sorry that got so bloody long...

i guess my argument (to try and persuade you that you and your fellow peers at psychcentral aren't defective) runs as follows:

1) do you think there are objective facts about whether males are the norm or males plus females are the norm or with respect to whether 5 different sexes is the norm? (objective facts in the sense that one of these views is true and the other views are false)?

2) if so then how did you decide which norms / ideal to adopt (with respect to whether males were the norm or males plus females were the norm or with respect to whether 5 different sexes is the norm)? (platonic forms? god says? hard to see how else to justify it... the biological models that are produced - but we have seen how they changed over time)

3) if there aren't objective facts about which model of 'normal' we should adopt then... why choose to adopt a norm such that some segment of the population is labelled 'devient' or 'malfunctioning' or 'defective'? they are only so compared to the standard you have adopted and adopting a different standard would mean that they were no longer malfunctioning.

4) since we know that labelling someone 'devient' or 'malfunctioning' or 'defective' can harm them... and we have conceeded (? perhaps) that whether they are or aren't is a matter of which ideals / norms we choose to adopt... then why volountarily adopt an ideal / norm that causes them harm?

(moderated somewhat by their getting insurance reimbursement for treatment to be sure... but harmed by being labelled 'defective' and coming to view themselves as such)

IMHO accept the label of 'devience' willingly for health coverage. but don't take it personally.

but when it results in loss of constitutional rights (such as for gun ownership) i think one is entitled to get a little snarly...