"Psychopathology" sounds a lot like mental illness. But in many cases trans is not mental illness. It would be better do drop this term (except when appropriate) and concentrate on "extreme overvalued belief". Focus criticism on the belief system.
This seems hard because there are several beliefs out there, ranging from innate perception of sexual identity to denial of the sex category altogether. But maybe pointing out the contradictions can help.
Bill: " 'Psychopathology' sounds a lot like mental illness."
Some certainly seem madder than hatters, others seem to manage it fairly well, or who are happy with their choices. Transwoman Deirdre McCloskey being an example of the latter. Although "she" was one of the "Gang of Three", The Tranish Inquisition who gave such a hard time to Michael Bailey, the author of "The Man Who Would Be Queen":
DM: "But becoming Deirdre has evoked not the slightest passing instant of regret. Not once. Nada."
My comment on McCloskey, and on his role in that "Inquisition" -- links to quite an illuminating, if somewhat wrong-headed, postmortem on the controversy by Alice Dreger:
But I don't think Mia and Genspect are helping their cases much by dismissing or ignoring people like McCloskey. ICYMI, some of my further elaborations on that theme here:
Mia: "The actual monster is an idea. A false belief. It’s the belief that being transgender is innate, healthy, something to celebrate. .... It did not come from any groundbreaking discovery of an inner gender essence called a “gender identity” that is fixed and immutable."
Nice analogy. Though if you're serious about defeating that monster -- and not just turning Genspect into a grift, a racket, some job security -- then I might suggest trying to "steelman" that idea of "gender identity".
Of some passing relevance, Booker T. Washington on grift and job security:
"Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances, because they do not want to lose their jobs.”
But relative to that steelmanning, the most coherent, and scientifically tenable candidate that I've run across has been an "identification model" from Kathleen Stock's Material Girls -- highly recommended; you might try giving some serious thought to what she's said, even more generally:
KS: “I’m going to suggest [that] having a gender identity misaligned with sex is something comprehensible, to which society should pay respectful attention – though not the degree of uncritical acceptance we currently see. ....
The Identification Model involves the general idea of someone subconsciously and consciously ‘identifying’ WITH another. ....
Applied to gender identity, then, an identification model says that [for a male] to have a misaligned female [feminine] gender identity is to identify strongly, in this psychological sense, either with a particular female or with femaleness [AKA feminine gender] as a general object or ideal. [Likewise with a female having a male [masculine] gender identity.]”
And she quotes several psychologists who give some weight and credence to that idea, to that model.
So it seems likely to be more useful to consider the [psychological] science encompassing "gender identity" rather than getting one's knickers in a twist, and running around complaining hysterically about the sky falling. Don't get mad, get even.
However -- and relative to your "being transgender is innate, healthy, something to celebrate" -- while "being transgender" is probably not very healthy nor "something to celebrate" -- many of those afflicted by the condition certainly seem rather "distraught" -- there's still some evidence of some "innate" features or traits that probably contribute to that condition, to that cognitive distortion, to that misperception. For example, some neurology I recently ran across, an old [1995] article that gives some hints:
Nature: "Transsexuals have the strong feeling, often from childhood onwards, of having been born the wrong sex. .... A female-sized BSTc was found in male-to-female transsexuals. .... Our study is the first to show a female brain structure in genetically male transsexuals and supports the hypothesis that gender identity develops as a result of an interaction between the developing brain and sex hormones."
Of course, none of that "gender identity" justifies putting males -- particularly those with some "feminine gender identities" -- into women's sports, prisons, change rooms, or toilets since "gender identity" is, by definition, clearly different from having a sex, i.e., having either ovaries (females) or testicles (males). But that's the benefit of having some more or less coherent definitions for the terms, for the categories in play. Will Durant on a Voltaire quip:
WD: "If you wish to converse with me,” said Voltaire, “define your terms.” How many a debate would have been deflated into a paragraph if the disputants had dared to define their terms! This is the alpha and omega of logic, the heart and soul of it, that every important term in serious discourse shall be subjected to strictest scrutiny and definition. It is difficult, and ruthlessly tests the mind; but once done it is half of any task.
"Psychopathology" sounds a lot like mental illness. But in many cases trans is not mental illness. It would be better do drop this term (except when appropriate) and concentrate on "extreme overvalued belief". Focus criticism on the belief system.
This seems hard because there are several beliefs out there, ranging from innate perception of sexual identity to denial of the sex category altogether. But maybe pointing out the contradictions can help.
Bill: " 'Psychopathology' sounds a lot like mental illness."
Some certainly seem madder than hatters, others seem to manage it fairly well, or who are happy with their choices. Transwoman Deirdre McCloskey being an example of the latter. Although "she" was one of the "Gang of Three", The Tranish Inquisition who gave such a hard time to Michael Bailey, the author of "The Man Who Would Be Queen":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deirdre_McCloskey
https://archive.ph/2020.01.24-132505/https:/quillette.com/2019/11/10/reflections-on-my-decision-to-change-gender/
DM: "But becoming Deirdre has evoked not the slightest passing instant of regret. Not once. Nada."
My comment on McCloskey, and on his role in that "Inquisition" -- links to quite an illuminating, if somewhat wrong-headed, postmortem on the controversy by Alice Dreger:
https://humeanbeing.substack.com/p/the-case-for-trans-women-in-womens/comment/172597886
But I don't think Mia and Genspect are helping their cases much by dismissing or ignoring people like McCloskey. ICYMI, some of my further elaborations on that theme here:
https://genspect.substack.com/p/the-battle-upstream-challenging-the/comment/176306379
A brilliant statement. I could almost share it with my trans-identified daughter . . .
Mia: "The actual monster is an idea. A false belief. It’s the belief that being transgender is innate, healthy, something to celebrate. .... It did not come from any groundbreaking discovery of an inner gender essence called a “gender identity” that is fixed and immutable."
Nice analogy. Though if you're serious about defeating that monster -- and not just turning Genspect into a grift, a racket, some job security -- then I might suggest trying to "steelman" that idea of "gender identity".
Of some passing relevance, Booker T. Washington on grift and job security:
"Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances, because they do not want to lose their jobs.”
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/542300-there-is-another-class-of-coloured-people-who-make-a
But relative to that steelmanning, the most coherent, and scientifically tenable candidate that I've run across has been an "identification model" from Kathleen Stock's Material Girls -- highly recommended; you might try giving some serious thought to what she's said, even more generally:
KS: “I’m going to suggest [that] having a gender identity misaligned with sex is something comprehensible, to which society should pay respectful attention – though not the degree of uncritical acceptance we currently see. ....
The Identification Model involves the general idea of someone subconsciously and consciously ‘identifying’ WITH another. ....
Applied to gender identity, then, an identification model says that [for a male] to have a misaligned female [feminine] gender identity is to identify strongly, in this psychological sense, either with a particular female or with femaleness [AKA feminine gender] as a general object or ideal. [Likewise with a female having a male [masculine] gender identity.]”
And she quotes several psychologists who give some weight and credence to that idea, to that model.
So it seems likely to be more useful to consider the [psychological] science encompassing "gender identity" rather than getting one's knickers in a twist, and running around complaining hysterically about the sky falling. Don't get mad, get even.
However -- and relative to your "being transgender is innate, healthy, something to celebrate" -- while "being transgender" is probably not very healthy nor "something to celebrate" -- many of those afflicted by the condition certainly seem rather "distraught" -- there's still some evidence of some "innate" features or traits that probably contribute to that condition, to that cognitive distortion, to that misperception. For example, some neurology I recently ran across, an old [1995] article that gives some hints:
Nature: "Transsexuals have the strong feeling, often from childhood onwards, of having been born the wrong sex. .... A female-sized BSTc was found in male-to-female transsexuals. .... Our study is the first to show a female brain structure in genetically male transsexuals and supports the hypothesis that gender identity develops as a result of an interaction between the developing brain and sex hormones."
https://www.nature.com/articles/378068a0
Of course, none of that "gender identity" justifies putting males -- particularly those with some "feminine gender identities" -- into women's sports, prisons, change rooms, or toilets since "gender identity" is, by definition, clearly different from having a sex, i.e., having either ovaries (females) or testicles (males). But that's the benefit of having some more or less coherent definitions for the terms, for the categories in play. Will Durant on a Voltaire quip:
WD: "If you wish to converse with me,” said Voltaire, “define your terms.” How many a debate would have been deflated into a paragraph if the disputants had dared to define their terms! This is the alpha and omega of logic, the heart and soul of it, that every important term in serious discourse shall be subjected to strictest scrutiny and definition. It is difficult, and ruthlessly tests the mind; but once done it is half of any task.
https://quotefancy.com/quote/3001527/Will-Durant-If-you-wish-to-converse-with-me-said-Voltaire-define-your-terms-How-many-a
A related comment of mine over on Kara Dansky's The TERF Report:
https://karadansky.substack.com/p/briefs-have-been-filed-in-two-cases/comment/176289070