Is being trans a 'disease'/mental health issue?

[SolveMyPrombles]

I'm asking on this board for deliberate considered responses so please do share your thoughts.

A lady on a local group has described being trans as a mental illness that should be treated with compassion not pandered to because it's a disease.

Looking into it more deeply I believe she's wrong and there is no current diagnostic manual that agrees with her take.

What do you think?

After all those years in a hobby where non binary people are everywhere, I still have no idea what they are supposed to identify as.

As far as I can tell, they just assume that everyone else strictly identifies as masculine or feminine, and because they don't identify that strictly with either, they think they are outside that binary altogether.

They don't seem to realise that in fact, the immense majority of people identify as a happy mix of feminine and masculine traits, and it's the very rare person indeed who adheres only to one gender's stereotypes.

Sex class categorisation cannot be made on subjective values or belief systems for the purposes of accessing female single sex provisions. Provisions meaning any situation where sex class matters including female representation roles, jobs requiring female people, not just sports or services or facilities for female people.

I too am looking forward to Zoonosis posting this evidence they speak of. I wonder if we will see something new and not the same old couple of studies that really don’t show what some posters want them to show.

the study you maybe referencing (or not) has been criticised for its flawed methodology

I don't know why you have answered me as if the studies I want to see done exist, they don't. I was referring to recorded suicide/attempted suicide rates.

Where are you getting your 1% figure from? All recent attempts to do this sort of study since the explosion in trans numbers have been shut down by pressure from the trans lobby.

All the arguments you trot out are the same unsubstantiated ones, that if trans people are unhappy after transition it's because "CIS" people treat them badly. I don't accept that is anywhere near the full answer. You also don't seem to see the irony in suggesting that they are unhappy afterwards because they were unhappy before, without even considering that it was their unhappiness before that drove them to try to change their lives in such a radical way. And that transitioning has done little to help them but has introduced new difficulties.

Your de-transitioners figure is spurious, nobody is counting them. Also if you block puberty and then keep people on cross sex hormones you will never know who would have de-transitioned and who wouldn't. There was a quote above about a female to male transitioner telling a friend she'd never felt so at home in her own body, or something like that. Yes, testosterone does that to women, you'll find huge arguments raging amongst doctors right now because of the number of women demanding testosterone because it makes them feel so good. Transition is the only way for a healthy woman to be prescribed testosterone.

I am not trying to "repudiate" trans people, who undoubtedly exist and always have.

You're mistaking cause and effect.

There's no "typical female experience that qualifies people as women", other than being born female.

There's only the fact that if the majority of women experience something, then that makes it a typical female experience, which is what Greer was talking about.

"A implies B" cannot be automatically reversed to "B implies A".

They had to put their hands up to being trans identified in the first place, there will be a lot of people missing from that study. We're they even offered the option "I decided I was the sex I was born as after all". It strikes me as likely that this is actually the number one cause of detransition yet it does not figure in that list.

I believe that this what BoI is attempting to do. It is not only bonkers to try this, it wasn’t even an accurate representation of what Greer was saying at the time!

She very clearly referenced Jenner winning a woman’s award directly before the statement this is being discussed on this thread. The statement has been removed from context.

You seem to be confusing the social construction of words with concepts. 'Two spirit' isn't a widely accepted term in comparison to the term 'non binary' but both of their existence as phenomenas/concepts doesn't hinge on the broad social acceptance of terms/words

Then why do you say that non-binary is a valid gender but two-spirit isn't?
And you've agreed that non-binary isn't a widely accepted term outside of a particular type of culture, same as two-spirit, so I'm not sure non-binary is valid but two-spirit isn't. Perhaps it's a form of racism.

The Cass Report said that trans identifying children were a group of children who were made up of many subjects groups (a multi-cohort) who had complex needs.

It showed up massive over representation of sexually abused children, children from families who were basically the victims of Munchausens by proxy, were gay, were autistic or had other mental health related issues. Many had more than one of the above going on.

This can not just be hand waved away. You have to say "yes this correlation can not be handwaved away".

We have an acknowledged issue in 2026 were mental health related issues and service provision is thought to be in crisis. (See the BBC report for children just today). We have a young generation that's struggling in this area.

The steep rise in trans identifying children and adults has happened at this moment in time for a reason. We can say it's about it being more accepted but that data from Cass and multiple other sources, isn't saying that - it's saying it's connected to other issues.

Am so sorry for your son and your family that you are going through this - and that you have few untainted support services to access for the help your DS and you, as a family, need. Am sending you a hug in solidarity and shedding tears for you all. Am devastated for you that we are all still in this space.

Am sure you are already aware, but the Bayswater group is a fountain of support, common sense and knowledge about where to access help.

What is the relevance of religion here?

The relevance was your assertion that personalty traits weren't able to be 'proven' or reliably assessed & as such should not be afforded societal protection but religious freedom from discrimination requires no such evidence.

Belief systems as you well know from the Maya Forstater case are protected.

When does a person have to act as if they share a person’s religious belief when they don’t? All another person has to do is understand that someone has a belief system, they don’t have to act as if they too believe what the person believes.

Using social conventions are hardly belief statements but simply efforts to maintain social cohesion. If they were 'thank you' 'your welcome' 'sir' 'madam' 'please' would be largely defunct given they are often uttered disingenuously.

Carrying on as if consistently offering politeness is some sort of 1984 censorship hell tells you exactly what kind of hyperbolic conspiratorial crank you are dealing with.

Then comes the question of what you mean by discrimination? For instance, is is not illegitimate discrimination to exclude a male person from a female single sex provision. It would be discrimination to not employ a person with a transgender identity if that was the only criteria for the decision on not hiring them.

Depends on the circumstances. Special exemptions exist for a reason.

"Non-binary is an umbrella term for gender identities that fall outside the traditional binary of strictly "man" or "woman". People who are non-binary may feel their gender is a blend of both, somewhere in between, completely different, or entirely absent. 1, 2, 3]
Because the experience of gender is deeply personal and varied, the term encompasses a wide range of specific identities and expressions."

Sounds good to me.

The point was, clearly, that a culture of tick box 'identities' that one can label oneself with, or self diagnose via on-line information, has taken hold.

Sounds good to me to describe at least 90% of the population, since very few identify as "strictly man or woman".

So, meaningless.

But by virtue of an association to the inclinations, behaviours or psychology more common to women they qualify under the umbrella hood of 'woman'.

No they don't!
That is an extraordinary statement - if a person 'associates' to/with something, they become it? Where is the logic in that?

Men who associate with things more common to women remain 'Men who associate with things more common to women'.

What process changes 'associating with' to 'qualifying as'?

Despite recent efforts to blur the distinctions, it is not difficult to categorise who is under the umbrella [or 'hood' - one of those see-through plastic ones you tie under your chin?] of being a woman, and who isn't. Lots of things in life are very complicated, but identifying who is male and who is female is not one of them.

'Associating with' is not 'being'.

' hyperbolic conspiratorial crank'

T-shirt, size M please😁

I don't know why you have answered me as if the studies I want to see done exist, they don't. I was referring to recorded suicide/attempted suicide rates.

You seem to be conveniently demanding a standard that can't be proven. Do you really need that tho to assess the increased risk of suicidality for trans people? As I already mentioned general risk factors that apply to the non trans population point to whether an increased risk factor applies.

Where are you getting your 1% figure from? All recent attempts to do this sort of study since the explosion in trans numbers have been shut down by pressure from the trans lobby.

Posted upthread. Conveniently changing the standard again to even more recent figures? Your attempts at denial are breathtaking.

All the arguments you trot out are the same unsubstantiated ones, that if trans people are unhappy after transition it's because "CIS" people treat them badly.

On the contrary social & familial rejection are broadly accepted suicide/mental health risk factors for the general population so they equally would apply to trans. It would help save repetition if you read my previous comments thoroughly.

You also don't seem to see the irony in suggesting that they are unhappy afterwards because they were unhappy before, without even considering that it was their unhappiness before that drove them to try to change their lives in such a radical way. And that transitioning has done little to help them but has introduced new difficulties.

Evidence? And no a few random detransitioners don't qualify.

Your de-transitioners figure is spurious, nobody is counting them.

Evidence that repudiates surveys?

Also if you block puberty and then keep people on cross sex hormones you will never know who would have de-transitioned and who wouldn't. There was a quote above about a female to male transitioner telling a friend she'd never felt so at home in her own body, or something like that. Yes, testosterone does that to women, you'll find huge arguments raging amongst doctors right now because of the number of women demanding testosterone because it makes them feel so good. Transition is the only way for a healthy woman to be prescribed testosterone.

Making someone 'feel better' & changing their perception of their core identity are two very different things.

Detransitioners are presently are comparatively a huge minority group to transition so they hardly qualify as a repudiation of trans people. And studies point to trans people having 1% regret after surgery.

Except that slightly less biased and more recent research is showing closer to 30% and the likelihood of that continuing to climb is strong.

Every post of yours leaves me more and more confused as to the foundation of your beliefs and I feel like things are getting all tangled and confused. I am seeing contradiction and ever shifting generalisations that move me further away from understanding the core of your belief.

The core of my belief is as follows

Nobody can change sex
Humans are either male or female
In all situations where sex is relevant,
self experienced/declared/expressed ‘identity’ does not take precedence.

There are obviously further aspects and detail but those are the basics. Can you tell me which you agree with and if not, why?

Why was my post deleted on this topic?

The question is "is this a mental issue" and I answered yes, along with many other posters.

I also pointed out that its a fetish for some men.

I would like to understand where my post was deemed to go wrong?

That wasn't the only study that pointed to low detransitioning rates if you bothered to read that link.

"The relevance was your assertion that personalty traits weren't able to be 'proven' or reliably assessed & as such should not be afforded societal protection but religious freedom from discrimination requires no such evidence."

Thank you for confirming that there was no real relevance in your introducing religion into that post.

Religion is not verifiable, yet sex categories are. And when sex categories become important, such as for legitimate discrimination purposes, it has a very clear definition and one that is measurable. Therefore it really is irrelevant when it comes to discussions about sex categories and is not comparable..

You are repeating questions already answered.

Every post of yours leaves me more and more confused as to the foundation of your beliefs and I feel like things are getting all tangled and confused. I am seeing contradiction and ever shifting generalisations that move me further away from understanding the core of your belief.

That's because there is no core belief beyond, "People are what they say they are."

Which means that if you take one man and one woman and a third one of your choice, who all like exactly the same mix of "traditionally male" and "traditionally female" traits, the man can declare himself a woman, the woman can declare herself a man, and the third one can declare themselves non-binary - and we must all declare that it makes total sense.

It really is just a repeat of the same arguments over and over. It is deja vu from August-September 2025.

The context is self gender identification via personally subjective values & beliefs. In other words its not your call to decide if another person is right or wrong because there is no right or wrong but the good news is you get to decide for your own self what you identify more with.