Gender again. Sorry!

[monkers]

Gender Dysphoria (incongruence - synonym) is classified by the WHO in SNOMED as a Mental Disorder. This is the overarching system used throughout the world.

The classifications in SNOMED are clearly outdated and wrong. This wrongness doesn't make you right.

From the WHO instead ...

What is Gender Incongruence?​

The bulk of the changes centered around the moving of "gender incongruence" from a classification of mental health to one of sexual health. In 2020, we have a better understanding of the issues surrounding this condition, and they are not related to a mental health condition. Treating gender incongruence in a mental health chapter was causing additional stigma for an already stigmatized condition. WHO officials added the hope that adding this condition to a sexual health chapter of the ICD codes would "help increase access to care for health interventions" and "destigmatize the condition."

So not a 'mental health condition' and not 'a disorder'.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Finding a dictionary that gives its 3rd (you edited out the first 2 in your screenshot) definition as something more nebulous hardly qualifies as overturning the meaning of 'innate' as being 'present from birth' that every other dictionary gives as the commonly understood meaning.

All your arguments come down to obfuscation or redefining things in the end. It's the only way to make any of this nonsense sound vaguely credible.

 

[icowden]

WHO officials added the hope that adding this condition to a sexual health chapter of the ICD codes would "help increase access to care for health interventions" and "destigmatize the condition."

It's also worth pointing out that the above sentence is utter tripe. Access to health care isn't based on an ICD10 code and changing the classification won't make one iota of difference to anyone.

 

[monkers]

Finding a dictionary that gives its 3rd (you edited out the first 2 in your screenshot) definition as something more nebulous hardly qualifies as overturning the meaning of 'innate' as being 'present from birth' that every other dictionary gives as the commonly understood meaning.

All your arguments come down to obfuscation or redefining things in the end. It's the only way to make any of this nonsense sound vaguely credible.

I gave you the definition that applies. I gave you the link to see the full article. You are just bitching about nothing.

The dictionary definition is not nebulous - it's from a respected source.

That's the thing about words, often they have more than one meaning. Where this happens, one has to look for nuance and contextual clues - this is called 'reading'.

It is perfectly reasonable for the WHO to say that 'gender identity is innate'. It only means 'from birth' if you choose one definition and wilfully ignore the others.

I'm still waiting for you (or Ian. C.) to show where I have said that in my opinion 'gender identity is innate from birth' rather than my reporting that the WHO have said the gender identity is innate.

 

[icowden]

Oh so it's back to your moral code that those people who don't do it in the missionary position with the lights off while wearing winceyette pyjamas are all perverts.
What 'sexual fetishes' are trans people going to do in public after Self-ID that they can't do already?

Well, that footballer we were discussing is able to play football in a women's football team with women aged 16 and up whilst wearing women's clothing that he gets a sexual kick from based on the information that the Daily Hate unearthed.

Any safeguarding concerns here?

 

[icowden]

The classifications in SNOMED are clearly outdated and wrong. This wrongness doesn't make you right.

So how are you going to get treatment for Gender Incongruence without accessing Mental Health Services?

 

[monkers]

Well, that footballer we were discussing is able to play football in a women's football team with women aged 16 and up whilst wearing women's clothing that he gets a sexual kick from based on the information that the Daily Hate unearthed.

Any safeguarding concerns here?

If you consider that paper to be the 'Daily Hate' then why are you still saying that this player 'gets a sexual kick'? There is no evidence to support that. I sense that you just have your nose turned up at sex workers.

 

[icowden]

If you consider that paper to be the 'Daily Hate' then why are you still saying that this player 'gets a sexual kick'? There is no evidence to support that.

You mean other than the images taken from his social media where he dresses up as cheerleaders and offers a surprise under his skirt in return for money?

Even the Daily Hate occasionally produces some good journalism.

 

[monkers]

What the Dickens.

You think that people without a mental health condition but in need of healthcare should all go to a mental health clinic. I accept you say that you are not a medical professional, but come on.

 

[monkers]

You mean other than the images taken from his social media where he dresses up as cheerleaders and offers a surprise under his skirt in return for money?

Even the Daily Hate occasionally produces some good journalism.

This person used to be a sex worker. The stuff written in the advert is a lure to attract customers with specific wants. It's how marketing works.

 

[monkers]

It's also worth pointing out that the above sentence is utter tripe. Access to health care isn't based on an ICD10 code and changing the classification won't make one iota of difference to anyone.

There you go insisting that everything must fit around the software you work with. No wonder the mid-wives are so very angry too.

Make the software fit the health needs instead of the other way round!!!

 

[Bromptonaut]

I'm genuinely interested in the answer to this question - what benefit does a GRC really have? Is the sole benefit to give someone who is Trans a piece of paper to cling to? Men can marry and have relationships with men or women and vice versa and choose how to live their lives however they want. The only other benefit of a GRC would seem to be for people who have previously been men to be able to gain access to spaces that they were previously not legally allowed to access, and this seems very questionable.

I'm sure I've explained this to you specifically before and more than once.

But hey ho.

The historical context is that the UK was dragged kicking and screaming to pass the Gender Recognition Act, which sets out the framework to get a GRC, following a high profile Human Rights Case decided by the court in Strasbourg.

A GRC is there to allow a person to be legally fully recognised in their preferred gender. They get a new birth certificate showing that. They can then marry and, when the time comes, be certified dead in their preferred/adopted gender. That's all.

Although gay people could get a Civil Partnership under legislation passed in the same timeframe as the Gender Recognition Act that was no help to a transwoman wanting to marry a man. Neither did same sex marriage for the obvious reason that a transwoman marrying a man isn't a same sex transaction.

Until Gender Critical views took root it wasn't seen as having anything to do with accessing spaces. Fifteen years ago when my then colleague Barry was transitioning to become Heather she went in the ladies loo and did what was needed in the privacy of a cubicle. There was no suggestion she should have a GRC in order to do so.

I can decide tomorrow I want to be called Simone. I can dress like a woman and, overtime, learn to behave as society expects a woman to behave. I can be prescribed hormones that will cause me to develop breasts. If I want to have my testes and scrotum removed and my penis turned inside out to become a 'vagina' I can.

In that scenario I'm going to use the female toilets and the female changing room at the gym. I'd do the same even if I still had a willy in my pants.

Unless @AuroraSaab sets her gender police on me for a peek and a feel I'm not likely to be challenged.

 

[icowden]

The historical context i

Yes, I get the need for it historically. I was more interested in whether it is still needed and if so what the actual benefit is.

I can decide tomorrow I want to be called Simone. I can dress like a woman and, overtime, learn to behave as society expects a woman to behave. I can be prescribed hormones that will cause me to develop breasts. If I want to have my testes and scrotum removed and my penis turned inside out to become a 'vagina' I can.
In that scenario I'm going to use the female toilets and the female changing room at the gym. I'd do the same even if I still had a willy in my pants.

Agreed. I wasn't thinking of access to toilets. I have previously agreed with you that it's a bit of a fatuous argument.
I was more thinking that it's likely to be used for legal redress if a transwoman is specifically excluded from a women only facility or group (e.g. rape shelter, Lesbian singles night) where really it shouldn't be.

 

[icowden]

You think that people without a mental health condition but in need of healthcare should all go to a mental health clinic.

The only people who can provide health care for people who wish to change gender are Mental Health Professionals. Where do you think they hang out? Starbucks?

If transwomen don't have a mental health condition but are innately female, why do they need any intervention at all? Surely they are just women with beards and testicles?

We don't provide medical intervention for gay men and women because they don't need it. For some reason, despite not suffering from any mental health condition or disorder, transwomen and men seem to require medical treatment. That being the case, they must have a condition to treat.

 

[icowden]

This person used to be a sex worker. The stuff written in the advert is a lure to attract customers with specific wants. It's how marketing works.

Oh OK. He really hated dressing up as a cheerleader. It's a wonder he could sustain an erection if he wasn't turned on by it. Is that also how marketing works?