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

[Malthus]

That was very insightful Marty.

That's probably why it was ignored in favour of a Pluto hijack.

Well, in the context of this topic, it would probably be in bad taste to have a hijack about Uranus. 

[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.

Actually the point I am making is that decisions based on prevailing societal norms should not be confused with judgments based on science.

How do you know this to be the case?

[Razgovory]

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.

I disagree with the initial definition as you state it, because it ignores behavior that may be illegal or self-destructive.

[grumbler]

Actually, the decision was made after a vote of iirc three options.  Expand the number of planets to include Pluto and other bodies which were discovered to have a greater size, keep the number of planets the same and exclude the larger bodies on some other basis, or drop Pluto.  The vote was not unanimous and continues to be controversial to this day.  There was nothing "scientific" about the decision other than having found larger bodies.  The decision was an arbitrary decision based on what the majority of the people who had a vote decided would be the best way to deal with the issue.  If Pluto had a better PR team the result would likely have been different.  I truly hope I have allowed the currently ignorant to have some relief from their present circumstances.

The scientific debate was about whether there were many thousands of planets in the solar system, or whether Pluto and the other thousand or so like bodies were something other than planets.  The IAU decided that they needed a scientific definition for the word "planet" and developed one.  Pluto  didn't meet this definition.  There are historians and others that argue that there should be a "cultural definition" of the term "Planet" so that Pluto would be included, and Harvard even had a debate as to whether the public and media should follow some cultural or the scientific definition of planet (for the very and sole purpose of allowing geezers and others resistant to change to call Pluto a "planet") and even got the audience to agree.  I believe that they ran out of time before they got around to making pi equal to exactly 3.

There is no scientific controversy over whether Pluto is a planet.  Not one astronomer has asked the IAU to reconsider the definition of "planet."   If Pluto "had a better PR Team" then there would be hundreds, at least, of planets.  No one was really arguing for that.

Now, the status of Pluto could change if we discover more about whether or not it has cleared it vicinity in its orbit, so as to satisfy the definition of a planet, but we won't see scientists arbitrarily deciding that Pluto (and no other, similar body) is a planet.  This decision has been the very opposite of arbitrary, no matter what you recollect.

[frunk]

Now, the status of Pluto could change if we discover more about whether or not it has cleared it vicinity in its orbit, so as to satisfy the definition of a planet, but we won't see scientists arbitrarily deciding that Pluto (and no other, similar body) is a planet.  This decision has been the very opposite of arbitrary, no matter what you recollect.

In fact it was an attempt to take a very arbitrary ad-hoc definition and define it with better parameters, in particular with regards to future usage of the term inside and outside the solar system.

[Malthus]

The bigger definitional mystery is: if Pluto is a dog, what is Goofy? 

[frunk]

The bigger definitional mystery is: if Pluto is a dog, what is Goofy? 

And what's the mental state of the individuals having sex with him?

[Valmy]

That was very insightful Marty.

That's probably why it was ignored in favour of a Pluto hijack.

I just did not appreciate CC's snide remarks on classification.

[Valmy]

Actually, the decision was made after a vote of iirc three options.  Expand the number of planets to include Pluto and other bodies which were discovered to have a greater size, keep the number of planets the same and exclude the larger bodies on some other basis, or drop Pluto.  The vote was not unanimous and continues to be controversial to this day.  There was nothing "scientific" about the decision other than having found larger bodies.  The decision was an arbitrary decision based on what the majority of the people who had a vote decided would be the best way to deal with the issue.  If Pluto had a better PR team the result would likely have been different.  I truly hope I have allowed the currently ignorant to have some relief from their present circumstances.

It sounds like it was decided after a long and careful discussion of professionals. But I guess unless every decision is unanimous it is arbitrary? Where does that put the legal practice?

And classification is not "Scientific" whatever that means but that does not mean it is arbitrary. Definitions are important in any profession.

[crazy canuck]

Actually, the decision was made after a vote of iirc three options.  Expand the number of planets to include Pluto and other bodies which were discovered to have a greater size, keep the number of planets the same and exclude the larger bodies on some other basis, or drop Pluto.  The vote was not unanimous and continues to be controversial to this day.  There was nothing "scientific" about the decision other than having found larger bodies.  The decision was an arbitrary decision based on what the majority of the people who had a vote decided would be the best way to deal with the issue.  If Pluto had a better PR team the result would likely have been different.  I truly hope I have allowed the currently ignorant to have some relief from their present circumstances.

It sounds like it was decided after a long and careful discussion of professionals. But I guess unless every decision is unanimous it is arbitrary? Where does that put the legal practice?

The SCC, at least in Canada.

[crazy canuck]

That was very insightful Marty.

That's probably why it was ignored in favour of a Pluto hijack.

I just did not appreciate CC's snide remarks on classification.

Did I?  Do you think being critical of how a particular classification is made means that one is necessarily critical of all classifications?

[Malthus]

The bigger definitional mystery is: if Pluto is a dog, what is Goofy? 

And what's the mental state of the individuals having sex with him?

Why, just apply the metric developed in this thread:

'Goofysexuality is not a mental illness according to this definition, because Goofysexual 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).'

[crazy canuck]

The bigger definitional mystery is: if Pluto is a dog, what is Goofy? 

And what's the mental state of the individuals having sex with him?

Why, just apply the metric developed in this thread:

'Goofysexuality is not a mental illness according to this definition, because Goofysexual 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).'

The definition of the sexuality of Pluto was fine until Goofy was discovered.  Now we are not sure what to make of Pluto.

[The Brain]

The idea that decisions on nomenclature are science is quaint.

[DGuller]

The bigger definitional mystery is: if Pluto is a dog, what is Goofy? 

And what's the mental state of the individuals having sex with him?

Why, just apply the metric developed in this thread:

'Goofysexuality is not a mental illness according to this definition, because Goofysexual 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).'

That's a very persuasive argument.