Why are you deleting my posts in the Explaining Transgenderism thread?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Transgenderism is not a mental disorder in the DSM. Gender dysmorphia (feeling strongly that your identity does not match your body to the point where it causes you problems) is the relevant disorder. Actually transitioning to a gender that matches your identity is a TREATMENT for gender dysmorphia.

But people don’t use the terminology in that way in the thread or in real life. OP asked about a “transgender” kid but that kid hadn’t fully transitioned but is rather suffering from gender dysmorphia. It’s semantics.

No, it's not. Because the relevant problem with the disorder is the DISTRESS. If someone is transitioning and isn't distressed about it, then they don't have gender dysmorphia. Shouldn't be a huge surprise that someone who is experiencing a certain kind of severe distress is classified as having a disorder.

As I said in my previous post, treating the distress does not mean your disordered thinking is now normal. By analogy: I have depression. I treat it. I still have depression even if it’s treated. Treatment for a fully transitioned transgender person is long-term hormones and other therapies. It’s not a one-time “cure.”

I mean, it's great that you're trying to play doctor here, but you're just wrong. Many transgender people never experience gender dysmorphia. They just transition and are fine. Gender dysmorphia is something that sometimes happens, and sometimes doesn't. You can experience gender dysmorphia and never transition. You can transition without ever experiencing it. They are two different things. Your attempts to make them the same are simply medically incorrect.

Your attempt at playing doctor is... worse? Some people just randomly transition despite never having been distressed with being in the wrong body? That’s extraordinarily rare. You don’t wake up one day and just transition. In any event, I have a reasonable disagreement with you so cut it out with the insults and troll-reporting.

I'm not a doctor but I have a job that actually requires me to know a great deal about the psychology of being transgender (which is why I chimed in on this thread in the first place). I guarantee you that my knowledge of the medical issues regarding gender identity is far informed than whatever you dreamed up in your head.

NP

According to this article (which I assume to be a reputable source) distress does not define gender dysphoria. It is merely feeling conflicted between the persons physical gender and the gender with which they identify:

https://www.psychiatry.org/patients-families/gender-dysphoria/what-is-gender-dysphoria

This is incorrect. Distress is a component. See here. https://www.theravive.com/therapedia/gender-dysphoria-dsm--5-302.85-(f64.9)

Yes. Stress is a component, but does not define it.

I mean really, find me one person who does not identify with the gender they were assigned at birth and is NOT stressed about it.

+1. Get real, people. No one wakes up one day and blissfully decides to have gender reassignment surgery.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Wow, Jeff? I took into consideration your feedback and specifically tied my reference to the DSM to the advice I would give my child, and you locked the thread? Seriously? Really? I am a mom with two kids. This is not an academic discussion to me. What I wrote is literally what I would tell my kids. And you’ve decided it’s not helpful or responsive to the OP? This is ridiculous.

My feedback was not to mention the DSM. Nobody would discuss the DSM with a six year old. My clearly stated concern was that bringing up the DSM would result in the topic being hijacked. That is exactly what happened. I have repeatedly stated in this thread that if you want to discuss the DSM, start a new thread. I don't know how much clearer I can make things for you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1) No one dispute this, but he's still a liar; 2) and yet I am.

Can you please clarify exactly what you think that I lied about?

Also, can you explain why there are so many posts expressing viewpoints which with I strongly disagree still on this website if I delete all such posts? I am really confused about that.

You are a liar because you claim to have standards for deletion that are not based on content when you absolutely delete based on content you don't like (aka, content that Liberals do not like, often). You deleted this comment you claim, because it was "off topic" and didn't address the thread subject of how to address the topic of transgenderism with a child. However, in this specific case, the deleted comment DID address that very thing (how to explain to child), you just did not like the content of that explanation (that it is a disorder).

But really, if you take a step back, DCUM threads are always wandering all over the place in terms of content. That you should single out certain threads to police based on "on/off topic" comments is a testament itself to your bias and unfair policing. The question is, why lie and claim it's not the content you want to delete?

NP. This is utter lunacy. Jeff never said he doesn't delete based on content. He has stickies that explicitly say he will delete racist posts. He will delete for (lack of) content when people post only a link. He also deletes for off-topic threads or duplicates, all of which is content-specific.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow, Jeff? I took into consideration your feedback and specifically tied my reference to the DSM to the advice I would give my child, and you locked the thread? Seriously? Really? I am a mom with two kids. This is not an academic discussion to me. What I wrote is literally what I would tell my kids. And you’ve decided it’s not helpful or responsive to the OP? This is ridiculous.

My feedback was not to mention the DSM. Nobody would discuss the DSM with a six year old. My clearly stated concern was that bringing up the DSM would result in the topic being hijacked. That is exactly what happened. I have repeatedly stated in this thread that if you want to discuss the DSM, start a new thread. I don't know how much clearer I can make things for you.

And I told you that the whole reason I would tell my kid what I said is because there is authority (DSM) that defines it as a mental disorder. I’m not allowed to say WHY I would tell my kids what I would?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow, Jeff? I took into consideration your feedback and specifically tied my reference to the DSM to the advice I would give my child, and you locked the thread? Seriously? Really? I am a mom with two kids. This is not an academic discussion to me. What I wrote is literally what I would tell my kids. And you’ve decided it’s not helpful or responsive to the OP? This is ridiculous.

My feedback was not to mention the DSM. Nobody would discuss the DSM with a six year old. My clearly stated concern was that bringing up the DSM would result in the topic being hijacked. That is exactly what happened. I have repeatedly stated in this thread that if you want to discuss the DSM, start a new thread. I don't know how much clearer I can make things for you.

And I told you that the whole reason I would tell my kid what I said is because there is authority (DSM) that defines it as a mental disorder. I’m not allowed to say WHY I would tell my kids what I would?

Clearly you were allowed because your post is still there. As I said, bringing it up would derail the thread. That's what happened. The same discussion about the DSM that is in this thread was being repeated there. You could have easily left that part out since you already had the argument here.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You are a liar because you claim to have standards for deletion that are not based on content when you absolutely delete based on content you don't like (aka, content that Liberals do not like, often). You deleted this comment you claim, because it was "off topic" and didn't address the thread subject of how to address the topic of transgenderism with a child. However, in this specific case, the deleted comment DID address that very thing (how to explain to child), you just did not like the content of that explanation (that it is a disorder).

What the hell are you talking about? Of course I delete based on content. How can a post be off-topic if not due to content? Moreover, I don't think you even read the post in question so you actually have no basis on which to make a judgement. You also can't read my mind and, therefore, can't know my motivations. So, without having read the post and not being able to read my mind, how can you offer any useful comment on any of this?

Anonymous wrote:
But really, if you take a step back, DCUM threads are always wandering all over the place in terms of content. That you should single out certain threads to police based on "on/off topic" comments is a testament itself to your bias and unfair policing. The question is, why lie and claim it's not the content you want to delete?

I have explained this and because you apparently don't want to address my responses, so you just ignore them. Most of my moderation is in response to reports. Your problem is with those who make reports (or don't make reports) rather than with me. If you see a thread "wondering all over the place", report it. If you don't report it, don't complain about it.

You're not familiar with content-based restrictions in First Amendment discussions? Okay, let me try to put it in an easier way.

You are a liar because you're not deleting based on whether something is "on topic," but because it is an opinion/fact/implication (I'm calling this "content" which you can choose to purposefully misconstrue or you can call it whatever the hell you want) you personally do not like.

I've been on this website for a long time and I've seen you time and again delete comments because you ***don't like the opinion/fact/implication being offered***. No, we can't read your mind, but it's damn obvious as day when it happens. Oh, you're going to lie about it again? Shocker. You're going to insult me while doing it? Nothing new.

Do you delete every comment you don't like? No, obviously not. Do you delete comments because you don't like them? Yep. Do you lie and make up excuses like "it was off topic" for deleting them? Yep.

And as for your thing about how you only respond to reported comments - Um, OP's comment *wasn't* off topic. It's just your go-to excuse for deleting stuff that doesn't fit with the Liberal lock-step doublespeak.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow, Jeff? I took into consideration your feedback and specifically tied my reference to the DSM to the advice I would give my child, and you locked the thread? Seriously? Really? I am a mom with two kids. This is not an academic discussion to me. What I wrote is literally what I would tell my kids. And you’ve decided it’s not helpful or responsive to the OP? This is ridiculous.

My feedback was not to mention the DSM. Nobody would discuss the DSM with a six year old. My clearly stated concern was that bringing up the DSM would result in the topic being hijacked. That is exactly what happened. I have repeatedly stated in this thread that if you want to discuss the DSM, start a new thread. I don't know how much clearer I can make things for you.

And I told you that the whole reason I would tell my kid what I said is because there is authority (DSM) that defines it as a mental disorder. I’m not allowed to say WHY I would tell my kids what I would?

Clearly you were allowed because your post is still there. As I said, bringing it up would derail the thread. That's what happened. The same discussion about the DSM that is in this thread was being repeated there. You could have easily left that part out since you already had the argument here.

I would like the OP and all the normal people who read the actual thread but don’t waste their time in Website Feedback to know my rationale for counseling my kids as I would. Thanks, I guess, for not deleting my posts.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
And as for your thing about how you only respond to reported comments - Um, OP's comment *wasn't* off topic. It's just your go-to excuse for deleting stuff that doesn't fit with the Liberal lock-step doublespeak.

You didn't even read the comment and have no idea what it said. You have no basis to judge whether or not it was off topic. Your opinion about this is as irrelevant as your claims about my motivation which is equally misinformed.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
And as for your thing about how you only respond to reported comments - Um, OP's comment *wasn't* off topic. It's just your go-to excuse for deleting stuff that doesn't fit with the Liberal lock-step doublespeak.

You didn't even read the comment and have no idea what it said. You have no basis to judge whether or not it was off topic. Your opinion about this is as irrelevant as your claims about my motivation which is equally misinformed.

I did, actually, and it was also repeatedly alluded to in this thread.

How convenient for you, Jeff, that you deleted the comment so no one else can judge for themselves; we must all be subject to your censure and version of the events.

People like you have destroyed Liberalism.

[Anonymous]

NP here. I didn't read the thread in question at all, but the DSM is a well-respected reference book used and developed by experts in the field. Citing it or using it as a basis for a decision is much more solid than pointing to a newspaper article or some opinion piece.

I realize a parent isn't going to cite the DSM with a 5 year old, but nor will they cite an encyclopedia or dictionary to a child either. They'll refer to it, then put it into simpler terms.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:NP here. I didn't read the thread in question at all, but the DSM is a well-respected reference book used and developed by experts in the field. Citing it or using it as a basis for a decision is much more solid than pointing to a newspaper article or some opinion piece.

I realize a parent isn't going to cite the DSM with a 5 year old, but nor will they cite an encyclopedia or dictionary to a child either. They'll refer to it, then put it into simpler terms.

The point is not whether or not the DSM is respected, but whether the OP of this thread understood it correctly. Using your analogy, a parent would explicitly cite Webster's when explaining the meaning of the word to a child, but do so in a way in which other posters thought Webster's was being misunderstood.

Go to the thread in question and look at the last page. Once the OP of this thread posted about the DSM, the thread turned in to a DSM debate. That then left me with three options: let the thread go off-topic and continue as a DSM debate; delete the DSM posts and provoke another conniption fit by the OP of this thread; or lock the thread so that I would no longer have to worry about it. I chose the third.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You're not familiar with content-based restrictions in First Amendment discussions? Okay, let me try to put it in an easier way.

NP. This argument is not at all relevant. The first amendment protections are protections against government or public censure or penalty against citizens. The first amendment has absolutely no role in covering a discussion on a private source that is not publicly funded. Unless Jeff and Maria are getting government grants to run DCUM, the first amendment provides no control over how he chooses to moderate a discussion.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
And as for your thing about how you only respond to reported comments - Um, OP's comment *wasn't* off topic. It's just your go-to excuse for deleting stuff that doesn't fit with the Liberal lock-step doublespeak.

You didn't even read the comment and have no idea what it said. You have no basis to judge whether or not it was off topic. Your opinion about this is as irrelevant as your claims about my motivation which is equally misinformed.

I did, actually, and it was also repeatedly alluded to in this thread.

How convenient for you, Jeff, that you deleted the comment so no one else can judge for themselves; we must all be subject to your censure and version of the events.

People like you have destroyed Liberalism.

Now you are the liar because you didn't read the thread. I just happen to have a copy of the post so everyone can judge for themselves:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I’m not a troll. I’m a logical person. And guess what, I too know transgender people who I’ve been friends with! I also know bipolar people who I’ve been friends with. Doesn’t change the fact that the behavior is best described as mental illness. That’s okay, mental illness isn’t evil. But I’m not going to normalize it.

Best described as mental illness, by whom? Not by the American Psychiatric Association.

It’s in the DSM so yes, it is a mental illness. If you’d rather call it a “mental disorder,” knock yourself out.

As you can see, by the time the DSM came up, there was already a chain of messages discussing whether transgendered people are mentally ill. That discussion does nothing to address the OP's request for advice.

[Anonymous]

Jeff, I’m going to spin this a little and thank you for deleting some of the posts I saw, in at least the binary thread, that we’re very cruel to those who had no dog in the fight )(ie. those using ART). I’ve never had to use ART, but I can’t imagine being already under a glaring sport
Ightl and then having posters who believe by choosing to have a child, you’ve done them other wrongs.

I’m not a religious poster, but sometimes I wish people would learn the concept of “but for the grace of God, go I”m and be less harmful to other people.

It’s a big, big world.

[Anonymous]

^ill thank my iPad for making me look like an illiterate, but I think you get the point ?