←back to thread

540 points drankl | 4 comments | | HN request time: 0.714s | source
Show context
parpfish ◴[] No.44485690[source]
Decades ago in my first abnormal psych course, the prof warned us that there was an almost iron-clad law that students will immediately start self diagnosing themselves with “weak” versions of every disorder we learn about. In my years since then, it has absolutely held true and now is supercharged by a whole industry of TikTok self-diagnoses.

But there are a few things we can learn from this:

- if you give people the chance to place a label on themselves that makes them feel unique, they’ll take it.

- if you give people the chance to place a label on themselves to give a name/form to a problem, they’ll take it.

- most mental disorders are an issue of degree and not something qualitatively different from a typical experience. People should use this to gain greater empathy for those who struggle.

replies(21): >>44485765 #>>44485973 #>>44486164 #>>44486176 #>>44486614 #>>44486756 #>>44486800 #>>44486816 #>>44486909 #>>44487348 #>>44487570 #>>44487609 #>>44487864 #>>44488239 #>>44488655 #>>44488855 #>>44489328 #>>44490389 #>>44490808 #>>44508689 #>>44518726 #
EGreg ◴[] No.44486909[source]
The word “disorder” is loaded, but it is interesting to also look through the lens of the Social Theory of Disability. For the rise in diagnoses for autism, ADD, gender dysphoria, eating disorders such as anorexia nervosa, bulimia etc.

Just as we now view the historical labeling of women as suffering from “hysteria” as a systemic failure, not a personal pathology, we should interrogate whether current diagnostic regimes will look just as crude and institutionally convenient in 50 years

Many social and health-related challenges we label today as “disorders” may in fact be downstream responses to structural issues in how society is organized — education, labor, healthcare, media, food, and housing. It’s worth asking: what if we’re pathologizing reactions to a sick system?

Generations identifying as trans:

  Gen Z: 2.8%
  Millennials: 1.0%
  Gen X: 0.3%
  Baby Boomers: 0.2%
  Silent Generation: <= 0.05%
A lot of it has to do not with the label itself but with the industry. Where someone in the past would be called a “tomboy” or “femboy” today they would have a different diagnosis, the DSM-5 would be consulted, etc.

Similarly with ADHD if a kid would have been called “rambunctious”, today they might be labeled as having a “disorder” and medicated with literal amphetamines, instead of for instance reforming public schools. (To be clear, I am talking not about exteme/acute cases but overdiagnosis of relatively mild cases.)

We can look at other examples (eg Finland’s schools where children can climb trees and have much lower ADHD diagnosis rate) as one way to compare.

Or in the past, anorexia and eating disorders were a form of body dysmorphia, and some such images were actually promoted by industries such as fashion modeling or ballet performance. And when I say promoted - I mean also heavily enforced within the industry itself.

Industry in USA works with government, together. For example the factory farms (overusing antibiotics, abusing animals) and ag-gag orders, criminalizing whistleblowing and exposing them. Or monsanto and intellectual property enforcement. Or pistachio farmers in CA and water shortages. Or bottling companies and clothing companies putting out metric tons of plastics and microplastics, while regular people are told they can’t have a straw or a bag, and must recycle (itself revealed to be mostly a govt+industrial scam, shipped to China etc.)

This is across the board. Obesity and diabetes are a major epidemic in USA but instead of questioning high fructose corn syrup, highly processed starches and sugars in everything, people are told they can fix things themselves with diet and exercise. Actually it has been shown that obesity and disabetes in mothers is correlated with autism in their children. It has been shown that there was a serious correlation between obesity, diabetes and covid morbidity but the latter was taken extremely seriously but the former is not.

Same with plastic recycling, etc. or going vegan. Or buying free range. Or whataver. The individual is kept distracted.

In USA medicating things downstream is the default. One in five middle aged women is on antidepressants. Teenage girls have the highest levels of “sadness” (most outlets don’t want to say depression) etc.

Of course when it comes to depression and gender dysphoria we get extra political sensitivity due to activism around those issues. Of the usual character: the INDIVIDUAL is the one that has to make all the downstream adjustments and cope with the SYSTEMIC upstream issues, which are not questioned much. The individual is even told to embrace their label and tell others it is great (eg “big is beautiful” for obesity, celebrating the result instead of reforming the system).

Until AI takes the jobs, the social compact has become: both parents have had to work for corporations, to afford the expenses that could previously be paid by one “breadwinner” in the family working for corporations. And they stick their kids in public schools and elderly parents into nursing homes. And then medicate them if they don’t like it, because the DSM 5, school administrators or nursing homes staff say that this is the best way. Everyone is afraid to speak up against the system, they would rather perpetuate it and cover their own ass.

There was a time when people derided USSR people for drinking a lot to cope with the failures of their economic system. But now with men on opiates, women on antidepressants, high rates of teen suicide ideation, elderly and kids being medicated — perhaps we should rethink our own economic system. There are a lot of “problems” that people are experiencing and it may be from upstream systemic causes. But they are kept distracted by govt and corporations with the idea that they can fix it by their individual actions, which include recycling, dieting, and placing a label on themselves that the industry then helpfully gives them medications to manage it.

replies(4): >>44488277 #>>44489198 #>>44494030 #>>44518124 #
const_cast ◴[] No.44494030[source]
I think comparing LGBTQ+ identifications with mental illness is dangerous. Not too long ago we were quick to lump homosexuality in with these, despite the fact homosexuality is more of a state of being evidenced by real-life actions people willingly take. That being, sex with the same sex.

Transgender people often suffer gender dysphoria. You're correct that it's possible that gender dysphoria might be a downstream effect of society. Namely, we are an extremely gender-segregated society. There's truly only one way to be a man, although there are multiple ways to be a woman. People feel forced and confined to a very small subset of behavior and self-expression.

Existing between genders is, unfortunately, untenable. Society is just not built for that. But existing as the opposite gender seems to be perfectly doable. I'm not saying that it's that simple and all transgender people would disappear if we live in a society with no gender roles or expectations, but certainly they heavily feel the pressure of those gender roles and expectations.

replies(1): >>44494229 #
1. trealira ◴[] No.44494229[source]
> Transgender people often suffer gender dysphoria.

That's the definition of it.

> You're correct that it's possible that gender dysphoria might be a downstream effect of society. Namely, we are an extremely gender-segregated society. I'm not saying that it's that simple and all transgender people would disappear if we live in a society with no gender roles or expectations, but certainly they heavily feel the pressure of those gender roles and expectations.

I don't think this is the case. Strict gender roles might make trans people's dysphoria worse, but it's primarily about a strong desire to be the other sex and not have your current sexual characteristics. Even in a world where everything is unisex, a trans person would still feel that discomfort - for a trans girl/woman, that you wish your voice were higher and not like a man's, that your face seems alien, that your genitals are wrong, literally anything sexed about the human body. It's orthogonal to whether a man can wear a dress or makeup. Not all trans women are even that feminine. And if it were about gender roles, then you'd expect more trans women to exist than trans men, given "there's truly only one way to be a man, although there are multiple ways to be a woman."

replies(2): >>44494368 #>>44494879 #
2. const_cast ◴[] No.44494368[source]
There's really two components to gender identity: the socially constructed stuff, which is most of it, and the biological stuff. Usually changing the biological stuff just lends itself to better socially constructed stuff.

Most trans people I know, for example, have no desire to change their genitals. Probably, I'm guessing, because nobody sees that. So their genitals have pretty much no relation to their gender identity. Which makes sense when you think about it. I mean, I gender everyone in my life, including people I see only for a few seconds. But I see very, very little genitals. I'm really just guessing, and everyone is.

It's very complicated. Of course men can wear dressed and makeup and such, but that is a very high-friction activity, borderline dangerous. Women can do that, however. So then I question if there are transwomen out there who would be satisfied in a world where anyone can wear anything. Such a world does not exist, so we don't know.

replies(1): >>44494754 #
3. trealira ◴[] No.44494754[source]
> So then I question if there are trans women out there who would be satisfied in a world where anyone can wear anything.

So long as they look in the mirror and see a woman. There are trans women already who just wear jeans and t-shirts and other unisex wear in their everyday lives. There are also trans women who will never come close to passing even after a long time on HRT and surgery and wearing the most feminine clothing, and it's just tragic.

4. seethedeaduu ◴[] No.44494879[source]
> That's the definition of it.

I have seen multiple competing definitions.

- People who are transitioning socially

- People who are transitioning medically (hrt)

- People who have transitioned surgically (depends what surgeries the person that says it considers necessary)

- Using some biological distinguisher (this lets you refer to people who are currently repressing as trans, and makes it an inherent property of a person that was predetermined)

- People who want to transition (socially, hormonally, surgically)

- People who have dysphoria

- People who have an f64 diagnosis

Etc