone mentally. Not shocking. Which isn't surprising considering the hate transgender people receive. Just look at this thread as a micro-example.

Similar studies have been done with the suicide rates of homosexuals. Where it's strangely higher if said gay person was spurned compared to a one who's felt accepted by his/her family and peers.

But that actually doesn't say you can solely attribute it to being "spurned" by society.

Originally posted by Surtur
I remember hearing a guy on the radio talking about the high rates of suicide even post operation. Also even though I phrased it poorly I wasn't actually talking about someone who will just randomly grab a knife and cut their own dick off. So I'll rephrase it and say someone who wants a surgeon to cut off their genitals is not healthy.

Also remember in some states you can actually get tax payers to pay for you to get your dick cut off.

OBM posted a link. Seems the high rate of suicide is linked to being seen as outcast and hated.

Originally posted by Surtur
But that actually doesn't say you can solely attribute it to being "spurned" by society.

Who said 'soley'. It does however support the stance fairly well.

Originally posted by Robtard
Who said 'soley'. It does however support the stance fairly well.

That's not what it said though. It said that cases can be especially severe if that happens and says people with strong family ties are less likely to do it. That really doesn't sound like you could attribute even a significant amount of it to being an outcast.

In other words it sounds like being an outcast can exacerbate the situation.

Originally posted by Surtur
That's not what it said though. It said that cases can be especially severe if that happens and says people with strong family ties are less likely to do it. That really doesn't sound like you could attribute even a significant amount of it to being an outcast.

In other words it sounds like being an outcast can exacerbate the situation.


My advice to you is to read the article then.

Originally posted by Robtard
My advice to you is to read the article then.

I don't feel it was wrong for me to assume you presented the most relevant parts of the article when you quoted it. For which, like I said, it sounds like being an outcast exacerbates the situation rather then creating it.

EDIT: Okay I read it and of the parts you left out and didn't quote I don't feel those really change my stance. It more or less sounds like it makes the situation worse. Also what about the fact that in states like Oregon you can get the tax payers to pay for your operation? Which doesn't have anything to do with whether or not its unhealthy, but it's still wrong to me.

What about those states? What is the official reason OR gives for using state money for someone's reassignment surgery? I'd need to know this before I can judge/comment.

Oregon is one, and in Oregon you technically do not even need need parental consent if you are like 15-16. As for the official reason..insanity? LSD in the drinking water? People just being really stupid? I don't know what to tell you.

Do you feel there is a good reason for tax payers to pay for a sex change? Why shouldn't they use their own money if they want it so badly? Do we pay for a woman to get herself some new titties? I mean some women are super depressed about their small titties so..

Also that is not a joke, some women legitimately have these body issues and it can cause depression, etc. Shouldn't we then pay for their liposuction and boob jobs and nose jobs and their botox and all that?

Originally posted by Surtur
Oregon is one, and in Oregon you technically do not even need need parental consent if you are like 15-16. As for the official reason..insanity? LSD in the drinking water? People just being really stupid? I don't know what to tell you.

Do you feel there is a good reason for tax payers to pay for a sex change? Why shouldn't they use their own money if they want it so badly? Do we pay for a woman to get herself some new titties? I mean some women are super depressed about their small titties so..

Also that is not a joke, some women legitimately have these body issues and it can cause depression, etc. Shouldn't we then pay for their liposuction and boob jobs and nose jobs and their botox and all that?

If you don't know the official reason why OR will pay state money for someone's reassignment surgery, how can you be so seemingly outraged over it?

I don't know, but I'm open to hear the reason(s) before judging negatively. Maybe it's a sound and logical reason, maybe it isn't.

Originally posted by Robtard
Being seen as a pariah can affect someone mentally. Not shocking. Which isn't surprising considering the hate transgender people receive. Just look at this thread as a micro-example.

Similar studies have been done with the suicide rates of homosexuals. Where it's strangely higher if said gay person was spurned compared to a one who's felt accepted by his/her family and peers. That's not the point though is it?

If 41 percent of the people that identify as something are trying to kill themselves, then it's doubtful they're happy regardless of circumstance.

It also implies that the research and therapy isn't being in depth enough.

Simply passing it off on other people doesn't magically change the situation. It will still happen and it will still hurt. Maybe these people need a little bit more help since those statistics say anything but "happy"

Originally posted by Robtard
If you don't know the official reason why OR will pay state money for someone's reassignment surgery, how can you be so seemingly outraged over it?

I don't know what you mean by "official reason". There wasn't really one, a panel decided they were "medically necessary".



Could you give me an example of sound logic for why this should be okay? Keeping in mind the state of Oregon does not have any information about transgenders that other states in this country do not have.

Originally posted by Robtard
If you don't know the official reason why OR will pay state money for someone's reassignment surgery, how can you be so seemingly outraged over it?

I don't know, but I'm open to hear the reason(s) before judging negatively. Maybe it's a sound and logical reason, maybe it isn't.

Sex reassignment surgery is just one of a number of treatment options recognized as the general standard of care for patients with gender dysphoria.

Not all transgender people have gender dysphoria, nor do all transgender people desire to undergo sex reassignment surgery.

Sex reassignment surgery is for someone who is so distressed by the incongruity between her experience of her own gender and her biological sex that it impairs her social and occupational functioning.

Gender dysphoria is one of 470 new conditions covered by Medicaid in Oregon.

The medical age of consent in the state has been 15-years-old since 1971.

Hormone therapy is a very stupid thing imo.

You're going to inject hormones that go against your biology because you disagree with your own biology?

Sure, ok. Don't be surprised when you come back even more ****ed up than before.

.

Accidental double post.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Apologies, but HERE I would be wrong not to confront you, XYZ.

If this kind of "therapy" is, in fact, being performed by medical professionals on people as young as 15 WITHOUT so much as an "OK" from parents, focusing solely on the teenage patients instead of the DOCTORS who consent to this is irresponsible.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
you underestimate the stupidity of a lot of parents and a 15 year old is not old enough to make this kind of life changing decision.

We're talking about biology here, not "muh equal rights to get everything I want"

I mean, you wouldn't exactly call Michael Jackson transracial would you?

I'm pretty sure if you give a 15 year old hormones that occur naturally in the opposite gender, shit is gonna get ****ed up.

Originally posted by It's xyz!


I'm pretty sure if you give a 15 year old hormones that occur naturally in the opposite gender ...

I am pretty sure of what will happen, too.
We don't disagree on this particular point.


Originally posted by It's xyz!


a 15 year old is not old enough to make this kind of life changing decision


I am in complete agreement with you here, too.

No, I would rather remind you that a few in this reading audience might be grappling with some of the issues being discussed here. A careless word has more power here than might be readily apparent, the potential to do a GREAT deal more harm than you might intend. Just keep in mind there are real people, and some of them feeling quit desperate, on the other side of the screen.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
I am pretty sure of what will happen, too.
We don't disagree on this particular point.

That shit will get ****ed up?


I am in complete agreement with you here, too.

No, I would rather remind you that a few in this reading audience might be grappling with some of the issues being discussed here. A careless word has more power here than might be readily apparent, the potential to do a GREAT deal more harm than you might intend. Just keep in mind there are real people, and some of them feeling quit desperate, on the other side of the screen. I have taken consideration to which words I choose here, albeit, not as good as I hoped at times.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Sex reassignment surgery is just one of a number of treatment options recognized as the general standard of care for patients with gender dysphoria.

Not all transgender people have gender dysphoria, nor do all transgender people desire to undergo sex reassignment surgery.

Sex reassignment surgery is for someone who is so distressed by the incongruity between her experience of her own gender and her biological sex that it impairs her social and occupational functioning.

Gender dysphoria is one of 470 new conditions covered by Medicaid in Oregon.

The medical age of consent in the state has been 15-years-old since 1971.

Which of course is silly. If you want a sex change then pay for it yourself. If the gender you were born with causes you so much inner turmoil then I am sorry but you are mentally ill and need help.

Originally posted by Surtur
Which of course is silly. If you want a sex change then pay for it yourself. If the gender you were born with causes you so much inner turmoil then I am sorry but you are mentally ill and need help.

In that regard, are you against the state using money to help people who suffer from a mental illness like schizophrenia or manic depression?

Originally posted by Robtard
In that regard, are you against the state using money to help people who suffer from a mental illness like schizophrenia or manic depression?

No I am not. I would be upset if state money was used to encourage a persons schizophrenia though.

Since you see if you can say that a person should get this surgery for free because otherwise they'd be depressed and shit..what about the people who are very depressed over their weight? Should we pay for their liposuction? You might say most people aren't suicidal over being overweight, but some definitely are. I don't understand why one persons grief is more important then anothers.

You're essentially saying "we'll cover you for this mental illness, but not that one".

What if sexual reassignment surgery is the 'cure' for someone suffering from as POE put it "gender dysphoria"? How is that any different than state funded lifelong drugs and therapy, counseling and or housing for a schizophrenic?

Originally posted by Robtard
You're essentially saying "we'll cover you for this mental illness, but not that one".

What if sexual reassignment surgery is the 'cure' for someone suffering from as POE put it "gender dysphoria"? How is that any different than state funded lifelong drugs and therapy, counseling and or housing for a schizophrenic?

You didn't address any of the points I made. What if a boob job can "cure" your depression, etc.? Do we pay for it? If you want to cover anything with a mental illness then why wouldn't we do that? Why is wanting bigger boobs less important then wanting your dick cut off? Since you surely can't sit there and make a claim about a specific individuals mental health and how it would compare to a transgenders mental health.

It's an all or nothing thing Rob, if one body issue that gives you depression is okay for you to get free plastic surgery then the others should be too.

Otherwise you need to be prepared to tell people that their own body issues just aren't as important as the trans body issues, even though to that specific person it might be *very* important.

Also Poe also said not every transgender has that disorder you mentioned. So we then have to say to transgenders "some of you deserve free sex changes and some of you don't". How is that not royally f*cked up? How is that not utterly cruel?

Originally posted by Surtur
You didn't address any of the points I made. What if a boob job can "cure" your depression, etc.? Do we pay for it? If you want to cover anything with a mental illness then why wouldn't we do that? Why is wanting bigger boobs less important then wanting your dick cut off? Since you surely can't sit there and make a claim about a specific individuals mental health and how it would compare to a transgenders mental health.

It's an all or nothing thing Rob, if one body issue that gives you depression is okay for you to get free plastic surgery then the others should be too.

Otherwise you need to be prepared to tell people that their own body issues just aren't as important as the trans body issues, even though to that specific person it might be *very* important.

Also Poe also said not every transgender has that disorder you mentioned. So we then have to say to transgenders "some of you deserve free sex changes and some of you don't". How is that not royally f*cked up? How is that not utterly cruel?

If it's legitimate medical depression and a "boob job" is the actual cure instead of therapy and/or drugs, I don't see how we can say no, when we're saying yes to cures and lifelong treatments for a slew of other mental illnesses. But iirc, something like a boob job is considered "cosmetic", but again, that's were the professionals come in.

Exactly, if we're treating mental illness with state money, then we treat all mental illnesses, not cherry-picking and saying no to gender-related illnesses because someone can't wrap their mind around why those can be legitimate illnesses.

See above. If professionals diagnose something as being factual, so be it.

Of course not, but we were specifically talking about people who want/need surgery. Not all people need or even want it.

Originally posted by Robtard
You're essentially saying "we'll cover you for this mental illness, but not that one".

What if sexual reassignment surgery is the 'cure' for someone suffering from as POE put it "gender dysphoria"? How is that any different than state funded lifelong drugs and therapy, counseling and or housing for a schizophrenic? it isn't the cure. Most gender reassigned people live god awful lives due to the body being injected with a hormonal balance different to the one they were born with. It makes them feel worse.

Furthermore, you do not understand mental illness and should probably stop posting.

Originally posted by It's xyz!
it isn't the cure. Most gender reassigned people live god awful lives due to the body being injected with a hormonal balance different to the one they were born with. It makes them feel worse.

Furthermore, you do not understand mental illness and should probably stop posting.

*Needs citation*

Another rage-y attack. Stop trolling for attention, we're having an honest discussion. Thanks.

Originally posted by Robtard
*Needs citation*

Another rage-y attack. Stop trolling for attention, we're having an honest discussion. Thanks. http://www.sexchangeregret.com/research

Here is a citation.

You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

Originally posted by It's xyz!
http://www.sexchangeregret.com/research

Here is a citation.

You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

LoL, you should have done a little better research than posting the first link you found when googling "sex change sucks". Did you even bother reading what you posted? It seems you didn't, as it's an open opinion piece. From that site:

"I come away with the realization that good research and studies need to be done on the effectiveness of sex change surgery."

"Anyone considering the surgery should proceed with "extreme caution" and be evaluated by psychologists who do not have a reputation of promoting the surgery." -snip

Great, that's already the case, as noted, people just can't walk into a hospital and get a sex change, it takes a length of time and a therapist has to sign-off on it. ie Let the professionals handle it.

I'm not the one making claims of fact and then not proving said claims, you are though, as you just did.

Originally posted by Robtard
LoL, you should have done a little better research than posting the first link you found when googling "sex change sucks". Did you even bother reading what you posted? It seems you didn't, as it's an open opinion piece. From that site:

"I come away with the realization that good research and studies need to be done on the effectiveness of sex change surgery."

"Anyone considering the surgery should proceed with "extreme caution" and be evaluated by psychologists who do not have a reputation of promoting the surgery." -snip

Great, that's already the case, as noted, people just can't walk into a hospital and get a sex change, it takes a length of time and a therapist has to sign-off on it. ie Let the professionals handle it.

I'm not the one making claims of fact and then not proving said claims, you are though, as you just did. lol, you didn't even bother considering the website is by a gender reassigned person who lists countless examples of people who regret sex change.

I felt you'd take an actual transgender person seriously when discussing transgendered people, but you demonstrate your failed trolling even further by insulting him. Good going, dick.

He quotes and links a long term Swedish study from 2003 on the link I provided.

324 sex reassigned people themselves concluded that sex change results in higher risk of suicide and depression. In fact, based on this study alone, I think it's safe to trust their opinion over yours.

But hey, why should you listen to transgendered people about transgenderism, you clearly mentioned schizophrenia and spoke about housing for schizophrenics. What you don't understand is I've experienced this type of forced drug and housing on schizophrenic patients. This is another case of making things worse, but schizophrenia is not the subject of this thread and one of the worst things with regards to mental illness is treating them all as if they were the same you shameful bigot.

You have trouble taking people with actual experiences seriously so let me tell you again.

You have no idea what you're talking about. You should probably stop posting.

At least you finally read your own story. If you were paying attention, there was another story posted on the very high rate of suicide of transgender people and it largely put forth that the negative stigmatism is or can be a cause.

"Schizophrenia" and "manic depression" were mentioned as examples of a mental illness, so stop trying to make everything be about you; what we're talking about here has nothing to do with you. No one is forcing people to get sex-changes so that comparison is silly. ie stop being an attention seeker. Thanks.

Maybe you should just let the professionals decide and let people have a surgery if they really want/need it, it's their own body. You're playing body-police.

Originally posted by Robtard
At least you finally read your own story. If you were paying attention, there was another story posted on the very high rate of suicide of transgender people and it largely put forth that the negative stigmatism is or can be a cause.

"Schizophrenia" and "manic depression" were mentioned as examples of a mental illness, so stop trying to make everything be about you; what we're talking about here has nothing to do with you. No one is forcing people to get sex-changes so that comparison is silly. ie stop being an attention seeker. Thanks.

Maybe you should just let the professionals decide and let people have a surgery if they really want/need it, it's their own body. You're playing body-police. is or can be are two entirely different things. Your opening statement has no basis and is inconclusive.

You're the one who mentions and attacks me, bro. They were terrible examples and highlight your own short comings and ignorance of things you talk about. At least I have anecdotes and links, you just have insults and weird accusations.

Like here. I'm not playing body police, in fact, I've said people can do whatever the **** what they want with their bodies consistently in this thread.

With regards to transgender, I've posted a website from a transgendered person who cites a Swedish study made by transgender people who conclude that it increases the risks of suicide.

I've also stated its not a good idea to inject hormones in your body that counteract against your biology. This should be obvious to any sane person, which opens the door to the possibility that transgender is is a mental illness.

You asked if hormone therapy could be a cure, I've demonstrated that it isn't. You're now saying negative stigmatism can be a cause of depression and suicide.

Well, I wonder what kind of negative stigmatism you're talking about. A lot of conditions have negative stigmas, schizophrenia, for example. But it's shitty to even consider the two comparable.




What negative stigma to trans people receive that makes their rate of suicide so alarmingly high?

Why don't you think the hormones they're receiving that go against their biology is not the cause of depression and suicide?

Ugh. TL;Dr

Just stop being a fascist and telling people what they can or can't do with their own bodies. I'd ask if you also try and tell gay people who they can or can't sleep with, but we already know the answer to that one, Mussolini.

maybe you should stop posting.

You really do like telling people what to do. Thanks for proving my point.

It's a suggestion, you can fail harder if you want.

Originally posted by Robtard
If it's legitimate medical depression and a "boob job" is the actual cure instead of therapy and/or drugs, I don't see how we can say no, when we're saying yes to cures and lifelong treatments for a slew of other mental illnesses. But iirc, something like a boob job is considered "cosmetic", but again, that's were the professionals come in.

Exactly, if we're treating mental illness with state money, then we treat all mental illnesses, not cherry-picking and saying no to gender-related illnesses because someone can't wrap their mind around why those can be legitimate illnesses.

See above. If professionals diagnose something as being factual, so be it.

Of course not, but we were specifically talking about people who want/need surgery. Not all people need or even want it.

How is a sex change not cosmetic? Remember, a sex change is not actually needed. It's not like their bodies will physically shut down without it. Not everyone wants the sex change, but as was pointed out not all people who want one have that designated disease you are talking about. So we should give them a free sex change even if they don't suffer from a mental illness? That doesn't even make sense to me since you are looking at this from the point of view of it being a mental illness so people who want a sex change, but don't have one should not get one, right? At least not for free.

Also you keep throwing the word "cure" around but there actually isn't any actual legitimate cure out there that has been discovered. What we do know is that there is a high rate of suicide or attempted suicide for these people post op. We know that a lack of strong familial bonds and/or being shunned by society as a whole can cause these feelings of wanting to commit suicide to get even worse. We also know there really hasn't been any magic cure for any specific mental illness. I'm not sure if you were aware of that or not.