Look I don't write the rules, i just know what they are now. If someone is born biologically female, but instead of his deadname he identifies with male pronouns and a new male name, he is a man. You can call him a transgender man, you can't call him female, you can't misgender him and deny his identity. The only requirement to be transgender is to identify as someone of a non cisgender and nobody is allowed to contradict your self identification

im more interested in the "rules" around mental illness tags. being trans isn't a mental illness, ok i can accept that logically. but it's just that almost all people who are trans experience depression and destress as a result of being trans that requires treatment by a psychologist who qualifies that state as a mental illness. makes the distinction fairly moot. being trans may not be a mental illness, but mental illness is almost universally a side effect of being trans. im sure somewhere in an insulated san francisco community is a unicorn, perhaps dressed as a literal unicorn, who is trans and has zero destress in their life and doesnt even need to go to therapy (any more).

This post was edited by thesnipa on Feb 14 2024 12:04pm

her criminal history report is literally embedded in that article as a PDF, did you bother reading it?

he didnt pay for adobe, obviously. way to show your privilege.

The field is not doing what you're perceiving it to be doing. It's merely following our increased understanding via research that describing being transgender as a mental illness is a misunderstanding, and it is better understood under human development than psychology as it is a developmental incongruence. As such, gender affirming care seeks to ameliorate this incongruence as best as possible.

so, to dive in as a complete laymen:

being trans isn't a mental illness, ok i can work with that. but what is it? a mental state? a condition? is it simply that it is? its not normal, statistically i mean, it's rare even if we accept theories that the societal suppression drives down it's occurrence.

its, and correct me if i'm wrong, a condition of the brain in which a person feels their biological gender doesnt match their mental sex. it's a condition entirely in their head, i dont mean that negatively i mean it literally. it exists in the brain and brain alone. it is mental, and the state which theyre in that their body doesnt match their gender identity almost down to each individual causes them a sense of destress varying from minor to major.

it just sounds to me like we're carving out a new category to avoid the "mental illness" stigma. or we're defining the rule by the exceptions. we're pretending that the small percent of trans people who aren't at all bothered by the fact they have a body that doesnt match their identity, and therefore have no destress or depression that needs to be treated, should be what we base the definition on. rather than the majority who do need to be clinically treated for staple mental illnesses as a result of their mental state. it almost sounds to me like "no one dies of aids". "trans itself isnt a mental illness, its just that most trans people suffer from a mental illness".

im not exactly up on literature, dont pretend to be, and dont have my heels dug in the sand. im happy to change my mind if this opinion of mine isnt reality.

This post was edited by thesnipa on Feb 14 2024 12:34pm

Have you ever fired a gun that isn't a shotgun? Even In leafland you can de-pin your mags for a 30 round cap. You absolutely want an AR platform for threats greater than 100 yards. Shotguns are simply ineffective for ranges greater than 50 yards.

So, if you have a school shooter approaching you, an AR is the best choice.

But that's not what the conversation was about nor what the commenters were talking about. We were talking about home self defence and wild-life defence when camping and run up on / hiking when someone jumped in with what if you're surprised by 30 wild hogs.

This is why context and actually reading a thread of conversation is important.

And yes I am a gun owner , shotguns, bolt action, semi. Dont have a lever and the rest is restricted here in Canada and I have no need for anything else. Those guns sufficiently do everything necessary, and frankly everything necessary for any average civilian using firearms. Just like I said restricted firearms, automatic rifels, handguns, etc. have their place but its unnecessary for typical civilian use / over the counter sales without a restricted licence / different process.

This post was edited by SBD on Feb 14 2024 12:58pm

most people cant hit a deer over 100 yards even with a scope. what fantasies are people drawing up here? now we need ARs to take out school shooters a football field away?

ill take a 30-06 at that range. most ar toting hill billies will hit grandma next to the shooter at 100 yards. the good guy with a gun shouldnt take that shot.

Given your legitimate curiosity, I'll give a legitimate answer. Firstly, it's not about avoiding a stigma of "mental health", but that it historically has been viewed as a mental illness and subsequently treated as such (a point that most people either want to ignore or are ignorant about), and it did not "work". A simplified explanation of "work" in the mental health field is the idea that the goal is an alleviation of symptoms and return to a statistically normalized baseline (ie. To go from depressed to not-depressed, psychotic to not-psychotic, etc.). The belief that most people have in this thread is that the experience of being transgender, or of having Gender Dysphoria, is a mental illness that needs mental health treatment-- but specifically in a way that would result in people being comfortable and identifying with their natal/assigned sex in exactly the same way that you and I do. They are unable, however, to explain the rationale for that other than "Well it just seems wrong", and they are unable to articulate what effective treatment would then look like that actually "works" from their perspective (ie. that the person would no longer experience dysphoria and identify with their natal/assigned sex). Again, we have tried approaching it from that perspective, and those forms of treatment did not "work" in the same way that approaches in which being gay was seen as a mental illness (and the goal was to make people straight) did not "work".

As a result, the field has two main ways it can go: Either we just haven't figured out the right way to treat it as a mental illness, or it is perhaps not a mental illness and should be understood in a different way via a different branch of medicine (ie. human development). The former has been tried many times without different results (and worse outcomes), so it is not simply because of a "woke invasion of the sciences" that explains why the latter is the path the field has chosen anymore than it was a "woke invasion of the sciences" that made being gay no longer designated as a mental illness. It also seems that people in this thread are of the opinion that the movement to move this out of the psychiatric literature and more into a human development literature is suggesting that "nothing is wrong", which is not the case. We have different fields of medicine for a reason, and just because we're saying that the way that this is "wrong" is not best understood as mental illness does not mean we're saying that therefore nothing is "wrong". There definitely is something "wrong", but this wrongness is better understood as a developmental incongruence that we don't fully understand yet but have enough research and information to securely arrive at this conclusion at this time. Just like we don't fully understand why some people are gay, but are secure in recognizing that being gay is not a mental illness.

This post was edited by Handcuffs on Feb 14 2024 01:14pm