Mark Zuckerberg announced this week that Meta will eliminate fact-checkers and allow some hate speech against LGBTQ people and immigrants. Popular Information's Judd Legum explains.
Mark Zuckerberg's latest move to appease Trump’s incoming administration? Allowing users to call LGBTQ people mentally ill, citing "political and religious discourse." This isn’t free speech; it’s targeted hate. Meta’s revised hate speech policies openly strip protections for LGBTQ individuals, women, immigrants, and other marginalized groups—leaving them exposed to harassment and dehumanization in the name of "prioritizing speech."
But it doesn’t stop there. Meta has scrapped rules forbidding hate based on race, ethnicity, disability, and gender identity. It’s removed safeguards that banned the cruelest slurs and misgendering language. Fact-checking? Gone. Instead, they’re rolling out a community-driven system akin to X’s chaos-driven "Community Notes." Translation: truth is now up for a popularity vote.
This isn’t moderation. It’s normalization—of bigotry, misinformation, and violence.
Zuckerberg and Meta’s tech allies are openly courting Trump, pouring millions into his inauguration fund, while installing UFC’s Dana White, a Trump loyalist, on Meta’s board. This isn’t just corporate sycophancy—it’s a declaration of allegiance to a regime bent on dismantling equality and truth.
Meta is no longer a social media company. It’s a propaganda machine for hate and authoritarianism, profiting off division and vitriol.
If you value democracy, dignity, and decency: leave Meta’s platforms. There are alternatives. Stop giving your clicks, data, and dollars to a corporation that thrives on silencing the vulnerable and amplifying the powerful. This is not just a bad business decision—it’s complicity.
They've never protected me from hate slung at me, and I was accumulating a list of people who were banned for fighting back against bigots, racists, etc. I got banned for being radical about never forgetting that, while I didn't get trans blown up in my face, I was called the n-word from people all over the world. Their so-called policy was to block them after they've caused their racist damage in my spirit. TF does that do? Nothing! That just means who does that gets to skate on to do it to someone else. Now I'm debating leaving that place for good. Problem is, I have a public image, too and a couple of groups I run to educate about a couple of topics. If not for those things, I would have no need for FB's shitty politics.
KingRay, you make a very critical point, regarding the uselessness of blocking on these legacy Meta/X platforms...it achieves NOTHING. Simply blocking white supremacists, misogynists, and anti-LGBTQ bigots does NOTHING. I had individually blocked over 5300+ users on Facebook by the time I said "Frack THIS, I'm out of here!" and it didn't decrease the incidence of misogynistic and anti-LGBTQ hate speech, death threats, or threats of rape against me, my spouse, or my cats, not in any discernible way.
The death threats were unpleasant, the rape threats creepily worse, but the detailed rape and torture threats against our cats, that was the last straw.
Who does that, who goes on, hundreds of words, describing sexual acts and torture of somebody's PET?!?
And, not coincidentally, there's a reason why I don't engage and will never engage with GOPMAGAs. Even if they've never actually raped, tortured, or murdered anyone, human or otherwise, they're ok voting for candidates of a party that HAVE, and who believe they shouldn't ever be held accountable for rape and murder as long as it was done to further their religious and political objectives.
I just don't think this is too high a bar, and since Zuck disagrees, eff him and eff off to his platforms.
Meta has absolutely crossed a line. Allowing its users to say members of the LGBTQIA community are mentally ill. As on Shitter, "free speech" is apparently now synonymous with hate speech on Meta.
Yes, those stinking ads were effective because cisgender heterosexual people are mouthing off about the total crap put out by the GOP, misrepresenting trans people. I'm a transman, and people don't know I'm trans. It's not like I walk around with trans stamped on my forehead, so they say stupid things in my presence that I either have to defend or get away from ... depending on the venom they're being bigoted pricks about. It's disgusting because they own the media who refuses to talk with us directly, so the insanity is traveling at lightning speed. We can't defend ourselves, educate, and get out in front of the insanity. They just want to attack, not understand who we really are. That's happening all over the internet, including Substack. THAT'S how effective those ads were and how incredibly gullible Americans have become.
BTW, we need to get out of the habit of talking about people instead of talking to the very people you're talking ABOUT. If it's trans and you have 2 cisgender people trying to figure it out, talk with a trans person instead ... to educate you what it's like out here. That irritates me, because white people do that about being Black, and ALWAYS get it wrong. It's like being in your own silos talking about experiences you aren't having. We call that whitesplaining, to use their wording. Now cisgender people are transplaining and have no clue what they're talking about. Thanks.
Yeah, it’s not about free speech. Unless we’re talking about Z man expressing his bigoted views via his policies. If it was just allowing people to say whatever they wanted, he wouldn’t have removed the “Pride”, “Transgender” and “Nonbinary” themes from Facebook messenger. That move had nothing to do with “Free Speech”.
I left Twitter before Musk and I left Facebook in 2019. Best actions I've ever taken for my business and my personal life. As an outspoken LGBTQ+ advocate and as a woman who is lesbian, Trans, and queer, I just got sick of the rape and death threats, and you know what, I don't miss them a bit!
There's NOTHING on those platforms I want or need.
NOTHING.
I find much more useful engagement on Mastodon, Substack, Medium and other platforms.
I don't have a good feeling about Bluesky. The fact that they label LGBTQ+ content as "adult" and "sexual" is a no go.
Not everyone experienced gender dysphoria the same way or the same intensity. You don't need to have dysphoria to be trans. I much prefer the term gender incongruence. Regardless of the label of mental illness you can't discriminate against trans people. You can't call people mentally ill. The changes in policy are not rooted in semantics of who is mentally ill and who isn't, it is rooted in hatred and control.
None of those assholes are medical professionals and acting like they can bully the healthcare industry too. That mental illness or abnormality was debunked a long time ago, and they're acting like that never happened. SMFH
Brittany, very well said, and you've succinctly stated why I took prefer the WHO ICD-11 gender incongruence diagnosis vs. the APA DSM-V GD definition and diagnostics.
There's an enormous difference between experiencing dysphoria and experiencing the anxiety, depression, and suicidality that come not from being Trans but from existing as Trans in a society that wants us fearful or dead and demonstrates this via foundational discrimination, predation, and violence.
This was made clear when the APA formally declared simply being transgender was NOT a mental illness in the 2013 DSM-V release and the adoption of the GD medical diagnosis with confirming psychotherapeutic diagnostics instead of the previous pathologizing GID mental health diagnosis, and further refined in the DSM-V TR. Yes, many states acknowledge in their HRA that there's a disability component but it isn't because being Trans is in and of itself a "disability", it's because the reality sadly is that often the externally sourced hatred and violence directed at Trans people simply because they ARE Trans causes levels of anxiety, distress, depression, and suicidal ideation that ACT as disabling. In other words, if cisgender folks would stop discriminating against us, beating, raping, and murdering us on a wholesale and industrial level, we'd PROBABLY have better mental health.
I know the distinction may not seem large but it is crucial. We aren't in distress or disordered BECAUSE we're Trans, we suffer from distress, disorder, and dysfunction because we are TARGETED for such simply for being Trans; exogenous not endogenous origination of pathology. If cisgender people could improve their own mental health and cease maladaptive coping via using US as proxy punching bags and skeets, OUR mental health would improve dramatically.
But we are Americans, with the worst and most inequitable healthcare and mental health delivery system in the entire developed world...
Elisa, do you speak often about self harm? Do you think about it daily, weekly? I'm not concern trolling, it's just that you've brought it up in multiple comments along with some edging commentary and I'm very concerned. Are you currently seeing anyone? I'm just hoping you have plenty of social and psychotherapeutic supports. I highly recommend the Trans Lifeline if you need support or find yourself in crisis, please call their hotline: U.S. (877) 565-8860 or Canada (877) 330-6366. They have all LGBTQ+ staffers, are Trans culturally competent, and many staffers are TGE, too.
It's inappropriate for me at this point to have any further dialogue with you, but please call if you have need.
Ray Blanchard was NOT a prominent architect of the DSM-V. He's a very misogynistic gay male psychologist whose practice has been limited because of his anti-Trans stance. He does not believe transgender males exist, nor nonbinary or gender expansive people, and he believes that all Trans women are gay men, despite the fact that only about 20-25% of Trans women are straight/androphilic. He also doesn't believe in lesbian Trans women and to "explain them" he invented the debunked "autogynephilia" concept which has never been validated and is not accepted as a diagnostic by ANY credible professional, authoritative, or regulatory body, including the APA, ESA, AMA, AAP, or HHS.
Please read actual history about GD/GID and the developmental process of the APA and the DSM. A good guiding star is whether or not the author of a work on Trans experiences and identities is Trans or works extensively with Trans people. Many anti-Trans "experts", like Lisa Littman, Hilary Cass, and Ray Blanchard have either no experience or very limited experience working with Trans and gender expansive people.
I'm sure you have good intentions and I do NOT impugn your intent, I just think you're basing opinion on obsolescent or unfounded material. Please understand I mean no harm, I'm a Trans woman myself, I'm a Trans and LGBTQ cultural competency and DEI educator, I teach Sexuality and Sexual Health Education at the Brown School of Social Work at Washington University in St. Louis, you can google me and my writing on Trans history and Trans liberation, and I'm actively involved in the community, on the Board of Directors of the St. Louis LGBTQ Chamber of Commerce and I'm happy to recommend books you may find more helpful.
Yes, I know, but working on a committee or chairing a committee that NOBODY ELSE WANTED doesn't make him a PI or principal author. You're factually incorrect and I find it distressing that you choose to keep posting the same links to the same articles as if repetition were validation.
Also, who are "folks like me", and why do you feel it necessary to "humiliate" other people, or me?
I've been nothing but respectful to you and I request politely the same level of consideration. I do not accept that you or anyone else has the right to be abusive towards me or anyone else.
If you dislike my characterizations of Blanchard, you should read more professional review and critique. I've been quite polite.
If someone said I was factually incorrect, and I verified it, I would thank them and amend my statement. This happens all the time and is a component of how we learn and how we develop professionally. It's not some sort of zero sum game or scoring.
Being trans saved me from mental illness, not the other way around. I'd rather not have that extra stigma, because there is nothing wrong with me besides what happened when I was born into this world. The rest is societal bullshit. They're the ones who are mentally ill and just have to give my identity a huge negative. I don't condone that in the least. I'm too old to care what people think, but they're trying to dismantle our very existence out of society.
Agreed. Coming to terms with being Trans and beginning my journey of awareness, acceptance, and action changed my life and my mental health for the better, by a long shot.
Those who prefer ignorance over awareness, rejection over acceptance, and stultification and status quo over action and actualization, they are the ones with intransigent and inherent disorders, not US.
What about homosexuality. It was originally listed in the DSM as a mental illness and then removed as such. Would you like same sex attraction to be a mental illness as well ?
It should be noted that homosexuality was only listed originally in the DSM-I because of the "red scare" and "lavender scare" cultural motifs of the 1950s. Homosexuality was only ever pathologized for political and cultural reasons, not validated scientific or mental health rationales. That's why when it was finally empirically addressed in 1973, the APA voted unanimously to remove homosexuality from the draft DSM-II, with only TWO abstentions. They left in until the DSM-III a disorder related to being homosexual due to the societal rejection, discrimination, and violence heaped upon those who were homosexual, and not because of intrinsic or integral disorder.
It's a very similar sociocultural dual trajectory with professional understanding and best practice methodologies as was later observed in the evolution and understanding of gender identity, which has now been validated after six decades of research and practice.
Again, it's important to remember this as antis have adopted "gender ideology" and "experimental care" terminology towards gender affirming care and best practices not because they disapprove of the decades of science and practice but because they themselves vehemently disagree with science and best practice when they don't collude with their biases, wishy thinking, and hatefulness.
They can prate and prattle about "radical gender ideology" all they like, but nothing they say or do invalidates sixty years of work that validate the current scientific consensus of GAC as recommended in the relevant SOC by the APA, ACA, AAP, ACS, ESA, WPATH/USPATH, and the NCTE.
The APA hasn't "ruled" on "sex addiction" because no one yet has been able to produce quality reproducible and validated reseat either for the proposed diagnosis or for best practice SOC. It's also considered by many sex positive practitioners and educators, including myself (full disclosure, I'm a member of AASECT, the American Association of Sexuality Educators Counselors and Therapists and signatory to their ethical standards) to be pathologizing and stigmatizing.
Michael Bailey is a discredited anti-Trans bigot of the likes of Paul McHugh, Anne Lawrence , Janice Raymond, and Ray Blanchard. Ignore him, he's got nothing to say of intrinsic or peripheral value and AGP is not and will never be an APA or WHO ICD validated diagnosis.
No. You're wrong and you're peddling misinformation as well as attempting to insult me. I'm not, lol, "disillusioned", I'm just protective of evidence based and best practice modalities.
AGP is absolutely NOT in the DSM-V or the DSM-V TR. It's also not even in the DSM-IV or DSM-IV TR, except as an "associated feature" of GID (Gender Identity Disorder), meaning it is described as a *potential* characteristic that MAY be present in SOME individuals with this diagnosis.
But one cannot ignore that the DSM-V significantly de-emphasizes its role in discussing gender dysphoria, because V doesn't see GD as pathological as IV does GID, and because AGP is any way you slice it an unproven, unvalidated, suppositional, and therefore controversial concept with limited to zero clinical utility.
So...why are you so attached to outmoded and even dangerous stereotypes and pathologizations? Have you asked yourself this? You might find some useful insight in a bit of introspection here, and I certainly wish you all the best.
Blanchard really goes out of his way in this 11 year old Vice article to demonstrate how alienated, sexist, misogynistic, out of touch, obsolescent, anti-Trans, and cisheteronormative he actually is. And he's a self-loathing homophobic gay man who believes he's going to hell.
You really need to read a book that isn't "The Man Who Would Be Queen". I recommend anything by Julia Serano, Michel Foucault, Judith Butler (especially "Who's Afraid of Gender"), Leslie Feinberg, Torrey Peters, Susan Stryker, Rikki Wilchins, Shayla Lawson, C. Riley Snorton.
𝗚𝗘𝗧 𝗢𝗙𝗙 𝗠𝗘𝗧𝗔’𝗦 𝗣𝗟𝗔𝗧𝗙𝗢𝗥𝗠𝗦!
𝗠𝗲𝘁𝗮 𝗵𝗮𝘀 𝗰𝗿𝗼𝘀𝘀𝗲𝗱 𝗮 𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗲—𝗮𝗴𝗮𝗶𝗻. 𝗜𝗳 𝘆𝗼𝘂'𝗿𝗲 𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝗼𝗻 𝗙𝗮𝗰𝗲𝗯𝗼𝗼𝗸, 𝗜𝗻𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗴𝗿𝗮𝗺, 𝗼𝗿 𝗧𝗵𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗱𝘀, 𝘄𝗵𝘆 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝗲𝗺𝗽𝗼𝘄𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀?
Mark Zuckerberg's latest move to appease Trump’s incoming administration? Allowing users to call LGBTQ people mentally ill, citing "political and religious discourse." This isn’t free speech; it’s targeted hate. Meta’s revised hate speech policies openly strip protections for LGBTQ individuals, women, immigrants, and other marginalized groups—leaving them exposed to harassment and dehumanization in the name of "prioritizing speech."
But it doesn’t stop there. Meta has scrapped rules forbidding hate based on race, ethnicity, disability, and gender identity. It’s removed safeguards that banned the cruelest slurs and misgendering language. Fact-checking? Gone. Instead, they’re rolling out a community-driven system akin to X’s chaos-driven "Community Notes." Translation: truth is now up for a popularity vote.
This isn’t moderation. It’s normalization—of bigotry, misinformation, and violence.
Zuckerberg and Meta’s tech allies are openly courting Trump, pouring millions into his inauguration fund, while installing UFC’s Dana White, a Trump loyalist, on Meta’s board. This isn’t just corporate sycophancy—it’s a declaration of allegiance to a regime bent on dismantling equality and truth.
Meta is no longer a social media company. It’s a propaganda machine for hate and authoritarianism, profiting off division and vitriol.
If you value democracy, dignity, and decency: leave Meta’s platforms. There are alternatives. Stop giving your clicks, data, and dollars to a corporation that thrives on silencing the vulnerable and amplifying the powerful. This is not just a bad business decision—it’s complicity.
••••https://substack.com/@patricemersault?utm_source=user-menu
They've never protected me from hate slung at me, and I was accumulating a list of people who were banned for fighting back against bigots, racists, etc. I got banned for being radical about never forgetting that, while I didn't get trans blown up in my face, I was called the n-word from people all over the world. Their so-called policy was to block them after they've caused their racist damage in my spirit. TF does that do? Nothing! That just means who does that gets to skate on to do it to someone else. Now I'm debating leaving that place for good. Problem is, I have a public image, too and a couple of groups I run to educate about a couple of topics. If not for those things, I would have no need for FB's shitty politics.
KingRay, you make a very critical point, regarding the uselessness of blocking on these legacy Meta/X platforms...it achieves NOTHING. Simply blocking white supremacists, misogynists, and anti-LGBTQ bigots does NOTHING. I had individually blocked over 5300+ users on Facebook by the time I said "Frack THIS, I'm out of here!" and it didn't decrease the incidence of misogynistic and anti-LGBTQ hate speech, death threats, or threats of rape against me, my spouse, or my cats, not in any discernible way.
The death threats were unpleasant, the rape threats creepily worse, but the detailed rape and torture threats against our cats, that was the last straw.
Who does that, who goes on, hundreds of words, describing sexual acts and torture of somebody's PET?!?
And, not coincidentally, there's a reason why I don't engage and will never engage with GOPMAGAs. Even if they've never actually raped, tortured, or murdered anyone, human or otherwise, they're ok voting for candidates of a party that HAVE, and who believe they shouldn't ever be held accountable for rape and murder as long as it was done to further their religious and political objectives.
I just don't think this is too high a bar, and since Zuck disagrees, eff him and eff off to his platforms.
Seeing that FB downranks accounts for linking to Substack and other external sites is a solid reason to shut down accounts there.
The way Meta is deciding to promote hatred is simply the cherry on top.
I’m deleting accounts now. Thank you for posting this article to help me make my decision.
Wow, I didn't know that. SMFH
Meta has absolutely crossed a line. Allowing its users to say members of the LGBTQIA community are mentally ill. As on Shitter, "free speech" is apparently now synonymous with hate speech on Meta.
Yes, those stinking ads were effective because cisgender heterosexual people are mouthing off about the total crap put out by the GOP, misrepresenting trans people. I'm a transman, and people don't know I'm trans. It's not like I walk around with trans stamped on my forehead, so they say stupid things in my presence that I either have to defend or get away from ... depending on the venom they're being bigoted pricks about. It's disgusting because they own the media who refuses to talk with us directly, so the insanity is traveling at lightning speed. We can't defend ourselves, educate, and get out in front of the insanity. They just want to attack, not understand who we really are. That's happening all over the internet, including Substack. THAT'S how effective those ads were and how incredibly gullible Americans have become.
BTW, we need to get out of the habit of talking about people instead of talking to the very people you're talking ABOUT. If it's trans and you have 2 cisgender people trying to figure it out, talk with a trans person instead ... to educate you what it's like out here. That irritates me, because white people do that about being Black, and ALWAYS get it wrong. It's like being in your own silos talking about experiences you aren't having. We call that whitesplaining, to use their wording. Now cisgender people are transplaining and have no clue what they're talking about. Thanks.
Yeah, it’s not about free speech. Unless we’re talking about Z man expressing his bigoted views via his policies. If it was just allowing people to say whatever they wanted, he wouldn’t have removed the “Pride”, “Transgender” and “Nonbinary” themes from Facebook messenger. That move had nothing to do with “Free Speech”.
I left Twitter before Musk and I left Facebook in 2019. Best actions I've ever taken for my business and my personal life. As an outspoken LGBTQ+ advocate and as a woman who is lesbian, Trans, and queer, I just got sick of the rape and death threats, and you know what, I don't miss them a bit!
There's NOTHING on those platforms I want or need.
NOTHING.
I find much more useful engagement on Mastodon, Substack, Medium and other platforms.
I don't have a good feeling about Bluesky. The fact that they label LGBTQ+ content as "adult" and "sexual" is a no go.
But I sure haven't missed Meta/x!
Not everyone experienced gender dysphoria the same way or the same intensity. You don't need to have dysphoria to be trans. I much prefer the term gender incongruence. Regardless of the label of mental illness you can't discriminate against trans people. You can't call people mentally ill. The changes in policy are not rooted in semantics of who is mentally ill and who isn't, it is rooted in hatred and control.
None of those assholes are medical professionals and acting like they can bully the healthcare industry too. That mental illness or abnormality was debunked a long time ago, and they're acting like that never happened. SMFH
Brittany, very well said, and you've succinctly stated why I took prefer the WHO ICD-11 gender incongruence diagnosis vs. the APA DSM-V GD definition and diagnostics.
There's an enormous difference between experiencing dysphoria and experiencing the anxiety, depression, and suicidality that come not from being Trans but from existing as Trans in a society that wants us fearful or dead and demonstrates this via foundational discrimination, predation, and violence.
This was made clear when the APA formally declared simply being transgender was NOT a mental illness in the 2013 DSM-V release and the adoption of the GD medical diagnosis with confirming psychotherapeutic diagnostics instead of the previous pathologizing GID mental health diagnosis, and further refined in the DSM-V TR. Yes, many states acknowledge in their HRA that there's a disability component but it isn't because being Trans is in and of itself a "disability", it's because the reality sadly is that often the externally sourced hatred and violence directed at Trans people simply because they ARE Trans causes levels of anxiety, distress, depression, and suicidal ideation that ACT as disabling. In other words, if cisgender folks would stop discriminating against us, beating, raping, and murdering us on a wholesale and industrial level, we'd PROBABLY have better mental health.
I know the distinction may not seem large but it is crucial. We aren't in distress or disordered BECAUSE we're Trans, we suffer from distress, disorder, and dysfunction because we are TARGETED for such simply for being Trans; exogenous not endogenous origination of pathology. If cisgender people could improve their own mental health and cease maladaptive coping via using US as proxy punching bags and skeets, OUR mental health would improve dramatically.
But we are Americans, with the worst and most inequitable healthcare and mental health delivery system in the entire developed world...
Elisa, do you speak often about self harm? Do you think about it daily, weekly? I'm not concern trolling, it's just that you've brought it up in multiple comments along with some edging commentary and I'm very concerned. Are you currently seeing anyone? I'm just hoping you have plenty of social and psychotherapeutic supports. I highly recommend the Trans Lifeline if you need support or find yourself in crisis, please call their hotline: U.S. (877) 565-8860 or Canada (877) 330-6366. They have all LGBTQ+ staffers, are Trans culturally competent, and many staffers are TGE, too.
It's inappropriate for me at this point to have any further dialogue with you, but please call if you have need.
Ray Blanchard was NOT a prominent architect of the DSM-V. He's a very misogynistic gay male psychologist whose practice has been limited because of his anti-Trans stance. He does not believe transgender males exist, nor nonbinary or gender expansive people, and he believes that all Trans women are gay men, despite the fact that only about 20-25% of Trans women are straight/androphilic. He also doesn't believe in lesbian Trans women and to "explain them" he invented the debunked "autogynephilia" concept which has never been validated and is not accepted as a diagnostic by ANY credible professional, authoritative, or regulatory body, including the APA, ESA, AMA, AAP, or HHS.
Please read actual history about GD/GID and the developmental process of the APA and the DSM. A good guiding star is whether or not the author of a work on Trans experiences and identities is Trans or works extensively with Trans people. Many anti-Trans "experts", like Lisa Littman, Hilary Cass, and Ray Blanchard have either no experience or very limited experience working with Trans and gender expansive people.
I'm sure you have good intentions and I do NOT impugn your intent, I just think you're basing opinion on obsolescent or unfounded material. Please understand I mean no harm, I'm a Trans woman myself, I'm a Trans and LGBTQ cultural competency and DEI educator, I teach Sexuality and Sexual Health Education at the Brown School of Social Work at Washington University in St. Louis, you can google me and my writing on Trans history and Trans liberation, and I'm actively involved in the community, on the Board of Directors of the St. Louis LGBTQ Chamber of Commerce and I'm happy to recommend books you may find more helpful.
Yes, I know, but working on a committee or chairing a committee that NOBODY ELSE WANTED doesn't make him a PI or principal author. You're factually incorrect and I find it distressing that you choose to keep posting the same links to the same articles as if repetition were validation.
Also, who are "folks like me", and why do you feel it necessary to "humiliate" other people, or me?
I've been nothing but respectful to you and I request politely the same level of consideration. I do not accept that you or anyone else has the right to be abusive towards me or anyone else.
If you dislike my characterizations of Blanchard, you should read more professional review and critique. I've been quite polite.
If someone said I was factually incorrect, and I verified it, I would thank them and amend my statement. This happens all the time and is a component of how we learn and how we develop professionally. It's not some sort of zero sum game or scoring.
Why do you think you're responding in this way?
Being trans saved me from mental illness, not the other way around. I'd rather not have that extra stigma, because there is nothing wrong with me besides what happened when I was born into this world. The rest is societal bullshit. They're the ones who are mentally ill and just have to give my identity a huge negative. I don't condone that in the least. I'm too old to care what people think, but they're trying to dismantle our very existence out of society.
Agreed. Coming to terms with being Trans and beginning my journey of awareness, acceptance, and action changed my life and my mental health for the better, by a long shot.
Those who prefer ignorance over awareness, rejection over acceptance, and stultification and status quo over action and actualization, they are the ones with intransigent and inherent disorders, not US.
What about homosexuality. It was originally listed in the DSM as a mental illness and then removed as such. Would you like same sex attraction to be a mental illness as well ?
It should be noted that homosexuality was only listed originally in the DSM-I because of the "red scare" and "lavender scare" cultural motifs of the 1950s. Homosexuality was only ever pathologized for political and cultural reasons, not validated scientific or mental health rationales. That's why when it was finally empirically addressed in 1973, the APA voted unanimously to remove homosexuality from the draft DSM-II, with only TWO abstentions. They left in until the DSM-III a disorder related to being homosexual due to the societal rejection, discrimination, and violence heaped upon those who were homosexual, and not because of intrinsic or integral disorder.
It's a very similar sociocultural dual trajectory with professional understanding and best practice methodologies as was later observed in the evolution and understanding of gender identity, which has now been validated after six decades of research and practice.
Again, it's important to remember this as antis have adopted "gender ideology" and "experimental care" terminology towards gender affirming care and best practices not because they disapprove of the decades of science and practice but because they themselves vehemently disagree with science and best practice when they don't collude with their biases, wishy thinking, and hatefulness.
They can prate and prattle about "radical gender ideology" all they like, but nothing they say or do invalidates sixty years of work that validate the current scientific consensus of GAC as recommended in the relevant SOC by the APA, ACA, AAP, ACS, ESA, WPATH/USPATH, and the NCTE.
The APA hasn't "ruled" on "sex addiction" because no one yet has been able to produce quality reproducible and validated reseat either for the proposed diagnosis or for best practice SOC. It's also considered by many sex positive practitioners and educators, including myself (full disclosure, I'm a member of AASECT, the American Association of Sexuality Educators Counselors and Therapists and signatory to their ethical standards) to be pathologizing and stigmatizing.
Michael Bailey is a discredited anti-Trans bigot of the likes of Paul McHugh, Anne Lawrence , Janice Raymond, and Ray Blanchard. Ignore him, he's got nothing to say of intrinsic or peripheral value and AGP is not and will never be an APA or WHO ICD validated diagnosis.
No. You're wrong and you're peddling misinformation as well as attempting to insult me. I'm not, lol, "disillusioned", I'm just protective of evidence based and best practice modalities.
AGP is absolutely NOT in the DSM-V or the DSM-V TR. It's also not even in the DSM-IV or DSM-IV TR, except as an "associated feature" of GID (Gender Identity Disorder), meaning it is described as a *potential* characteristic that MAY be present in SOME individuals with this diagnosis.
But one cannot ignore that the DSM-V significantly de-emphasizes its role in discussing gender dysphoria, because V doesn't see GD as pathological as IV does GID, and because AGP is any way you slice it an unproven, unvalidated, suppositional, and therefore controversial concept with limited to zero clinical utility.
So...why are you so attached to outmoded and even dangerous stereotypes and pathologizations? Have you asked yourself this? You might find some useful insight in a bit of introspection here, and I certainly wish you all the best.
Blanchard really goes out of his way in this 11 year old Vice article to demonstrate how alienated, sexist, misogynistic, out of touch, obsolescent, anti-Trans, and cisheteronormative he actually is. And he's a self-loathing homophobic gay man who believes he's going to hell.
You really need to read a book that isn't "The Man Who Would Be Queen". I recommend anything by Julia Serano, Michel Foucault, Judith Butler (especially "Who's Afraid of Gender"), Leslie Feinberg, Torrey Peters, Susan Stryker, Rikki Wilchins, Shayla Lawson, C. Riley Snorton.