Where is the line between a disorder and else?

It sounds to me as if you fear that you are already just like black folks and you want us to talk you out of feeling guilty about your feelings.Being gay is not a disorder, does not harm the gay person, and accordingly does not require treatment. It is, in fact, cruel to inflict faux treatment on gay people in an attempt to "convert" them.As best as I can understand it, BIID is a disorder and amputation does harm the person. Perhaps one day that supposition will turn out to be wrong, and it is important that we keep questioning that finding. But given that, I find it easy to make the distinction.If you cannot make the distinction, then you are indeed the hypocrite you believe black people are.

They might act as you say. Hank Gathers also claimed to feel better and to play basketball better without his heart medication, but he's dead now because of acting on that feeling. He likely would have felt incomplete being alive without any possibility of becoming an NBA player.In any event, BIID is a real treatable disorder whose symptoms are to want to have a limb removed. Came the same thing be said about people who want sex change operations? If not, then the situations are not the same.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

That would be an example of harm, and apparently an example which you are willing to accept. But, no, that's not a definition. I could well have used an example of a manic person not taking their medication.For me personally, I don't have any problem weighing the benefits of what turned out to be a few weeks of college basketball over a human life, and finding the balance favoring life. Neither did Gather's family, which ended up suing LMU. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I'm not sure what your point is here. What you describe is almost certainly what did happen. LMU, in my opinion, would have been completely justified to tell Gathers that he was off the team if he did not take his meds.In the case of BIID, yes the patient might well chew his own leg off, badger style. But what we are asking about is whether it would be ethical to refuse to amputate his leg rather than to try to give him psychiatric treatment. I can readily distinguish between such treatment, which apparently has some success, and gay conversion treatment which is a non-medical treatment.

This isn't quite the same as simply comparing being gay to BIID. Doesn't sound like mere prejudice driving your disapproval, but perhaps your partner could not tell much difference.

To which arguments are you referring.

I fully agree with Taq. I question why you don't see this yourself. A loaf of bread has more spine than you show here. Are you really advocating for the extinction of the human race? Are you truly unable to see that argument as invalid.

I would not characterize their gender identity as delusional either. On the other hand I do generally characterize people who feel the need to cut themselves as needing treatment rather than freer access to sharp instruments. Yes. that's right. And in my view it is often (but not always) possible to determine when to "draw the line" as you say. And doing so does not require prioritizing body over mind. Who says those people aren't mentally ill? Some of them might well be.