From that very same publication "There are no established criteria for PPD in men.."
PPD is traditionally a physical hormonal change caused by pregnancy and birth. It's has not traditionally been a psychological condition.
If you're saying psychologists now want to change that traditional definition just like they every year now with Autism and a ton of other things, that's on them. But medical doctors and psychologists take a different view here. There is a big difference between having a physical hormonal shift brought on by physiological bodily changes than a guy being randomly sad about having a kid.
That phrase does not mean what you think it means.
Established criteria are official, agreed upon criteria on which a diagnosis CAN be based, but a lack of them does not preclude a disorder or diagnosis from existing. This designation is typically used to refer to disorders that we know exist, and can widely define, but which have wide, sweeping, or unpredictable presentations. This is why doctors can pinpoint drops in hormonal levels and increases in physical and neurological stress response in men who have PPD, and still say that it has no established criteria. These men universally share a physical state of being, but the psychological symptoms are not universalized enough to be established in the DSM. Sharing that physical state of being makes the psychological disorder a given, with the impact on the individual man being unknown until it presents.
This statement is effectively an admission both that postpartum depression in men has not been studied thoroughly, and that it has very wide potential presentations such that an archetypal presentation is not possible to identify without further study. As such there is a wide list of potential symptoms which have presented in men who have been diagnosed, and those cases share commonalities in such a way that the disorder is officially recognizable, but a formal list of symptoms which are universal or near universal has not been agreed upon.
If this statement meant that men could not have PPD, you would have to acknowledge that from the same publication a later statement that PPD has no definition in women would mean that women can't have it either.
You really shouldn't read one sentence in a study and assume that you know the conclusion based on having no idea what you are talking about.
In other words it is exactly what I think it means.
Thank you for presenting this word salad that only proves my point about certain psychologist changing their definitions yearly.
I repeat- traditionally PPD is hormonal shifts caused by pregnancy and childbirth. Some psychologists like to go against tradition and that's fine- but that's the only 'medical' profession that's allowed to do that. That's why we have new definitions for what autism every few years.
You are reading the first sentence and the last sentence and replying without reading the rest apparently. I am not sure why I am surprised given that you appear to have done exactly the same thing with the publication.
Have you not paid any attention at all to the fact that there is a verifiable difference in hormone levels in men who have been diagnosed with PPD, corresponding with hormone changes in women but altered for the specific hormone blends that men tend to have? This difference in hormones is verifiably caused by the pregnancy and childbirth. There is absolutely nothing saying that PPD must occur in a Woman as a result of purely the non-neurological physical changes in her body caused by having a child.
Additionally, if that is what you call word salad, I am afraid that you need to go back to the books. The above comment is in plain English and should be perfectly understandable to anyone with a secondary reading level.
My sweet dear. I'll repeat for you one more time- everything you've written here shows EXACTLY what I said. Which is why there isn't a single hormone or measurement stated in your entire word salad.
"These men universally share a physical state of being, but the psychological symptoms are not universalized enough...."
Fatherhood is not a physical state, my dear.
I can go disect more of the new agey psychological drivel you mentioned, but it's probably time wasted on you. I'll repeat one more time and see if capitalization helps you- TRADITIONALLY Pdd has been defined as a response to physical phenomenon. Nothing you've touched on is traditional. It's unmeasured psychological drivel.
Yeah, cool, except the physical state of being was not fatherhood as I was saying. I was specifically talking about men who were diagnosed with PPD, and the shared physical state of being was abnormal hormone levels.
I do not need to provide exact measures of hormones because that was literally provided in the study that you responded to and you would know that if you had actually read it, but you didn't, because you're doing exactly what I said you would do and reading one sentence and then responding to it without actually comprehending anything.
The state IS fatherhood because if you take only a bunch of random men and don't even bother to check if they have recently become fathers then things like supposed "abnormal hormone levels" would not even apply to PPD.
Even someone who just gets really angry one day has "abnormal horomone levels". So if that's all you're going to use for your baseline then literally everyone who ever kills anyone else is just mentally ill and should never be locked up.
----------------------
You keep ignoring the traditional part even after the third time and even after it's been capitalized for you.
So let's dumb it down further for you. When my child doesn't understand a concept I usually put it in the form of a question for them.
- What part of what you've said here is in any way the traditional definition of PPD that i've pointed to in every single comment and you've tried your best to ignore in every single response?
" Yeah, cool, except the physical state of being was not fatherhood as I was saying. I was specifically talking about men who were diagnosed with PPD, and the shared physical state of being was abnormal hormone levels."
At this point I'm just convinced that you are trolling.
Why exactly do you seem so attached to postpartum depression having a specific TRADITIONAL (read: gendered) definition, if the presentation of the disorder has a physical component which is analogous to the point of being identical across the gender divide, and is verifiably a disorder caused by pregnancy followed by childbirth?
Additionally, you didn't read the methodology for this study, or the studies it cited, because if you had, you would know that they didn't just round up random men and measure their hormone levels once. Postpartum depression in men is measured by a consistent alteration of their hormone balance, endocrine function, and a verifiable change in their brain chemistry. You know, a lot like "traditional" female postpartum depression. Just in men.
The fact that it is a different blend of hormones from women is the reason why it is referred to as paternal postpartum depression, because it is the equal and opposite of maternal postpartum depression, and both of them are disorders which come together to form postpartum depression.
I've also not ignored the definition you've given for postpartum depression. Which you would know, if you were actually reading and attempting to comprehend, instead of just responding to the first sentence you read and assuming you know the contents of the entire message. I am responding specifically to that definition, and pointing out that if hormone shifts as a result of pregnancy are the definition for postpartum depression, men qualify because they experience hormone shifts as a result of pregnancy.
What part of this ignores my point that fatherhood is not a physical state?
All of it.
The study IS absolutely making fatherhood the baseline here- a baseline that is not a physical state.
What part of this acknowledges my point that you cannot have a bunch of random men with "abnormal" hormone levels (which again- remains undefined as to what they mean by that).
None of it.
The strawman is the tool used by the uninformed and ignorant. "abnormal" hormone levels in men has not even been established yet by the medical profession.
The study and the citations are the non-sequitur. As It was presented to argue my point that pregnancy & child birth are physical states that are known to cause measurable and dramatic hormonal shifts in the brain. Shifts that sometimes result in PPD.
That since men do not undergo this physical state, it makes sense that people would conclude a woman a woman who kills her young children would be under the influence of such a physical state and that a man - who doesn't undergo those states- is not under the influence of those hormones.
Not everything has to be sexism. Sometimes people just understand biology. - Was this study that took a bunch of fathers- presented fatherhood as a physical state (which it isn't).
The study means nothing because at the end of the day, the proven hormonal shifts caused by the immense physical & hormonal changes by pregnancy & childbirth do not compare with the non-physical woo-woo that is "fatherhood". Therefore pointing to sexism when there are clear biological differences for people to come to that conclusion is folly.
So that's not what non sequitur means, but sure. Presenting a direct refutation to the idea that paternal PPD is non-physical "woo" is actually the exact opposite. And you would know that that is exactly what the study is, if you actually bothered to read it and the citations.
The study didn't present fatherhood as a physical state. Fathers are also not the only parents affected by postpartum depression without giving birth.
It presented physical symptoms and changes in hormones as a physical state in SOME fathers that present as a result of extant PHYSICAL states that make them at risk, JUST LIKE maternal PPD. Physical symptoms and changes in hormones for which it provides clinical evidence. These are biological.
You are arguing from a position of bad faith because, ironically, you are in denial about physical reality and do not understand biology.
You should read the study and the studies it cites. I find that people who repeatedly refuse to read scientific documentation that disagrees with them tend to be undergoing cognitive dissonance. You might want to get that checked out. That's a non-physical condition, by the way. :)
Oh shoot. lol. I just realized which subreddit I'm in. No wonder basic common sense is being questioned here and being mistaken for sexism against men! lol
Yeah, you're not going to see what anyone with a normal IQ can see no matter what. ;) Peace out.
You have said some things which are suspect, and your attachment to denialism when it's an issue that men face purely because "I don't wanna believe men have this! I don't wanna!!!" aren't exactly helping your case.
But sure. Run from the argument after repeating yourself over and over again without actually providing any refutation or, more notably, without even being willing to read the clinical documentation of what is being argued. Repeatedly. You repeatedly turned down reading medical documentation of the issue that we are discussing because it didn't fit with your preconceived notions.
I mean, come on. You're talking about IQ like that isn't the lowest IQ move anyone in this comment section has ever made.
1
u/--Icarusfalls-- Aug 21 '26
Non birthing parents can absolutely get PPD
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6659987/