#ProudToBe [YouTube Spotlight/Huge Shitstorm in the Comments] - General

[QUOTE=skatehawk11;50588733][URL="http://www.newyorker.com/science/maria-konnikova/social-psychology-biased-republicans"]Source[/URL]There are little to no bias on the DSCM Board.[/QUOTE] Oh you're right. my bad. Those 15 years spent were just for a goof and a gaff! When they repeatedly classified us as illness and disordered, then continued to try and secretly fuck us over with transvestic fetishism, it was all just a prank [editline]lol[/editline] ray blanchard: master prankster

Skatehawk didn't you say you were in high school or something?

[QUOTE=Kyle902;50588772]Skatehawk didn't you say you were in high school or something?[/QUOTE] yes he did

[QUOTE=skatehawk11;50588775]Sorry, I meant liberal in my original post, not libertarians.[/QUOTE] [U][I][B][Backpedaling intensifies][/B][/I][/U]

[QUOTE=skatehawk11;50588775]Sorry, I meant liberal in my original post, not libertarians.[/QUOTE] Then your entire argument just literally falls apart by your own admission? [editline]24th June 2016[/editline] Is this real life anymore?

[QUOTE=skatehawk11;50588789]Look at the whole thread I have been addressing you by liberals this whole time. I accidently put libertarian off of spellcheck. Jesus christ, make one typing error and try to correct it and all of a sudden i'm retarded.[/QUOTE] Your entire argument is an error though. Its a jumbled mess of conflicting arguments and obvious personal bias. Your argument is built upon emotion and justification of emotion. It isn't a logical argument.

Truly incredible.

Your argument isn't even consistent with itself. If you tried to write it out as one big argument in one big post, you'd quickly find you contradict yourself all the fucking time and in the worst fucking ways.

[QUOTE=skatehawk11;50588801]What fell apart? The source says at least 80% of the attened members were liberals. I have been arguing against liberals, like you this whole time. Not libertarians.[/QUOTE] What exactly do you have against liberals? Furthermore ALL of the scientific establishment tends to lean towards the left side of the spectrum. It always has.

I dont love my bf because of any reason other than im mentally ill, apparently It being a mental illness implies it can and should be treated as a mental illness When you call people who are trans mentally ill, you may as well be implying that they need to be treated as if they simply have one. You throw away decades of progress we have made for the sake of "it's liberal bias and that's it" despite republican bias. Whether or not you realize it, you're setting a very dangerous precedent by saying that.

this thread's gone places

[QUOTE=Limed00d;50588820]this thread's gone places[/QUOTE] I can't wait for the V2, personally.

If it's a disorder does that mean it can and should be treated as such?

[QUOTE=skatehawk11;50588845]I have no idea what is happening now. I made one mistake with my spell check and now you can't believe I can be this stupid. I will try to make my argument as concrete as I can. [B]The authors (APA) of the DSM lean to the liberal side over 80% according to that source. When you have a board of authors that have no political diversity it is almost impossible not to have bias opinions in your work. Since the APA is so full of liberals it leads to liberal views in the DSM more so than conservative. If the DSM was equally divided politically than that should help sort out biased work. [/B][/QUOTE] your source is a blog post about one dudes personal anecdote.

[QUOTE=skatehawk11;50588876]The statistics of the ratio of political diversity is factual not a personal opinion. It's a fact 80% of the APA is liberal. [URL="http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic1063342.files/Sociopolitical%20diversity%20in%20psyc%2001.pdf"]Here[/URL] is even a Harvard and [URL="http://faculty.haas.berkeley.edu/tetlock/vita/Philip%20Tetlock/Phil%20Tetlock/1994-1998/1994%20Is%20the%20Road%20to%20Scientific%20Hell%20Paved%20With%20Good%20Moral%20I.pdf"]Berkeley paper[/URL] expressing its concern for lack of political diversity.[/QUOTE] Of course the bias is there. The bias towards the political left end of the spectrum has always existed in pretty much any field of science. Just because they're liberal doesn't mean their wrong though. I don't understand why you think it matters so much?

[QUOTE=skatehawk11;50588922]I can't believe you have the audacity to say that the bias does not matter when you have been hounding me for being extremely bias.[/QUOTE] Because it doesn't in this context? I'm asking you to prove that the bias has affect their work detrimentally. [quote] You also exclude that fact of they are not always right either.[/quote] Because that's a given? [quote] Having no political diversity in science does not matter?[/quote] I don't need you to stick words in my mouth. [quote] You have got to be kidding me. What would you feel like if it was the opposite and 80% of the APA was conservative? Read the papers they are all about the unfair and bias things that can happen without it.[/quote] So long as their work wasn't affected by their politics I wouldn't care? Burden of proof is on you to prove that the disproportionate political leanings that have literally always existed in science have detrimentally affected the work of said scientists. [editline]24th June 2016[/editline] why should politics have any effect on science?

and can you prove that the topic at hand was affected by such biases? [editline]24th June 2016[/editline] also can you post the whole thing and where you got that from?

Fair enough. I concede that there is a liberal bias in the field of psychology that has affected some research. That doesn't change the fact that you have to prove that it affected the reclassification of GID in the DSM V, and that if it did affect it that it affected it negatively.

[QUOTE=Kyle902;50589013]Fair enough. I concede that there is a liberal bias in the field of psychology that has affected some research. That doesn't change the fact that you have to prove that it affected the reclassification of GID in the DSM V, and that if it did affect it that it affected it negatively.[/QUOTE] Literally all he has to do is google Ray Blanchard + Trans issues. Along with Janice Raymond. They've tried for so long to hold back trans people.

[QUOTE=skatehawk11;50589334]Would you agree there is evident left wing bias affecting the work of important scientific research?[/QUOTE] Maybe in other areas? But due to [URL="http://www.dailydot.com/lifestyle/trans-broken-arm-syndrome-healthcare/"]Trans Broken Arm Syndrome[/URL], no. You have systems upon systems that are designed to make life for trans people SO much harder because cispeople think they "know best." despite not understanding anything about trans struggles or issues or anything at all really. [editline]24th June 2016[/editline] I really don't see why you think you understand it any better either. Until you've experienced the fucking multiple year long hell that medical transition is you haven't understood these issues. ot to mention you're absolutely kidding yourself if you think that the GID classification was anything more than an easy way for people like yourself to say "NO but you're really mentally ill/disorded" and discriminate against transpeople. There wasn't any real research done. There wasn't anything but constant gatekeeping and bigotry. I experienced all this firsthand and so have countless other trans people. [editline]24th June 2016[/editline] Literally the only change that was made by the DSM-V Comitee was to get an angry transphobic old man to stop being a bigot just long enough to put it in writing that other doctors shouldn't be bigots either. If you think it was anything more than that then you're deluded. The reclassification has done absolutely nothing but positive things for trans people.

We are all mentally ill now.

What a pointless futile argument. This thread is about a fairly corporate pride video and has divulged into a teenager with very entrenched views arguing with several college students with very entrenched views and neither side is going to budge. You'd think on the oh 600'th post or so both sides would realize there's no point to continuing this discussion anymore.

Diversity for the sake of diversity is the worst solution i can think of.

[QUOTE=skatehawk11;50589509]The point I am making is that they have nothing but biased research to hold the claim that "transgenderism is not a mental disorder". My whole argument currently is that the APA is very left wing and expresses their biases in their medical and scientific research that should be unbiased. The first step for a solution of political diversity is to create a near equal ratio of left wing and right wing members.[/QUOTE] You're missing the point. It may be "left dominated" right now, but for the last 15-25 years it was entirely "right dominated" and those were some of the worst years for LGBT people ever. If it being "left dominated" means people can get the fucking medical help they need then i'm all for it.

[QUOTE=skatehawk11;50589567]Diversity for the sake of diversity? What? There is an evident problem that these medical communities such as the APA have a proven and documented bias to left wing beliefs and morals. The right wing deserves just as much representation as left wing. Harvard and Berkeley even support that cause. What's your proposed solution?[/QUOTE] I'm saying that forcing a 50% 50% split between left and right wingers means that people will get put in place simply because of their political beliefs rather then their merit to insure that theres a 50% 50% split. [editline]24th June 2016[/editline] the solution is to put people in who can put their biases aside. Not putting more people of another bias in their place.

[QUOTE=skatehawk11;50589616]If you're all for equality why does it not apply to the APA? You're talking about being oppressed well so are we when we don't get a say in important topics like this. Bias does not belong and science and it is in it right now and tainting results.[/QUOTE] if you don't want bias then why is your solution putting differently biased people in rather then simply trying to get people in who can put aside their biases?

[QUOTE=skatehawk11;50589616]If you're all for equality why does it not apply to the APA? You're talking about being oppressed well so are we when we don't get a say in important topics like this. Bias does not belong and science and it is in it right now and tainting results.[/QUOTE] I'm going to reiterate myself one more time: [B]There have not been advancements to LGBT people's medical rights until VERY recently. If that's the result of a left bias then fine. Because before that there was nothing but a right bias and it was awful for LGBT people. There's never going to be an equal 50/50% bias.[/B] Honestly to imply that it's a left bias to help out LGBT people, or that people petitioning for a change in terms for transpeople is somehow related to the left is incredibly disingenuous. Like what makes you think "The LGBT Community" doesn't have right leaning people in it?

[QUOTE=skatehawk11;50589633]I like the solution if it was realistic. There is a very small percentage of people who can actually do work without biases. It is so easy to say you don't have a bias and unintentionally you express it. Humans have emotions and opinions and unless you're a robot I don't think you can exclude it from your work. If we create an equal ratio of left and right wing we can have proper democracy.[/QUOTE] To my knowledge there are very few people in the field of psychology who are social conservatives. Which means that they'd have to shove people in based on their politics just to meet your 50% 50% quota.

-snip-

[QUOTE=skatehawk11;50589656]See but you're only thinking on the perspective of an LGBT person with that left wing bias. We should not fake scientific research because we are afraid to incriminate ourselves.[/QUOTE] Having a bias in research is not faking science. Furthermore I'm pretty sure you'd be hard pressed to get enough "right wingers" into the field of psychology, a fairly "left wing" field to make a 50% 50% split. [quote] This thread is an exact simulation of the APA right now. I am fighting a 1v100 army and anything that I say is shot down. If we get an equal opportunity to represent we will get unbiased or at least less bias work than we have now.[/quote] woah there lets not make us shooting you down about politics. You don't even know where I lie on the political spectrum. We're shooting you down because half the shit you say is factually incorrect. Also I've given you about 2 hours and you have yet to reply to all those arguments you skipped that I pointed out. I'll take it you concede? [editline]24th June 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=skatehawk11;50589656] The whole research team does not have to be equal. We need quality in the spots that matter like the taskforce chairholders and research supervisors. Give the right wing and left wing both a chance to debate before publishing important work like this full of biases.[/QUOTE] Even then you'd be hard pressed to get enough qualified personnel. Your solution is just as unrealistic as mine. Furthermore socially conservative people have biases that are detrimental to the quality of their work in regards to this subject matter anyways