>Oh vey, come on goy, it's perfectly normal to want to be a woman and cut your dick off. Think of it as advanced circumcision. It's good for you.
It's over Sup Forums. First the gays now the trans. Soon the furries, zoophiles, necrophiles and pedos.
Is it over? Did we finally normalise mental illness on a new level?
I would link the article but there's no point in giving thinkprogress clicks. You won't find any interesting things beyond what's in the pic anyway.
Other urls found in this thread:
psychologytoday.com
dsm5.org
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
faz.net
aerztezeitung.de
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
twitter.com
Prepare for the new wave of validated mentally ill maniacs demanding special snowflake status.
No. People are still upset the white house was lit up in faggot colors.
This is all a sham. The idea that the American public wants this is a joke.
I assume in places like Germany it's the same way, and they don't "want" refugess like the media will lead you to believe. But in America it's 100% fact that people you talk to around town are helpless to stop what's happening and are concerned.
The (((people))) making these decisions are completely detached from the American public. That is a sentiment that gets said a lot. But really start to think about what that means.
>Take it off the list or you will be labelled transphobic Nazis and Antifa will show up and beat your kids with a pipe
"O-okay, transgenderism isn't a mental illness any more"
>The APA Revises Manual: Being Transgender is no Longer a Mental Disorder
...
This is pretty much what happened with the hay mental illness
>Is it over? Did we finally normalise mental illness on a new level?
It's nearing its end. Zoophilia will be next alongside necrophilia.
This is what happens when you unshackle humans and let them do whatever because "lol just do whatever makes u feel good man xD".
Degeneracy taken to its inevitable end will be the end of civilisation as people become more concerned with meaningless self-pleasure instead of self-preservation.
As much as people bring up the Roman Empire and its example of degeneracy, but these people then neglect to mention how the Barbarians were in some ways far more morally strict.
In some cases they were disgusted when they discovered the extent of Roman inhibitions in regards to sex and such.
>people will still claim psychology is a science
Actual medical professionals have known this for years, but Sup Forumstards are in denial.
Kek.
I had a grandaunt that always said that psychology was Jewish hogwash. Time is proving her right.
There's an article coming out in about two months (Psychology Today and other outlets) proving that surgery doesn't do shit. That going off the hormones is enough to flip their suicide switch.
Neuroscientist user started a good thread about a week ago.
sex with animals and incest is next on the list
Polygamy pr polyamory is next, few arguments you can use against it.
Soon disobedience and political incorrectness will be added to the DSM.
>yfw you realise that these changes are based not on science but purely on the level of social acceptance
>yfw marrying 10 year old girls to 30 year old men used to be considered normal and healthy 400 years ago (and still is in muslim countries)
>yfw people who have body dysmorphia and want to for example amputate their healthy limb get treated through psychiatry and psychology to make their minds accept their bodies. Same goes with bulimic people. In fact being trans is the only such case where the mind rejects what the body looks like that instead of being treated as if the mind was wrong and needed fixing gets to be interpreted the other way around and people can undergo surgery to make their bodies fit their mentally skewed vision of themselves. We don't offer drilling bones down to thinner shape for people who always see themselves as fat even though they are starving to death. We don't amputate legs/arms of people who think they should be impaired and want to get rid of them.
This is great what are you talking about. This means, since they are mentally fit, Trans operations are no longer necessary and therefore covered by the public system. Now they're cosmetic surgery.
The classification of 'deviant' behaviour is based upon prevailing social norms. If you don't follow social norms then you are classified as mentally ill. And that's perfectly fine, no issue with that at all, just don't say things like '1984' or 'thought police'.
>just don't say things like '1984' or 'thought police'
Can I just say "Germany" instead?
This book also give the guideline that anybody who mournes longer than 1 week after the death of a relative should be considered psychological ill and suggest to treat them with anti depressants.
This whole classification of mental disorder is extremly profit driven by the pharma industries, hence make transism acceptable will flood the pharmacies with people who lifelong depening on expensive drugs paid by the state aka tax payer. Same goes with the example i have shown above.
Fuck pharma shills.
Fuck DSM-5.
>This book also give the guideline that anybody who mournes longer than 1 week after the death of a relative should be considered psychological ill and suggest to treat them with anti depressants
citation needed desu
tranny here. being transgender is not a choice and it's also not a thing you're /just/ born with. it's a developed disorder as a result of specific childhood issues.
recoining gender identity >>>DISORDER
So wait- is "gender dysphoria" no longer a thing?
apparently not. there were some SJWs arguing about how not having gender dysphoria does not make you less trans. lovely world we've come to, yeah? being trans is now a social choice because gender is a social construct, not a mental illness! :^)
Thank you user have a (((you)))
A cursory glance suggests none of these sources discuss the DSM suggesting treatment of grieving patients with anti-depressants.
If anything, they suggest not treating grief with anti-depressants at all because it's been shown to be clinically ineffective:
> See here, prolonged grief disorder to be added to DSM-5
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Your own sources defend the removal of the bereavement exclusion from the MDD criteria:
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
> the best available evidence suggests that the DSMS was justified when it eliminated the bereavement exclusion