> You mention having a trans person present at the table. However, if you're a psychologist and you're characterizing mental disorders like gender dysphoria, you don't invite a trans person to the table as an equal with whom you're going to come to some compromise pleasing to both (in practice, pleasing to the trans person)
So you presume they're an unequal? This is exactly the problem.
> By bringing the trans person to the table as an equal and not as a patient
Your medical ethics license has been revoked for treating patients as subhumans. People were executed for that at Nuremberg.
> This is what happened with the DSM and same-sex attraction. There was no reasoned debate, only political coercion and acquiescence.
Are you arguing that the DSM ending characterising homosexuality as a mental disorder was wrong? Is this based on anything other than raw homophobia?
So you presume they're an unequal? This is exactly the problem.
> By bringing the trans person to the table as an equal and not as a patient
Your medical ethics license has been revoked for treating patients as subhumans. People were executed for that at Nuremberg.
> This is what happened with the DSM and same-sex attraction. There was no reasoned debate, only political coercion and acquiescence.
Are you arguing that the DSM ending characterising homosexuality as a mental disorder was wrong? Is this based on anything other than raw homophobia?