News:

IGI has a myspace page.  Please add us if you're a myspace fiend!

Main Menu

LGBT+ A Mental Condition?

Started by Augusto, July 05, 2022, 10:21:37 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Augusto

Some people are claiming that transexual people are mentally ill based in some statistics regarding suicide rates. The compulsion of wanting to cut your own limb (xenomelia) is often used as a comparison. The argument made a lot of sense to me, but after looking at some stats, it is also the case that male and female homosexuals also have an alarming suicidal rate (about 4 times more likely than straight ones). Then again, my first thought was that there could be a correlation between bullying and social rejection that would account for these alarming numbers, but as it turns out, white people are considerably more likely to commit suicide than black people. This pretty much seems to indicate that rejection alone cannot be linked to these statistics.

I looked it up and found this piece of document. I know it's kind of long, but it is important that people who want to reply are familiar with the arguments in order to offer a reply:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4771012/

Now, the author speaks about homosexuality being declassified as a mental illness was arbitrary and that the people behind it had an agenda. I do not know if the article itself was written by someone who also had an agenda, but I can tell you guys that I do not. I am just interested in facts.

As far as all these sexual traits were related to mental illnesses, or should be considered a disease, I also found there is a correlation between autism and any of the LGBT+ identities. If there is some weight to this, it seems to me that these people should be aiming at normalizing mental conditions in general, rather than sexual orientations. I, myself, am within the autistic spectrum, just like my son, and rather than being ashamed of it, I am proud. To conclude, it seems like if this is true, or even if the suicide stats alone are true, whatever the causes, LGBT+ children and adolescents (probably even adults as well) should be aware of this, parents of LGBT+ children should also be aware, and antidepressants plus good care from family should be inforced.

Any help to deepen on this topic is appreciated.

kevin

dare to know.

Augusto

Hello Kevin. It's been a while!  ||tip hat||

8livesleft

#3
There's strong evidence for homosexuality being hereditary and the fact that it exists in many animal species means that it is at least natural. And this is a valid basis for its declassification in the DSM.

As for the negative effects, well it is unfortunately a cause for distress in some individuals either in trying to hide/suppress it or in a lack of acceptance from friends and loved ones. And it's this distress that's in the DSM, called Gender Dysphoria.

There's really no "cure" so it's all about acceptance, coping and building a healthy support system so individuals can go on with their lives.






Augusto

1. There are hereditary diseases.
2. There is canibalism among non-human species and it's a behavior well atested in humans through many cultures.

These two examples show that you did not read the paper, because those arguments were countered in there with these and many other straightforward logical examples.

I will take into account your argument as a possible cause for the suicidal rates. This, however, doesn't mean, by any stretch of imagination, that this is in fact the truth. It would take some actual research to determine that.

3. There is also no cure for many other diseases, including mental ones.

I was not aware of the suicidal rate and, of course, I feel compassion towards them in general. However, I think many LGBT+ people and their families are not aware of this situation. Whatever the causes are, this is something very important and right now it's not part of the discussion, when (in my opinion) it should be right at the center. The problem, it seems, lays within the prejudice against mental "particularities", something people often try to hide, and I find that also a problem related with self-acceptance. I mean, even if someone is LGBT+, and this person feels good, not depressed and so on, they should be conscious that this situation is commonplace and should take certain steps to stay away from depression, have access to information and organizations that offer emotional support in times of need.

Kiahanie

#5
The major mental condition affecting the LGBTQ+ community is the mental condition that causes so many people to think "normal" means exclusionary.
"If there were a little more silence, if we all kept quiet ... maybe we could understand something." --Federico Fellini....."Silence is the language of God, all else is poor translation" -Jellaludin Rumi,

Augusto

Off topic, uncalled virtue signalling. Yes, I remember you. Helli.

I wonder if the replies I've got so far are representative of what I can hope to get. Is there anyone here willing to read, then think, then make an educated post without displaying fear, hate or ego while doing so?

Just try to contribute with something worth reading.

8livesleft

Quote1. There are hereditary diseases.


Are you saying homosexuality is better treated as a disease rather than a trait? 

Quote2. There is canibalism among non-human species and it's a behavior well atested in humans through many cultures.

Cannibalism is a learned behavior, it can be taught to anyone regardless of trait so it's not the same as homosexuality, for which there is evidence of being born with the tendency. 


Shnozzola

#8
So it seems Kinney is saying homosexuality may indeed be a mental disorder.

My niece had problems at birth from my sister's hypoglycemic pregnancy.  She overcame things with surgeries,  but in college she had a sudden wild schizophrenic episode that has necessitated medicine since.  Johns Hopkins has helped all along with her problems, wondering if this brain "malfunction" is an unresearched symptom of my sister's gestational problem.

So medicine has basically kept her from suicide, due to the wild schizophrenia and then depression.  Let's say homosexuality IS a mental disorder. 

What would be the reason(s) to prevent it with medicine?  Is the suicide rate with homosexuality due to family/societal rejection, or possibly mental problems that then should be cured?

I also just had a conversation with 2 conservative religious folks about a family member that has come out, and how they've tried all sorts of things with the individual (minister, psychiatric help, a state trooper-good-talking-to, etc), because, in these folk's minds, this homosexuality is just unacceptable.  I still don't think we can underestimate the harm that view does to a homosexual family member, even if the problem is ONLY a mental one.

Thinking there must also be a large amount of data showing it isn't a mental problem.  Sort of like the group of scientists that claim humanity is not at all responsible for climate change, while a large part of the scientific community views data that says it is.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4545255/

https://www.science.org/content/article/homosexuality-may-be-caused-chemical-modifications-dna

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02312-0

Maybe Mooby will notice this thread and offer a physician's medical view.
Ironically, the myriad  of "god" beliefs of humanity are proving to be more dangerous than us learning that we are on our own, making the way we treat each other far more important

Kiahanie

Quote from: Kiahanie on July 05, 2022, 10:22:16 PMThe major mental condition affecting the LGBTQ+ community is the mental condition that causes so many people to think "normal" means exclusionary.
Quote from: Augusto on July 06, 2022, 12:11:55 AMOff topic, uncalled virtue signalling. Yes, I remember you. Helli.
••••

Easy does it Augusto. I am not here to argue with you. I was just providing an alternate framework for discussing the question in the OP.

Having read the summaries of that paper, I find my post pretty responsive.
"If there were a little more silence, if we all kept quiet ... maybe we could understand something." --Federico Fellini....."Silence is the language of God, all else is poor translation" -Jellaludin Rumi,

8livesleft

#10
Quote from: Shnozzola on July 06, 2022, 01:06:15 AMSo it seems Kinney is saying homosexuality may indeed be a mental disorder.

My niece had problems at birth from my sister's hypoglycemic pregnancy.  She overcame things with surgeries,  but in college she had a sudden wild schizophrenic episode that has necessitated medicine since.  Johns Hopkins has helped all along with her problems, wondering if this brain "malfunction" is an unresearched symptom of my sister's gestational problem.

So medicine has basically kept her from suicide, due to the wild schizophrenia and then depression.  Let's say homosexuality IS a mental disorder. 

What would be the reason(s) to prevent it with medicine?  Is the suicide rate with homosexuality due to family/societal rejection, or possibly mental problems that then should be cured?

I also just had a conversation with 2 conservative religious folks about a family member that has come out, and how they've tried all sorts of things with the individual (minister, psychiatric help, a state trooper-good-talking-to, etc), because, in these folk's minds, this homosexuality is just unacceptable.  I still don't think we can underestimate the harm that view does to a homosexual family member, even if the problem is ONLY a mental one.

Thinking there must also be a large amount of data showing it isn't a mental problem.  Sort of like the group of scientists that claim humanity is not at all responsible for climate change, while a large part of the scientific community views data that says it is.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4545255/

https://www.science.org/content/article/homosexuality-may-be-caused-chemical-modifications-dna

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02312-0

Maybe Mooby will notice this thread and offer a physician's medical view.

The way I understand it, for something to be considered a mental disorder it must cause or already have any of these: distress, deviance, dysfunction and danger.

For something to be called a disease, it must have some adverse effect to both the individual and group they belong to.

So, take for example alcohol consumption, if consumption results in those 4 things then it will be elevated to disease/disorder.

Looking at homosexuality, in many cases, it doesn't reach to the point of those 4 D's, except maybe deviance - which in my opinion is mainly based on cultural norms on gender roles. In countries where roles aren't as strictly defined, it is more accepted, and thus rarely gets to the point of it meeting the 4D's.

In other words, if homosexuality was accepted by the community, then most likely there will be no issue and the person can live a normal life.

Of course, it's also possible for there to be community acceptance but there's still distress or maybe even danger when the individual wants a transformation and can't attain it for one reason or another.

Shnozzola

+1 for this:

In other words, if homosexuality was accepted by the community, then most likely there will be no issue and the person can live normal lives.

I agree.
Ironically, the myriad  of "god" beliefs of humanity are proving to be more dangerous than us learning that we are on our own, making the way we treat each other far more important

8livesleft

#12
Quote from: Shnozzola on July 06, 2022, 02:00:19 AM+1 for this:

In other words, if homosexuality was accepted by the community, then most likely there will be no issue and the person can live normal lives.

I agree.

Right, but also there are cases where there is acceptance but the person wants a specific transformation that's unattainable and they either get depressed for not getting it or end up having multiple unending surgeries - which is a whole different disorder

But it is again an issue of acceptance. Appearance standards are also cultural.

Shnozzola

#13
Also, it seems Robert Kinney certainly brings along his philosophy.  (I was hoping his bio listed him as a lifelong atheist that is just questioning,  but no...)
Ironically, the myriad  of "god" beliefs of humanity are proving to be more dangerous than us learning that we are on our own, making the way we treat each other far more important

8livesleft

Quote from: Shnozzola on July 06, 2022, 02:14:13 AMAlso, it seems Robert Kinney certainly brings along his philosophy.  (I was hoping his bio listed him as a lifelong atheist that is just questioning,  but no...)

His bias is definitely clear. Citing cannibalism and even serial killing. 

Augusto

8livesleft:

Why don't you go ahead and read the paper? You seem interested in the topic...

Psychopaths do not suffer distress. They can also be socially functional and a lot of them never kill people. The criteria to classify mental disorders is being questioned in the paper as well.

TO CONSIDER: Due to the overwhelming ammount of propaganda, couldn't it be the case that some/most/all? of you are already conditioned to question something that challenges the stablished view? It seems more likely, considering that so far there is like zero interest in reading the article while at the same time efforts are being made to dismiss it. I don't know if some of you have some kind of formation, but this is an unethical approach. This is not how truth is being found. This is how it gets buried. Still, if this was the case, a disease is being spread... to children. So...

As for transexuals, it looks like the suicidal rates actually INCREASE after surgery.

Augusto

As for the author, I don't know wether he has some agenda or not, but the people who declassified homosexuality as a mental illness clearly DO. They were all gays and anyone can see that their criteria doesn't hold on to any standart of reason or logic.

I must insist we do not take this to individuals. If we want to get somewhere, we need to examine the ARGUMENTS on both sides. After that, we will need to discuss the dysphoria (I think that's the word), depression and suicidal behavior issue, because that, to me, is the central thing to discuss (rather than the anal sex fixation).

I don't know about you guys, but I think this is probably one of the most important topics to discuss right now. It does matter, and it deserves serious consideration, if anything, because each one of us have a family, gay or not, and we all have been dragged into this mess.

8livesleft

#17
Quote from: Augusto on July 06, 2022, 02:37:55 AM8livesleft:

Why don't you go ahead and read the paper? You seem interested in the topic...

Psychopaths do not suffer distress. They can also be socially functional and a lot of them never kill people. The criteria to classify mental disorders is being questioned in the paper as well.

TO CONSIDER: Due to the overwhelming ammount of propaganda, couldn't it be the case that some/most/all? of you are already conditioned to question something that challenges the stablished view? It seems more likely, considering that so far there is like zero interest in reading the article while at the same time efforts are being made to dismiss it. I don't know if some of you have some kind of formation, but this is an unethical approach. This is not how truth is being found. This is how it gets buried. Still, if this was the case, a disease is being spread... to children. So...

As for transexuals, it looks like the suicidal rates actually INCREASE after surgery.

I disagree with the author's premise.

He cites cannibalism, for example, which is a learned behavior. Nobody is born with a tendency to cannibalize under normal circumstances.

You cite psychopathology and indeed, there are cases where it doesn't cause any harm so there is no issue to discuss here.

And regarding the "established view," homosexuality was once considered both a disease/disorder/sin and is still considered as such in more traditional cultures, so how is it that we're the one's who are dismissing modern thought?









8livesleft

QuoteAs for the author, I don't know wether he has some agenda or not


Of course he does. 

https://www.hprweb.com/author/robert-l-kinney-iii/

He's a pharmacist and appears to be a pastor or if not, is clearly religiously biased. 

Augusto

Quote from: 8livesleft on July 06, 2022, 02:52:32 AMI disagree with the author's premise.

And that's why you won't read the reasoning he offers to justify it? So, basically, whenever you find something that goes against your preconceptions, you just dismiss it? That may be fine for you, but not for me or anyone who cares about facts.

Quote from: 8livesleft on July 06, 2022, 02:52:32 AMHe cites cannibalism, for example, which is a learned behavior. Nobody is born with a tendency to cannibalize under normal circumstances.

Cannibalism does not occur only as a result of extreme food shortage or of artificial/unnatural conditions, but may also occur under natural conditions in a variety of species.

Quote from: 8livesleft on July 06, 2022, 02:52:32 AMYou cite psychopathology and indeed, there are cases where it doesn't cause any harm so there is no issue to discuss here.

That example alone breaks apart the whole criteria used for mental conditions. If you find nothing to discuss there, perhaps you should just leave, as you don't seem to be willing to participate in an honest conversation.

Quote from: 8livesleft on July 06, 2022, 02:52:32 AMAnd regarding the "established view," homosexuality was once considered both a disease/disorder/sin and is still considered as such in more traditional cultures, so how is it that we're the one's who are dismissing modern thought when in fact you appear to be the only one doing so.

It looks like you're not even reading what I write at this point. I did not say what you say I did. If this is becoming personal for you, and you feel a compulsory desire to spamm whatever comes to your mind, just to silence what is perceived as an unconfortable argument, perhaps you should take a break from this. I said it is more likely that most people here are already convinced/brainwashed by neverending woke propaganda. If this is the case, you have absorbed a dogma. You believe it to be GOOD and you will soon start seeing me as BAD. This ends in drama, name callings and so forth when people don't know the rudiments of civil discussion and are unfamiliar with simple requirements to follow a logical exchange of ideas, or... just don't want to be honest or logical, but rather to impose and silence disidence, which is antidemocratic and dogmatic.

I am also seeing the old tired strategy of exchanging likes. Guys, do you seriously don't understand that none of that makes any difference?

Oh well, I guess I am going to stay away from this discussion for a little while. I will come back later and see if there is anything worth reading.

I lost the count of how many times I've been dissapointed by bullying and dishonest approaches like this. Still, this forum have been useful, at times. I came here wanting to gain clarity and all I'm getting so far is a headache.

IF YOU CAN'T CONTRIBUTE, BELIEVE WHAT YOU WANT, BUT DON'T SPAMM YOUR MINDLESS NONSENSE!









[/quote]

Mr. Blackwell

Quote from: Augusto on July 06, 2022, 12:11:55 AMI wonder if the replies I've got so far are representative of what I can hope to get. Is there anyone here willing to read, then think, then make an educated post without displaying fear, hate or ego while doing so?

Give me a minute. I just stumbled across this and it's bed time for me.
At this time the answer is not no. The question is why?

Kiahanie

Quote from: 8livesleft on July 06, 2022, 01:57:50 AM••••
In other words, if homosexuality was accepted by the community, then most likely there will be no issue and the person can live a normal life.
••••

Yup.+1
"If there were a little more silence, if we all kept quiet ... maybe we could understand something." --Federico Fellini....."Silence is the language of God, all else is poor translation" -Jellaludin Rumi,

8livesleft

#22
QuoteAnd that's why you won't read the reasoning he offers to justify it?


What makes you think I didn't read it? I disagree precisely because I did.

QuoteCannibalism does not occur only as a result of extreme food shortage or of artificial/unnatural conditions, but may also occur under natural conditions in a variety of species.


What I'm saying is that for humans - under normal conditions - cannibalism is a learned behavior. Humans are not naturally predisposed to it.

QuoteThat example alone breaks apart the whole criteria used for mental conditions.


No it doesn't. The criteria is based on the premise of how much harm/distress/discomfort/danger etc....a condition may cause. So, if a condition doesn't cause any of that then there shouldn't be an issue.

Going back to homosexuality, if no harm is being caused, then what is the issue?

QuoteI did not say what you say I did. If this is becoming personal for you, and you feel a compulsory desire to spamm whatever comes to your mind, just to silence what is perceived as an unconfortable argument, perhaps you should take a break from this. I said it is more likely that most people here are already convinced/brainwashed by neverending woke propaganda


So, my disagreement automatically makes me brainwashed?

Maybe you're the one getting uncomfortable here.

QuoteIf this is the case, you have absorbed a dogma.


And you don't see yourself absorbing the church's dogma in this case? What institutions do you think are pushing this anti-gay agenda?






Shnozzola

#24
^^^ good unbiased science for open minded people.  I liked the article, so I gave you a "like" for linking it, even though it seems Augusto is against likes as pointless.  Thanks 8. (Edit:  it's interesting, searching for research,  how many links are from religious sites.  You can see why culturally, homophobia is hard to move on from)
Ironically, the myriad  of "god" beliefs of humanity are proving to be more dangerous than us learning that we are on our own, making the way we treat each other far more important

8livesleft

Quote from: Shnozzola on July 06, 2022, 01:04:39 PM^^^ good unbiased science for open minded people.  I liked the article, so I gave you a "like" for linking it, even though it seems Augusto is against likes as pointless.  Thanks 8. (Edit:  it's interesting, searching for research,  how many links are from religious sites.  You can see why culturally, homophobia is hard to move on from)

Yes! In my country we're somewhat split with this topic  on the one hand religious traditionalists: homosexuality is an unnatural sin but then at the same time, some of their relatives and best friends are gay. 

I think what sort of bridges the two opposing things is the fact that our culture is matriarchal. The strong mother/grandmother figure, absentee/dead/meek father/grandfather is a common theme here. That's why the virgin mary is probably just as important a figure here as Jesus. 

Generally tho, what they don't seem to like is that gayness is being "celebrated" in the media. 

Easy solution of course. Change the channel. 


Kiahanie

Quote from: Augusto on July 06, 2022, 03:14:42 AM••••
Oh well, I guess I am going to stay away from this discussion for a little while. I will come back later and see if there is anything worth reading.
••••

The link posted by 8lives and commended by Schnozzola is definitely worth reading. Your response would have been interesting, a contribution to the discussion. Maybe when you come back you will have something to say about it.

Here's the link again:
https://theconversation.com/stop-calling-it-a-choice-biological-factors-drive-homosexuality-122764
"If there were a little more silence, if we all kept quiet ... maybe we could understand something." --Federico Fellini....."Silence is the language of God, all else is poor translation" -Jellaludin Rumi,

Mooby the Golden Sock

#27
Hi, Augusto!  Welcome back!

I'm actually going to reply to the article and the OP in separate posts, because I have slightly different thoughts on both.

First, the article:

It's bad, and it reflects very poorly on the journal that published it.

To start, the author complains that an LGBTQ task force that gave recommendations to the APA was made up of LGBTQ psychologists, and suggests that these recommendations may be suspect because they could represent a conflict of interest.  However, he is a Catholic non-psychologist, non-psychiatrist publishing in a Catholic journal.  So if we accept his premise that we should take recommendations from a panel of experts made to a parent organization without an ideological stake in the position with a grain of salt because they may themselves have a personal stake, then we most certainly must take the recommendations from a non-expert to a parent organization that has a very clear ideological stake in the position and who himself likely shares their ideological position with an even more massive grain of salt.  So if we fully accept his premise, we should likely stop reading the rest of his article.  Not off to a good start.

He then goes on to cite heavily from the APA Report on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses
to Sexual Orientation.
  He cites exclusively from the introduction section and the history sections, which are journalistic summaries of what led to the current study of sexual orientation.  He then ignores the following 60 pages of the actual review of evidence.  His argument is essentially, "Hey, they promised to give a scientific review, but this line in the fluff section is clearly fluff!"  Yeah, because he cited only the fluff section.

At two different points in his article he makes a bald assertion and uses "common sense" as his only supporting evidence to back it up, and at 7 points he just says the APA's arguments are absurd without actually providing a counterargument.  So a large portion of his arguments boil down to, "You say reality is x, but I feel like it should be y, so you should agree with me."

Then we get to the part where he tries to tear down the concept of adjustment as a criterion for a large swath of psychiatric disorders, which is pretty self-defeating because he's simultaneously trying to say that the criteria themselves are bad while arguing that homosexuality should meet the criteria.  If it's true that the APA's methods of classifying disorders is bad, then it's self-defeating to try to get them to reclassify a disorder, since if we accept his argument we can't trust the result.

After that, he tries to equivocate psychiatric diagnostic criteria to physical organ dysfunction, and prop up a pretty weak premise about the proper function of organs, only to try and spin it into some sideways argument about the proper function of sperm.  I'm going to ignore the medical aspect because, as a doctor, I'm content to say that it's stupid and he clearly has no idea how my job actually works.  I get to say that because I went to work today and did my job, and it was nothing like he described.  We don't sit around trying to construct logical gotchas to put on the patient's chart: we do real, actual medicine, not the pretend medicine in his head.

Instead, I'll address the logical content of the argument: if we accept his argument as true, we must also consider that fingers clearly did not evolve to type, since the existence of fingers appeared far before the existence of typewriters, and indeed before any known writing.  From this, we must then conclude that if he fully accepted his own premise, then he would not have used his fingers unnaturally to write his article in the first place, and it would therefore not be available for us to read.  Thus, the existence of his article proves that he agrees that at least one valid exception exists to his argument, and if one valid exception exists then other valid exceptions may exist. Thus, he now has the additional onus of proving that the use of semen for purposes other than his claimed intended purpose is not a valid second exception before we can even consider the argument.

Throughout, he tries to compare homosexuality to psychiatric and non-psychiatric disorders, as if there is some sort of gotcha here.  But that's not how disease works.  We don't say, "Oh, we've had too many SARS viruses, that's not fair to polioviruses, so COVID-19 is a poliovirus now."  Things are what they are, regardless of what other things may exist alongside them.  At no point does he offer any real evidence at all that homosexuality itself is a disease.  Even if we somehow disregarded all his other very poor logic and accept his basic premise that the APA hasn't in any way proven homosexuality is not a disease, at no point does that ever prove it is.  The default is not, "Everything is a disease," the default is that you don't call something a disease until you know it is.

Lastly, this whole article smacks of someone complaining about a tool he doesn't use, is not trained to use, and isn't qualified to use to a group that defines the tools they use to do their jobs.  Imagine if someone who has never picked up a tool in their life wrote an impassioned article on why screws should actually be called nails and implored contractors to hit them with hammers.  Would they say, "Wow, you've really given me something to think about, I should really reevaluate what tools I use on this object from now on," or would they say, "No, you're an idiot, this is a screw and the fact that you're suggesting I use anything other than a screwdriver shows you have no idea at all what you're talking about?" 

The article is bad and accomplishes nothing other than exposing the author's own ignorance.
History shows again and again how nature points out the folly of man.--BÖC

Mooby the Golden Sock

#28
Now my reply to the OP:

500 years ago, it was generally accepted that the Earth was the center of the universe, and the sun revolved around the Earth (geocentric model.)  Then, Copernicus and Galileo came along, and proposed an alternate model that the Earth actually revolves around the sun (heliocentric model.)  This caused a huge fuss because the new science conflicted with established theological ideology, which caused a huge pushback from the Catholic Church.  Who was right?

Ultimately, both were. As it turns out, the sun and the Earth's positions are relative.  You can set your reference point on the sun, and model out the solar system based on that.  Or you can set your reference point on the Earth, and model everything out as it rotates around that point on the Earth.  Or you can set your reference point on Titan, Saturn's largest moon, and work out all the equations that way.  You may have to account for a few more things in your math, but they are all equally valid because they are all models.  The universe doesn't have an ultimate "right" or "wrong" answer: the sun and the Earth just move according to the laws of motion and gravity.  Models are our way of categorizing them.

That being said, not all models are created equal.  While you could set up that model for Earth's rotation on Titan or Pluto, why would you?  Such a model would have loads of extra unnecessary math, be very hard to diagram, and have very little explanatory power.  Whereas, a heliocentric model where objects in the solar system all rotate around a center of mass very close to the sun has simpler math, is very easy to diagram, and very good explanatory power.

Which brings me to disease.  Disease is not an objective thing.  There isn't a measurable diseasiness in nature.  Disease is a concept that humans defined to help them explain the world, just like our models of the solar system do.

So in one sense, what we consider normal variation and disease is somewhat arbitrary.  In nature, these things just exist.  Nature doesn't make such classifications, nature is just nature.  Disease is meaningful to us as humans because we can use disease models to change things we don't like about nature to achieve our goals for good health, which are also human-defined.

However, as above, not all models are created equal.  Even though they are human-defined, we can see the results of different models in the real world:

For example, if we include "not dying" as part of our model for good health, then we can see that classifying heart attacks as a disease and working to prevent and treat them can decrease death, while classifying them as normal and doing nothing does not decrease death.  Thus, we can say that a disease model for heart attacks is a better model than classifying heart attacks as normal, because doing so guides our actions to achieve desirable goals (less death.)  We can even go a step further and say that any model that does not include heart attacks as a disease is a bad model, and reclassifying it as a disease will make any given model better.

As a real world example, take drug use.  Many countries around the world wish to reduce drug use among their citizens.  Some have tried to use a criminal model to achieve this, which has led to criminalization of drug use.  Others have tried to use a disease model to achieve this, which tends to lead to decriminalization of drug use.  And as it turns out, the latter approach achieves the goal of reducing drug use better.  Growing evidence shows that a disease model for addiction is simply better than a criminal model for addiction.

In other words, models are tools.  If doctors find that classifying something as a disease makes things better, then we model that thing as a disease and use our disease tools to address it.  If doctors find that classifying something as a disease accomplishes nothing and makes things worse, then we find another model that suits it better. 

As I mentioned in my last post, if you hand a contractor a screw and tell them it's a nail, they're going to reach for their screwdriver because regardless of whether you call it a "screw," "nail," or "gumfilbafub," they know the screwdriver is the best tool for the job.  And they're going to continue to call it a screw, because that's the best and clearest classification they can use to inform other contractors of what tools they should be using for the best result.  The name itself doesn't change the physical object on the table, but some terms are better than others when giving tool users a sense of what tools they should be using.  Calling a screw a nail doesn't magically morph the screw into a nail: it just demonstrates that you are using a bad classification model that is not helping anyone, and anyone who knows what they're talking about is going to disregard it and use the superior "screw" model.

Which leads us to homosexuality.  We've tried the criminal model for literally thousands of years.  It didn't work.  It's a bad model.  We tried the disease model for over a century.  It didn't work.  It's a bad model.  We tried the observational model that these sexual orientation is a spectrum that naturally exists in normal human sexuality, and it worked.  It's a good model.  You want to go back to an old model we know it's bad.  We're not going to go back to that model, because it's old and we know it's bad.  Saying, "We should try it, and maybe it'll work?" just demonstrates that you're not aware that we already tried it and it didn't work.  The disease model of homosexuality a bad model, so we've rejected it.  Thus, homosexuality is not a disease.
History shows again and again how nature points out the folly of man.--BÖC

8livesleft

Quote "You say reality is x, but I feel like it should be y, so you should agree with me."


Wow, pretty much sums it up perfectly. 

The danger here tho is they're taking full advantage of the lazy/uninformed reader. So long as they present their narative in a way that simply appears professional but in reality is nothing of the sort.