And an actual physician is in serious agreement with the original poster, who is clearly a troll. Never mind the repeatedly proven systemic racism that is part and parcel of American medical history. That’s the real scary part.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act has protections on the basis of gender identity and sexual orientation. Very happy to disappoint you.
Show me where this has been applied in the US for a doctor in regards to a patient.
In your testing, how do you compare norms? To their bio sex or gender identity?
Yep just like some other people I see
I know you were responding to WisNeuro, but the short answer is--it depends. They're frequently adjusting and further-developing guidelines. Sometimes you compare to both, and/or you use measures that don't include sex-based adjustments.
So the guidelines include 68 genders now for comparison? Wouldn't want to offend anyone
Is that one of those strawmen?
I'm just wondering how to respect all gender identity with psych testing. Don't want to offend anyone.
You first commented that Canada has made it "criminal" to use the wrong pronouns and cited a workplace example. Now, if I'm following correctly, your issue is that the US isn't levying penalties against doctors? If your concern is about mandated gender-affirming care, how about you show me an example of the US applying this against doctors.
Honestly, it's so rare. For things like IQ tests, there aren't separate norms. For some rating scales you can do boy/girl or combined. So it might be interesting to just have a look at all three norms, to see which one is of most clinical utility.
Serious follow-up question...in terms of the 'it depends'...are you saying that an individual's gender identity (as opposed to biological sex) would make a difference with respect to which norms (males/females) you would use for interpretation of, say, neuropsychological test performance?
Cool. Thanks.
So for the few tests with gender stratification what do you compare it to? They have non-binary norms etc?
But that doesn't fit the narrative...
So you don't have those tests. There are many that have gender norms. Srs, Anxiety, aggression tests etc
Many tests have gender- or sex-based norms, but they often also have whole-sample norms or equivalent (or such published data can be found).
I like the tone of this post. Kind of reminds me of Taylor Swift, just need to calm down. Current generation is challenging gender and sexual norms probably moreso than anything else. Those have always been in flux and vary from culture to culture so probably not a very big deal in the scheme of things.
Exactly. Let's also give ourselves some credit here- well trained, conscientious psychologists who use norm-referenced instruments should (and do, from what I see) always be considering the extent to which individual client characteristics compare to those of the normative sample. Read the damn technical and interpretive manuals! Get intimate with the psychometrics of the tests you use. Test construction is not just 10 questions on the EPPP that you plan on getting wrong!
The psych field is on the sharp decline. You cant be taken seriously as a field when you begin to reject objective reality as a base line.
Thats debatable. It certainly provides protection based on SEX however, it does not protect gender identity. Something that is so fluid and self-definitive is not protected. This is not to say that people should be A-holes to one another. Also, VII is employment protections.
From the American Bar Association: "In a monumental decision from a trio of cases issued on June 15, 2020, the United States Supreme Court ruled that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and/or transgender status"
Yes, I learned about this recently. Its heavily debatable as this is not the same as barring a jewish girl from playing on the local softball team because she is jewish. It will be interesting to see where it goes.
It does in that gender identity and sexual orientation are inherently linked to sex--for example, a law, say, barring transgender women from employment is placing only people whose sex was determined as male at birth (interestingly, there are actually a decent amount of people who are intersex/have disorders of sexual development where their condition isn't diagnosed until later in life) at risk for discrimination for engaging in "female" gender expressions, whereas the same gender expression would be a-okay in someone whose sex at birth was determined to be female. Similarly, an employer firing a female employee for dating another women is discriminating on the basis of sex because they wouldn't fire a man for dating a woman. By narrowly defining "sex" as biological sex assigned at birth, the courts made the law expansive enough to cover gender identity and sexual orientation.
Thanks. I am always struck by the dichotomy between how basic it sounds to say "clinicians without experience with this population should seek out supervision/consultation from a clinician who is" and the practical realities of doing so. What would that supervision/consultation entail? I would clearly (ethically) need to inform the client that I don't have the necessary experience for their case and would be getting supervision. I guess, from the standpoint of what is best for that client, if I have access to supervision from a trained clinician, should I not refer them to that clinician (especially in this age of telehealth availability)? I could see the argument for increasing the capacity to serve this population if that were truly a goal, but you'd need to be really transparent about this with the client. I'd worry that, firstly, I would worry that I my lack of experience would a) put that client at risk; and b) put me at risk should something go wrong. Have any of you been involved in this type of scenario as a licensed practitioner, where you've taken on a client/issue that you don't have appropriate experience for under the supervision of another licensed professional? What risks are legally assumed by the supervisor? How do you document those risks? Why did you not refer the client to an appropriately experienced clinician? At what point (e.g., number of referrals of this type; lack of qualified providers in the community to refer to, etc.) would you make a decision that you need to expand you clinical skills to be better able to address this need?
Dude, I struggle with this so much. It's like there is a real break down between (1) being aware of your competency enough to care about it's limits, (2) finding other psychologists who specialize in rarer things, (3) local availability, (4) accepting insurance, (5) and doing what's best for the patient.
We're conflating a lot of things under the category of "gender identity". I do not believe gender identity is not inherently linked to sex (biologically speaking). Of course it also matters how youre defining "gender identity". Sex is not determined at birth, it is observed and intersex and other exceedingly rare genetic mutations or abnormalities (not to be pejorative) does not negate this. To lump intersex individuals and people with sexual disorders and genetic disorders such as kleinfelters syndrome in with trans and gender identity is not correct in my estimation, I could be wrong. However, we also have an issue because *****s lack the capacity to understand that while sex is largely 99.9% (or close to it) either male or female there are outliers where mutations arise (scientifically speaking) and we must, living in the 21st century, move away from ignoring the struggles these individuals face simply because they're a very small number.
You have appealed to my emotions. I certainly don't want sicko men attacking my women and children under the guise of being a a woman themselves! What, however, is the evidence that this is actually happening at alarming rates due to gender affirming care or that sickos would be less likely to commit such atrocities if we outlawed gender affirming care? I live in one of the most LGBT friendly areas of the world, and not only are there not high rates of such atrocities, there's not even low rates of such atrocities.
Intersex people are not the same as trans people, of course, and I never said that. The point is simply that how you identify "real" sex can be much blurrier than anti-trans folk admit. For example, they often say "it comes down to chromosomes", but if you have someone with androgen insensitivity syndrome, they have XY chromosomes but their genitalia at birth appears female, so are they "really" male or female? Would you go by external appearance? Identity? If so, why wouldn't you go by external apperance for a trans man or trans woman who appears to be male or female? No one is going to look at Hunter Schaffer and say "that's a man" or Laith Ashley and say "that's a woman" and if people were to see Laith Ashley in a women's bathroom, they would probably think "a man is using the women's bathroom!" not "yeah, that's a woman using the 'correct' bathroom." So, how "passable"/gender conforming do you have to be to be "really" male or female? I have a butch cisgender female friend who was sometimes mistaken for male during COVID due to masks and having smaller breasts. Should she have been using the men's bathroom because people might have mistaken her as a "male predator" in the women's bathroom? Again, what we've largely seen with bathroom bills in action is gender non-conforming cis people being attacked for following the law, which raises the question of where should they go to the bathroom? Should they even leave the house if they might be mistaken as trans?
I think a lot of folks would privately argue "no", but publicly throw out some bogeyman arguments about dangerousness, uncertainty, extreme examples, etc. You hit the nail on the head a few posts back- it's an issues of gender non-conformity for many, rather that transgender. If you look the way a woman is "supposed" to look or the way an man is "supposed" to look it's not that big an issue.
Well, I think it's just sorta will be an iteration about how we talk about certain things. I suspect that it'll get replaced with terms that have more precision.
From the article, re: the interviews from which the BPD diagnoses were made: "The interviews in this study were not blind and were conducted by the first author." That's HUGE threat to internal validity. Furthermore, history of psychiatric treatment referral was an exclusion criteria for boys in the control group (ETA- I just reread article and noticed that there were no such exclusion criteria for GID proband!) Another big threat to internal validity. N of 16 for mothers of boys with GID, sequentially self--referred to author's clinical practice. Non-parametric analysis. Authors themselves refer to this as a pilot study. I'd be really cautious drawing any conclusions from this study. Non-blind diagnostic interviews and potentially innappropriate control group are BIG problems and may not pass muster for a thesis/dissertation in my experience.
now try steelmanning the ariticle
