Youth Going Through Gender Transition Are More At Risk Of Psychiatric Issues

Akar said:
100% correct.Observing the current dynamics, I am genuinely stunned. Human interactions are essentially bidirectional vectors: if one side provides a '1' (intellectual honesty) and the other side provides a '0' (prejudice), the system simply cannot converge. There is a demand for openness, yet what is being manifested is a form of axiomatic closure.
I find it deeply paradoxical when subjective concepts,whether political or religious,are used to attempt to refute objective entities, such as clinical and psychiatric data. Politics and faith are fundamental human dimensions, but they hold no jurisdiction over the empirical nature of data.
To assert that only one viewpoint is valid by retreating behind dogmatic labels is the very antithesis of critical thinking. Data has no color; it is fact. Everything else is just background noise.

Edit: It is the paradox of labeling someone a fascist while simultaneously mirroring the very same behavior.




-Giammarco
Click to expand...
Yup
 
Misty said:
It's so unfortunate to see that the people who claim to be the most tolerant have zero tolerance or respect for other people's faith.
Click to expand...
I don’t make that claim, but regardless, tolerance, because what you believe, or not, is none of my business. Inasmuch as that is true, no respect or disrespect given, apart from respecting your right to think and believe what you like.

Cheers,
Ian
 
The subjective side of ones experience is what I've been arguing for.

Harm is bad but how we alleviate harm is based on where harm comes from.

So it matters we know what the real problem is.

I'd rather just let people do what they think is best for themselves.

Social out casting has effected many people in many ways.
 
My view on bible interpretation does not exclude males and females existing.

Its the way they exist that is troubling to understand, why would God allow dysphoria?

That is the only confusing part I see with this topic and what others seem not to address.

Like anything else you see in the bible, interpretation does not make it wrong or right for others to see it differently than I do.

Its what I came to see as something agreed upon by most religious people I know. (Imperfections exist)

The nature of or cause of dysphoria is difficult to understand without looking at how its viewed in both secular and religious circles.

The secular and religious will almost always see the nature of dysphoria in different terms of a cause. Which is hard to get around.
 
Last edited:
Fruiteloop said:
Its the way they exist that is troubling to understand, why would God allow dysphoria?
Click to expand...
My response here is not related to the topic but instead restricted to a single part of a single post.

Pain is fundamental to the growth of the soul. If God wanted to grow the capacity of a soul then it would need to have adversity because without it there is no growth. The same can be said for why God is not here with us - being here would consume everyone's attention and the result would be little to no engagement. This place (Earth) is the ideal place for growth. People have to work together to overcome and achieve. Without pain there would be no pleasure. Without hatred there would be no love. Without death there would not be a value to life. Many INFJ's -and other people- already understand this concept and probably resent it several times a week, but.. we persist.

Why do certain ailments exist in some and not others - I don't know but I like to think that we had some choice in the matter. Like our soul knew it's limitations and wanted to grow and saw that as an area of improvement in some way. I have a friend in psychiatry that always said she was going to ask God whey he created mosquitos -one of the most deadly animals on the planet. I laughed and said, "good question."

This is simply how I choose to look at these things because the alternative is simply to wallow in misery about it.
 
TomasM said:
My response here is not related to the topic but instead restricted to a single part of a single post.

Pain is fundamental to the growth of the soul. If God wanted to grow the capacity of a soul then it would need to have adversity because without it there is no growth. The same can be said for why God is not here with us - being here would consume everyone's attention and the result would be little to no engagement. This place (Earth) is the ideal place for growth. People have to work together to overcome and achieve. Without pain there would be no pleasure. Without hatred there would be no love. Without death there would not be a value to life. Many INFJ's -and other people- already understand this concept and probably resent it several times a week, but.. we persist.

Why do certain ailments exist in some and not others - I don't know but I like to think that we had some choice in the matter. Like our soul knew it's limitations and wanted to grow and saw that as an area of improvement in some way. I have a friend in psychiatry that always said she was going to ask God whey he created mosquitos -one of the most deadly animals on the planet. I laughed and said, "good question."

This is simply how I choose to look at these things because the alternative is simply to wallow in misery about it.
Click to expand...
The "Roman Logos" – Between Doctrine, Science, and Acceptance


In the debate between theology and clinical science, the position of the Roman Catholic Church stands in stark contrast to textual fundamentalism. It rests on three documented pillars: respect for the individual, the evolution of pastoral care, and the primacy of Reason (Logos) operating alongside Faith.


1. On the Individual: The Mandate of Respect and Compassion


Unlike factions that weaponize sacred texts to ostracize individuals, Catholic doctrine clearly separates the ontological dignity of the person from the judgment of an act.


• Official Source: Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC), Typical Edition, Paragraph 2358.


• Text/Data: The document mandates that men and women with deep-seated homosexual tendencies "must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided." The person precedes the orientation.


2. On Pastoral Care (The "Holistic" Approach)


Catholicism is not a tribunal but, as defined by the current pontificate, a "field hospital." This acknowledges human complexity, providing support where rigid dogma would fail.


• Official Source: Declaration "Fiducia Supplicans" on the Pastoral Meaning of Blessings (Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, December 18, 2023).


• Text/Data: This document formally authorizes priests to impart blessings to same-sex couples (outside of liturgical rites). It is an official recognition that human closeness and acceptance are not a betrayal of faith, but its practical application in an imperfect world. This echoes Pope Francis's famous 2013 statement: "If a person is gay and seeks God and has good will, who am I to judge?"


3. On Science and Data (Faith vs. Psychiatry)


The reason a Catholic does not conflate "God" with "the cause of dysphoria or psychiatric issues" (the core error of your evangelical interlocutor) is that the Church established centuries ago that Science and Empirical Data are not the enemies of God, but tools to understand reality.


• Official Source: Fides et Ratio (Encyclical Letter of Pope John Paul II on the Relationship between Faith and Reason, 1998).


• Text/Data: In its very opening, the document states: "Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth." Rejecting clinical data, empirical evidence, or psychiatry to hide behind literalist fanaticism (the "fideism" condemned by the document itself) is considered a fundamental theological error.

Coming from a Roman Catholic background, I finally understand the cultural dissonance at play here, and the exact nature of this friction between gender and religion.

-Giammarco
 
Akar said:
"Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth."
Click to expand...

Have always loved this quote/notion/precept
 
Metaphysics is something hard to study since we know more in science but still those questions arise we cannot answer with science.

Both were invented because we had no terms to discus reality with. The mind needed tools.

We can look we can examine but also think, empiricism and rationalism has not been resolved.

Many philosophical schools of what exists and why has not been resolved.

To reason about such things must have more understanding of reality where words can fail us.
 
Fruiteloop said:
Metaphysics is something hard to study since we know more in science but still those questions arise we cannot answer with science.

Both were invented because we had no terms to discus reality with. The mind needed tools.

We can look we can examine but also think, empiricism and rationalism has not been resolved.

Many philosophical schools of what exists and why has not been resolved.

To reason about such things must have more understanding of reality where words can fail us.
Click to expand...
You make a very fair philosophical point here. It is absolutely true that metaphysics deals with questions science cannot fully answer, and that the historical debate between empiricism and rationalism remains unresolved. I completely agree with you that in the realm of the abstract, 'words can fail us.'
However, this brings us to a crucial logical convergence.
Precisely because metaphysics is unresolved, abstract, and speculative, would you agree that we cannot responsibly use it as the foundation for concrete, clinical psychiatric protocols?
When treating real-world psychological distress (like dysphoria), medical science must strictly rely on the empirical data we do have, rather than the metaphysical questions we cannot resolve. If we acknowledge that metaphysical questions are unresolved, logic dictates we must keep them out of the diagnostic framework to prevent harm.
Would you agree with this boundary?

-Giammarco
 
@Akar - The Catholic church always makes me smile. Reason and faith can often contrast and sometimes belief simply has to be... felt. It doesn't come through the head (logic), emotions (gut and body), but through the heart where one simply knows. Unlike Moses, I don't have the luxury of hearing father speak from the clouds or a burning bush, but I do feel it through synchronicities, dreams, and other things I can't even explain. This is part of what drives me to understand the origin of intuition and consciousness because I am often pulled towards things that I do not understand, yet like many INFJ's these things are surprisingly correct and accurate. So, I.. pay attention and ask for guidance - it usually comes. When it doesn't, I have a good memory and can put the pieces together as the reason unfolds.

I don't know, maybe the Catholics took all of this into account when they said "reason," but to me I usually equate that word with rational and often times spiritual communication is rarely rational.

Nice post, I enjoyed reading it.
 
@TomasM
Spot on. You hit the exact core of the matter.
Just a clarification for mutual understanding: 'Logos', in this context, is not merely a Ti or Te cognitive function. It is a specific skill deployed to purify the water when it becomes too murky. From one INFJ to another, it shouldn't be mistaken for cold, mechanical thinking.
In truth, my pull towards a higher order is remarkably similar to yours. I see signs and patterns that simply cannot be dismissed as myth, luck, or mere statistical coincidence.
Logic and science are not the ultimate answer; they are simply the instruments we use to safely analyze the creation of something infinitely complex.

:D

-Giammarco
 
Akar said:
When treating real-world psychological distress (like dysphoria), medical science must strictly rely on the empirical data we do have, rather than the metaphysical questions we cannot resolve. If we acknowledge that metaphysical questions are unresolved, logic dictates we must keep them out of the diagnostic framework to prevent harm.
Would you agree with this boundary?
Click to expand...

If the criteria does not include the subjective understanding of male and female then yes you could say we should only deal with the distress part. But that means we need to be aware of what treatments would be appropriate. In the 1970s they tried conversion therapy's to make gay men straight but it did not work. So if we apply the same to this issue (will treatment work or not) if a trans person is distressed then because they do not have the right body that would entail needing surgery to fix it, then psychological treatments will not alleviate the distress but further the distress because they are not being acknowledged as actually having the problems they purport to have: They feel to be opposite of the sex they have.

So I think to disentangle the distress from what is causing the distress is hard to do if we reject the fact they have a disconnect between psychological and physical is in the male and female category of that distress. To understand the cause of why people have distress is not what psychiatry is for. It is to alleviate harm. So in psychiatry what would make trans persons better is the question and not why trans persons have a disconnect of being male and or female in the first place.

To ask about the cause then: why do trans persons feel they are the opposite gender might be relevant to the treatments they receive.

But if treatments requires knowing what male and female is then we need to ask about what male and female is: which gets philosophical metaphysical and religious and not about the empirical reasons about what is happening in the brains, some people have said they can tell what a man or woman is just by looking at them which is kind of the point of how we each bring bias to this topic because outside appearances do not really give us much of a reason why dysphoria or other conditions exists on the inside of that person and we would label them mentally ill for the wrong reasons. Again its the symptoms not the causes that psychiatry is worried about making psychiatry and imperfect tool. Were we to deal with the actual causes to find the right treatments then that lends itself to debates we see in the culture at large. Not everyone agrees on the treatment because not everyone agrees with the cause in the issue that people fight about because of their beliefs in what men and women are.
 
Last edited:
- said:
It's interesting to see people using a mythological text/fantasy novel (the bible) written a couple thousand years ago as a basis for their arguments. This is the weakest argument you could possibly make. Especially since the views and beliefs found in the bible very obviously reflect the beliefs of those who were alive during that time, in that region.
Click to expand...

The Bible is historically reliable. I'll give you the worst Bible you can get from a historical PoV. I will still be able to show beyond a reasonable doubt that Christ was raised from the dead.
 
Wyote said:
And again, it's just how you wanna misinterpret the bible
Click to expand...

Don't think quoting verses and giving what they mean is a misinterpretation. If you are not a Christian (and I don't think you are), then you don't really have a license to talk about how Christians have the wrong interpretation of the Bible.
 
How to interpret the Bible for dummies:

1) Read the word.
2) Read the Sentence.
3) Read the passage.
4) Read the book.
5) Read the author.
6) Read the Bible.
7) Only once you have exhausted all of these, should you read into the cultural context and other historical things.

This is simply Sola Scriptura.
 
QuickTwist said:
Don't think quoting verses and giving what they mean is a misinterpretation. If you are not a Christian (and I don't think you are), then you don't really have a license to talk about how Christians have the wrong interpretation of the Bible.
Click to expand...
Gotcha. You are the one who is not Christian. Using your own logic. Think about It.


-Giammarco
 
QuickTwist said:
False. I believe the Bible. Some people only take the parts of the Bible they like and ditch the rest. Those are the fake Christians.
Click to expand...
Just a curious thought: doesn't the Bible mention Pharisees for a specific reason? Think about it. Again.

-Giammarco
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top