Are there people passing laws to fuck with people with bipolar disorder? Are there people telling you that you’re incorrect or even mentally ill because you identify as a recovering alcoholic?
You clearly don’t have mental illness or a drug addiction. Yes, absolutely, you are severely discriminated against with either of those. People see you as utterly unreliable, weak, and unworthy of the kinds of respect afforded to able minded people.
This is why you never, ever, ever take advantage of "mental health" or "addiction" resources provided by your employer.
It doesn't matter what they tell you about confidentiality. Just get the care you need through your insurance and avoid the potential honeypot.
Edit: This comment is heavily biased towards an American audience where at will employment, and health insurance rather than government benefit, are the norm.
ADHD and other related mental illnesses aren't even allowed to get pilots licenses. People who are nuerodivergent have to be very careful who they tell about their minds.
I don't know what trans people go through, but neurodivergents are definitely targeted, and have been sentenced to death in the past.
Do people tell you that you are not really an addict or mentally ill, that that's not even a thing, and that it's just a phase you grow out of once you simply make up your mind?
[edit] Ok, got it. I don't mean to question anyone's personal experience, and sorry that this is what's happening to you.
Also, I don't want to 'rank' the degree of marginalization different groups experience, that's not at all what I'm after. Ideally, none of this would exist and everyone would just live happily ever after.
What I mean is that I don't see a national debate, through politicians or 'celebrities', that deny the existence of, say, alcoholism.
But again, I don't mean to imply that those groups don't suffer. Also, I can just be wrong.
This comment screams of lack of awareness. We actively drug test people for jobs and deny them employment. It is literally baked into the acceptable reasons to discriminate against people. The stigma is massive. It has been changing primarily because white, suburban people have been losing family members to opioid overdoses, but the stigma is still very real in most the country.
I've lost a lot of friends. I've had people tell me they can't stand me because their Dad was an abusive alcoholic. I lost a job because of a manic episode. I know it's hard for normies to understand so I have compassion for their lack of understanding.
really bro? there are plenty of laws that fuck with alcoholics, smokers, drug addicts, etc, and every single civilized society in the world does everything they can to prevent children, teens and young adults from picking up those habits. and it is also perfectly acceptable to express negative feelings about addicts in general
as for bipolar disorder and other such things, at least it is acceptable to call them what they are - mental illnesses, and to suggest to get treatment
There's an important distinction here. To quote that page:
> Gender dysphoria is the feeling of discomfort or distress that might occur in people whose gender identity differs from their sex assigned at birth or sex-related physical characteristics.
Being transgender is not the same as having gender dysphoria. Gender dysphoria is the (sometimes) associated distress. It is effectively an administrated diagnosis, without it many trans people would not be able to access treatments they need.
The pages goes on with:
> The diagnosis was created to help people with gender dysphoria get access to necessary health care and effective treatment. The term focuses on discomfort as the problem, rather than identity.
We live in a country that stigmatizes, under-researches, and under-treats most mental disorders.
Most people who think pointing out "gender disphoria" is a "mental illness" is a good point would be shocked and disappointed when they find out what the standard treatment for patients with gender disphoria is.
Yes. According to the most recent edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), alcoholism, or alcohol use disorder (AUD), is a diagnosable mental illness.
The DSM is a book full of things that (a particular group of) academic doctors think should be considered to be illnesses. It's previously included homosexuality and "gender identity disorder" (transgenderism).
It's a not a bad source, obviously, but being in a book does not make things diseases or not.
That said, in my (medical) opinion, alcoholism and other addictions are much better to be considered (and treated) as diseases.
You minimise it as "being in a book". The book is: "a publication by the American Psychiatric Association for the classification of mental disorders". Are you part of the psychiatric field?
well thanks, you probably didn't see that what I posted was in response to the question "Are there people telling you that you’re incorrect or even mentally ill because you identify as a recovering alcoholic?"
We've had recovering-alcoholic presidents (USA), but it'd be very difficult to see a trans president anytime soon. The intensity of ostracization is not at the same level.
> it'd be very difficult to see a trans president anytime soon.
People would have said the same thing about the likelihood of having a gay president 15-20 years ago. Instead, we had an openly gay and married presidential candidate, Pete Buttigieg, do quite well in the last election with his homosexuality not being a major point of the conversation.
The amount of progress on gay rights and the public's perspective on LGBTQ rights has been extremely fast. I think (and hope) that you are wrong and that society will be ready for a trans president much sooner than you anticipate.
There are order of magnitude 15x as many gay people as transgendered people, so you’d expect by chance alone that it would be quite rare for a transgender person to be elected to a role that is contested every 4 years and changes every 5 years on average.
I think society will be ready long before the statistical chance of an otherwise front-runner happening to also be transgender is likely to be satisfied.
BTW, that was literally the joke Dave made. That progress on LGBTQ rights was so fast that they can still use their white privilage against people who look like Dave if they are both white and LGBTQ+. Meanwhile people who marched with MLK jr had to march again in 2020 after Geroge Floyd's murder and in the 90s after Rodney King and again recently due to voting rights and racist redistricting laws.
Dave's mistake was he didnt take into account people who were part of both minority groups and face opression on two counts.
I disagree. In particular, there is not a gay president. How did Pete Buttigieg do well? He dropped out, ranking behind Biden and Sanders. In other words, he was supported by but a fringe group. Just him running means nothing.
It will be a while before a trans president is a realistic prospect. The U.S. have yet to elect a female leader of the country 40 years after that was a thing in the UK, and 20 years after Germany. The U.S. now have an openly gay secretary of transportation, hardly a key position in the administration. Germany had their openly gay vice-chancellor and secretary of state a decade ago.
