Ethics Musings On The Transgender Problem

Is being transgender a mental disorder? A lot of news and controversies around the suddenly militant minority seems to compel honest consideration of the question. It is definitely not a formal disorder, but that doesn’t deal with the issue. The medical profession, which is, as has been periodically documented on Ethics Alarms, is now politically-driven and in the directing of progressive positions and agendas.

Up until 2012, transgenderism was labeled a mental disorder; that year, the American Psychiatric Association revised its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders and struck transgenderism from the list. Now, woke institutions like the Cleveland Clinic state outright, “Being transgender is not a mental illness. But people who are transgender face unique challenges, such as gender dysphoria and discrimination, which can affect their mental health….” The Clinic then adopts whole cloth the familiar transgender narrative, uncritically, as if it is scientific fact rather than an ideological position:

Healthcare providers assign a baby a sex at birth. Babies may be assigned female at birth (AFAB) or assigned male at birth (AMAB) based on their external physical genitalia. The term “cisgender” describes people who identify as the gender that matches their assigned sex. (For example, if you’re born biologically female and you identify as female, then you’re cisgender.) But for some people, as they grow up and understand themselves better, they find that their gender doesn’t match their assigned, biological sex.

Oh! So the situation is as normal as apple pie and toilet training, then! Seriously? This is propaganda, not objective medical opinion. It is one thing to decide that a psychological problem isn’t a “disorder,” it’s something else to pretend that it is normal.

Once again Abe Lincoln’s maxim about calling a dog’s tail a leg is implicated: why was transgenderism a mental illness for decades before 2012, and now it isn’t? The condition didn’t change: the people responsible for the categorization changed, and they were influenced—biased—by factors that strictly should not affect how a condition is classified. There is no controversy over whether intersex individuals—those with the sex organs of both sexes—have a physical disorder: they do, and it certainly can’t be called “normal.”

But as with the declassification of homosexuality in 1973, the medical profession and others concluded that the diagnosis of the condition—is “condition” pejorative?—as a mental illness or disorder exacerbated greatly the problems such individuals had already in adjusting to and being accepted in society. Suicide rates for gays have come down significantly from 1973. Suicide rates for transgender individuals are high. Changing a harmful label to save lives seems like the right ethical choice.

I am considerably less certain, however, about creating an official, expert-endorsed fiction that a non-normal sexual orientation (“abnormal” is a negative brand, no?) isn’t what it obviously is. The result of doing that is already evident: identifying as another gender is now “in” and the number of young people “identifying” as transgender is soaring. Is that really healthy? Stigmas can be an important societal tool, if the negative connotations are justifiable.

It is a complex problem, however. Calling homosexuality an illness or disorder implied that it could be “cured,” leading to quack treatments and shattered lives. Society taking the opposite course, as LGTBQ advocates maintain is correct, and extolling and celebrating the—the what?—spectacularly fails Kant’s “What if everybody does it?” test. If everybody decides Gay is the Way, then the human species is doomed. I’m not sure what is in store for us if switching genders is considered the norm, but I am not optimistic about it.

Society capitulating to popular movements and de-stigmatizing such conduct as unwed childbirth, promiscuous sexual activity and recreational drug use have been disasters. I fear we are headed that way with the transgender fad as well.

Having the courage and common sense to call a state of mind that isn’t normal and should not be normal what it is seems like the responsible, ethical course.

60 thoughts on “Ethics Musings On The Transgender Problem

  1. Well, what DO you call a life defined by chemical and surgical imitation of the opposite sex that one was born with? I call it crackers, but if I was to dare to say so publicly some people would want me DEAD.

    • Transgender people are at higher risk of murder and physical violence than the general population. As far as I’m aware, this is not true of critics of transgender people.

      But sure, play the victim and pretend you’re the one at risk in this discussion.

      • Oddly, mentally ill individuals are also at higher risk of these crimes, as well as minorities, homeless, and many other demographic distinctions, even children of single mothers.

        You seem to have began to make an argument, but instead seem to have made an fundamental attribution error.

        • Huh? If someone said “People would want me dead for criticizing single mothers and homeless people” I would also point out that they’re being an insufferable, self-victimizing martyr.

          • Not if there really were people who wanted to kill (or inflict great bodily harm on) people who criticized single mothers and homeless people.

            It might be a self-inflicted anger, but I believe the term for that is “blaming the victim.”

      • It’s been a while since I looked at the numbers, so they may have changed, but transgender people were at a higher risk of murder and physical violence than the general population. It went from something like a (and I’m totally estimating here) 0.00005% chance of violence per year to a 0.0002% chance of violence. So yes, they were multiple times more likely to be victims.

        But that’s the problem with working with very, very small numbers. Insignificant changes can appear to be very large depending on how you present the data.

      • Yes, prostitutes and drug addicts tend to get slapped around and murdered. Maybe try staying home reading instead of going off into dark alleys with strange men.

          • “Transgender people are at higher risk of murder and physical violence than the general population.”

            Why is that assertion supposed to stop any and all discussion of transgenderism dead in its tracks? It’s evidently Kryptonite on the issue. Remarkable.

              • A nasty sleight of hand. The Berkeley law school prof. very smugly deployed it in that Congressional hearing. Clearly, a now standard issue activist talking point.

            • “Why is that assertion supposed to stop any and all discussion of transgenderism dead in its tracks?”

              It’s not, and I didn’t imply any such thing.

              I would hope this fact would stop critics of transgenderism from pretending that they are the primary targets of harassment and violence in this debate. If that’s the only way critics of transgenderism can discuss the issue, that seems like a them problem.

                • Literally the very first comment, from Steve:

                  “I call it crackers, but if I was to dare to say so publicly some people would want me DEAD.”

                  This ignores the rates of violence against trans people to cast critics of trans people as victims of oppression. It’s right-wing victimhood complex nonsense.

                  • “pretending that they are the primary targets of harassment and violence”

                    Yeah, you made it up then. Steve claiming that he would receive threats for criticizing trans people != Steve thinks he’s the primary target for harassment.

                    That was a weak, thoughtless comment and you should do better.

                  • Silly response, with all due respect. It’s not a competition. Whether the group criticized has more or less harassment says nothing about whether their critics are harassed as well. And they are, of course. Whether such critics are “wanted dead” and by whom is speculative.

                  • The fact that trans individuals become targeted for violence due to their oddness has nothing to do with the fact that progressive enforcers have taken it upon themselves to disrupt, harass, cancel, and yes, even visit violence upon, those who disagree with progressive cant. This is the same kind of crap that law professor pulled in front of the Senate, ducking and dodging the actual issue while making it look like a sin to dare to ask questions or disagree. I don’t buy it. Try something else.

              • “It’s not, and I didn’t imply any such thing.” You’re right. You didn’t imply anything. You essentially equated any straying from transgender orthodoxy is tantamount to murdering transgender people.

                  • Nate. I’m going to call you Chris because you comment here in exactly the same manner as a guy called Chris used to do. You fire off standard issue lefty talking points as if they’re squibs, and then behave extremely nastily when commenters respond to your comments. The EA commentariat is a pretty darned civil place. You are, to put it mildly, extremely uncivil. It strikes me as if you are only here to stir up trouble and incivility. I, for one, would greatly appreciate it if you cleaned up your act as soon as possible.

                  • Calling your adversary illiterate or unable to comprehend what you wrote is not going to get you very far. You are quickly coming off as someone who can’t respond to a post he disagrees with without being rude. Check yourself before you wreck yourself.

          • What’s that unusual about pointing out that pumping noxious drugs into your body and selling that body for others’ pleasure tend to be the doings of the slimy underside of society, where violence is common? .

      • Look, Nate the not-so-great, if I had a nickel for every stupid post or tweet or article bashing conservatives and saying we should be wiped out, I’d be a very rich man indeed. You can see for yourself by what happened to JKR that no one who dares to deviate from the trans party line is safe. I don’t toe the line at all. I think it’s ridiculous that someone who says he is Napoleon gets locked up, but someone who says he is a woman gets enabled, but if I dared say it publicly, suddenly I’d be a target. Is that or is that not true?

        • A target of criticism? Sure.

          A target of death threats? Unlikely–I am sure Rowling, as a public figure, has faced such threats though–and much less likely than facing such threats simply for being trans.

          • Here we go again with the misdirection. I’m not that concerned with criticism. I’ve withstood plenty both personally and professionally. I will almost certainly withstand a lot more before I retire. I AM concerned about attempts to cancel me, harass me, or yes, even murder me. It only takes one kook to decide something he read is just so intolerable that the writer or speaker must die, and there are a LOT of kooks on the left. The fact that there are also a lot of kooks on the right who see someone deliberately trying to become the sex he/she was not as so disgusting they feel they must take violent action has nothing to do with that and is simple whataboutism.

  2. Through all of these debates, conversations, news articles, etc., I have been thinking about when I was a teenager. I remember the anorexia diagnosis’s that were very common in the 80s and grew to have national attention. I was a teenager during that time and this affected many cohorts of mine. When a friend or classmate said, “I’m so fat”, we did not reply, “well, you sure are, you should go on a diet”, or “I bet a doctor could prescribe drugs to help suppress your appetite”. Essentially, we never fueled their illusions of being fat. It seems to me, however, that that is what society, schools, doctors, etc., are doing now. It seems absurd beyond comprehension that we as a society would say to a CHILD, yup, little girl, you are a boy, here are a whole slew of drugs for you and when you are older we will happily surgically mutilate your body. The medical profession open writes (wrote?) about anorexia being a social contagion for teenagers. Why are we not having that conversation now? Why are we not having honest conversations about children choosing their gender, but not being old enough to buy guns, cigarettes, vote, etc. Why can’t we openly acknowledge that women are women and men are men without being cancelled or fired (or worse)? I can’t understand how biological truth has morphed into hate speech. I could go on and on, some how this trans debate seems like the final frontier before we as a society fall completely into chaos.

    • Because this isn’t about truth. It’s a theory – an opinion – that isn’t allowed to be challenged or questioned. Thus, it is a dogma.

      Dogma can never be challenged.

    • Kaydee,
      The whole furor surrounding transgenderism is multifaceted. This is true of virtually all polarizing issues. Pick any polarizing issue and within the pro and con camps, you will find the following subcamps: radical activists, passionate true believers, opportunists, virtue signaling supporters, go-a-longs to get-a-longs, and casual non-vocal supporters.

      Typically, the activists and believers start the ball rolling with some polarizing or inflammatory statement(s) and or actions. These statements would wither on the vine without publicity. This is where the opportunists play a critical role. The opportunists provide the bellows to create a fire from the spark created by the activists and or believers. Most media outlets and politicians regardless of bent are opportunists. The last three subcamps’ roles merely add fuel to the fire.

      The media needs a constant stream of controversy and sensationalism to capture and maintain the attention of the masses. Or direct them toward or away from an issue.

      For politicians polarizing or wedge issues are gifts from on high. The politician uses these issues to garner campaign contributions, and votes and distract the electorate from talking about the issues that significantly impact the whole country and that should be addressed for the good of the country.

      If we look at transgenderism, it truly only directly impacts an extremely small segment of society. It is the opportunists that are making it a large issue. So, while society is talking about transgender issues it is not talking about inflation, gas prices, employment problems, immigration, etc. All of which impact a large portion of our society. Politicians don’t want people talking about these larger issues because that might cause the electorate to demand the politicians fix those problems. And if a politician failed to fix specific problems, then the electorate might hold them accountable and not reelect them. The one politicians abhor is accountability.

      • Nice analysis. I think I’d add that people who want to wreck our society and destroy its norms to recreate it create as much chaos and noise as possible as a smokescreen for what they’re doing.

        • Also, a good point. To paraphrase Regan are you better off now than you were four years ago? This is what we as a nation should be talking about. Not what pronouns to use. Not the January 6th riot. Both are calculated distractions.
          Notice there are no primetime televised hearings on
          National Debt
          Immigration law and policy
          Changing the US from a net exporter of oil to a net importer
          What did the government do right and wrong in the handling of the pandemic

  3. I would refer to homosexuality as normal but atypical. Before the LGBTQ+ activist brigade went bat guano crazy, I considered transgenderism to be the same, biologically based but extremely atypical, even more so than homosexuality. Then the crazy people started screaming from the roof tops about gender being a social construct, completely divorced from biology, and began preaching the merits of gender fluidity along with a host of other “genders” for which the definitions sound like the were written by someone experiencing an LSD induced hallucinogen state.

    I still think there are a small minority of people with atypical brain biology who are legitimately transgender. I think there is a much larger cohort of people with personality disorders who need Jesus. Those people have appointed themselves spokespeople for the transgender community. It is never a good idea to let obnoxious, crazy people be your the face of your community. Narcissistic personality disorder is not endearing. Histrionic personality disorder does not lend itself to coherent argument. Brainwashing people’s children into “changing” their gender against the parents will or sparking mass hysteria events in teenage girls and autistic young people is not beneficial to society in the slightest. Anarchists and authoritarians are the only communities benefiting from this mess.

    The brain forms in utero. It does not change on a whim. It forms as either male or female and stays that way. Forever. Until you die. There are only two genders: male and female. The brain might have the wrong one based on the body it’s riding around in, but it is still one or the other. It does not change, and there is no such thing as gender fluidity. Attention seeking, on the other hand, is quite common.

    I think it is quite telling that the community in which all this transgender craziness is occurring is the progressive community. Progressives are really nothing but rebranded communists. Progressive philosophy, like communist philosophy, involves a lot of ideas about everyone being exactly the same. Equity. The problem with this philosophy is that it’s based on the idea that everyone wants to be exactly the same as everyone else, and have exactly the same things everyone else has. This idea is a load of crap. People don’t want to be the same as everyone else. They want to be better than everyone else. They want to be special. How do you become special in an equitable society? By complaining that you’re not getting your fair share of the equity pie due to a non-equitable characteristic. In other words, by being special.

    Most people are happy with being special on a small scale. Being the best at something in your family, or being special to your spouse. On a small scale, this desire to be special is healthy and an evolutionary positive. It drives people to improve themselves, learn special skills, and adds value to a small tribe.

    On a large scale, this motivator is sociologically impossible, and an evolutionary disaster. Trying to be special on Twitter leads to riots, psychotic political ideologies, and massive cults of personality.

    The ethics of the transgender activists are non-existent. You have one group of people using another group of people for likes and specialness without regard to the effects it has on the group being used.

    Much of this is, in my opinion, is the result of the tech revolution. The industrial revolution had a seismic impact on society that reverberated for decades before society reordered itself to a homeostatic state. Living through a change in the homeostatic state makes it very difficult to analyze the factors that are affecting people. Only in hindsight, when things have settled down, does it become obvious what was really going on. Culture is in flux in response to massive changes in technology.

    • “You have one group of people using another group of people for likes and specialness without regard to the effects it has on the group being used.”

      This is why more and more groups of gays are separating away from the whole LGBTQ+ industrial complex. For too long the T has been piggybacking on the struggles of the LGB’s when the two issues are totally different. Worse, now the same groups that once advocated for gay/bi equality, like the HRC and other pride groups, are redefining gay to mean “same-gender identity attraction” rather than same-sex attraction.” According to these new LBG groups, this is gay erasure because it takes biological sex out of the equation.

      One of the most concerning things about this piggybacking is that now we see acceptance for gays dwindling because gays are being conflated with trans and it’s assumed gays are ok with transing kids or exposing them to kink and pervy drag queens or letting men win in women’s sports. I’m already seeing articles about how gay marriage stared all this and that if we get rid of marriage equality, somehow that will magically make the insanity of the radical trans activists go away.

      Then you have those T radicals who say that gays who don’t want to be a part of the rainbow mafia are TERFS or “cisgender genital fetishists” or transphobes. Younger lesbians especially are getting the brunt of these assertions and are being pressured to sleep with men who claim to be lesbians, in a show of solidarity or overcoming their “sexual racism” and “unlearning their genital biases.” Any woman who dares to bring up this phenomenon is immediately labeled a TERF and the consequences aren’t always pretty. 🦖

      Then you have big tech and big pharma who benefit greatly from all this. According to Martin(e) Rothblatt, founder of SiriusXM, transgenderism is the stepping stone to “upgrading” and becoming transhuman. Tinkering around with the human body, under the guise of helping the so-called gender dysphoric, gives big tech a lot money and space to experiment.

      Big pharma profits handsomely as well, as clinics aimed at “trans” youth make bank off the repeated corrective surgeries that come from “transitioning.” FtM surgeries have a 70+% complication rate and these people have to have something like 4-20 additional surgeries. Even then, some of these women will never experience sexual pleasure or have normal functioning anatomy again. For men, take a look at Jazz Jennings who didn’t have enough skin in his/her genital area due to hormone blockers and will never have a normal functioning body.

      And don’t forget the puberty blockers, like Lupron Depot, not only stop the body from maturing but also the mind. The side effects of these drugs are in and of themselves causing permanent damage to youth including osteoporosis.

      Gays are finally forcing this issue in the open and saying “no more” to this riding of coattails by what very much feels like a cult of wild-eyed heterosexual technocrats, toxic allies, hostile unhappy trans, and a few self-hating gays thrown in the mix.

      Many bisexuals and gays are done being used by the radical trans lobby but their voices are being censored by big tech. I hope at some point people will start to see the two groups have little in common, before we see gay-bashing become a new hobby for fed-up straights and transgenders alike.

      LGB Alliance –
      Gays Against Groomers –
      Lesbians United –

    • But what does it mean for a brain to be “male” or “female”? Is it something that can be tested in a scientific rigorous way?

      I have trouble understanding what it means to feel like a different gender. I, a biological male, just feel like me. What would it mean to say I feel like a woman? Often this seems to gravitate towards stereotypical female actions (makeup, long hair, wearing a dress), but how is that a female mind? Isn’t that just a male mind that likes things typically associated with females?

      I honestly would like to better understand, but merely asking will get one labeled a transphobe and hater. I asked this on a discussion forum and was banned for hate speech, because the socially acceptable dogma is not to be questioned. We have always been at war with eastasia.

  4. Friends of mine, one a high school classmate, the wife an acquaintance/friend/date in high school, are among my favorite people and closest friends even though we see too little of each other. He’s currently going down with Lewys Bodies dementia. Ugh. She’s trying to hold him together to the extent possible. Anyway, they have two delightful daughters. The elder one is a classic beauty, super bright, highly credentialed (Harvard) management consultant, but happily married to a schoolteacher guy. I’m pretty sure she’s started a family. The younger daughter was probably the apple of her father’s eye. They talked sports and were thick as thieves. She was cute but in a tomboyish way. She was not an elegant, natural beauty like her sister. I suspect the younger daughter felt it her obligation to be the son her father (to whom she was totally devoted) wasn’t going to have. She was just an exceptionally bright light. When our son was in high school, I remember her, five or so years younger, being completely, and very cutely, enamored of him. I suspect she would have made a really happy, loving lesbian, or maybe even a happy heterosexual. Who knows? But last I heard, she’s decided to transition to a guy. She’s in her thirties or so, so there’s no capacity or maturity issue. Her parents are supportive, likely feeling there’s no other alternative. But it just strikes me as a tragedy that would never have occurred twenty or so years ago. It’s certainly not anything I feel like celebrating. Ugh.

  5. It’s a good thing there is no history of minority groups being designated as “problems” leading to horrible tragedies otherwise this article title would be in very poor taste.

    • Cut it out, Nate. This is a thinly-veiled accusation of Jack being a Nazi by sarcastically equating this headline on this post with Hitler’s “Jewish Problem” and “Final Solution.” You know damn well that’s not what he’s saying. There’s a time to throw Godwin’s Rule out the window, but this isn’t it. Most of us conservative types here would welcome some articulate progressives. However, “articulate progressives” does not mean “knee-jerk progressives devoid of substance who think they win on sarcastic comebacks, gaslighting, and misdirection.” That’s not how it works here, and that’s been explained to you. Stop acting like an arrested 14-year-old, or go back wherever it is you came from.

    • Good comment. Now I see the light. Let’s never speak of this again. we’re all being Nazi’s.

      The next phase is trans-species. Some guy, scratch that, some person will identify as a dog or a horse, and a hoard of Harvard-Berkeley wizards will realize they can’t define a human and champion the right to have fur and a tail surgically, umm, attached(?) .

    • You know, I’m bending over and touching my forehead to my heels to help you out, Nate, but you’re not making it easy. This comment is a cheap shot, unfair, and makes nobody look bad except you. It doesn’t make you more credible; it does the opposite

      • It is unfortunate. It’s nice to get differing views here, but why do they always turn nasty so quickly? I haven’t seen anyone treat Nate with anywhere near the vitriol he’s dishing out. You’ve been more than patient with him.

      • Identifying a minority group as a “problem” is wrong and unethical. My reply invoked a historical comparison to explain what it leads to. It *is* what the Nazis did. No one has actually defended why this is actually ok.

        • Calling a problem a problem is 100% valid. I identified your cheap shot, and the ethical response of a good faith commenter would be to say, as many have in the past (and I have on occasion myself)—“sorry: that was over the line.” Calling any group a “problem” does not imply that mass murder is that proposed solution.

          You doubled down, when you should be backing off: you’re an asshole.

          And YOU’RE BANNED from commenting further.

          I gave you plenty of chances to play nice, and you kept crapping in the sandbox. Don’t reply, because it will be spammed. It’s 5:55 PM on Sunday, so any comment submitted after this time will similarly be sent to SPAM hell.

          Congratulations: you last one more day than I predicted.

          I might relent in exchange for a clear, sincere apology and a credible promise to behave. I don’t expect one.


        • Attention: Nate has been banned, as I’m sure many of the commenters knew he would be, sooner or later.
          Do not respond to any posts that arrived after 6 PM. your comments will be lost with his.

          • Well done. I knew from the first comment that he was a jerk who would cross the line eventually. The thing is that it’s nitwits like him and “A Lib” and Katie who are going to probably be the next generation of leaders, and make AOC look like a genius by comparison.

  6. Scatter-shot responses:

    The longer I live, the more convinced I am that no one really knows what the hell they are talking about when it comes to sexuality. We have come up with labels like homosexual and heterosexual because they describe our behaviors and predilections, but they probably don’t describe anything real.

    Having said that, I am heterosexual, but I can’t really say I was born that way. I am also shy, but I never chose that either; I have just always been that way, but I don’t think I was born that way. Between people like me and someone who claims to be homosexual, there is probably a huge spectrum of possible behaviors. We give those behaviors labels and put them on people so we can put them in a box that is easy for us to understand. Being able to do that makes us feel good because we think we understand the world a little bit better if we can do that.

    It’s hooey, HOOEY, I TELLS YA!

    Having said that, it really annoyed me when they took homosexuality out of the DSM. It annoyed me not because I necessarily thought there was anything wrong with homosexuality. It annoyed me because, as Jack suggests, it was political. After all, it could not be scientific because psychology is not a science (how’s that for throwing down a gauntlet?).

    Having said that, gender dysphoria is even more annoying to me. Not only do you have the political aspect you had with the DSM, you also have the academic aspect. The academics will claim that gender is a construct. But, if it is a construct, it is arguably not like sexuality, which people argue is biological. It is perfectly fine for us to construct two genders, as opposed to 20. So this whole talk of gender identity seems to be a lot of mental masturbation by academics who want to play with ideas.

    But, my same feelings apply to the gender issue. They will call me cisgender, but I don’t know what that means. I don’t know what other people feel as being male. I just am me. I can’t say that I experience my gender the same way other people do. If I am transgender, how would I even know? I know lots of women and lots of them identify as women, but how do I know that they are not experiencing the same thing I am?

    So the labeling aspect of it all bugs me. I don’t identify as cisgender.

    And, it really annoys me that I often joke that I am man enough to admit my femininity. This whole transgender thing ruins the whole joke!

    But, there is some truth to it. Usually, when people come up with generalizations (men are like this, women are like that), I often fit into the woman category. But, I don’t feel like a woman, but would I know it even if I did? Of course, I also do a lot of the oblivious things most men do, as well. So, I get by pretty easily not worrying about whether my gender fits my genitalia..

    Now, where is all of this leading us to? Other sexual behavior that can’t be cured? Let’s say it together: PEDOPHILIA.

    The logic will run right in that direction. Pedophilia is an illness, disorder, whatever (stupid psychologists! (shakes fist)). An illness that can’t be cured. Sounds like it is just the way some people are. That would suggest that pedophilia is just like any other type of sexual expression people want to normalize.

    At that point, opposition to pedophilia is just a matter of the ICK! factor. Most people are disgusted by sex with children, so we stigmatize, pathologize, and criminalize the behavior. I do not see how one can, with consistency, stigmatize or pathologize pedophilia if we maintain: 1) it is an illness; and 2) it is incurable.

    Having said that, it seems perfectly appropriate to criminalize the behavior, as the law creates a legal fiction of incapacity of children. To be clear, factually, all children lack capacity at some point; legally, we simply pick a bright line for the age of majority that takes away that legal incapacity (or lines, if we are talking about driving, smoking, or voting, or drinking, or shooting guns, all activities that are most enjoyably done together), That creates a legal incapacity, but even that is a social construct. But, it is a construct that permeates the law; it is designed to protect children from all sorts of ills, not just sexual ones. That is a significant difference.

    But, pedophilia is a another one of those labels that we like to use so that we can put people in a box that makes us think we understand something.

    And, we probably don’t understand it. And, that’s okay, as long as we don’t understand what we don’t understand.


    • Read “The Myth of Mental Illness,” by Dr. Thomas Szasz, or check out some of the video interviews of him. He was a distinguished lifetime fellow of the American Psychiatric Association and a life member of the American Psychoanalytic Association, as well as a professor of psychiatry, who became a vocal critic of the modern practice of psychiatry. His criticisms cover a spectrum of issues but the one most evident in our modern society is the ubiquity of psychotropic drugs, which are prescribed for all sorts of illnesses and disorders, many of which are unrelated to brain function or aberrant behavior. He says that a diagnosis of mental illness has come to create a de facto “right to drugs,” and that many people actively seek (and obtain) such a diagnosis specifically to get on and stay on psychotropic drugs. He also challenges any psychiatrist to prove that he or she has ever cured a single patient. Big Pharma companies are, of course, in this racket up to their necks.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.