Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
“Peer review” is not necessary for common sense stuff.
When it comes to psychology, "common sense" ranks up there with Type A and Type B personality, IMHO. Good enough for the monthly magazine to masses, useless for professional basis.....especially if it is the grounds to take someone to court and remove their freedom.
When it comes to psychology, "common sense" ranks up there with Type A and Type B personality, IMHO. Good enough for the monthly magazine to masses, useless for professional basis.....especially if it is the grounds to take someone to court and remove their freedom.
Just saying......
Spending most of my online time debating 2A topics, I see the term "common sense" or "commonsense" being used as justification for bad policies many times every day.
Nobody knows what it means. Not really.
"common" = held by many people; "we have that interest in common"
"sense" = a belief about something that's explicitly separate from knowledge; "she had a sense that something was wrong"
"common sense" = a belief held by many people
The term doesn't suggest nor imply truth or fact. People infer that because they don't know what words mean anymore and they want to agree with the overall message being delivered. They don't "know" that the ideas they espouse will be effective, but they're "common sense" proposals, anyway.
If they are mentally ill, then they would be eligible to receive a reasonable accommodation under the Americans with Disability Act in housing, education and employment.
Regarding "common sense" and what it means; common sense tells us the earth is flat. There are even flat earth organizations.
Spending most of my online time debating 2A topics, I see the term "common sense" or "commonsense" being used as justification for bad policies many times every day.
Nobody knows what it means. Not really.
"common" = held by many people; "we have that interest in common"
"sense" = a belief about something that's explicitly separate from knowledge; "she had a sense that something was wrong"
"common sense" = a belief held by many people
The term doesn't suggest nor imply truth or fact. People infer that because they don't know what words mean anymore and they want to agree with the overall message being delivered. They don't "know" that the ideas they espouse will be effective, but they're "common sense" proposals, anyway.
I don't disagree with that but I was trying to keep it more to the topic....and what I've learned.
As part of my graduate criminal justice degree, I had to take abnormal psychology where one of the text books was the DSM-IV-TR. Nice thick book that listed the "symptoms" for this or that disorder. The prof would give homework assignments of case histories about this or that patient. We were suppose to take that information, use the DSM, and come back with an evaluation of what was wrong with him.
The prof was rather livid, well upset, at the return of the first assignments over the answers he got of "He has a Type A (Type B) personality." (remember, this was a graduate level class). That's not being professional.
Finally, on the note of what is professional. We were using the DSM-IV......which has been superceded by the DSM-V. Hence, any analysis on anyone in the here and now should be using the most current manual and not a manual of the past. (my example above, of course, was one of history)
Spending most of my online time debating 2A topics, I see the term "common sense" or "commonsense" being used as justification for bad policies many times every day.
Nobody knows what it means. Not really.
"common" = held by many people; "we have that interest in common"
"sense" = a belief about something that's explicitly separate from knowledge; "she had a sense that something was wrong"
"common sense" = a belief held by many people
The term doesn't suggest nor imply truth or fact. People infer that because they don't know what words mean anymore and they want to agree with the overall message being delivered. They don't "know" that the ideas they espouse will be effective, but they're "common sense" proposals, anyway.
My dictionary defines common sense as also having sound judgement. But as you said that does not equal truth. Neither does our common knowledge.
"The DSM-5-TR defines gender dysphoria in adolescents and adults as a marked incongruence between one’s experienced/expressed gender and their assigned gender, lasting at least 6 months, as manifested by at least two of the following:"
It is list of several "issues" the person might be dealing with. So, it is written in stone that it is a mental health issue.
"Understanding the reasons some transgender people quit treatment is key to improving it, especially for the rising number of minors seeking to medically transition, experts say. But for many researchers, detransitioning and regret have long been untouchable subjects."
I continue to be confused about how a man can "feel" like a woman. I don't "feel" like a woman, as it is my biological reality, not about "feelings".
"Yes, a diagnosis of gender dysphoria is included in the current “Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, Text Revision (DSM-5-TR).”
"Yes, it’s possible to treat gender dysphoria and become more comfortable in your body. But dysphoria may not go away completely — it often moves in different directions."
"When ‘the tumult and shouting dies,’ it proves not easy nor wise to live in a counterfeit sexual garb. The most thorough follow-up of sex-reassigned people—extending over 30 years and conducted in Sweden, where the culture is strongly supportive of the transgendered—documents their lifelong mental unrest. Ten to 15 years after surgical reassignment, the suicide rate of those who had undergone sex-reassignment surgery rose to 20 times that of comparable peers."
Again, male/female is not a feeling, but a biological reality. I don't wear makeup and dresses, pastel colors, high heel shoes.........thank God that era ended long ago, but it seems for a trans, that makes them "feel" like who they are, and that is fine, but they are not "equal" to a biological woman, which is where I draw the darn line. You don't cut "it" off, take some hormones, put on a dress and makeup and claim that YOU are a female like me, because you aren't, and unless science comes a long way (I read they never see a possibility.) YOU are a feminized male, which is also fine.
Everyone can do as they please, but get in my face to endorse your "behavior" or "feelings", and we have a problem. I am sorry, I cannot put a stamp of approval on something that goes against the science, and add God in the mix - science/God agreement, and I will never budge!
Being a woman or a man is NOT a feeling, NOT, NOT, NOT!
What you’re seeing in the DSM is not that the incongruence itself is a mental disorder. It’s the manifestations of it being problematic that they are defining as a mental disorder.
I fully disagree and it’s one of the main reasons I decided not to continue my schooling as a marriage and family therapist. The professional associations are completely woke and anybody going against that such as myself will be cancelled.
The bigger issue becomes that the laws and licensure regs are created in sync with the prof associations and thus, anybody wanting a license to practice has to at least toe that line long enough to get through schooling and the supervised experience period (approximately three years in total) in order to attain full licensure. You will see fewer people like me in practice in the long run, leading the entire field to become an echo chamber where honest mental disorders are deemed normal and acceptable unless they interfere with the person’s life/happiness.
We have reached peak clown world where a woman can believe she’s a man and be mentally healthy so long as it isn’t causing any so-called dysphoria.
And what of those who are born with organs or parts thereof of both sexes? Parents often, about 1 in 2,000 infants, have to make a choice about a baby born inter-sexed. Sometimes they get it wrong when they choose.
In the past, folks just lived with it, but society addressed it, sometimes with understanding rather than with distain. Take for example the case of Thomas(in) Hall. Hall, an English army veteran, came to Virginia in 1629 as an indentured servant. When Hall's indenture was sold, Hall's identification as a man or a woman - was important since the sex would determine the duties and Hall was passing as a woman sometimes. In the end, Hall was physically examined by the Quarter Court (so named because it met quarterly in Jamestown) and it was determined that Hall was both a man and a woman and Hall was ordered to wear both clothing a man and a woman would wear. https://encyclopediavirginia.org/ent...-april-8-1629/
It's a complex issue and part of what causes distress is most likely the lack of understanding, something the Quarter Court exhibited.
Have any of you who believe all trans people are mentally ill ever considered any other possibility?
Riddle me this. What if a person always knows they are in the wrong body but society tells them they are nuts? Would that cause them to doubt their own sanity or the culture?
The culture can't be wrong. They are the beginning and end of slavery and Jim Crows laws.
“Knowing” they’re in the “wrong body” is not really sane, wouldn’t you say? It’s not a culture thing here. It’s objectively incorrect.
I do agree with your other post that it could be environmental. It certainly is not a simple biological “they’re just born like that” type thing.
The only teens I ever knew who were comfortable with themselves were the idolized football players and cheerleaders.
Now throw in all the endocrine disrupting chemicals in their systems. Those chemically treated non stick skillets mom used before and while pregnant have been removed from the market. Anybody done any research on packaging, storing and cooking food in plastics? What about the medications, lotions, soaps etc. that are not all removed from the water supply? Microscopic plastic particles are in everyone's body. Is it doing any damage?
Don't get me started on leaking pipelines and flaring methane.
Personally i think all this is cumulative and for now, simply removing these items from our own use should be good enough. Yes, there’s junk in the water supply, but I would think it’s minimal at this point. I have to wonder if the Berkey filter we use would filter that stuff out of our well water, which happens to be pretty high quality straight from the tap. Or do we have hormones and medications coming in even with the Berkey charcoal filters?
We have long since done away with the Teflon pans, scented anything, putting hot foods on plastic plates, anything with a microwave (9years without one now), use of crazy detergents for hair and body, etc. But we aren’t perfect and there will always be something getting through (e.g., we cannot grow 100% of our food).
It would be great if there were a simple identifying commonality between these folks, but ask yourself why this didn’t happen a couple decades ago. Trauma has always been a thing. It’s just whether people were vocal about it or dealt with it privately. I don’t think being loud and practically proud of these things is helpful. Seems there’s a p!$$ing match over who had worse trauma these days - the victim mentality as its finest.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
