hearing about the federal database for when people do instant background checks on you like for when you go to buy a gun.

if a psychiatrist judges that you are a danger to yourself or others (at some point in time) you are regarded to be

MENTALLY DEFECTIVE

and you are barred from buying a gun

FOR THE REST OF YOUR LIFE

:-O

wow. wow wow wow.

thats almost enough to turn me into an anti-psychiatry supporter that is.

don't get me wrong i don't think that people should be allowed to buy guns.

its the 'mentally defective' and the notion that 'once mentally defective forever mentally defective' assumption that is really rubbing me up the wrong way...

[Maven]

I have a big problem with that, too. Besides the obvious connotations with being "defective"--although it may be accurate--not all mentally ill persons are harmful or irresponsible with a gun. The mentally ill should have just as much right to protect themselves with weapons as anyone else, as long as they show they can be responsible.

I do think people should be able to buy guns. The fact is, if you outlaw guns, that won't keep the bad guys from getting and making them, and the good guys need to be able to protect themselves. Additionally, our Constitution says we have the right to bear arms.

> if you outlaw guns, that won't keep the bad guys from getting and making them

it makes it much much harder. (that is probably partially why there are less gun related deaths in countries where it is much harder to obtain a gun)

> our Constitution says we have the right to bear arms.

yes.

it is a shame that takes priority over the right not to be killed.

[Maven]

Not as hard as you might think. The bad guys will still have their guns, if they're outlawed. They will have underground businesses selling guns. Getting guns, like drugs, on the street isn't so hard. In other countries where they didn't have laws to allow guns in the first place, they haven't built up this culture of violence, so they don't have as many deaths by guns.

Guns are also used for protection, and that was why we have a Constitutional right to them. However, I don't think any type of weapon should be permitted. When that right was given us, you had muskets, which are very different from hand guns, pistols, machine guns, etc.

Guns are also used for hunting. While I don't know much about hunting, I think I've heard that, on the one hand, if you hit your target in the right place, he will die quickly. But, if you don't get the right area, the animal will escape, wounded, and suffering. That bothers me. I'm sure the same thing can be said of arrows, but I think you have to be a bit closer for animals, and you're more likely to hit the appropriate area of your target. However, he may not die as quickly.

There are arguments both ways.

lets see if i can motivate my annoyance with the term 'defective' a bit better...

once upon a time it was thought that females were defective males.

now it is recognised that being female is a distinct way of being just as being male is a distinct way of being and neither is a 'defective' version of the other.

then you get other genetic ways of being:

xxx

and so on. currently we regard these people as defective. there is a social move toward regarding these people as simply being in a different way.

the best candidate we have for the genetic underpinnings of schizophrenia is some values on a three gene locus found in around about 7% of people with schizophrenia and also found in around 14% of people without schizophrenia. is having those values on the three gene locus defective or another way of being?

the function of genes is to replicate...
hence mutations in replication would be malfunctions...
everyone has some mutations
therefore everyone has genetic malfunction.

some of these malfunctions result in IMPROVED performance

malfunction doesn't entail 'defect' (where 'defective' is distinctly a normative rather than descriptive term)

and mental illness doesn't entail 'defective' either...

mental illness might just be different ways of being...

but when the consequences (the behaviour) is considered harmful to theirself or others... when their behaviour is considered to breech certain kinds (yet to be specifief) of social norms...

for a time...

we label them as having defective traits.

of being in a defective way.

and i don't like it one bit.

want to know the fastest way to make someone chronically mentally ill?

treat them as though they are chronic and persuade them to internalise a view of themself as 'chronically mentally ill'. want to know why depression is commonly caused by mental illness? how uplifting is it to view oneself as mentally defective?

viewing oneself as defective...

well... thats just charming. and it isn't an empirical issue because our judgement of 'defect' is motivated by normative considerations rather than scientific ones.

(and the 'defective' and 'biological abnormality' view is motivated by people thinking that it isn't their fault and they can't just will themselves into feeling better. well it isn't your fault you are male / female either and you can't just will yourself into being a different biological gender and so it is false that you need to view yourself as defective in order to accept that mental illness isn't your fault. it is interesting that people wanted to DENY the biological underpinnings when they took eugenics to the the consequence of accepting the view whereas now people EMBRACE the biological underpinnings when they take 'not my fault' to be the consequence of accepting the view. the view doesn't entail much aside from the fact that you are faulty, damaged, broken, abnormal, chronic. instead of embracing that - and the depression that typically results - one can see that this is a social / political issue really. doesn't have scientific basis)

sigh.

Of course you will still be able to unlawfully obtain firearms if they are outlawed. It would be harder to obtain them, however.

I wonder how many people protect themselves (or others) successfully from harm IN VIRTUE of having a firearm compared to how many people are accidentally shot / unnecessarily harmed from all the LAWFULLY OWNED firearms out there? I guess I'd want to know the empirical facts on that before deciding whether it is better to let people buy guns lawfully or not.

> Guns are also used for protection, and that was why we have a Constitutional right to them.

Yeah. So i guess I'd want to see the stats on whether lawful gun ownership is resulting in more protection or more danger to the citizens of the country.

> Guns are also used for hunting.

Yeah. this is a bit of a seperate rant but i don't think that we should allow our preference for hunting to override the animals preference (much stronger than ours) to remain alive.

I accept that sometimes we may need to control animal populations for the good of the ecosystem but recreational hunting / hunting for food is something that i struggle with as well...

I find the constitution to be interesting. I've been learning a little about australias... NZ doesn't have a constitution. the treaty of waitangi (partnership between indegenous peoples (maori) and immigrants) is the founding document. i think the rest of the laws... were english initially and then we just have our different bills passed through parliament.

[Maven]

My point is, it really wouldn't be much harder to obtain a gun. It is so easy to get an illegal gun, you wouldn't believe it.

I know plenty of stories where people's lives were saved by guns, and plenty whose were harmed or destroyed by guns. I don't think it's effective to outlaw guns until you can get guns from the ones who use them illegally.

I also think there would be fewer deaths if people learned to use a gun properly after buying them. That's not to say there wouldn't still be accidents and guns ending up in the wrong hands (let alone criminals), but there would be fewer.

Just curious...when you say you don't want guns, do you feel the police should be able to have guns, or no one should be able to have them?

The other reason for guns and other weapons in the Constitution is to be able to protect ourselves from our own government. Yeah, I know that's laughable now, because our government has weapons beyond those you can find on the street, but at the time of the writing of the Constitution, that was more perceivable.

On the actual topic of this thread, I can't help it...I see myself, and the mentally ill, and others, as defective. I do not see myself living in "another way of being." OCD and panic disorder are torture. Being in pain is not normal. Having a mental illness is not normal, and it is a defect to me. While everyone is imperfect, there are certain physical and mental characteristics and certain abilities I think we're supposed to be born with. But just because something's defective, doesn't mean it can't be fixed.

I know there are a lot of people who will disagree with me, but I don't know how to see it any other way. This is what I'm convinced.

> OCD and panic disorder are torture. Being in pain is not normal. Having a mental illness is not normal, and it is a defect to me. While everyone is imperfect, there are certain physical and mental characteristics and certain abilities I think we're supposed to be born with. But just because something's defective, doesn't mean it can't be fixed.

firstly, i reject the current diagnostic categories. i don't think that OCD or panic disorder name categories in nature anymore than witch or tree or grass or superlunary object name categories in nature. so i want to leave the categories out of it. what that takes us back to are the symptoms.

pain is indeed part of the human condition. people experience it to a greater or lesser extent... but pain isn't a symptom for those dx categories... so i guess i'm thinking that rather than the symptoms of your dx categories or rather than the dx categories... there are some things that you find really hard / struggle with.

what kinds of things.

i guess those are the things you would like to work on improving.

what does labelling those things the result of a 'defect' or 'malfunction' or whatever buy you?

health insurance.

what else? oh yeah... a view of yourself as defective... let me ask you a question: does considering yourself to be defective cause you pain?

how about other people viewing you as defective?

[(JD)]

IDK but I think the term "mental defect" is better and broader because if the law was only for the "insane" then a lot of ppl who aren't safe with firearms in their possession would still have them. Just my POV. It's a tough subject.

A lot of people who aren't mentally defective are going around shooting people so...?

IDK either but the term is kind of silly to me.

Mental Defect to me is anyone who desires to have a gun.

And what about other issues.
Like ...what if the person is a really bad aim... seems like THAT person oughtta be barred from gun ownership

or, what if they're easily distracted (**** Cheney Syndrome) ?Oops--lookout huntin' buddy!

Wonder if they regulated slingshots who would be allowed to own them?

ECHOES

Or what if they use drugs or drink heavily or beat their spouse?

well, sounds like they'd be too busy to apply for one.

for the 3rd scenario, i say the spouse should apply.

ECHOES

[jennie]

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
alexandra_k said:
hearing about the federal database for when people do instant background checks on you like for when you go to buy a gun.

if a psychiatrist judges that you are a danger to yourself or others (at some point in time) you are regarded to be

MENTALLY DEFECTIVE

and you are barred from buying a gun

FOR THE REST OF YOUR LIFE


</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">

It is disturbing there would be a federal database to track any illness, however, tracking persons with mental illnesses are very stigmatizing. Scary!

I've heard too many recent news interviews associating mental illness with violent criminal behavior. Great, that just perpetuates prejudice even more.

yeah. my concern was mostly around there being a federal database where certain people are noted as being 'mentally defective'.

i would reccomend to anybody that they see someone in private practice and no not have their mental health issues formally documented if at all possible.

I know eugenics is currently not particularly fashionable but better safe than sorry...

This saddens me greatly.

[Maven]

alexandra, I agree with you that seeing yourself as "defective," whether it's true or not, is harmful to the individual. I've seen many stories of people who were disabled in some way (and, by disabled, I mean the way society perceives it), physically or mentally, but their parents raised them never to accept that, and they did things that would never be expected of someone with their "disability." And often, others learned more about the disability, and that the things they're not supposed to be able to do, may be possible, even if in a different way.

But I can't help the way I see it. I mean, this is just logic to me. I'd like to see things differently, but I don't.

Echoes, do you think it's mentally defective to desire a gun in order to protect yourself from someone you believe will put you in danger (perhaps with a gun himself)? What if you're a small, physically weak person? I'm not trying to change your opinion, but find out how you perceive these situations.

As I said, I feel those who own guns should be trained in how to use them (responsibly), and if they're ever shown to not be responsible with their weapon, it should be taken away. For how long, would depend on just what they did irresponsibly, and they should have to reapply and be reevaluated at that time.

Most people would be afraid to have a child in the same home with a gun, but not if the child were in a home with a swimming pool, yet far more deaths to children happen in swimming pools than with guns.

Even if you see a psych in private practice, that information goes in your record. Under certain circumstances, that record can be obtained for legal purposes. I've revealed far too much information, IMO, than I think I should have, during my teen and adult lifetime, and on the Internet.

There are companies who can find out stuff about you, simply by surfing the Net, and those you seek to hire you, or bosses where you already work, may be surfing the Net to find out information about you, looking for blogs and whatnot. That's how some people end up fired, because they posted something negative or information the company is not happy with on a blog or whatever.

i'll weigh in on this. i grew up on a ranch and we had guns. thirty ought six, twenty-twos and shotguns. we ate a lot of venison and my family all hunted.

when i married r.j., he bought me an expensive shotgun and insisted that i take up bird hunting with him. well, one day we were dove hunting and a 14 year old kid shot me in the chest with birdshot. he was close enough that the shot went through my vest, my shirt and my bra and into my skin. r.j. picked them out with tweezers. it stung alot.

i quit bird hunting. we all did because we couldn't stand to do it anymore and took up racquetball......

i have lived alone for 16 years and i have a shotgun. a friend gave it to me about 30 years ago. i don't know where those bird hunting shotguns went off to. this is a serious shotgun.

i am appalled that there are mass killings and i'm appalled that "mental defective" is getting hung on these tragedies. i'm nuts, but not in the way that i would ever kill someone unless i had to. and i won't give my gun up. but i believe in gun control. it's very complicated because i know that i need some protection. but i don't want the criminally insane to have them.

i have no idea what to do about it or what to do about the labeling.

Hi Maven

I guess I wasn't being serious enough.. grrr at me.

I have been in life-threatening situations and have been around guns in a frightening and negative setting and that influences me as well as a simple accident with a gun does.

Would I get a gun for self-protection? I can see situations where it would seem desirable and I was going to say I would, but I don't think I would. I just don't want anything to do with them.

A relative lived in a rural setting and grew up with guns on a farm. He and his boys would hunt in the 'back 40'. One day the older 2 and he went out and hunted some, then came back and dad went to fix lemonade for all, sending one son to lock up the guns. The safety's were on as always before even entering the house. In the rec room where the guns were to be put away was the youngest, sitting in a chair with a footstool, sitting backwards with his head on the footstool and his body on the chair, watching saturday morning cartoons. No one knows how, but the gun discharged. Had he been sitting upright he might have been nicked in the foot, but he was killed instantly by a shot to the head. He was a kid. It was an accident, though the brother was investigated while also grieving. Just pure grief everywhere. No one to be mad at, no one to blame. It was a horrible accident that changed each member of that family forever.

As far as the database goes, it is appalling. I detest any kind of personal information-gathering and there is more than we'd care to know about.

All our medical information is available to some people like insurance companies/underwriters and it's getting more intrusive all the time. The good thing is that the more we DO disclose, the better, because that changes the "norm". For example if 10% of people report depression then that's outside the 'norm'. If 85% of people report depression then it's within the majority or 'norm'. That is probably why we have better psych treatments now, because we have been encouraged to speak up about it to our docs and so not only is the financial incentive there for pharmacetuicals and others but speaking up about it has also quantified it so the insurance companies can't ignore it as easily... though they sure try their best.

If you see a psych and the insurance company is not involved, the information they are required to keep is very minimal. Another reason I like not having my insurance company involved. (However my employer drastically changed insurance effective May 1st so now I will have a $3,000 deductible as this is a catastrophic plan only. And guess what I do for a living? I process health insurance claims for a Third Party Administrator... the irony is nauseating! )

ECHOES

[moodyblu]

Growing up in the 60s...I have so much mistrust for the Government. I really have a problem with Feds regulating who is "Mentally Defective" and who is not.
It is so unfortunate that after any national tragedy more of our civil rights go out from under us. I wonder where it could all end. Zero freedom?
I can't think of a more negative term to be used than "Defective" too. May as well say "useless pieces of s#$*"! I feel we've never quite dealt with the stigma of mental illness correctly yet. All one has to do is watch T.V. for one night to attest to that. "Mentally Defective" pushes us back a few good notches...to be sure. Helps nothing...but paranoia.
I still believe that people have the right to self defense...so I gotta honor that. How to make it fair?...?
J.M.H.O.
m.b.

> I can't help the way I see it. I mean, this is just logic to me. I'd like to see things differently, but I don't.

I think that you can help the way you see it... Part of it is about listing the reasons why you see it that way and then responding to them. I've prefer it if you didn't think that I (and all the other folk at PsychCentral) were 'mentally defective'. While I often feel broken and defective most of the time I manage to see these as feelings rather than facts.

> Echoes, do you think it's mentally defective to desire a gun in order to protect yourself from someone you believe will put you in danger (perhaps with a gun himself)?

I think that depends on the statistics as to whether lawfully owned firearms actually do prevent more danger than they cause.

If there is evidence that they cause more danger than they prevent then the person could well be having some kind of a logical consistency problem...

The term 'mentally defective' is decidedly normative / judgemental, however. Who gets to decide who is paradigmatic of 'not mentally defective'? Who are they to prescribe norms for society...

[Maven]

What I mean by not being able to help it is, I can have several explanations for something, but any that don't "ring true" to me, I can't believe. People only believe what convinces them. Beliefs aren't a choice. But how you see things, is...to a degree. An example is if someone you love dies. You can see this as, "I miss him. I love him," and you can see it as, "He's in a better place now," or, "His pain is ended." All these things decide how you will feel about the situation. But, if you don't truly believe the person is in a "better place," then you can't be happier about the situation, because you don't believe it's the truth.

Just to explain a little more why I can see myself as mentally defective...

There are certain things human beings are meant to be. We're supposed to be born with two arms and two legs, be able to hear and see, be male or female, etc. I know many people have different opinions, but these are mine. Maybe "defective" isn't the right word in all cases where certain things are missing, but anyone who misses certain things are "not normal," to me. This isn't necessarily a bad thing. Most people who have missing things or abnormalities learn to be stronger in another way. And I'm not saying people like this need to be "fixed." I think it's good if options are available, though. I don't believe a lot of things, even though I've long-considered them (and some I did believe for a while), which are often politically correct.

Hey. Thank you for taking my post in the spirit it was intended. And thank you for having this conversation with me :-)

> What I mean by not being able to help it is, I can have several explanations for something, but any that don't "ring true" to me, I can't believe. People only believe what convinces them. Beliefs aren't a choice.

I agree. The standard philosophical example of precisely that is Pascal's Wager. Pascal offers a pay-off matrix designed to show us that it is most rational / prudential to believe in God. It is often disputed whether this works... But the main problem that arises from this is that even if one is convinced by the payoff matrix that it would be prudent / better to believe that God exists one can't just come to believe it by force of will.

Pascall's answer to this is that we should act as though we believe it. Go to church and hang out with other believers and embed us in the social practices that believers partake in. While we can't alter our belief directly (by force of will) we can alter our belief indirectly (by choosing to associate with people who do believe it and acting our way into believing differently).

And your example works quite well too :-)

> Just to explain a little more why I can see myself as mentally defective...

> There are certain things human beings are meant to be. We're supposed to be born with two arms and two legs, be able to hear and see, be male or female, etc. I know many people have different opinions, but these are mine.

Right. But I guess the issue is why you believe that this is the way human beings are meant to be. Who decided that? God? I'm wondering why it is that you are of that opinion. People used to think that females were defective males. Now most people want to say that they were wrong. They were mistaken. Their belief was false. Similarly with the male / female case people are trying to say that alternatice genders aren't malfunctioning males or females anymore than females are malfunctioning males.

I'm just providing this as a way of questioning the belief... I do think that thinking things through... Can indeed result in our changing our minds. I change my mind about at least one thing every day. It is kind of what I do, I guess... I try and persuade people to believe what I believe and they try and persuade me to believe what they believe and sometimes I come around to their way of thinking and othertimes they come around to mind and sometimes we still disagree... But thinking it through can often result in a change in perspective if not a change in mind...

> Maybe "defective" isn't the right word in all cases where certain things are missing, but anyone who misses certain things are "not normal," to me.

'Normal' is a term with a few different meanings... One meaning is 'statistically infrequent'. Mozarts musical ability was abnormal in the sense of being statistically infrequent, loss of limb is abnormal in the sense of being statistically infrequent too. I'm fairly sure there are less males than females in the world and hence it is more abnormal (statistically infrequent) to be male than to be female! The statisical infrequency notion doesn't at all imply anything about whether abnormality is good or bad. It is neutral. It is non-normative because it doesn't prescribe that people SHOULD be different or one way as opposed to the other.

> This isn't necessarily a bad thing. Most people who have missing things or abnormalities learn to be stronger in another way. And I'm not saying people like this need to be "fixed." I think it's good if options are available, though.

Here it sounds as though you regard these conditions to be abnormal in the statistically infrequent sense. I agree with you that these conditions are indeed abnormal in the statistically infrequent sense.

To say these conditions are 'defective' is different, however. Mozarts musical ability was statistically infrequent but we wouldn't describe it as defective. Defective seems to suggest that something is 'broken'. What do we do with defective products? We return them. Because they don't do what they are SUPPOSED to do. To say that a person is defective is to say that they are inadequate as a person because they aren't doing what they are SUPPOSED to be doing.

But what is it that people are supposed to be doing?

And when did psychiatrists get the power to decide what the function / purpose of a human being is in order to identify individuals that aren't meeting the ideal?

I have trouble with the value judgement...

[Maven]

I don't think being around people who believe certain things will change your beliefs, unless there's something that you find within their beliefs, or something you experience at that time, that convinces you. Everything that's happened to you in the past, determines how likely you are to accept certain things as fact. There are those in some countries who go to villagers and try to scam them as being magickal, or healers who use magick. But the "magick" is really just tricks. Fortunately, there are those who also travel to these villages to help them understand how this magick really works. This is why I believe it's good to question things, and just because something is unexplainable, doesn't mean it's magick or God (and I'm not saying it isn't, either ).

I agree with you that the issue is why I believe humans are meant to be a certain way. It's the logic I've grown to believe, based on those experiences in my life. I remember your example in a previous post about females being considered malfunctioning males, and I agree, that's a false thing.

I also know the people who feel they're neither male nor female, but fall somewhere in-between, believe that they're just another gender, and that gender is based on a scale between male and female. I believe that people are meant to be male or female, but it doesn't always work out that way. I believe we're meant to be able to reproduce, but again, it doesn't always work out that way. I don't believe that being other than the norm means you should be treated as less, dysfunctional, wrong, bad, or broken. I do disagree with some of the beliefs among the differently-gendered. But I would never tell them to hide, or that they're not entitled to the same rights as everyone else.

I haven't always believed this way, or maybe more to the point, I didn't listen to what I really believed. I was more politically correct, even though I try not to be (unless what I believe also happens to be politically correct).

Perspective is exactly what I'm talking about. Any perspective that makes sense to you, colors what you believe. It's important to listen to different views, to keep an open mind, in most cases. Many people believe a person is wrong in certain things, so they deem that person not worthy of listening to, about anything. For example, Sean Hannity was on a news show, giving his perspective on something...I think maybe the war in Iraq. Anyway, people wrote in with things like, "How could you have him on your show?" even threatening not to watch anymore, and complaining about him or calling him names, or criticizing him for things that had nothing to do with what he said. I am not a Sean Hannity fan, but every now and then, I agree with him. I find that, with most people, there are things I agree with, and things I disagree with. There's usually more things one way or the other, but there aren't that many people I've found that I always agree or disagree with. Many people will say they have, but many of those people also don't listen to certain people once they've angered them enough.

Admittedly, "SHOULD" is relative. In past times, certain actions were acceptable that now, we find abhorrent. But I'm not sure what other word to use to say what I mean. However, when I say "should," I don't mean it so much as "there's something wrong with you if you don't or aren't." I mean, this is the way I think things are supposed to be, but aren't necessarily, and being different is okay.

Also, being different from the norm often results in other or increased abilities elsewhere. And, as I think it was you who said, everyone has something about them that's different from the norm.

I absolutely agree with you on the line about psychiatrists. No offense to psychiatrists, psychologists and others in the mental health field, but I really find it appalling that they have so much power. Even physicians can't make someone go for treatment if that person's pain keeps them from living a normal life.

hey maven, thank you for your thoughts :-)

> I don't think being around people who believe certain things will change your beliefs, unless there's something that you find within their beliefs, or something you experience at that time, that convinces you.

yeah. i guess my thought was... that sometimes we can accept something as true on rational grounds, but kind of have trouble believing it because we don't have this sense of conviction or something.

E.g., 'I'm a worthwhile person who is worthy of love'.

I believe this on rational grounds (I believe that EVERYBODY is a worthwhile person who is worthy of love and so since I'm a person I must believe that I'm a worthwhile person who is worthy of love).

But... Sometimes... I have trouble feeling convinced that this is so. To say it just seems empty.

How do I go about truely coming to believe it? I hang around people who really do believe that I'm a worthwhile person who is worthy of love.

So...

'Mentally ill people are defective'.

If you don't want to believe that anymore then there are arguments... And... Hanging out with people who don't treat mentally ill people as defective is likely to go some way towards your really coming to endorse it on an emotional level.

That was my thought there.

> I agree with you that the issue is why I believe humans are meant to be a certain way.

Yeah.

> It's the logic I've grown to believe, based on those experiences in my life. I remember your example in a previous post about females being considered malfunctioning males, and I agree, that's a false thing.

Right. What my concern is... Is that if you take someone from the 1930's and you asked them to list what they believed to be defective (based on their past experiences) they might well list such defects as:

- Homosexuality
- Being female

If we take you and ask you to list what you believe to be defective (based on your past experience) we will get a different list.

If we take a variety of different people we will get a variety of different lists.

Now... While it is true that you believe what you believe and it is true that they believe what they believe... Since there is conflict in the way different people take the world to be... Not everybody can be right.

So: What we want to know is: Are people with mental disorder defective? And then (on the assumption that the aim of belief is truth people should alter their beliefs to conform to the best theory we have of the way the world actually is).

Back to the 'females are defective males' case. To say that something is defective is to say that it deviates or fails to conform to some standard or ideal or norm.

Back then males were taken to be the biologically normal or ideal or standard human being and females differences were described with respect to how they deviated from the male standard.

Now... Textbooks typically offer both males and females to be the biologically normal or ideal or standard human being and other sex differences are described with respect to how they deviate from the male or the female standard.

One might talk about processes of cell regeneration and then use that model as an ideal or standard so one can describe cancerous cells as deviating or failing to conform to the ideal or norm of cell regeneration.

One might instead construct a model of the statistically usual progression of cancer whereby 'standard forms' of cancer are ones that follow the processes described in the model and devient cancer forms are forms that deviate from the model.

So...

1) Firstly you need to construct / find the 'ideal' standard.
2) Secondly you need to identify deviations from the standard as devient.

But...

Is there an objective standard that we should adopt? Is there a fact of the matter that means we should model one sex (whereby all other forms are devient) or two forms (whereby all other forms are devient) or ten forms...

Whether something is devient or not seems to depend crucially on what we take the ideal standard to be. And... Which ideal standard we adopt does in fact seem to be a matter of human decision.

What this shows us... Is that whether something is devient or not is not solely a matter of objective fact (for the sciences to discover). It depends crucially on what norms we choose. Hence... To describe something as devient is crucially a value judgement of saying that someone fails to conform to some ideal.

Platonists think that the right ideals or the true ideals or the ideals that we should adopt are fixed by 'ideal forms'. Plato thought that there was this other realm of forms that contains such ideal forms as the perfect triangle and the perfect dog and the perfect person etc. (Is the perfect dog big or small or middlesized do you think? Does it have short fur or long fur?) Plato thought that everything in the actual world deviates somewhat from the ideal. The world contains but 'dim copies'.

I suppose religious people can appropriate the Platonic realm of forms and reinterpret it as 'heaven' where God sets the standard of 'supposed to' or 'ideal' or 'perfection'. I wonder if God thinks that big dogs are better than small dogs... I wonder if he thinks big dogs are more ideal because they are in fact more ideal or whether his thinking that they are ideal makes it so...

Sigh.

I think I hear what you are saying with respect to a non-normative (judgemental) notion of malfunction / devience. I'm not sure that there is one, however.

(Unless you are talking about statistical abnormality but even statistical abnormality requires us to pick a class of people to compile the statistics around e.g., '20 year old males' or 'people over 5 feet tall who live in the antartic' or whatever)

There is a big debate at the moment over whether there is an objective notion of devience / malfunction / defect...

It comes up with respect to people campaigning:

'I'm not deaf (where to be deaf is a 'bad thing') I'm hearing impaired'.

Where 'hearing impaired' means that if you take a biological model on how the ear works... Their ears don't work like that.

If you make a biological model of people who are hearing impaired in the same way (and label it 'a model of hearing#)... Then anyone whos ears didn't work like that would be hearing# impaired. Either because they didn't hear for different reasons or because they could hear (which would be a very big deviation from the model!)

Likewise cancer cells that weren't rapidly replicating... Would be malfunctioning cancer cells. (Cancer cells 'normally' rapidly replicate).

Probably just confusing the issue.

It IS hard.

(I just don't think that it is obvious that mentally ill people are defective compared to just being in a way that is different (where that difference is yet to be specified) from non mentlly ill people)

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...