Ok... so I wonder though...? What is the significance here? 1/164+ mass shootings in recent decades was perpetrated by someone supposedly transitioning genders and this means what exactly or is important why exactly?
Well- that’s an interesting thought- on the surface it would seem self evident that the mentally unstable might seem more likely to commit violent crimes- however statistically only 3-5% of violent crime is committed by those deemed mentally unstable. So that’s a hard statement to back up. Likewise- we could argue that a “mentally stable” person by default doesn’t commit violent crime and by committing violent crime one is at least in that moment mentally unstable- but that’s sort of philosophical. The bigger problem though- what does transitioning genders have to do with mental instability? A person diagnosed by a professional under the terms of the DSM as having Gender Dysphoria can be said to be suffering some mental issues- but most people transitioning sex do not meet the criteria for having Gender Dysphoria. A diagnosis cannot be done “remotely.” A professional must see the patient one on one and asses them.
So if the point is a link between mental instability and violent crime, and an implication the defendant is mentally unstable because of gender transition- it should read: “Defendant diagnosed with Gender Dysphoria...” However it does not. Which implies they can’t report that since it hasn’t happened, and thus there is no factual basis to assume the defendant has Gender Dysphoria. Likewise- one can’t make a solid case for mental instability- or especially Gender Dysphoria, making a person at higher risk for violent crime. So I think the assumptions are flawed here.
Comments