Are gay people suffering from a mental disorder

>>8232587
>homosexuality is/isn't a mental disorder depending on a vote of US psychs decades ago

>>8232600
Even if it were still in the DSM it wouldn't fall in line with general guidelines, that suggest disorders require some degree of harm.

>>8232619
Oh right, I thought "mental disorders" was a technical and scientific term, not just a grouping of of convenience of thoughts/behaviors.

But really the problem with psychology is that most of it isn't hard science.

People tend not to question that the earth revolves around the sun.

>>8232638
>People tend not to question that the earth revolves around the sun.
Currently, thanks to people being willing to say what was unpopular and unorthodox.

>>8232634
I mean I guess, but to do so categorically we would need full understanding of how the brain works. We don't have that, so really it ends up being abnormal, harmful behaviours.

Like err, our eyes can objectively see more green than red or blue, and therefore anyone that has a favourite colour that isn't green has a mental disorder because there's most green in our lives. It wouldn't really make sense right?

You can find some neurological differences in gay people though, usually in the hippocampus and amygdala. Again it's not really a disorder until it's harmful.

This manual is a joke, and many of the “diseases” are groundless and depend on the current politics. Why is zoophilia, or any paraphilia more of a disorder than homosexuality? Few to none of the entries are physiologically threatening the patient, and I suspect it overly medicalises benign “issues” to let companies market additional medicines. I read that 54% of the psychiatrists involved in the DSM-IV reported a financial connection with pharmaceutics producers, a proportion that increased to 70% in the preparation of the DSM-V. The numbers of pathologies rose abruptly in a similar trend, with psychiatrists working on the previous version admitting it's getting excessive. Honestly, I give no credit to such a publication.

Our understanding of conditions changes over time.

>>8232775
It's the best we have. All medicine is corrupted by capitalism.

>>8232780
It's terrible, and it lures people into medicalisation. Common sense is still better than this framework.

>>8232780
>All medicine is corrupted by capitalism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_abuse_of_psychiatry_in_the_Soviet_Union

>>8232801
…how is it suppose to invalidate what he wrote?

>>8232775
degenerate furry detected

>>8232800
Common sense is not better than the collected expertise of the people genuinely trying to help. There's a good reason why it is the standard reference manual. The community is not stupid.

>>8232801
Haha fair enough. You get my point though.

>>8232807
It's the collected “expertise” of people who might have a conflict of interest, or who would mistakenly diagnose a disease out of a commonplace condition. The same way oncologists see a tumour, there's a risk they will be eager to spot clinical states in mundane issues. There's nowhere near a consensus on the manual, including within its own taskforce. Four of the precedent chairmen rejected the manual, and countless physicians don't use it. Its qualification of “standard” is groundless. Many people with serious credentials refuse the existence of these disorders, or refuse to treat it with pharmaceutics. You shouldn't assume it's the reference because it's introduced as such. You shouldn't even trust it otherwise. As mentioned, homosexuality was a disorder in DSM-II and it was as much “standard” as it is now.

>>8232853
>It's the collected “expertise” of people who might have a conflict of interest, or who would mistakenly diagnose a disease out of a commonplace condition
AKA doctors. The same is true for all sorts of doctors, yet we still turn to doctors instead of relying on "common sense". That's medicine.

>There's nowhere near a consensus on the manual, including within its own taskforce
There's a consensus - just not on everything. Like in medicine.

>Four of the precedent chairmen rejected the manual, and countless physicians don't use it
Yet the overwhelming majority does.

>Its qualification of “standard” is groundless
It's used by the overwhelming majority of western doctors.

>As mentioned, homosexuality was a disorder in DSM-II and it was as much “standard” as it is now.
Our understanding of issues evolves over time. Many old manuals on medical conditions are similarly inaccurate on some issues.

Psychiatry is not perfect. We're doing the best we can with our flawed tools and limited understanding. This does not mean that the de facto standard diagnostic manual in the west shouldn't be deferred to.

File: FUG.jpg (293KB, 1016x568px) Image search: [Google]

293KB, 1016x568px

>>8232775
>Why is zoophilia, or any paraphilia more of a disorder than homosexuality?
Because ponies are at /mlp/, and plant-fuckers at full.chan.

Why don't you have a seat here?

>>8232917
On what bases do you assume it's actual widespread? A fraction of a consensus isn't a consensus.

>yet we still turn to doctors instead of relying on "common sense"
Most people—and I hope you as well—don't “turn to doctors” for the slightest sign of weakness. “Binge eating disorder”, “minor neurocognitive disorder”, “mixed anxiety depression”? Really? It doesn't only shirk away any sense of responsibility, it treats with medicines a banal condition. What do you do when you have a headache? Do you take a painkiller, or do you realise having watched the television for four hours might mean a walk is needed?

>>8232917
The NIH does not allow for DSM-V diagnostic criteria to be used exclusively in the research that they fund, due to it having a lack of vaildity.

>>8232600
Ah yes why would we ever listen to the opinions of psychologists when it comes to mental illness? Next you'll be telling me that we should listen to doctors when they try to convince us to take vaccines laced with autism.

>>8232775
>zoophilia isn't physciologically harmfaul
Cool opinion you got there

>>8232775
The DSM isn't even the official diagnostic manual for psychiatry in the United States, the ICD-10 is. The ICD-10 was made by the WHO and is designated as the official manual for such things by the dept of health and human services. The DSM was made by the american psychiatric association, a private organization which gets massive amounts of money from drug companies. In shor the DSM is a crock of shit.

>>8234751
The same WHO that funds circumcision to stop AIDS while condemning FGM?

>>8235651
>The same WHO that funds circumcision to stop AIDS while condemning FGM?
They're fundamentally different operations in terms of their effect on their body.

>>8232587
Depends on what you mean by disorder? Not normal? Sure. Defective? Not for medicine to decide.

>>8236258
[citation needed]

>>8234751
Okay, but do you understand that the DSM is the de facto standard?

>>8237107
[citation needed]

>>8234697
How is it hurting someone to be attracted to something?

File: consider the following.jpg (48KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 600x600px

>>8232587
>Are gay people suffering from a mental disorder
No because they don't suffer from it unless they're discriminated against.

>>8238976
Google.

Mental disorder? No. In my experience, as a gay boy, gay people are equally as mentally capable as normalfags.

I have wondered though, if gay people might benefit from having homosexuality medically classified as a disability, but I'm not smart enough to think that through to a good conclusion.

>>8240031
>Mental disorder? No. In my experience, as a gay boy, gay people are equally as mentally capable as normalfags.

Mental disorders have nothing to do with how "capable" people are. Some schizophrenics and autists are even more capable in certain fields than normal people.

>>8240031
>if gay people might benefit from having homosexuality medically classified as a disability

My therapist told me that gays could get their therapy covered by the insurance since it was a mental condition.