Why Is Transgender(ism ?) Homosexuality Not A Mental Disorder

[CrossCuT]

I try not to believe in anything that is inconvenient to me. 

[Not The Philosopher]

As has been pointed out, the moral theological meaning of the word "disordered" is somewhat different from the connotations it carries in everyday speech. Homosexuality is disordered because it is an inclination towards something that is not morally good. What causes that inclination to manifest is a different question.

 

I will say this though: while there were questionable politics behind its dropping out from the DSM, it did help put an end to some of the rather gross "treatments" that were used earlier on in the 20th century.

[polskieserce]

I know I'm talking to a wall here, but this is pseudoscience

 

What are you basing your statement off of?  This was presented to us as one possible cause for homosexuality in one of our psychology classes.  What do you suppose is the cause of homosexuality?

[Luigi]

I know I'm talking to a wall here, but this is pseudoscience

 

If you go by me, all of psychology is a pseudoscience. 

[CrossCuT]

I believe the church will always be a step behind on this topic merely because they are less apt to accept any scientific evidence that would suggest anything other than their current view.

The most recent publishes studies on the topic are in agreement with previous studies from 1993 that say homosexuality is rooted in genetics...which honestly is not a shock since both mental and non mental disorders (or anything for that matter) is all rooted in genes in some way. The only thing I dont understand is how something gets voted on as being a mental disorder; its something ill have to look into.

 

Homosexuality has been observed in over 1500 species and well documented in about 500 species. There are many plausible theories as to why it is passed down and not selected against in gene pools. Which brings us to the "natural" debate which the church also evades because they encompass the spiritual realm and thus have a different definition. I dont think they are equipped to handle this topic right now...I really dont. 

 

In my mind, the physical world has informed me that this is indeed a natural phenomena in regards to attraction and sexuality. I personally do not believe homosexuality is disordered.

 

 

My guesses as to why homosexuality is no longer considered a mental disorder by the APA is because its now considered socially normative. Just a guess at least...based on the definition I found on Wiki. 

 

 

A mental disorder, also called a mental illness or psychiatric disorder, is a mental or behavioral pattern or anomaly that causes either suffering or an impaired ability to function in ordinary life (disability), and which is not developmentally or socially normative. 

 

[Credo in Deum]

Homosexual acts have been observed in other species.  Homosexuality has not been.  That is unless you're claiming that animals make a conscious decision which sexuality to identify themselves as?  Last time I checked animals do not this because they are not capable of doing this. Which is probably why we do not assign a moral outlook toward the actions of animals.  A tiger that eat's its young is not a bad tiger.  It is just a tiger.  A human that eats it's young is a bad human, because humans have the ability to look at themselves and make decisions that can be contrary to their instincts whether for better or for worse.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited July 25, 2014 by Credo in Deum

[CrossCuT]

Homosexual acts have been observed in other species.  Homosexuality has not been.  

 

Are you trying not to make sense? Im assuming you separate the acts from the "relationship". Having homo sex  vs homosexuality implying a relationship. 

You wont really find that relationship in pretty much ANY species in the same sense that we apply it to humans because humans are one of the extremely few species that have monogamous relationships. Its perfectly normal for animals to  have multiple partners and not retain a "relationship" for a long time. Its difficult to compare the two in that sense but same sex intercourse does indeed happen which would culminate as a homosexual "relationship" for them. Maybe thats not what you meant. It really didnt make sense to me so if you care to elaborate.

 

 

 

That is unless you're claiming that animals make a conscious decision which sexuality to identify themselves as?  Last time I checked animals do not this because they are not capable of doing this. Which is probably why we do not assign a moral outlook toward the actions of animals.  A tiger that eat's its young is not a bad tiger.  It is just a tiger.  A human that eats it's young is a bad human, because humans have the ability to look at themselves and make decisions that can be contrary to their instincts whether for better or for worse.

The whole reason people argue that homosexuality is present in other animals is to prove that it's a naturally occurring thing, and that its not a decision that anyone makes. Seems like you agree. Animals cant make conscious decisions against their nature which would indicate to me that homosexuality is naturally occurring and not a product of choice. 

[polskieserce]

If you go by me, all of psychology is a pseudoscience. 

 

Psychology is an infant science since we are not even close to understanding how the brain truly works.  But just because it's in its infancy doesn't mean it's not science.

 

I believe the church will always be a step behind on this topic merely because they are less apt to accept any scientific evidence that would suggest anything other than their current view.

The most recent publishes studies on the topic are in agreement with previous studies from 1993 that say homosexuality is rooted in genetics...which honestly is not a shock since both mental and non mental disorders (or anything for that matter) is all rooted in genes in some way. The only thing I dont understand is how something gets voted on as being a mental disorder; its something ill have to look into.

 

Homosexuality has been observed in over 1500 species and well documented in about 500 species. There are many plausible theories as to why it is passed down and not selected against in gene pools. Which brings us to the "natural" debate which the church also evades because they encompass the spiritual realm and thus have a different definition. I dont think they are equipped to handle this topic right now...I really dont. 

 

In my mind, the physical world has informed me that this is indeed a natural phenomena in regards to attraction and sexuality. I personally do not believe homosexuality is disordered.

 

 

My guesses as to why homosexuality is no longer considered a mental disorder by the APA is because its now considered socially normative. Just a guess at least...based on the definition I found on Wiki. 

 

And what makes you say that homosexuality has not been selected against?  Clearly it has since homosexual are in the minority.  The explanation is rather simple if you think about it.  The mechanism by which homosexuality arises might be very sensitive.  So even though homosexuality is always being selected against, there are more on the way.  Just like down syndrome or mental retardation, we could exterminate all of those people hypothetically in a mass euthanasia program, but there would still be more people born with those problems after that.

 

Even going by the definition of a disorder you listed, homosexuality is a disorder because it impacts the person's ability to reproduce.  If a man an woman have unprotected sex, they will have a child.  If two guys do it, the only thing they might get is a disease.

 

Homosexual acts have been observed in other species.  Homosexuality has not been.  That is unless you're claiming that animals make a conscious decision which sexuality to identify themselves as?  Last time I checked animals do not this because they are not capable of doing this. Which is probably why we do not assign a moral outlook toward the actions of animals.  A tiger that eat's its young is not a bad tiger.  It is just a tiger.  A human that eats it's young is a bad human, because humans have the ability to look at themselves and make decisions that can be contrary to their instincts whether for better or for worse.

 

Animals act on instincts.  Homosexuality is an an instinct.  Does that mean it's not a sin?  Of course not.  But animals are prone to the same disorder.

 

The one bright spot in all of this is that if/when the cause of homosexuality is 100% identified, it can be eradicated from the population.

[Luigi]

The one bright spot in all of this is that if/when the cause of homosexuality is 100% identified, it can be eradicated from the population.

 

I disagree. We know at least some causes of many conditions - deafness, cerebral palsy, multiple sclerosis, etc. -  but we still can't eradicate them. Some people think it's better to eradicate these conditions by prenatal testing and then aborting children who have a condition.

 

I am not among those people. I doubt that homosexuals would be among those people, either.

[polskieserce]

I disagree. We know at least some causes of many conditions - deafness, cerebral palsy, multiple sclerosis, etc. -  but we still can't eradicate them. Some people think it's better to eradicate these conditions by prenatal testing and then aborting children who have a condition.

 

I am not among those people. I doubt that homosexuals would be among those people, either.

 

We know the causes but we don't have the technology for the cures.  It will still be some time before we fully understand homosexuality.  By then, technology will have advanced that we will have the ability to eradicate the condition.

[CrossCuT]

And what makes you say that homosexuality has not been selected against?  Clearly it has since homosexual are in the minority.  The explanation is rather simple if you think about it.  The mechanism by which homosexuality arises might be very sensitive.  So even though homosexuality is always being selected against, there are more on the way.  Just like down syndrome or mental retardation, we could exterminate all of those people hypothetically in a mass euthanasia program, but there would still be more people born with those problems after that.

 

We dont know for sure why homosexuality is able to be passed on because if we are going by the basic rules of selection, then it should have been gone. Guess what, its not. So there are other hypotheses that look into why about 5-15% of the population exhibit homosexuality. One of the hypotheses is looks into balanced polymorphisms which essentially state that there are certain circumstances in which a variant is favorable and certain circumstances where it is not. For example, take sickle cell anemia...that is bad. Most of the time it is selected against and eliminated, however in areas of the world where malaria is more prevalent, it is actually an advantage to have sickle cell because it wards off the malaria infection. So even while a condition which is seemingly bad, it actually comes advantageous in certain circumstances. Which is effing cool!

 

Another idea is sexually antaganistic genes which basically means that one gene offers an advantage to one gender over the other. They hypothesized that there are "man-loving" genes that will cause a female to mate earlier and have more children. If these male loving genes were passed from the mother to a male offspring then he would also have an inclination to men stronger than that of another sibling. 

 

A geneticist by the name of Dean Hamer (who first came out after his 1993 research to say that homosexuality is genetic) actually said he believes the gene may be associated with the X chromosome. So a there is a ton of interesting info out there. Still no concrete proof of how homosexuality is passed down but all we know is that it does.

 

 

The one bright spot in all of this is that if/when the cause of homosexuality is 100% identified, it can be eradicated from the population.

And that is what we call eugenics. Your reaction is exactly what is predicted by scientists. That the christian extremists will want to eliminate certain unworthy traits from the human race. Are you going to start supporting genetic selection in the womb? Or start prescreening embryos before fertilization? Do you feel that is morally acceptable? Playing God?

Even if you dont like it, its in God's plan that these people are homosexuals.

Edited July 25, 2014 by CrossCuT

[Benedictus]

Was listening to the radio the other day, and the topic briefly came up, about how equality is a double standard in regards to transgenders and homosexuals, meaning, those that support it, either want or demand that everyone else be either accepting of it and accept peoples views on the matter that do support it, but when it comes to those who are against , those people who are unaccepting, or just have a different view on the matter those people are not given respect by those who support or are of this topic... Thusly a caller chimed in with mental disorder on the matter, how those with multiple personalities are thusly not given a pass and special treatment to do what they want etc etc, they are just labeled as a mental disorder and they have to bite it, no one has to be accepting of them ..  AN I am roughly translating paraphrasing to get to the title of the thread....

 

Which now here we go,

 

Does the Church consider being a transgender person or homosexuality a mental disorder; why or why not.

 

Thusly, if the Church does consider both to be a mental disorder versus why doesn't the Church simply state that position publicly ? ( I assume for the Church to publicly label both such would be a P.R nightmare and would probably cause more problems than the issue is worth )

 

That is it, I got nothing more to add or rebuttle ( spell check )

 

In my opinion all people deserve respect for their worth and dignity as persons. It doesn't matter what I think about what they do or believe, that's a different issue.

The church isn't in a position to say what is mentally disordered. It's beyond its expertise. It can, and does, come to a notion of disorder based on theology and philosophy. But masturbation is also, in this latter sense, viewed as disordered. So are many other things.

In most countries those who seek a sex change need to see a specialist psychiatrist and have counselling before it can go ahead. The prime aim is to see if they have gender dysphoria, or whether there are other issues that need addressing. So they need to get this diagnosis before they can, in most cases, progress onto getting treatment (transition therapy). It's important that the diagnosis is accurate before any treatment occurs, and this is why the full transition, with surgery, can take many years.

 

Homosexuality isn't seen as a mental disorder but those with gender dymorphia are. But there are those who think this should change and not be viewed as a mental health problem. There's lots of reasons for this. Additional points: not all people who dress in ways that don't conform with gender norms have gender dysmorphia. It also has zero to do with sexuality.

In terms of how the church should respond: well it has its official line I'm sure. In the dioceses around where I live and work there are at least two or three Catholic LGBT pastoral groups. One of these joins a specific church mass each week, and then once a month it also has a meeting afterwards. They do this with the support of the Archbishop, and he has visited and led mass a few times. There are a fair number of individuals who are transgender who attend this. But many attend their local parishes most of the time. The vast majority of the congregations are supportive.

Edited July 25, 2014 by Benedictus

[Benedictus]

We know the causes but we don't have the technology for the cures.  It will still be some time before we fully understand homosexuality.  By then, technology will have advanced that we will have the ability to eradicate the condition.

 

You see it as a problem to be cured, others don't. Unless the person is somehow mentally troubled by their sexuality I don't see why a treatment would be necessary.  I'd imagine many people would view your suggestion as deeply offensive.

[Credo in Deum]

 

The whole reason people argue that homosexuality is present in other animals is to prove that it's a naturally occurring thing, and that its not a decision that anyone makes. Seems like you agree. Animals cant make conscious decisions against their nature which would indicate to me that homosexuality is naturally occurring and not a product of choice. 

Yes, I understand this CrossCut.  The problem though is most use this to mean humans do not have a choice in their behavior which, unlike animals, is not the case.  The Church does not need to know the genesis of homosexuality, since it's clear that homosexuality does not take away a persons ability to either act or not act on their desires.  In the end people can present all of the birds, mammals, and fish they want.  Nothing is going to take away the truth that they can control their actions even if they can't control their sexuality. 

[Benedictus]

I believe the church will always be a step behind on this topic merely because they are less apt to accept any scientific evidence that would suggest anything other than their current view.

The most recent publishes studies on the topic are in agreement with previous studies from 1993 that say homosexuality is rooted in genetics...which honestly is not a shock since both mental and non mental disorders (or anything for that matter) is all rooted in genes in some way. The only thing I dont understand is how something gets voted on as being a mental disorder; its something ill have to look into.

 

Homosexuality has been observed in over 1500 species and well documented in about 500 species. There are many plausible theories as to why it is passed down and not selected against in gene pools. Which brings us to the "natural" debate which the church also evades because they encompass the spiritual realm and thus have a different definition. I dont think they are equipped to handle this topic right now...I really dont. 

 

In my mind, the physical world has informed me that this is indeed a natural phenomena in regards to attraction and sexuality. I personally do not believe homosexuality is disordered.

 

 

My guesses as to why homosexuality is no longer considered a mental disorder by the APA is because its now considered socially normative. Just a guess at least...based on the definition I found on Wiki. 

 

I think they understand the scientific views very well, they have advisors on everything.  But I think, and I know I'm not alone, is that they won't progress for other reasons. The major one is likely to unity. They don't want to lose numbers, especially in the developing world, to harsher extremes of the faith. They also don't want to alienate people with sudden changes that don't fit in with what has been normative for their generation. I think the church will wait and see, mostly letting the protestant denominations break the ice. Once the dust settles and the timing is right I think they'll edge a different way bit by bit. It's a sofly soflty approach to change but I think it will be painful. It will be a juggling act to manage the changes and keep all sides engaged. I suepect it will carry on for a few decades yet.

In terms of the APA -  yes, I'd agree on changes in attitudes, although research has helped. There are issues with how cultural mindsets determine what is normative or not, and I guess that's a question that continues to challenge the relevant professions. How mental health workers viewed women and people with certain illnesses has changed over the years also etc.