Posts by mistymason1

Just as I suspected, you don't have a counterargument.

Anyway, I'm curious if you plan on banning everyone else who, according to your logic, is also calling for "violence" in these threads:

Dear Judge Daniel Ward87,

Do you actually believe anyone besides the people who hate me will buy into this Beria-style setup? I mean, it seems like everyone’s just been waiting for me to get physically kicked off this subforum—people like Jason Morgan, for instance. Honestly, the sheer amount of transparently manufactured nonsense coming from your end is staggering. And here I was, always thinking you were one of the sharper minds on this board. Clearly, I was right. You’ve proven yourself to be a pretty crafty, skilled manipulator with this rigged process. Fine. Let's take this step by step.

First off, it’s wild that you’re bringing up anonymity as an admin. People on this forum aren't exactly "anonymous"—they have distinct digital identities, handles, and avatars. By posting, they’re essentially carving out a persona, and other users judge them based on those specific perspectives and experiences. I think your obsession with anonymity is just a transparent attempt to justify a kangaroo court and a public lynching. I didn't demand anyone's legal name, cell number, or home address so I could go around harassing people at their houses. All I did was ask who made the accusations and what they were actually accusing me of. That’s basic due process—something that's been a standard since Roman times. Using "anonymity" to dodge accountability is a tactic usually reserved for the darkest, most terrifying totalitarian regimes. If you're comfortable running with that crowd, far be it from me to stop you.

First, let's clear up some obvious errors that aren't even worth a deep dive. Statements like "it isn't nice to discuss the content that way" don't actually tell us anything, because they focus on tone rather than substance. It’s also just a classic emotional appeal—an attempt to manipulate the conversation by painting me as insensitive or callous. Basically, you're trying to frame me as a bad person so that my arguments are automatically disqualified. It's a textbook ad hominem: I'm being "rude," which makes me a bad person, and therefore what I say is worthless. It’s logically flawed, I guess, but still a pretty clever bit of sophistry.

The following items in the menu are genuinely impressive. Honestly, even master manipulators like Goebbels or Beria wouldn't be ashamed of this level of deception. I guess I should say congratulations.

First off, this is just being taken out of context. It’s a classic Stalinist move. Second, I'm basically being blocked from defending myself because my parole doesn't allow me to actually address the topics that led to these accusations in the first place.

The facts here are a bit skewed. In those statements, I wasn't calling for violence; I was discussing how to respond to it. I don't know how much you know about linguistics, but I assume you realize that "violence" involves the concept of force. There’s psychological violence, physical violence, justified or otherwise—that part is always up for debate, I guess. On the other hand, even looking at the quotes, it’s pretty obvious that I’m not inciting anything. I’m actually making it clear that I wouldn't meet psychological violence with physical force. Instead, I’d just ignore it and cut off communication. That's passive-aggressive, sure, which is also a form of psychological violence. Maybe.

By using that term, I’m basically pointing toward a specific kind of sexual submissiveness that manifests through heightened aggression. It's pretty typical for certain psychological profiles, like Borderline Personality Disorder—which, in most cases, affects women. Aside from that, the term is just a diminutive; it implies something small or cute, which usually carries a slightly positive connotation. It's different from the more aggressive versions of the word, which are always intended to be insulting.

Should I also mention that those quotes were pulled from posts written a year or two ago? And now, suddenly, they're considered suspicious enough to get me banned.

Then there's that quote you used. It’s a bit of a pseudo-argument *ad verecundiam*, but honestly, even that falls flat because the premise isn't even true.

If you’re going to do this, you should probably be fair about it. Most books and articles on the subject—if not all of them—actually point out that when it comes to female promiscuity involving those traits you mentioned, the blame lies with men and how they treat them. Since you clearly know how to cherry-pick certain facts, it would be nice if you presented the full picture for once. Right now, this just feels like a deliberate omission. Or maybe just trolling.

Where did you even pull this from? Just made it up. So men are responsible for female promiscuity? I guess by that logic, women are to blame for male promiscuity. 😂 I'm not saying it's never a factor, or that things like assault don't trigger certain behaviors, but it’s more complicated than how you're framing it. Besides, there aren't any textbooks, peer-reviewed papers, or articles making that claim. So either you're mistaken or you're lying.

And then there's the "viewing a woman as an object" thing. Hmm. How do you view her? As a subject, maybe? Let's look at the grammar: Daniel Ward87 sleeps with a woman. The subject is Daniel Ward87, the predicate is sleeps with, and the object is the woman. Interesting. You could swap the predicate to "loves," but she's still the object. 🤷

Another one of your quotes: "Many of your posts carry an undertone of moralizing, cleverly masked as 'expressing personal opinion.' That's accurate, there isn't much explicit stuff, but it's the moderator's job to deal with the implicit too. And the admin's job is to help with that."

A-ha. So now I'm actually guilty not because what I wrote was wrong, but because you and everyone else thinks it was wrong.

"Denotation (the extensive or explicit meaning of a word, the content generally accepted by all speakers of a language) and connotation (the intensive or implicit meaning, which a word acquires in a specific context for an individual speaker)." Linguistics 101.

Do I really need to spell out that you just admitted you excluded me without any actual evidence, solely based on an intolerance for my views (the value judgments you call moralizing) and my style of discussion, rather than the actual substance of what I'm saying.

Anyway, let the other users, who actually follow my points, decide.

Chloe Green61 said:As someone who had the unbearable honor of moderating Microsoft back during Kurtz's PDF era, I warmly welcome this partiality, even if it arrives a bit late.
Best regards and God's blessings to you all, in my spirit.

Wait a second, was the dispute actually about my value judgments that apparently upset you so much? 🤷

Daniel Ward87 said:Kurtz, you're definitely keeping that partial stake.

Look, Daniel Ward87, if you honestly think it’s enough to condemn someone based on nothing but rumors—like this claim that some anonymous people sued me just because their feelings were hurt, without anyone actually naming names or specifying what I supposedly did—then I have to say that even the USSR didn't go that far. At least back then, they had the decency to stage trials and manufacture testimony. Here? There isn't even a shred of evidence.

Phiber Optika, Auntie—care to tell me exactly which users filed complaints against me? I’d love to see what they actually found offensive. Maybe we can determine if these were genuine insults, or if we’re just dealing with a few overly sensitive types who think the world revolves around them and haven't realized yet that not everyone is obligated to share their specific worldview.

Same goes for you, Phiber Optika. I think you’ve lost your objectivity just because you can't stand my online persona. It won't be hard to prove, though—I could probably point to a few different topics where it's pretty obvious I'm getting under your skin.

I think you’d be better off protecting what’s left of your moderator reputation by rescinding this decision. Or, at the very least, present some actual evidence against me. Otherwise, I’m going to have to file a formal complaint against the entire mod team.

mistymason1 said:And thirdly, there’s this one person whose posts have been way more dismissive toward everyone else than mine ever were. Honestly, I don't know how they have the nerve to even show up here.

You really find all kinds of people around here.

Just so there’s no confusion, Phiber Optika, I wasn't talking about you. I didn't phrase that very clearly, I guess. I was actually referring to someone else—someone who seemingly has zero shame coming in here to lecture everyone.

George Thomas6 said:Will this country ever actually move past this totalitarian phase? I guess we'll see.

...

I was wondering the same thing. Thanks for the support.

Sarah Sanders34 said:If any former Microsoft moderator ever actually showed an ounce of common sense or tolerance, it was definitely these two currently running the PDF boards.

mistymason1, I’ve been reading your posts for a while now. I was just one of many people you tried to drag into those verbal tug-of-wars of yours—those contradictions where you use this specific, insulting tone to try and drive people crazy. It feels like you walk right up to the line of being offensive just to spike the tension, purely so people fight and everything descends into chaos instead of an actual discussion.

You’re that specific type of provocateur found on every single forum. It’s not surprising, but I don't blame people for reaching their breaking point. Honestly, lately, if I see you entering a thread, I just step away. I have no interest in reading how you pick fights and insult others just for the hell of it.

I wouldn't go so far as to call you stupid. You seem like a decent enough guy with the potential to say something smart, but yeah, you definitely know how to make things uncomfortable and throw insults.

It might be worth trying to actually listen to what people are attempting to communicate here. I suspect you'll just find another way to tell everyone they're wrong and you're the only one who's right.

Whatever. I don't think you should disappear from the forum entirely. Stay if you want, mistymason1. But... I don't know, maybe just dial it back once in a while. Or at least—allow it.

Alex, I actually appreciate the support from people who don't agree with me. In fact, I'm probably pretty unlikable to them, but they aren't interested in playing these little smear games, character assassinations, or public lynchings. So, thanks. My only regret is that you stopped engaging in my debates, and that you didn't just dismantle my "verbal tug-of-war full of contradictions where I, as you put it, frequently use an insulting tone to try and drive my interlocutor crazy with just enough provocation to border on offense and humiliation, while simultaneously raising tensions just to cause chaos." If it were really that simple, you would have shut it down directly. 😉

Nicole Jones13 said:"Very few people practice ONS. And all the women who do are screwed. Personally, I'd rather stay on good terms with women who are in that situation—you know, keeping things professional or friendly when it can't be avoided."

mistymason1

And in what way did he offend anyone? From what I can see, he just made himself look like a stubborn idiot. Does that really warrant a ban?

As far as I know, he wasn't even punished. Things were fine until I hit a nerve regarding women and childbirth. And this—so what? This is just a standard value judgment. Don't people have the right to hold opinions, provided they aren't discriminating against others or causing harm? I'd hope so, unless we're all supposed to live in total conformity.

Matthew Anderson said:1. I guess I should probably mention that everything seems to be moving along. It’s mostly just steady progress, nothing too flashy. Maybe. How you address someone depends on the situation, I guess. It really just comes down to the setting.

2. Not allowed. Maybe he’s right, but that whole "I don't have to be nice" bit is definitely offensive. Especially the way he talks about women. If you look at his posts on the one-night stands thread or that "sluts" topic—which, by the way, we had to lock down because of him and one other user—it's pretty clear.

As for the ad hominem stuff, yeah, that’s exactly what an ad hominem is. But I guess there’s another version where you don't go after their credibility directly, but... You think so? Maybe. I guess I have to concede your point. I assume you realize this falls under an ad hominem attack.

And then comes the inevitable part—that pathetic little line where they claim, "Oh, look, some users have come forward to support my view." Typical.

That was a critique of the statistics used at the unknown, not just yours. But since we're already nitpicking, I guess it's worth noting you tend to lean on stats quite heavily whenever you want to sound like an authority.

If a moderator gets complaints about certain posts, we’ll review them and take action when necessary. We're probably being pretty lenient here, especially considering how bad that PDF file was. If these complaints keep piling up and there's actually a valid reason behind them, then we'll step in. If enough users file a complaint... They might opt for a partial ban—which is a bit more lenient—or they could go straight to a permanent one if things get serious.

Just because you don't think your posts are offensive doesn't mean anyone else reading them will agree.

The moderators apparently decided my writing style was too disruptive for the PDF, so they figured a partial ban was necessary. I guess.

You got some solid answers here, but you’re still sticking to that exact same style you have over on unknown. You just don't accept other people's opinions., You call someone else's arguments "misery and poverty," which seems like you're just packaging that as an attack on their opinion. I guess. And you're not even attacking my argument anymore—you’re just coming after me personally, claiming I’m using tactics from some Stalinist denunciation regime.

I think my aunt made the right call. Honestly, continuing this debate with you seems pretty counterproductive.

Best regards,

Sophia Thomas7

All you're doing is screaming with a blunt knife.

Do you even realize how nonsensical that was? I assume you were trying to comment on my tone. It seems like my delivery is distracting you from the actual substance—the arguments themselves. I get it; there are plenty of ways to frame a point, and mine might not be everyone's cup of tea. But that’s my business. Besides, do you really think my style is accidental? If you look at my last thread—which, by the way, is one of the most read and discussed topics here—you'll see. It was getting interesting, too, right as the usual echo chamber here started to crack. Then suddenly, I'm being shut out because of complaints from maybe three women. One of them was clearly just trying to needle me (or "troll," as you people like to say—I hate that imprecise term), and I just gave her a taste of her own medicine without being insulting. The other one was busy being condescending and refusing to accept anyone else's views. If I were a killjoy like her, I’d report her myself. But honestly, I think she knows how to defend her own attitude. At the end of the day, it's everyone's right to disagree, provided they have valid counterarguments.

Another nonsense point—how exactly am I supposed to "not allow" someone else to be right? The whole phrasing is just absurd. When you're arguing with someone who disagrees, you don't "allow" them to be right; you just believe your own arguments hold water and theirs don't. Besides, there are plenty of pseudo-arguments floating around that neither you nor unknown seem to take seriously. But let's get to it. To keep this from spiraling, maybe we should step away from the talk about useless junk and stick to the actual topic where I was supposedly being offensive and got kicked. I’ll say it again: point out a single sentence where I actually insulted anyone. If you can't, then you're just being completely unprofessional and biased. Even Nicholas King saw that, and I don't even like him, yet he managed to stay objective—something you and aunt clearly can't do.

3. I've already explained this—and I’ve said it several times in this thread—if my premises or conclusions were invalid, then refute them. Don't just kick me out. It's what Nicholas King pointed out; I was silenced simply because some people don't like me. And I haven't used any ad hominem arguments anywhere else. Go ahead, point out a single one. Even if I did, it was on the margins and only in response to the pile of them directed at me.

4. Like I said—that was just a pseudo-argument to show that yours and your aunt's are the same.

5. No. I use statistics as statistics, as facts. The way they're used can be wrong or manipulative—so again, prove that I manipulated anything.

6. Pure argumentum ad numerum

7. That's true, but it doesn't prove anything. Offensiveness is subjective; it varies socially and individually. Just look at political cartoons or dark humor contests—one person sees provocation, another sees an insult. 🤷

8. Just because someone believes something doesn't mean they're right—including your accusations against me. In 1930s Germany, the political leadership believed Jews were responsible for all their problems and that things would improve once they were gone. That didn't make them right.

9. Oh, so now my style is criminal? I thought the issue was the content. I've explained the rest.

Nicholas King said:Otherwise, you can flip yourself upside down, but this will still look like an attack on someone because of what they say, rather than how they say it. Those who are silenced and offended (and incapable of actual debate) can just put him on ignore. Those who know how to debate can methodically deconstruct every sentence—isn't that the whole point of a forum? Therefore, this kind of bias and playing favorites is completely pointless.

I suppose I appreciate that, even as a user I don't particularly care for, you have enough objectivity to conclude I was removed just because I'm not liked by many. I think that's the whole point.

Kate Ward16 said:You’re just fixated on one single thread, even though it was clearly stated that isn't actually what this is about... but hey, if you want to stay stuck there, go ahead...
The issue is that you dismiss anyone who holds a different opinion or perspective than yours. I guess you think that's an acceptable way to communicate, I don't know.
Besides, you just insist on your own way like always, acting like nobody else's input matters. So fine, let everyone above me look at how this is going down and decide if removing you is fair or not. I mean, I can't just belittle people or use veiled insults like you do; that's always been unacceptable on this forum. Long story short—I fully stand by what was done, because your style of communication just doesn't fly with the rules.

Anyone can say something and stay out of trouble. But saying something backed by actual arguments? That takes a certain level of competence.

I get that my way of debating might not be everyone's cup of tea, since I can be blunt sometimes, but maybe you just don't really grasp what constitutes an insult. Attacks or ad hominem fallacies are ungrounded, derogatory comments aimed at someone's immutable traits; things like calling someone stupid based on gender, or making jabs about age, race, or socioeconomic status, etc.

On the other hand, calling someone's opinion stupid might be a bit harsh, but it isn't an insult. And saying an opinion is senseless or illogical—which is all I've actually done here—if you consider that an insult, then we're looking at some brand new definition of an insult that would probably need to be added to a new Penal Code.

And thirdly, here's someone else whose posts have been infinitely more condescending toward other users than mine ever were. It's almost bold of them to even show up here.

We really have all types here.

Matthew Anderson said:1. If a moderator issues a warning across several different threads (like asking the group to calm down, or changing text color), that should be taken as a warning. Just because we leave a post up without banning or flagging absolutely everyone doesn't mean the warning wasn't serious.

2. Same question as before: are you sure it was just one thread that led to a partial ban?

3. Regarding the aunt's argument about the number of forum members being too high, you called it pathetic, yet now you're doing the same thing by claiming a specific number of female users support your views.

4. Statistics and facts are something that, at least on this site, get twisted and manipulated whenever it suits someone. From those famous "at least 90% of people..." claims to "I read it somewhere, it's the stats." (and then citing some "leftist" website).

5. I wasn't calling you someone who can be silenced, but rather someone who thinks they're always right, no matter how much people disagree. Maybe it's just a subjective impression.

I guess there’s a hierarchy here: user, mod, super-mod, admin. So if you disagree with a moderator's call, you don't just decide "it won't happen"; that's up to the higher-ups.

6. There's a report button for a reason. Just because you aren't bothered by insults doesn't mean others will take your (or my...) posts the same way, or that they'll just shrug it off.

1. I'll say it again—quote a specific insult of mine, and we can talk. If it really was an insult, I'll apologize. Anyone can overstep. I don't think I've attacked anyone personally; I've always just reacted to people's opinions. But maybe I'm missing something obvious, so if you think I did, enlighten me.

2. Look, I didn't have much free time back on the old boards, so I'm not sure what other topics you're talking about. Don't lie or twist things. That's just how those Stalinist-style smear campaigns work.

3. I called those arguments pathetic because using a mob mentality as a counter-argument is basically a logical fallacy. If a crowd wants a lynching, that's not enough for you to justify attacking someone. That's just a public shaming. And you clearly missed the point—that was a counter-argument intended to show how nonsensical her logic was. It shouldn't matter who holds which view or how many people agree with them. I'm being accused of insulting people, and I'll say it again: if anyone here actually thinks I did, just show me the quote and I'll apologize if I truly crossed a line.

4. My dear Sophia Thomas7, the statistics I used are official government data from the United States. If you're questioning those, then I might have to pray for you, even though I'm not religious.

5. That's just your subjective impression, which you're certainly entitled to.

6. Someone getting offended doesn't make something untrue. Tell a thief he's a thief and he'll probably sue you for libel. He might even try to jump you. I suspect that's all this is—just a bit of virtual violence from certain users who can't handle the truth.

Daniel Ward87 said:mistymason1, you're still being one-sided.

Same goes for you. Make an actual argument. Unless you think moderators don't need any justification for their actions.

I'm not saying I have to be sweet, but if you think it's okay to kick someone just because they have a different opinion than the rest, others might not see eye to eye with you.

Kate Ward16 said:First off—there’s such a thing as life, or Real Life. Everyone here, from the regular users to the mods and admins, has one. That's why I'm just getting back to the forum now...

Second—it isn't just about one thread. It’s more like almost every post of yours. Most people here clearly found them annoying because they saw them as an attack on women, or just an insult to anyone who doesn't think exactly like you do.

Pathetic arguments. Name one single sentence where I actually insulted someone. If it weren't funny and sad, it would be tragic. Maybe it's just tragicomic in the end. Anyway... let's go through this.

First, if I had actually insulted anyone, I'd get a warning, a yellow card, or maybe a three-day ban. If I did, but I didn't...

Second, we're on Lowe's. I haven't seen anyone sanctioned for threads much more aggressive than mine. I made my thread intentionally provocative to get more readers and discussion—I never hid that during the debate. Besides, the thread wasn't deleted; I was just kicked out. Also, women started joining in with views similar to mine, experiencing some pretty harsh insults, yet the guys insulting them didn't even get a warning. Meanwhile, I don't get a warning, I just get banned. I guess that's what they call democracy. 🙄

During the debate, I led with facts and statistics as my premises, then drew conclusions from them. A few times, I even invited people to disprove my logic if it was flawed. Nobody did. Instead, the responses were just stuff like "stupid," "ridiculous," or "generalization"—even though I explained exactly why I wasn't generalizing. No one, not even you, Jack Bishop94, bothered to actually refute my points. It was just easier to shut me up.

Well, that's not going to work.

P.S. You have to distinguish between an ad hominem attack and criticizing an opinion. They are worlds apart, even if they look similar sometimes. So, Jack Bishop94, saying "you're stupid" isn't the same as saying "your opinion is stupid."

The facts are actually the opposite—people were busy calling me primitive, narrow-minded, and backwards in that thread. Honestly, those labels don't bother me at all.

But I'm not going to lose my mind over this, if you'll excuse me.

Best,
mistymason1

The moderator over at the Lowe's subforum, Jack Bishop94, just banned me. No explanation, no warning, nothing. If she actually thought I broke some rule—though I don't think I did—it felt pretty arbitrary and dictatorial.

The supposed reason was that a few users complained about me. Since I was just sticking to statistical facts and drawing conclusions based on them in a thread I started myself, I guess the only real reason for the ban is that people just can't handle my perspective.

It makes me wonder: does Reddit intend to be an echo chamber where moderators kick out anyone who disagrees with the status quo, or is it actually meant to be a place for debate and maybe a little bit of lively discussion?

Bottom line, if a handful of complaints is all it takes to justify a ban, then I’m filing a formal complaint regarding Jack Bishop94's moderation and requesting she be removed from her position.

Best,
mistymason1

@Rebecca Scott3, I guess you aren't even trying to follow what redharbor9 is saying here. 🤷

Look, I'm not trying to be rude, but you don't seem to have much of a handle on this topic. It feels like you're too emotionally invested—subjectively speaking, obviously—to actually have a rational debate.

Nobody else here is claiming a therapist is infallible. But are you suggesting every surgeon walking into an OR has a 100% success rate?

The examples you're bringing up are tough to address because we don't have the full picture, just your own perspective, so it doesn't really go anywhere.

I'm not sure what the goal is with this argument, other than just venting.

Though, the subject itself is pretty solid.

Rebecca Scott3 said:....morning everyone.....you all were busy typing while I was catching some Z's.......the world keeps spinning, doesn't it?....

...most people just assume that a therapist should be this perfectly open-minded vessel where their own personal beliefs don't bleed into the session.....but honestly.....from what I've seen in my own life.....that isn't always the reality. Not everyone walking into a clinic is a saint with an unbiased mind. No matter how hard someone tries to shove their personal biases, their little paranoias, or their deep-seated fears into a box under the bed.....it’s impossible. You can try to suppress it, sure.....but eventually, those things are going to float right back to the surface....

...so, I actually think it would be incredibly helpful if clients had the right to know even the most basic stuff about their therapist beforehand.....things like....did they go to a religious college or a seminary? (like a Catholic or Jewish institution)....
....do they hold really traditional, patriarchal views on family and roles?....
....are they registered members of a specific political party?....
....have they ever been in therapy themselves, and if so, what was it for? (honestly, that could be a huge asset or a major red flag, depending on the person)....
....are they actually comfortable discussing topics like homosexuality?....
......and what kind of client profile do they actually gravitate toward? (Are they specialists in depression, PTSD, anxiety, social skills, etc.)?....
.....
....at the end of the day....don't you think a person has every right to know who the individual is that they're supposed to trust with their mental health?....

That really depends on the approach. The whole point of psychoanalysis is the "not knowing"—using controlled or induced client projections as the material to work through.

Andrew Doyle said:As a patient, this idea of things "floating to the surface" doesn't bother me one bit, provided that those moments are properly worked through during supervision.
Furthermore, as a client, I couldn't care less about the laundry list of details you mention later—whether she belongs to a specific political party, why she’s seeking therapy, and so on. In fact, I believe knowing those things would actually hinder my own progress, because it would trigger all sorts of psychological processes, like projections, that we'd just have to spend more time untangling later.

My therapist is meant to be a "blank slate." It’s my job to "color" her over time. Any attempt on her part to add color prematurely is completely unnecessary to me. In fact, she once hinted at certain life convictions she holds, and even though I share similar beliefs, I found it incredibly unwelcome to have that territory explored. For some reason, it’s much easier for me if those things remain unaddressed, and I made sure to let her know that. At least, that's how it stands for now. I’ve heard plenty of stories about clients being intensely curious about their therapists, but I haven't hit that stage yet.

A psychiatrist-psychotherapist who is schizophrenic? I have honestly never heard of such a thing, and frankly, I highly doubt someone suffering from psychosis would ever pass the screening to become a therapist. Correct me if I'm wrong.
And personally, I see absolutely zero connection between a schizophrenic therapist and a gay gynecologist, even in the broadest possible context of this discussion.

Hmm, yeah. In that case, you could get uncontrolled projections (which might mess with the transference—or steer it the wrong way for therapies where transference is key, though maybe that's just therapeutic bias). Hard to say.

placidwolf2 said:So here's my question: How is a mentally unstable client actually supposed to realistically assess a psychotherapist's values or level of openness?

For many therapists, if not most, intentionally provocative stances and creating friction can serve as a way to more quickly develop specific methods for handling certain clients. I know a colleague—a total authority and top-tier specialist in the US for specific disorders—who would say things like to his patients (even the less attractive 🙂 ones): "You're a total bombshell, what's wrong with your life?" Many experienced this as borderline workplace harassment and left immediately, even though I know for a fact he never crossed professional boundaries. Once many clients realized his method of working and his undeniable success rate—especially after being disappointed by other therapists—they tried to come back to him, but he simply couldn't take them anymore. Not because he didn't want to, but because he was just too busy.

I often hear from people deciding on therapy: "I clicked with my therapist right away." Or, "I didn't." But what does "clicking" even mean? You can "click" with the first new age guru you meet, a snake oil salesman, or some three-month graduate of a quasi-therapeutic course. But will they actually help us?

Recently, I briefly described how Schema therapy works regarding a certain personality disorder. Everyone was appalled and gave long-winded responses about how they'd never dream of trying "something like that." And yet, while Schema therapy shows success rates as high as 52% for that specific disorder, everyone would rather stick to psychoanalysis, spiritual healing, etc.—methods that have a success rate of zero percent for this condition—just because it's more comfortable. A terrifyingly large number of patients, when starting therapy, get the impression that their "ideal self" is far too distant from their "actual self," making everything feel futile, leading them to look for an excuse to quit (pre)emptively.

So, is psychotherapy merely serving as an excuse for many to claim their condition is unchangeable, just so they can preserve the status quo and a sense of relative comfort instead of truly wanting to change? Or am I mistaken?

Well, that kind of attitude is therapeutically legitimate, but it definitely warrants some serious questioning.

Can you drop a link for that Schema?

Rebecca Scott3 said:....so here’s a scenario: there’s this woman going through a messy divorce. she has a tiny baby... and her husband has been physically and emotionally abusive toward her, even right in front of the child. she went to therapy looking for some actual support... and her primary care doctor at the local clinic sent her straight to a specific therapist—someone he apparently has a referral arrangement with...
....and then she runs into this guy who isn't just unhelpful, but actually suggests she should just make peace with her husband. he’s basically telling her to just play along and cater to him so they can reach some sort of settlement on how to split things up without a full legal separation... suggesting a setup where she stays home while he works to provide for her and the kid... and then implies her family—her dad, mom, and brother—should step in to handle the control side of things, like they should be the ones sitting down with her husband to hash out the disagreements...
....honestly, it's just nonsense. he actually feels entitled to suggest to a married woman that she stay in a situation involving violence and drag her parents and brother into the middle of it all...
....the whole thing felt incredibly off, especially considering the guy is originally from an Asian country, finished his studies there, and then moved here to get his credentials to practice therapy...
....anyway, she eventually realized what was happening and walked away after about ten sessions. but she had already paid for them... she burned through her savings because, from the start, it was never clear where this "therapy" was actually headed. everything was just a series of subtle hints that she didn't fully grasp until the very end... she just couldn't believe where he was actually trying to take her...

....
.

Maybe the guy really is some genius therapist and is just talking nonsense, but I guess you might be too wrapped up in this case to maintain any kind of objective view.

driftinggull21 said:

I wouldn't be surprised if most psychodynamic practitioners still classify homosexuality as a sexual deviation—which, strictly speaking, it is (referring specifically to homosexuality rather than bisexuality); thus placing it within the same diagnostic category (F.65) as pedophilia.

Roughly 90% of psychiatrists consider homosexuality to be a disorder.
Source: unofficial office chatter.

And one certainly cannot argue that 9 out of 10 psychiatrists are failing at their profession.

I didn't even write that.

Well, okay, now that our insider info is more or less aligning, it seems things aren't as simple as many people think. Homosexuality = disorder = narrow-mindedness.

Rebecca Scott3 said:Do you think patients should actually know what their psychologist’s—or psychiatrist’s—core beliefs are before they commit to therapy?

....I’ve just been sitting here thinking.....how is a therapist with deep-seated patriarchal views ever going to truly grasp the frustrations and the sheer pressure a woman feels—someone who wasn't even raised with those old-school values—when she's dealing with a husband or a boss who lives by them?......

....or how is a psychologist who holds homophobic views supposed to connect with the struggles of a gay man.......or a lesbian?.....

....and then there's the issue of a racist therapist; if a person of color walks into their office, how can that doctor actually understand or help them when they're secretly harboring the belief that they deserve to suffer in the first place?......

....or even an ultra-nationalist therapist... how could they possibly offer real support to someone from a background or a nation that they personally despise or look down upon?.....

.....what's your take on this?.....
.....what kind of information should a client have a right to know about their therapist before they ever step foot in that office?.....

Uh! Great topic. But pretty hard to reach a conclusion. Maybe redharbor9 will correct me, but I suspect that with psychodynamic approaches, you actually need to know as little as possible. At least at the start. As for whether they *should* know or not, it’s not really a simple answer.

redharbor9 said:Look, at the end of the day, a therapist is just a human being. No amount of schooling or fancy degrees makes you immune to everything. What matters is developing self-awareness about your own limits and actually respecting them. A pro should know when to call it quits or refer someone out if they realize they can't handle it.

Clashes over beliefs happen all the time in therapy. It’s on the therapist to figure out if those views are getting in the way and then deal with it the right way.

I was doing a counseling session recently with someone who thinks cannabis is this massive hard drug, even though they're actually a heavy user themselves. I have totally different views on it, but honestly, it didn't bother me one bit. While we were talking through their issue, I pointed out some gray areas and corrected some misinformation they had, but I didn't push it any further than what was necessary for the work. I don't care about winning an argument. Meanwhile, I have a colleague who can't pull that off. That subject is such a landmine for them that they wouldn't even work with someone holding those views, so they just distance themselves beforehand to stay safe.

Issues regarding personal morals come up constantly when you're working with criminals—pedophiles, abusers, murderers, you name it. Back in grad school, we used to debate whether we could actually work with people like that, and it was wild seeing how much we differed. One female colleague would work with anyone except a pedophile; I personally couldn't stand skinheads; others wouldn't touch anyone with a criminal record. It always comes back to knowing your own boundaries and sticking to them. You aren't bulletproof against someone else's personality.

Heh, a clash of beliefs is obvious enough; the choice is clear. Either they can accept it or they can't. But what about countertransference that the therapist fails to recognize?

Dennis Jackson38 said:If I may indulge in playing the "devil's advocate" for a brief moment:

- Pedophilia and drug abuse aren't merely issues that can be categorized as pathologies; they are technically criminal offenses under American law.

- Consequently, it feels logically inconsistent to group homosexuality within that same sequence. It isn't a disease, nor is it something that should—or even could, if we are speaking from a modern American perspective—be tossed into the same basket as the aforementioned behaviors.

From my perspective as a layperson, it makes sense that an expert in the human psyche would need to employ additional cognitive tools to view a pedophile or a criminal as a human being deserving of help, maintaining a certain degree of clinical distance and empathy despite the nature of the individual.

On the other hand, as a free citizen in this modern era, I believe I have the right to feel unsettled when psychology professionals allow their own biases to interfere. When experts hold prejudices against things that clash with their upbringing or deeply ingrained convictions, they descend to a level of judgment they simply shouldn't reach—namely, the level of conservative bias.

Forgive me, but it is quite difficult for me to respect someone as a major scientific authority in psychology or psychiatry when I see them visibly uncomfortable—perhaps staring at the ceiling while a gay man shares his life experiences (even having to interrupt him to stop the discomfort)—or when they label a woman as "promiscuous" based solely on her attractive appearance, telling a patient that she "really does seem promiscuous and isn't marriage material." (I am referring to the two specific examples I mentioned earlier).

A high degree of openness, an acceptance of differences, an understanding of personal choices, and above all, a total ABSENCE of discrimination are, in my view, absolute "must-haves" for anyone intending to successfully assist people in this field.

There is no undisputed or clear etiology for either homosexuality or pedophilia. There are correlations and various hypotheses, but nothing is definitively proven. So, your stance that things are as you described is really just another belief, unsupported by anything other than prejudice (that's just how it is; there's no scientific proof).

bluemason3 said:I’m not entirely convinced how much a therapist's own journey through therapy actually matters here. When you're dealing with topics like substance use, sexuality, or even more controversial issues, a lot of it is subjective and constantly shifting. It isn't really about labeling things as right or wrong—it's more about whether those things create internal conflict for the individual.

The goal is really just finding the right fit with the right professional. Though, even that's a bit complicated. For instance, imagine someone has a specific trait X and a problem Y. They want to fix problem Y without changing trait X, so they look for a therapist who fully accepts X so they can feel safe. But what happens if problem Y is actually caused by trait X?

Exactly. It’s a complicated mess. But at the end of the day, I guess no therapist should ever be crossing that line, regardless of what they think. Professional or otherwise.

bluemason3 said:Quincy:

Dennis Jackson38 Asks: Pedophilia and drug abuse aren't just clinical pathologies; they are serious criminal offenses under the law.

Looking back at history, our attitude toward both of these things has been incredibly inconsistent. Honestly, I’m not even sure if we’ve managed to shake off the influence of social context today—or if that's even something we can actually achieve.

Quincy:

To be honest, I don't think it makes sense to group homosexuality into that logical sequence. It isn't a disease, nor should it even be remotely considered one—not if we're looking at things from a modern perspective. It doesn't belong in the same category as the issues mentioned above.

But honestly, everything I just said applies here too.

Quincy:

As a layman, I get it. If you’re an expert in the social sciences and health professions, you have to pull in some extra tools to stay objective. You need that mental distance and a healthy dose of empathy just to look at a predator or a criminal and see them as a human being worthy of help.

That’s true, but people aren't robots in the real world, so that isn't always going to be possible. The real question is where we draw the line on what's considered problematic or even a disorder. Some might argue that homosexuality needs treatment; we've seen actual examples of that from some of our most prominent psychiatrists mentioned here on the forum. 😁 Let’s say you have one therapist who views homosexuality as an illness—something that needs to be "cured" because they see it as a fundamental problem. Then you have another who holds the exact opposite view. Obviously, those two approaches are going to lead to completely different therapeutic outcomes.

Quincy:

On the other hand, as a free agent in the modern world, I should be allowed to call out professionals in the social sciences and health professions when they let their own biases get in the way. It’s frustrating when people who are supposed to be objective let deeply ingrained, conservative prejudices cloud their judgment and drag them down to a level they really shouldn't be operating at. Look, I find it hard to respect someone claiming to be a major authority in the social sciences and health professions when they act like this. You have one instance where they look visibly uncomfortable, staring at the ceiling while a gay man tries to share his experiences, eventually having to ask him to just stop talking. Then there’s the case where they label a woman promiscuous based on nothing more than her looks, telling a patient that she "really does seem promiscuous" and isn't "marriage material." It’s hard to take that kind of behavior seriously.

That assumes mainstream beliefs are some kind of universal truth, but they aren't. They’re just illusions—subjective views held by different social groups that shift constantly. This isn't classical physics; there are no exact formulas or absolute certainties here. I don't buy into the idea of total objectivity either. We're all limited by our own perspectives.

Quincy:

For anyone planning to work in this field, I need to see a high level of openness, an acceptance of differences, and a genuine respect for people's choices. Most importantly, there absolutely cannot be any trace of discrimination. That’s non-negotiable for me.

I get that, but honestly? Someone who's seen the darkest sides of life might actually be better equipped to help a member of the Catholic Church than someone like me. 😁

Political correctness makes this a taboo subject nowadays, but it’s far from simple. Most gay people eventually face a conflict between their sexual orientation and the instinct to have children. Fifty years ago, there was no way to resolve that tension other than just pretending to be straight. Today, technically, you have options like IVF, egg donation, or surrogacy—but that doesn't change the fact that it remains a deep social and moral issue. Things used to be much more complicated than what today's quasi-liberal society tries to force on us through hypocritical political correctness.

Dennis Jackson38 said:Are you referring to that same historical stretch where people insisted the Earth was a flat disc, thought leeches were the panacea for almost every ailment, or believed redheaded women were witches destined for the pyre? 😬

Upon further reflection, one could theoretically conceive of a brilliant robot designed to step into the role of a therapist—one capable of posing flawless logical inquiries and delivering impeccable logical responses and diagnoses. Why, then, would such a thing never succeed in the real world? Because a machine will never possess the single most vital element required to truly grasp the struggles of another human being: empathy.

Really? Seriousness? A therapist "views" it??? There hasn't been a "view" regarding this specific example since 1970. (I find it hard to believe that we still have to Wikipedia and copy-paste this stuff on this PDF 😁)

Since the 1970s, the consensus of the social sciences and health professions has moved to the belief that homosexuality is a normal variation of human sexual orientation, while there remain those who maintain that it is a disorder.[2] In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association declassified homosexuality as a mental disorder.

Listen to this... "influence the therapy." The only thing it will influence is his loss of medical licensure, because he's busy declaring a homosexual person to be sick.
Now, remind me about that little girl they kept locked away just for being a lesbian... chills....

If I had to choose a personal motto to live by, it would be:

"Not doing more than the average is what keeps the average down"

In an effort to extract the philosophical core from this topic and steer the conversation back toward its intended course, I’ll attempt to refocus the point 😉

It is perfectly reasonable to expect those who have dedicated their lives to mental health to possess a higher degree of insight, openness, and freedom from the primitive biases found in whatever "mental mainstream" you are referring to.
I am certainly not suggesting they need to be superhuman, far from it; however, they shouldn't be using their credentials as an excuse to implant their own prejudices into patients who come to them in good faith—especially those dealing with more complex issues.

Removing homosexuality from the DSM and the ICD isn't exactly without its controversies. As Beljki pointed out, it’s more of a consensus than some kind of definitive scientific discovery, since we still don't really know the causes behind homosexuality. I guess.

I wouldn't be surprised if most psychodynamic practitioners still view homosexuality as a sexual deviation. Technically speaking, that’s where it sits—specifically regarding homosexuality rather than bisexuality—within that same diagnostic category used for pedophilia. I guess it's just how the classifications work.

And what about "learned" biases?

redharbor9 said:Right now in America? It won't happen. There's a huge list of psychiatrists and therapists over here who still think homosexuality is a disease and try to "fix" it. And it's not just the treatment—they straight-up terrorize clients, telling them they're going to hell or blackmailing kids by threatening to tell their parents everything.

Take Gruden, for example. He was constantly on TV bragging about how he could "cure" it. After a massive wave of backlash and complaints, he finally shut his mouth about it in public. But the way these people operate in private? It’s a total horror show, like something straight out of Monty Python.

I get the feeling most psychodynamic therapists still view it as a disorder, even if they don't say it out loud. Is that how you see it too? And what happens when there's a conflict between sexual drive and the drive for reproduction? Doesn't the solution usually just end up aligning with the therapist's own personal—or maybe even moral—convictions?

Keith Lee2 said:Think about it—what if sex is just like an internal hunger signal that drives an organism
to act.
You don't need food sitting right in front of you to know you're hungry.
But to recognize sexual drive, you'd need the presence of the opposite sex
nearby.
If a sexual urge suddenly hits an individual who’s never even been exposed to
someone of the opposite sex, how would they even know what steps to take to
relieve that pressure?
Or maybe it's more like the presence of the opposite sex is actually the trigger
that sets off the instinct in the first place.

Basically, how would sexuality even form if a group was isolated from birth without any knowledge
of the opposite sex? Would that drive even exist at all?

Since animals live in social structures where both sexes are constantly present, it's hard to tell
if sexuality is triggered by being around the opposite sex
or if it would just kick in regardless, even if they were totally alone.

Are you being serious? Man, have you ever actually interacted with any animal species other than humans? 😂

Seriously.

Anyone who spends time around non-humans has seen those kinds of spontaneous experiments play out countless times. 😁

Kyle Williams30 said:There simply isn't any research out there stating that on an individual level, it is "impossible" to alter one's personality traits. It isn't as if a person cannot become significantly more conscientious or substantially less neurotic. Perhaps even the title of this thread was somewhat clumsily phrased—does "can one..." mean "is it possible?" To claim otherwise lacks any real scientific foundation. Consider the case of a gentleman who underwent a procedure where his visual neurons were essentially rerouted to the auditory cortex; suddenly, his auditory regions began behaving somewhat like visual ones. Of course, there were limits—constraints inherent in how stimuli are processed—but it worked to an extent. The human brain possesses plasticity (not infinite, certainly, but the boundaries governing our personality shifts aren't clearly defined), and there is still plenty of "fuel" left in adults for "neural rewiring" and neurogenesis within the cortex and hippocampus. Any adult could theoretically reshape their personality, provided they truly possessed the will to do so. Bit by bit, through state after state, what begins as a temporary mood eventually solidifies into a trait.
And naturally, those who refuse to believe change is possible will achieve nothing at all.
While it is true that personality remains stable when viewed as a statistical average—lacking massive, sweeping shifts across populations—
we are talking here about self-report measures and correlation studies.
For instance, we know that smokers remain remarkably consistent in their habits.
However, we wouldn't jump to the conclusion that quitting smoking is impossible just because the statistics show consistency.

In academic research, "character" and "personality traits" are operationalized quite differently, despite laypeople treating them as synonyms.
Personality psychology is a chaotic theory involving just about everything under the sun.
Consequently, one cannot conclude that a person's personality is set in stone and unchangeable.
It requires effort. One must essentially act "against" their own nature until new patterns of perception and reaction consolidate. But first, shouldn't we start by becoming aware of who we actually are at this moment?
What constitutes my core trait, and what is merely a passing state?
Do I feel more at ease in a crowd or in solitude?
Deciding to quit smoking isn't enough, nor is merely wanting to. You have to apply it; you have to find the method.
When our habitual way of reacting to the world becomes a burden to ourselves, I believe that provides sufficient motivation to seek a new path. Otherwise, one might ask: why bother changing at all? 😁

1. I never said changing a specific trait is impossible. I meant that personality as a whole stays mostly fixed—not that you can't shift certain behaviors or specific traits. Besides, there's the question of what a personality trait actually is. How do you define it, and more importantly, how do you measure it? Is what we find through testing a true trait, or just a pattern of behavior?

2. Obviously. Personality is one thing, and its constituent traits are another.

3. Those are valid questions. What really constitutes introversion or extroversion? How do we define them? Using objective metrics (quantifiable data like how often, where, and with whom) or just subjective feelings? It raises the issue of whether they can even be defined without making measurement impossible.

Jesse Peterson5 said:Honestly, I think my core trait is just being stubborn. It’s been part of my DNA since day one. I told myself I’d change and stop being so headstrong, but let's be real—I'm still just as stubborn as ever. I've just gotten better at keeping it under wraps. Same me, just better self-control. 😁

I don't think people actually change. You can't just swap out your core personality; that's your baseline, your default setting for everything else. But after scrolling through this thread, I’ve realized something: people don't change because they *can*, they change because they *have* to. It's about being forced to deal with that one part of yourself that finally becomes too much to handle.

George Newman11 said:Hmm, I’d like to change my self-perception, in a way. I can't quite put my finger on it—that feeling where you constantly diminish yourself in social settings. You walk around thinking everyone else is superior, convinced that whatever you achieve will never be enough, let alone great. I'm essentially sabotaging myself from the jump, which isn't helping.
On one hand, I'm always pushing to improve, which seems healthy... but lately, it just leads to frustration. I watch others put in the work and nail their goals, while no matter how hard I try, I feel stuck being mediocre. And meanwhile, I end up more stressed than those high achievers 🙂.
I suppose it stems from how my parents treated me; nothing I did was ever truly "good enough." For instance, if I got a B on a test, they’d ask, "How many kids got an A?" or "Couldn't you have pushed for an A?" Even if I did get an A in something like Art, they'd say, "That's nice, but an A in Math would have been more useful." They gave a passing compliment, sure, but it was never sufficient. That’s how I developed this view of myself 😢.

So, is this a personality trait or just behavior? And is change actually possible?

Those things shape your personality, but in your case, I think psychotherapy could help clear it out: low self-esteem and a lack of confidence are things you can work on.

George Newman11 said:EDIT: Is it possible that non-physical bullying in elementary or middle school plays a role here, or does this behavior all start at home?

It definitely has a connection. Kids are like predators; they instinctively sniff out someone who won't fight back or someone who looks like an easy target for psychological or physical bullying. But that's usually just a symptom. The root cause, unfortunately, is often familial.

How old are you? Are you still living with your parents or have you moved out? Are you in college, working...?

It’s pretty clear you’re being a stubborn contrarian here. 😉

It isn't some law of physics. It’s just a psychological theory developed through research and testing. But, obviously, it isn't the Bible; if someone runs a study that disproves it, then the theory loses its standing.

I wasn't talking about temperament. I think I knew what I meant.

Nothing is black and white. I specified the conditions under which personality might shift: mental or physical illness, PTSD, psychotherapy—otherwise, it doesn't really change.

For instance, an impulsive person will always be impulsive, but they can learn to manage that impulsivity. So, their behavior changes, but their core personality stays the same.

Similarly, an empathetic person has no reason to lose that empathy (barring the cases mentioned), just as someone lacking it—like a sociopath—won't suddenly gain it.

I think you're confusing behavior with personality traits.

Even an empathetic person might act without empathy in certain situations—maybe they're just seeking attention or group support and end up stepping over someone. It isn't all simple, but that doesn't mean there aren't patterns and rules at play.

"Personality" is the standard term used here, though "character" is also common.

In psychology, personality and character are basically technical terms that serve as the academic counterparts to how we use "character" in everyday conversation.

That isn't the case at all. 😉

The OP is asking if an adult can actually change their personality.

In psychology and psychiatry, personality is essentially what people usually call "character."

Character tends to be pretty constant—not really something you just swap out.

But behavior? That can change.

So, I guess it depends on what exactly you're looking to change.

I said personality is mostly fixed, not that it never shifts under any circumstances. Besides, there’s a difference between someone's core personality and their specific traits. A trait is just one characteristic. Also, most changes aren't even conscious. I don't think Peter can just willpower his way from being an extrovert to an introvert. Or go from impulsive to calm. He might learn to control or rein in that impulsivity—staying within some idea of "normal"—but that doesn't mean the underlying tendency isn't still there, especially when things get stressful.

It's the same for someone who is naturally distrustful suddenly becoming incredibly trusting. Maybe they become more open with people they already like, but not with everyone. So, you see shifts in behavior in certain situations, but the actual personality remains the same. An impulsive person will always have that lean toward impulsivity, just as a distrustful person will stay more or less distrustful.

If you think any of this is wrong, please send me a link to something that says otherwise.

Thanks.

We've seen similar—or even identical—topics pop up here before.

From a psychological or psychiatric standpoint, personality is made up of traits that manifest across various situations.

They’re mostly fixed. I mean, they might shift occasionally, but usually not by choice. It typically takes something like physical or mental illness, extreme stress (especially PTSD), or things like that.

Some traits can be... well, maybe not changed, but perhaps tempered through long-term psychotherapy.

I think a lot of people here confuse behavior with personality. Behavior is a byproduct of personality, not the other way around.

Someone mentioned being hardworking or lazy—but those aren't really personality traits. Traits would be more like passivity or initiative. Here are a few examples:
1. rigidity
2. self-confidence
3. sensitivity
4. jealousy
5. mistrust
6. impulsivity
7. attention-seeking
8. dependency
9. belligerence
10. aggression
11. empathy

and so on.

Jose Barrett said:Fair enough.
But just because there's a lawsuit doesn't automatically mean "laws were broken."
If you want to be a total legalist, you really have to wait for the final verdict.

But if what's being reported is true, then yeah, laws were broken. Let's not act like those typical DC politicians. Just let the court do its thing. Let it work. Thank God it's actually working! 😍

This case is something else because it perfectly illustrates how the media operates these days. Getting to the truth feels almost impossible; you just have to guess based on your own experience and whatever world knowledge you happen to have. Specifically, this whole thing has become a rallying cry for the LGBTQ+ community, though that doesn't necessarily mean what they're saying isn't true. It’s just... being used biasedly.

If everything is accurate, we're looking at a connection between Ann's family and certain staff at the hospital in Springfield... multiple laws being broken... if the main facts hold up, it's scandalous... and the former director probably deserves to lose her license for life and face years in prison... assuming the reports are right.

Patrick Wright2 said:The whole situation is heavy because, in this country, we basically strip adults of their right to make their own damn decisions. Plus, you’ve got people being forced into treatment when they clearly don't want it.

But honestly, even beyond that, the linked article is just absolute nonsense, especially the intro.

It claims: "You're probably wondering how a doctor or the director of a psychiatric facility can be someone who, despite the scientifically proven fact that homosexuality isn't an illness—and which they 'treat' even though it's not even on the World Health Organization's list of diseases?"

There is no such "scientifically proven fact." Look, I'm not saying homosexuality is a disease, but I am saying there is no scientific proof backing up that specific claim. It seriously gets under my skin when authors let their blatant bias and lack of objectivity totally override the truth.

I completely agree. Not only is there no scientific fact stating homosexuality isn't a disease, but even its causes are unknown. Is it genetic, hormonal, acquired...? Homosexuality is a sexual orientation—natural, sure, but a deviation from the majority, and viewing it that way is itself a deviation. Does homosexuality need "treatment"? Today, political correctness dominates, but it isn't as simple as people think. Still, forced "treatment" is madness. But let's be real—homosexuality can become a problem because more impulses can clash in ways impossible for hetero or bisexual people—specifically, the desire for motherhood or fatherhood, which can't be achieved naturally within a homosexual community.

Jose Barrett said:Exactly.

I can't help but wonder if she was struggling with some underlying mental health issues—maybe that's what actually led to her being sent to state prison instead of just this specific incident.

The article was signed by the LGBTQ+ organization LORI, which makes the whole thing feel a bit skewed to me.

I’d prefer to hear the other side of the story before forming an opinion. It seems unfair to start throwing stones at doctors when there hasn't been any proof of wrongdoing yet.

Even if she did, several laws were still broken—there's a court case underway, after all. But yeah, the case has definitely become biased.