Woman self blinds herself...purposefully BIID.

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

appendage, ...a finger or #######, .Both have a strong desire to have them amputated THEN . Both do have A

^{terrible mental illness according to this definition}

Does a finger and a sexual organ function in the same manner? Maybe that's why they are treated as two completely different conditions?

[JohnR! 5,495]

However strange and bizarre, it's her body. It is really telling however, when you realize she would have had a heck of a hard time trying to find a physician to give her an abortion, had she needed one.

ZOMG, how did a licensed professional sanction that. :/ So many questions.

http://kfor.com/2015/10/01/woman-says-she-is-happier-than-ever-after-fulfilling-lifelong-wish-of-becoming-blind/

[TBoneTX 45,309]

Not sure you can claim disability when you're the root cause of it.

This brings to mind the example of the boy who murders his parents and then seeks alms because he's an orphan.

[lostinblue 1,989]

Transgenderism is a psychiatric disorder, yet we approach it as though it were something to be celebrated and accommodated. It is the only mental illness classified as such by the medical establishment that we indulge with surgery instead of treating with therapy. It’s time to stop performing sex reassignment surgery on sufferers and reconsider the options.

Transgenderism has been wrongly bracketed with homosexuality as just another sort of sexual identity. It’s easy to understand why: in the early days of gay rights campaigning, gays, lesbians and fellow travellers needed to stick together. The unfortunate consequence is that transgenderism is perceived as simply the next sexual preference down the list to accommodate in today’s tolerant, permissive social atmosphere.

Yet nothing could be further from the truth. There are people who believe their own limbs don’t belong to them. They suffer from something called body integrity identity disorder, which is rare, and generally affects white middle-aged men. (No one knows why.) Doctors, understandably, tend not to hack off the offending limbs to make reality concord with fantasy.

There are also people who believe that they are dead. This belief is known as the Cotard delusion. Medical professionals do not kill patients suffering from this condition: instead, pharmacological treatments are administered, which can be very effective. Patients who do not respond to the cocktail of prescribed antidepressants and antipsychotic drugs are, similarly, not bumped off.

So why, in the case of another, related and very high-profile disease, suffers of which believe they were born with the wrong sex organs, do we, rather than treating the disorder with medication and therapy, instead go about warping reality to conform to delusion? Partly that’s because we’re generally nice people, and we don’t like to deny someone who is clearly suffering, who has asked for something they think will help them and which does not directly affect other people.

How we approach transgenderism matters because we are betraying its victims. Johns Hopkins University, which pioneered “transition” surgery, no longer performs sex changes. They’ve got enough data now to know that patients who undergo transitions often end up dead: tragically, a huge proportion commit suicide after having the surgery. Cutting off their sex organs does not bring them the peace they were looking for. Of course it doesn’t: it’s a manoeuvre to quiet the symptoms, not a cure.

What you probably don’t know, as a casual reader, is just how horrific transition surgery can be for the patient. It’s worth considering a small aspect of what we’re subjecting sufferers of this condition to, though, before we blithely wave it through as “helping them to become who they really are.”

Say a man decides one day that he would like to become a woman, and his doctors and the taxpayer oblige him. When the hole is dug between his legs, it is lined with the head of his ####### and part of his colon. Initially, this structure will need to be kept open with prosthetics, so it doesn’t collapse. Periodically, it will need to be mechanically dilated.

These days, doctors can forge a reasonable approximation of the exterior of the #######; the #######, and so on. But it is unlikely the patient will ever experience orgasm again. Often, the cosmetic ####### will be too shallow: full insertion of even an average-sized ####### will not be possible. (This was especially the case in the early days of sex change surgery.) Most patients find that a #######-mucus residue builds up inside the cosmetic ####### and needs to be regularly flushed out.

And that’s before we even start with hormone treatment, the details of which, for the sake of weaker-stomached readers, I will pass over. So you can see that we ought to be really sure of what we’re doing before we subject patients to this horrendous procedure and condemn them to a life of artifice and liminality, stuck in limbo between genders. Post-op transsexuals are no longer man, nor yet female; able neither to ejaculate nor be inseminated.

You might ask what kind of a sick government would preside over horror like this at scale. One answer is Iran, home to the second-highest rate of sex reassignment surgeries per capita anywhere in the world. In Iran, reassignment is a political weapon, and has little to do with gender identity. It is used by submissive gay men to circumvent deep social stigma (and, of course, to dodge the death penalty). By becoming approximations of women, these men can continue to enjoy sexual relationships with other men.

The flaw in the Western consensus about transgenderism is that it fails to consider other motivations for dramatic self-mutilation. As a cry for help from a marginalised, lonely gay person, reassignment surgery sounds implausibly extreme. But it is no more surprising than the almost purely pragmatic reasons for which Iranian men are having their bits chopped off every day.

It’s almost too obvious a point to make, but so-called “male-to-female” patients do not, of course, become female, emotionally, anatomically or hormonally. They do not menstruate. They cannot reproduce. We permit these people the pronoun “she,” if they express a preference for it, as a polite courtesy. But they are not women. They are men masquerading as women; castrated boys in frocks and wigs, redolent of the bizarre excesses of a depraved Roman Emperor’s court.

In much of the press today, that’s a heretical, though accurate, judgment to make, albeit not a particularly kind one. Which invites the question: why risk the fury of notoriously bellicose transgender campaigners by speaking such awkward truths? Why not let them get on with it? Why even go there?

The answer should be obvious: we’re abusing people who need our help, by indulging their psychoses in place of administering treatment. And once we start to spend money and create public policy on the basis of identity politics and the, I’m sorry to say, occasionally hysterical demands of a vocal but minuscule section of the population, we’ve left the reality-based community behind. The inmates get to run the asylum.

There are many articulate, intelligent, good-hearted people who sincerely believe themselves to have been born into the wrong sex. They will doubtless be appalled by some of these propositions, but it is an argument from compassion and decency, not bigotry or prejudice, to say that the unspeakably horrid condition they find themselves in cannot be solved by the surgical removal of a #######. It doesn’t work. The data says so. So why on earth are we still doing it, and why are so many journalists, doctors and politicians complicit in this crime against the unwell? Transgenderism ought to be stigmatised in the way cancer is; patients must want to get better.

“The next civil rights frontier,” proclaimed TIME magazine when it put transgender actress Laverne Cox on its cover in May. The ideological aim of this cover, and much well-meaning reporting of it, was to fan the flames of an inchoate movement to legitimise transgenderism in popular opinion. (And, of course, to single out those who dissent from the party line.) This is self-defeating activist journalism of the worst kind.

Because, if we accept this disfunction as acceptable grounds for surgery, it is like endorsing body integrity identity disorder, or sanctioning the Cotard delusion. It isn’t decent, or kind, or compassionate. It is cruel and wrongheaded, and it is killing sufferers of this pernicious, painful, inconceivably wretched disease. It is time to move past the politics of offence and to revisit the science, which, if findings at Johns Hopkins are anything to go by, is far from clear even about what sort of malady transgenderism is.

If we want to be a compassionate and civilised society, that means tending to our sick and giving them every possible chance of returning to health. It means treating their illnesses, instead of distorting the outside world to match their troubled interior fantasies. Money, emotion and goodwill have been showered on the promotion and execution of one sort of treatment for this condition – surgery – without anyone, seemingly, stopping to ask whether it is even in the best interests of sufferers.

We don’t listen when sufferers of other kinds of psychiatric disorder make fantastical demands. Imagine if we did. We should not be so quick to obey the victims of this one. We should resist calls to normalise what every major medical association still classifies as a disorder. We should withdraw public funding for sex reassignment surgery. And we should immediately fund a new global network of research clinics to investigate better, kinder, less irreversibly devastating treatments for this horrible sickness – treatments that do not come with so many tragic consequences attached.

http://yiannopoulos.net/2014/08/15/transgenderism-is-a-psychiatric-disorder-its-sufferers-need-therapy-not-surgery/

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I don't think anyone would suggest that sexual reassignment surgery should be done on a whim and without some exploration of individual psychology.

[Dakine10 5,452]

Transgenderism is a psychiatric disorder, yet we approach it as though it were something to be celebrated and accommodated.

You might want to google NRA psychosis.

[Jacque67 7,328]

what? On purpose too? thats a thing? And people help them do that? legally?

Well it seems it was done in a controlled environment. If she paid for it herself, I don't really understand the problem.

[Transborderwife 4,666]

Well it seems it was done in a controlled environment. If she paid for it herself, I don't really understand the problem.

My problem would be is she collecting disability

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

To be fair she is disabled.

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

To be fair she is disabled.

Yeah, but she chose to be blinded. She was born with the ability and she robbed herself of it. I can't see anyone saying, you blinded yourself so you get to suffer through it, but if they did, that's on her.

[Transborderwife 4,666]

Yeah, but she chose to be blinded. She was born with the ability and she robbed herself of it. I can't see anyone saying, you blinded yourself so you get to suffer through it, but if they did, that's on her.

This

[heo luoi 206]

This

+1

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Yeah, but she chose to be blinded. She was born with the ability and she robbed herself of it. I can't see anyone saying, you blinded yourself so you get to suffer through it, but if they did, that's on her.

I think it's hard to argue that someone would have blinded themselves to receive benefits.

[heo luoi 206]

I think it's hard to argue that someone would have blinded themselves to receive benefits.

Wait what you are saying?

I dont think anyone here suggested that the lone reason she subjected her vision impairment was to obtain benefits. The fact of the matter is she did though. On purpose. Painfully and seemingly improperly. The fact if she gets benefits at all when done purposely I think some have scrutiny over not that it was the sole reasoning for it.

Edited October 2, 2015 by heo luoi

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Wait what you are saying?

I dont think anyone here suggested that the lone reason she subjected her vision impairment was to obtain benefits. The fact of the matter is she did though. On purpose. Painfully and seemingly improperly. The fact if she gets benefits at all when done purposely I think some have scrutiny over not that it was the sole reasoning for it.

I really don't think it's that important.