Page 10 of 14 First ... 67891011121314 Last
  1. #91

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Vancouver
    Posts
    875
    Style
    Western Boxing, Tai Chi
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Permalost View Post
    psychological or neurological aside, is it really right to call it a disorder?
    I don't know. Is it right to call someone "fat"? Is it right to say anything to anyone that would cause them emotional stress or discomfort? Essentially, we're walking into a political minefield here that will make somebody unhappy, no matter how we describe the phenomenon.

    What shouldn't be sacrificed is good, hard-nosed science. Once we sacrifice our scientific objectivity, the science itself becomes suspect. That's how I feel about this topic.

  2. #92
    It is Fake's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    34,688
    Style
    xingyi
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by atomicpoet View Post

    What shouldn't be sacrificed is good, hard-nosed science. Once we sacrifice our scientific objectivity, the science itself becomes suspect. That's how I feel about this topic.
    Please tell me you didn't mean for this to sound so hard-lined.

    Please understand that the "science of the mind" is not hard-nosed and is constantly up for debate because it is so subjective.

  3. #93
    Permalost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    13,839
    Style
    street paddleboarding
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by atomicpoet View Post
    I don't know. Is it right to call someone "fat"?
    As a medical diagnosis? I don't think so.

  4. #94

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Vancouver
    Posts
    875
    Style
    Western Boxing, Tai Chi
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by It is Fake View Post
    Please tell me you didn't mean for this to sound so hard-lined.

    Please understand that the "science of the mind" is not hard-nosed and is constantly up for debate because it is so subjective.
    Science should always have some basis in empirical evidence -- otherwise it's just conjecture.

    Admittedly, there should be debate -- but the debate should be amongst qualified professionals who support themselves with solid empirical evidence.

    If someone's objection to the word "disorder" is that it hurts somebody's feelings, swapping that word for another will do the same thing. After all, what is always important is the intent behind the word, not the word itself.

  5. #95

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Vancouver
    Posts
    875
    Style
    Western Boxing, Tai Chi
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Permalost
    As a medical diagnosis? I don't think so.
    Okay, swap the word out for "obese". Ultimately, the intent is the same. Does that mean doctors should be sued because they hurt their patient's feelings?

  6. #96
    It is Fake's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    34,688
    Style
    xingyi
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by atomicpoet View Post
    Science should always have some basis in empirical evidence -- otherwise it's just conjecture.
    ....and some hypotheses start with....conjecture. The debate has to start somewhere.

    Admittedly, there should be debate -- but the debate should be amongst qualified professionals who support themselves with solid empirical evidence.
    I wow......Deep breaths dude deep breaths.

  7. #97
    Permalost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    13,839
    Style
    street paddleboarding
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by atomicpoet View Post
    If someone's objection to the word "disorder" is that it hurts somebody's feelings, swapping that word for another will do the same thing. After all, what is always important is the intent behind the word, not the word itself.
    My objection to the word was not explained in any way. It was asked as a question, so the part where you explain the objection as "it hurts somebody's feelings" was inferred by you. Which is ironic, given that you're Mr Objective Science.

    Quote Originally Posted by atomicpoet View Post
    Okay, swap the word out for "obese". Ultimately, the intent is the same. Does that mean doctors should be sued because they hurt their patient's feelings?
    No, of course not. But is the intent really the same? If I'm a doctor, and I say:
    "Mr Johnson, your tests show that you're obese", vs

    "Mr Johnson, you're fat."

    The meaning is the thing that's basically the same, it's the intent that is different, isn't it?

  8. #98

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Vancouver
    Posts
    875
    Style
    Western Boxing, Tai Chi
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Permalost View Post
    My objection to the word was not explained in any way. It was asked as a question, so the part where you explain the objection as "it hurts somebody's feelings" was inferred by you. Which is ironic, given that you're Mr Objective Science.
    I was using the objection as an example -- and it's a good example.

    "Mentally retarded" used to be a perfectly good medical term, but because of social stigma, we gravitated to "mentally handicapped". When that term was deemed offensive, "developmentally disabled" became the go-to term.

    In the end, we're merely swapping out words for a few good years of emotional sensitivity. It doesn't take away from the fact that those terms describe a psychological and medical phenomena.

    Quote Originally Posted by Permalost View Post
    No, of course not. But is the intent really the same? If I'm a doctor, and I say:
    "Mr Johnson, your tests show that you're obese", vs

    "Mr Johnson, you're fat."

    The meaning is the thing that's basically the same, it's the intent that is different, isn't it?
    It's situational. When I use those words, am I using mocking tones? Or am I using the best terms to describe to the patient the diagnosis?

    What good is saying, "Mr Johnson, your tests show that you're obese" if Mr Johnson's reply is, "What does obese mean?"

    The important matter is communication. What a doctor may say to a patient is often different from what may be communicated to a fellow medical professional. It's the difference between "fracture" and "broken bone".

  9. #99
    Rivington's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    East Bay, CA
    Posts
    4,808
    Style
    Taijiquan
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    I diagnose atomicpoet with Textual Analysis Disorder. He did the same thing in the thread containing the discussion of Mormonism and whether it is appropriate to group it under Christian sects.

    AP—you're never going to be taken seriously if all you do is point to some text and insist that it is entirely authoritative. Especially, if you get it wrong: DSM IV is silent on the putative causes of transgenderism. After all, DSM is a diagnostic listing of behaviors and attitudes—even the listings for neurodevelopmental disorders such as ADHD don't get into etiology, but just describe behaviors. Ditto the neurocognitive disorders to be added to DSM V. Simpler: the existence of a DSM entry doesn't mean that a disorder is psychological and not neurological. The DSM isn't a reference for that sort of thing.

    As far as the fuming that someone who disagrees with AP's idiotic overreading of the DSM should go get an advanced degree, never fear, other people have been at it already—both "hard-nosed" scientists and activists. The proposed revision for DSM V is here, and does remove the word disorder:

    http://www.dsm5.org/proposedrevision...Dysphoria.aspx

    Further, despite AP's absolutism, experts interested in the issue do actually take notes from the trans community and appreciate cooperation and input from the same:

    http://www.gidreform.org/
    Last edited by Rivington; 8/05/2011 6:22pm at .

  10. #100
    Rivington's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    East Bay, CA
    Posts
    4,808
    Style
    Taijiquan
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by atomicpoet View Post
    I was using the objection as an example -- and it's a good example.

    "Mentally retarded" used to be a perfectly good medical term, but because of social stigma, we gravitated to "mentally handicapped". When that term was deemed offensive, "developmentally disabled" became the go-to term.
    Yeah, you don't know what you're talking about. Developmental disability is not synonymous with retardation—e.g., autism spectrum disorders are DDs but not generally retardation.

    The term of art today is "person with retardation" to describe, well, people like you. We also just say MR (for mental retardation). Because you're not only your gaping idiocy, you're lots of other things as well!

Page 10 of 14 First ... 67891011121314 Last

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Log in

Log in
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO