Dept of Education declares that school must allow boy to shower with girls

[garbon]

I would also take issue with the concept that a married couple bringing up children in a loving and caring home is "vanilla". It is sufficiently rare nowadays to count at least as "strawberry" or possibly even "raspberry ripple".

That sounds rather fruity.

[Razgovory]

tectonic movement.  When the theory was first presented, it was accepted. Then it became ridiculed.  And now, we accept it as scientifical facts.
Take nutrition science.  Fat was good once.  Then it's been bad.  Today, we're told eating fat ain't that bad and when you stop ingesting it you won't lose weight unless you reduce your calory count too.  Science is often back&forth, depending on the studies. 

Okay, I stopped here.  You aren't describing nutritional science you are describing popular trends on daytime TV shows.

[viper37]

tectonic movement.  When the theory was first presented, it was accepted. Then it became ridiculed.  And now, we accept it as scientifical facts.
Take nutrition science.  Fat was good once.  Then it's been bad.  Today, we're told eating fat ain't that bad and when you stop ingesting it you won't lose weight unless you reduce your calory count too.  Science is often back&forth, depending on the studies. 

Okay, I stopped here.  You aren't describing nutritional science you are describing popular trends on daytime TV shows.

nope.  I am describing nutritional science.  And we could talk about the glutten scare too.

[Razgovory]

Yeah, that's daytime TV.  Actually doctors of Nutritional Science are not shifted so wildly because of fad diets.

[The Brain]

I will observe that deciding if something is an illness or not is about as much about science as deciding if Pluto is a planet or not.

[Razgovory]

I will observe that deciding if something is an illness or not is about as much about science as deciding if Pluto is a planet or not.

What is it about then?

[crazy canuck]

I will observe that deciding if something is an illness or not is about as much about science as deciding if Pluto is a planet or not.

What is it about then?

Rather arbitrary categorization based on the biases of the group doing the categorizing.

[The Brain]

I will observe that deciding if something is an illness or not is about as much about science as deciding if Pluto is a planet or not.

What is it about then?

Playing with the meaning of the word illness.

[Razgovory]

I will observe that deciding if something is an illness or not is about as much about science as deciding if Pluto is a planet or not.

What is it about then?

Rather arbitrary categorization based on the biases of the group doing the categorizing.

Preferred situation?

[Valmy]

I will observe that deciding if something is an illness or not is about as much about science as deciding if Pluto is a planet or not.

What is it about then?

Rather arbitrary categorization based on the biases of the group doing the categorizing.

You make the simple act of classifying items based on similar characteristics sound so sinister. What kind of insidious bias made people group dogs and wolves as related animals?

[Razgovory]

CC presumes a result he doesn't like is due to bias.  There is a view point that the job of science is bring bring equity and goodness to mankind and is essentially "progressive".  I don't take this view.  I see science as providing facts.  Some facts may not be want we want to know.  Some facts could be dangerous.  What if someone were to demonstrate scientifically that one ethnic group has a stronger tendency toward violence then others.  Or that people who are decended from one place are statistically more likely to be less intelligent then average?  How would people react to this information?  How would governments or employers?  We stopped racial sciences after WWII not because there was some landmark study that deduced that all people are equal and nothing can prove otherwise.  We stopped because work in that area can be dangerous.  Sometimes its better not to know.

[LaCroix]

mental illness is a term used for a mental problem. what's the problem with homosexuality? nothing, so it's not a mental illness. for the same reason, we don't claim introverts have a mental illness.

[Martinus]

I generally think an eudaimonistic (?) approach to mental illnesses is the correct one - the question you want to ask is whether the individual having some trait or condition is capable, in the absence of outside intervention, of being happy (and, obviously, in a way that does not make him a threat to others).

Homosexuality is not a mental illness according to this definition, because homosexual individuals do not require medical or surgical intervention to live a happy life (and any mental problems they have are caused by prejudice and discrimination of those around them).

With transgenderism the situation is more tricky. If a transgendered person is the kind of person that does not require a gender reassignment surgery to be happy (for example, they are a transvestite - including in a non-erotic way - and identify with the gender different from their biological one) then I would say it is not a mental illness by that definition; if they do, I would say it is a mental illness but it stops being one after the surgery because surgery effectively removes the distress indefinitely.

Now, there may be also a third category of people who think they want a surgery but are not happy afterwards - here the mental illness remains. I think the biggest challenge is to differentiate between the three groups and this is the job for the psychologists.

[Martinus]

Besides, in psychology and psychiatry there is probably a selection bias towards pathology because most psychologists and psychiatrists tend to deal with individuals who express various traits and conditions in a pathological way.

It's like when people who work in the criminal justice system tend to see other people as potential criminals.

[Valmy]

That was very insightful Marty.