University Of Toronto Gender-Neutral Bathrooms Reduced After Voyeurism Reports

You are aware that homosexuality was defined as a pathology in the 1970s?

Anyways, your blind appeal to authority is reassuring, when the federal court system and the DSM are reconciled, I'm going to assume you're going to walk back a lot of crap.

Seeing as we're talking about three things you demonstrate vapid ignorance about: psychology, the judicial system, and human sexuality.

 

SMH, you keep trying to equate transexualism to homosexuality and the fact that you don't understand why those things are different just shows that I'm wasting time trying to talk some sense into you.

You keep talking about an appeal to authority, but that's only part of what I'm saying, I also explained WHY it is a mental disorder completely separate from any outside authority and you just fail to grasp that. I even spoke of other dissociative delusions that no one has a problem considering evidence a mental disorder and unsurprisingly you said nothing about that. I think deep down, you know I'm right but your PC bruhs would be ashamed of you thinking for yourself if you conceded the point.

I truly hope this is all an act and that you aren't really as feeble minded in real life as you are (hopefully) pretending to be here.

 

You are exhibiting cognitive bias. Let me show you how you are manifesting this and perhaps you can gain some self awareness.

First you champion the DSM for supporting your claim that transgenderism is a mental disorder. Once refuted, you now claim that it was changed for political reasons. What you are doing is classified as a mental disorder by both the DSM and ICD. So I suggest you get professional help to deal with your cognitive bias to help you return to the world of rational thinking.

 

Do you have a peer-reviewed study for your hypothesis? Have you ever read the DSM?

Why is it a mental disorder?

Can you compare to the standards set by the DSM itself? Thanks.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3101504/

You can thank me for the NIH's comparison work as well.

-------------

Why the f**k should anybody listen to you about anything? You rant about the courts but you haven't even read a legal opinion. You talk smack about the DSM when it is clear you have never read it. Why do you persist at using your hands to type useless things?

 

SMH, why do I even bother trying with these simpletons? They still haven't addressed the fact that there is no fundamental difference between other dissociative states and the dissociative state where a man believes himself to be a woman or a woman believes they are a man....and they won't because I'm sure in some small way, even they realize how ridiculous they are.

It really is like talking to a group of infants.

 

Bahahaha.

You took a lot of psychology classes Bobby, didn't you.

If you bothered reading even further, you'd know DID is itself not without controversy as a diagnosis, but I've bolded and underlined significant differences between DID and transgenderism.

Honestly, every time you write something, it just reinforces how ignorant you are.

 

Dear god you are a fool. Did I ever, even for a second, mention DID? No, I didn't. You really are in over your head kid, just give up now, your PC bruhs are already impressed at your level of ignorant dedication to the r****ded cause you are trying to champion.

 

Then what pathology are you mentioning, you dolt. Dissociation or being in a dissociative state are not pathological in of themselves. When you daydream, you are in a "dissociative state".

Are you describing the DSM's definition of when dissociation with identity becomes pathology (according to some North American psychologists at least), or are you being a complete idiot with the buzzwords you think you understand? I know it's the latter--but keep on showing how far down the rabbit hole your flawed thinking goes.

 

lastly, I didn't know it was PC to carve your face in with facts, but I'll take that as a nice +50 bonus

 

You are the one in a dissociative state and you can't realize it. You are unable to see reality and perceive facts, because you twist everything to fit the insane reality you have about something.

You are in a delusion. This response shows that when faced with the threat your reality is falling apart, you go into attack mode and get defensive.

You are not alone, many people on both the left and right are like this. But you can wake-up out of it. It isn't about transgenderism but across the board. Wake-up man. Be open minded. The only way to do that is to take in the possibility that you are wrong.

All the posters on here I respect are humble enough to know that they might be wrong - they seek the truth. They aren't seeking to push an agenda.

You push an agenda, you have no interest in the truth.

Sit with that for a bit.

 

I'm glad you bring up the examples, because that helps to clarify where the disconnect is.

There is a clear, logical difference between your examples and transgenderism.

If someone believes they are "king of England", that is very specific. They believe certain things about themselves which are factually different from reality.

If someone believes he is "God", that probably means he thinks he has some supernatural power which, in fact, he doesn't possess. That's what would make such a belief a delusion.

Now, if we were all in agreement on what it means to be a man or a woman and a person claimed they were one when in reality they're the other, then yes that's a delusion in the same sense that the above examples you cited are delusions.

But, in actuality, there is more than one recognized way of identifying one's gender, and sometimes they conflict. It could be according to one's sex organs, or it could be according to one's psychology. Both are valid, even if they can disagree for some individuals.

Those with a penis who views themselves as women are not under a delusion that they in fact have no penis. They understand that they are "male" according to the conventional criteria (one's sex organs) that you deem definitive. Its in a totally different sense that they consider themselves female. If you want to disapprove over a redefining of what it means to be male or female, fine, but its misleading to call it a delusion when the terminology is not fixed and consistent.

 

I'm not really sure what you're arguing here as it is pretty much the same point that many of us have brought up. Sex, in terms of reproductive organs and chromosomes, yes there is a scientific definition of it. Gender is a cultural concept. The outward manifestations though of both gender are mutable and thanks to medical technology even the outward manifestations of sex are mutable. The argument to science for defining which bathrooms someone is supposed to use I think is immaterial. Pee and poop from any gender is the same to a toilet.

As noted though above the outward manifestations of sex (a dong) can be changed through medical technology. In that way though a law requiring someone to use the bathroom of the sex designated on their birth certificate is problematic when as stated such a person may actually display all the outward features of a particular gender.

I agree which is why I think the laws mandating birth gender as the designator are flawed. Further from an architectural standpoint it would be far more practical to just do unisex bathrooms.

I understand this is a change in culture but in regards to safety as long as the rules of the behavior are continued to be enforced I don't see the issue.