Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I do believe gender dysphoria is considered mental illness (you can be diagnosed with it), but it is not disabling in the typical sense.

 Ashiraya wrote:
I do believe gender dysphoria is considered mental illness (you can be diagnosed with it), but it is not disabling in the typical sense.

I thought it used to be, but with the increasing acceptance of transgender individuals, it is no longer considered a mental illness.

 -Shrike- wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:
I do believe gender dysphoria is considered mental illness (you can be diagnosed with it), but it is not disabling in the typical sense.

I thought it used to be, but with the increasing acceptance of transgender individuals, it is no longer considered a mental illness.

It is here, though you can't 'cure' it - only make the best of it.

It is actually good that it is, because that means transpeople get free counseling, sex reassignment surgery, etc.

 Ashiraya wrote:
I do believe gender dysphoria is considered mental illness (you can be diagnosed with it), but it is not disabling in the typical sense.

I agree, that's why I added the brackets. Anyone diagnosed with gender dysphoria (or any other mental illness) is vulnerable socially, and in some cases legally and professionally.

I can't see if Lila Perry has been diagnosed anywhere, but I'd assume that's the case

Crystal-Maze wrote:
You are literally the first person I have met who has a problem with 'cis'; even my mother managed it after the second bottle of wine was opened.

Oh, then hi. I'm the second.

Don't call me cis.

Because you identify as a spinningcommissarkin?

 stanman wrote:
The girls are obviously upset and don't like the idea of a physical male being in their locker room even if he identifies as a she. Girls have a lot of body image issues at that age and are already stressed out enough just dealing with changing in front of other females. I've worked at a women's rehab facility that specialized in eating disorders and in most cases their conditions first began when they were going through puberty and had great difficulties dealing with sharing locker rooms and bathrooms with other female students and it left them traumatized. That's all without dealing with the possible presence of males in those locker rooms.

As males we may not think it's a big deal, "oh they'll need to get over seeing penises, that's just a part of growing up", which incredibly insensitive. Girls who are still in the early stages of discovering their own identity and bodies are often very self conscious and they do not need additional pressures on them. When they are confident and mature enough to explore the male anatomy they should be able to do so at the time of their own choosing and not being subject to it sooner. Additionally there are a lot of women and girls that have endured sexual abuse even at a young age and the presence of a male/penis being forced upon them in a locker room situation where they already feel exposed and vulnerable could have a very traumatic impact. So when people joke "what's the big deal if they see a penis?" they are certainly not looking at things from a females perspective or considering what actual emotional harm it can trigger.

There are a significant number of women and particularly young girls that feel uncomfortable around the male body & penis and would feel threatened by it being in the locker room next to them regardless of if the owner identified as female or not. The male may not have any sexual intention whatsoever but that may not be how the women & girls perceive it. They have every right to a locker room or bath room in which they don't feel threatened in.

I don't feel that it's correct to let one student trample over the privacy rights of hundreds of young girls when he was offered an appropriate gender neutral facility for his needs.

Exactly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 shasolenzabi wrote:
Of course while the Earth was bickering and warring, and quarreling about, well, everything, the giant galactic star goat came and ate it, population and all!

I for one welcome Star Goat.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Crystal-Maze wrote:
You are literally the first person I have met who has a problem with 'cis'; even my mother managed it after the second bottle of wine was opened.

Oh, then hi. I'm the second.

Don't call me cis.

HBMC aint no cissy!

 dogma wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

Yea, I'll wholeheartedly disagree with that, especially as it pertains to teen body image.

I know plenty of adults that have severe issues with body image, sexuality, and taking a mature position on either; often both.

Should have been more clear. I don't disagree with that portion.

I vehemently disagree with the notion that teenagers are more mature than we give them credit for. Maybe on a few singular basis. Maybe. But as a whole? No way.

Indeed. Be around some. Maturity is not their strong suit, nor should it be. They are still growing up.

If we're talking about preventing young women from being forced to deal with body image issues, then shouldn't the argument be that any instance in which they are forced to expose their bodies in front of another person be avoided? The same goes for young men, of course, as they also frequently suffer from body image issues and the sexual assaults triggers that Stanman mentioned.

 dogma wrote:
If we're talking about preventing young women from being forced to deal with body image issues, then shouldn't the argument be that any instance in which they are forced to expose their bodies in front of another person be avoided? The same goes for young men, of course, as they also frequently suffer from body image issues and the sexual assaults triggers that Stanman mentioned.

Yep. The counter-argument is that removing shared locker rooms in favour of individual stalls is expensive, but it is still an ideal to aim for.

No one said the goal was to prevent young anyones from being forced to deal with body issues.

Some folks are arguing that unnecessarily exacerbating those issues by allowing Kid with Penis to shower and change with kids with vaginas is a dumb move. Kid with Penis can shower and change with other kids with penises.

 cincydooley wrote:

I vehemently disagree with the notion that teenagers are more mature than we give them credit for. Maybe on a few singular basis. Maybe. But as a whole? No way.

Don't get me wrong, teenagers are immature. My point is that the maturity gap between teenagers and adults isn't as large as people often believe it to be.

 -Shrike- wrote:

Yep. The counter-argument is that removing shared locker rooms in favour of individual stalls is expensive, but it is still an ideal to aim for.

It wouldn't necessarily be that expensive, as the existing rooms could pretty easily be converted to feature banks of changing stalls. I mean, as it stands, I'm unaware of any US public school which features assigned gym lockers. The real issue, at least in certain districts, would be facilitating the sale of drugs.

Of course the other option is to eliminate P.E.

 dogma wrote:

 -Shrike- wrote:

Yep. The counter-argument is that removing shared locker rooms in favour of individual stalls is expensive, but it is still an ideal to aim for.

The other option is to eliminate P.E.

An excellent suggestion! If only they'd implemented this before I had to suffer through the indiginity of attempting to play sports...

It wouldn't necessarily be that expensive, as the existing rooms could pretty easily be converted to feature banks of changing stalls. I mean, as it stands, I'm unaware of any US school which features assigned gym lockers.

The school I went to over here would have been very difficult to convert, due to the overall size and shape of the changing rooms. On the other hand, changing policy on this would probably result in a turn-around of about 50 years, before the vast majority of schools used individual stalls.

The real issue, at least in certain districts, would be facilitating the sale of drugs.

I'm not sure I follow you on this.

 dogma wrote:


It wouldn't necessarily be that expensive, as the existing rooms could pretty easily be converted to feature banks of changing stalls. I mean, as it stands, I'm unaware of any US public school which features assigned gym lockers.

Every gym locker room I have ever been to in the state of MD has a system with 5 mini lockers next to a 'tall' locker. The mini locker is assigned to a student to keep gym clothes in, the tall one next to it is where you put your stuff during class. This allows 5 students to share a 'large' locker and have an individual small one to keep gym clothes during the week.

And the way civil rights work, is if someone has a 'problem' with people exercising their civil rights they can opt out. Like a white woman scared of black people and doesn't feel 'safe' in an integrated locker room, or a hetero person scared of homosexuals and doesn't feel 'safe' in an integrated locker room, those people can remove themselves from society because in society the law doesn't pander to irrational fears, ignorance or hate to keep the status quo.

Of course it takes a generation or two to expose it... Remember the 90s? remember when parents were storming schools because they heard a kid at the school had AIDS? Remember parents demanding to know the identity of that student and make that student be isolated and not share bathrooms or or play in gym class because they ignorantly thought sharing a toilet seat could give their kid aids? So to make the fearful, ignorant and often hate-filled people feel 'safe' the expectation was to violate student's with AIDS Civil rights and Medical Privacy.

We don't deny people their basic civil rights because some people are fearful, ignorant or hate-filled. People with a problem with it can opt-out without violating anyone's rights.

Thank goodness we have laws protecting people and people like the lady who was thrown out of the gym are shown the door. Sooner we have federal laws protecting citizens, the better.

I do find it hilarious for the people who want 'Junk Checks' and claim 'body images' for girls.

By their ignorant POV, my friend from school would have been forced to use the female's locker room exclusively, even though he was a Boy, who liked girls and looked acted and dressed in all manners like a boy except for his androgen insensitivity syndrome, he had a vagina. He would have been in heaven and by some of your standards, the girls would have had no right to feel 'unsafe' because he had a vagina and couldn't rape them or expose himself to them.

The truth is, people don't want 'junk check', they want all trans people to use the boys locker room. Both to protect 'weaker' girls from fainting due to the vapors as well as allowing the boys to give that trans pervert 'what for', That is why I wholeheartedly disagree with 'junk checks' because it is sexist and intentionally trying to put trans people at further risk for no reason to placate gross ignorance and fight the transpanic boogeyman.

Please define the civil right under the constitution for male high school students have to use the lockers and shower with high school females. I would have been supremely interested in this right when I was a lad.

nkelsch wrote:

The truth is ... they want all trans people to use the boys locker room.

I seriously doubt there is a single post in the multiple pages of this thread to back up your 'truth'. Even if you could find one, it would be an anomaly. I suspect you would have a hard time finding your 'truth' put forth as a position in many places at all. In fact I suspect your 'truth' isn't.

 -Shrike- wrote:

The real issue, at least in certain districts, would be facilitating the sale of drugs.

I'm not sure I follow you on this.

Adjacent stalls with doors greatly ease the ability of students to engage in illicit exchanges. Lots of Chicago area public schools have neither for exactly this reason.

 dogma wrote:

 -Shrike- wrote:

The real issue, at least in certain districts, would be facilitating the sale of drugs.

I'm not sure I follow you on this.

Adjacent stalls with doors greatly ease the ability of students to engage in illicit exchanges. Lots of Chicago area public schools have neither for exactly this reason.

In Chicago's defense, it has way bigger problems than gender issues, like rampant felony crime (yes in the school), a dropout rate that makes Pakistan point and laugh, and inabilty to teach 2+2=4

 Frazzled wrote:
and inabilty to teach 2+2=4

For most values of 2 and 4, naturally.

nkelsch wrote:

The truth is, people don't want 'junk check', they want all trans people to use the boys locker room. Both to protect 'weaker' girls from fainting due to the vapors as well as allowing the boys to give that trans pervert 'what for', That is why I wholeheartedly disagree with 'junk checks' because it is sexist and intentionally trying to put trans people at further risk for no reason to placate gross ignorance and fight the transpanic boogeyman.

GTFO with this nonsense. Your hyperbole is especially ridiculous in this instance.

I do love how you're so willing to trample on the rights of these teenage girls, however.

 cincydooley wrote:

I do love how you're so willing to trample on the rights of these teenage girls, however.

What rights are those?

 dogma wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

I do love how you're so willing to trample on the rights of these teenage girls, however.

What rights are those?

Really?

 Frazzled wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

I do love how you're so willing to trample on the rights of these teenage girls, however.

What rights are those?

Really?

x2

 Ashiraya wrote:
I do believe gender dysphoria is considered mental illness (you can be diagnosed with it), but it is not disabling in the typical sense.

The thing that bothers me most about this is you could be diagnosed with this before puberty, before sexual maturity, before even understanding your own sexuality. With all these nut job parents allowing their kids to cross dress and play with cross gender toys, so as not to put gender labels on them, how many of them just may be confused. Psychiatry is not even close to being a science it more of an art, many of the smartest in the field have made that claim, and there is no norm in which the human mind can be judged. Gender dysphoria is diagnosed as a deviation from a norm.

This is just my opinion, what do I know, its not like my opinion matters in the grand scheme of things.

 Rune Stonegrinder wrote:
nut job parents allowing their kids to cross dress

Are parents 'nut jobs' for allowing their kids to clothe themselves in the way they desire?

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Rune Stonegrinder wrote:
nut job parents allowing their kids to cross dress

Are parents 'nut jobs' for allowing their kids to clothe themselves in the way they desire?

Of course. All children should be wearing proper OSHA approved miner's uniforms. You have to protect those kids when they go to the mines at 8. Safety first!

I know I have often discouraged inappropriate (to the situation/function/place) clothing for my kids (both Son1 and Son2 and now daughter). And I do think parents SHOULD do so.

Ashiraya wrote:

 Rune Stonegrinder wrote:
nut job parents allowing their kids to cross dress

Are parents 'nut jobs' for allowing their kids to clothe themselves in the way they desire?

Yes.

CptJake wrote:I know I have often discouraged inappropriate (to the situation/function/place) clothing for my kids (both Son1 and Son2 and now daughter). And I do think parents SHOULD do so.

Agreed.

When parents don't enforce any discipline they end up like one of my ex's...

I can only thank feth neither of you were one of my parents.