Draft for new DSM-V wording

[CharleneT]

Hi, so here is a link to the newly released draft for the section on Sexual Identity in DSM-V. Which is the std that all mental health providers go to for "diagnosis" and coding. Very important stuff.... anyway, for TS it seems a bit better than before !!

http://www.dsm5.org/ProposedRevisions/Pages/SexualandGenderIdentityDisorders.aspx

MODS: I know this should technically be in "Media", move it if you feel you have to. I felt it so specific to TS issues that putting it in the general media would somewhat bury the info.

[Melissa A.]

Certainly not perfect, but better and simpler than before. Until there's scientific proof that it's physical defect and not a psychological problem, I suppose it's an improvement. Thank you for the info, Charlene.

Hugs,

Melissa:)

[Frances]

It still treats it as a mental disorder. The problem is the stigma attached to being diagnosed with a mental disorder and that psychoanalysts refuse to believe that it is uncurable and persist in trying to change the patient's gender identity.

I was really hoping for the whole diagnosis to be changed to Ego-Dystonic Gender Identity Disorder, like they did with homosexuality in 1973, which would have paved the way for a complete removal of the diagnosis eventually, especially if biological evidence is found (brain structure, genes, chromosones, etc.).

[Karen564]

Thank You Charlene,

Great find !!
Hmmmm, “Gender Incongruence” (GI)

Sounds much better without the "Disorder" attached to the end....


Frances,

It is what it is..

Like it or not, it will always be a Psychiatric condition even when they can prove it to have a physical cause biologically, the body & mind are one, each affects the other..

In time when they can accurately prove it is caused by a biological condition but more importantly, find a way to accurately test us for it without being post mortem, (which I believe they will do someday) they will assign a procedure code for that test, and a new set of diagnostic codes that describe the biological condition found by the results of that test, then it will be most likely linked to the current codes for GID, and in time, the diagnostic code may be further refined as an entirely new code linking the two together...but that will take some time...

Simply, all this coding does is allow the physician to apply the diagnostic code that best matches a patients condition, a code and/or series of codes are needed on the insurance claim form, so without a code, the insurance will not pay the physician/patient for the treatment.

So are you really sure you think it's in our best interest to remove our condition just like they did for homosexuality? I hope not.., but don't think you meant it in that way, I know what you meant..and that would be nice.

But without a condition listed in order to describe what is wrong with us, both physically & the Psychological impact has on our lives, we would never be candidates for more extensive treatment to be paid by insurance companies in the future.

Homosexuality itself is not treatable and not covered by insurance, only the depression it may cause can be treated, but that's where it ends for them.....but our condition IS treatable by allowing us to change our gender to match how we feel inside......do you get where I'm going with this?

What we need more than anything is that test I mentioned before to prove our brain truly is female while we are still alive!!, then that should open up the floodgates to make it mandatory for insurance to pay for our SRS & to a certain degree some FSS in the USA.
The way it's going now, we are fighting for our rights to be recognized for what we are and not be discriminated against, which is great, but not so sure that in itself is nearly enough or the right path for us to get what we really need..
I for one believe think we need to push the medical community in doing more research, which is currently not exactly a high priority on their agenda at the moment..so we need to change that, and make it a higher priority 1st if we ever want to see this taken care of once & for all.. then the rest of our issues would not be such an issue in society.

:2c:

[Frances]

Removing the pyschiatric classification does not mean it has to be demedicalized. In most countries, medical insurance is governement-run, and a medical diagnostic without the psychiatric element would suffice. Besides, the psychiatric classification fosters transphobia, and fuels the repudiation by psychoanalysts of the condition as being an immutable trait.

Sure, it's great to have SRS paid by insurance (private or governement), but I am fed up of being viewed as being "crazy in the head" by almost everyone in society. Since this disease is "cured" by plastic surgery, it seems illogical for it to be in the DSM.

Of course, only a psychologist, sexologist or psychiatrist can determine if the condition is not a fantasy, but that is where it should end, in my opinion. Again: Yes to removing the pyschiatric classification, No to demedicalizing the condition. The code for cancer does not come from the DSM.

Look, I am bankrupt and in finantial trouble, but this is bigger than insurance or costs.

There has to be a better way.

[Super Amanda]

Hey, it's a step forward, that's for sure. It's good to see that there seems to be a greater attempt to understand trans people.

[Genifer Teal]

This seems to be a duplicate thread. There is another post on this exact topic. Now I see why it is helpful to merge some threads.

Gen

[Dawn D.]

I see a problem with the changes. As much as they make the claim that changing the description of the condition from Gender Identity Disorder to Gender Incongruity is going to be a less pejorative term; they still leave interpretation of the issue to our would be detractors misunderstanding of how we are who we are, by using incorrect phrasing.

I went to their site and registered with them. Then I offered the following:

At first glance I say Hooray! But, then I take a second look at your phraseology. It appears that the draft language uses the term "desire" as a verb. A synonym for desire is the word choose. In phrasing the proposed revision in such a way, this leads one to assume that desiring to become the other gender is as matter of choice.

What I feel needs to be firmly understood here is that, as a transexual woman myself, I was never afforded a choice in this matter through myself or any other person. Rather, it is and has always been a firm belief or strong conviction that I am the gender I say that I am. Implying a "desire to be the other gender", only allows for the continued castigation and stigmatization in social constructs.

I implore the committee to change the term in each of the first five indicators from "strong desire" to "strong conviction" as you have phrased in indicator no. 6.



They still don't get it! They can change descriptive terms all they want to. Yet, until they address the core issue of why we are who we are, we're forever going to have the stigma of having made a choice to be and live in the opposite gender. This will in no way satisfy the FOF people or any other religious-nut-job-group that wants to point their bony little finger at you and say, "Ha, you made a choice to be the way you are. It's in the DSM"!

There are no reference's to any of the myriad scientific research that has occurred with strong evidence supporting our position that we are, based more upon biological origin than can be hypothesized through any psychobabble b/s!

I have to ask. What the hell are "they" afraid of? This group is not our friend. They wish to maintain control and string us along. I actually see them trying to wedge and more deeply factionalize our community in their efforts here. With the mentioning to the effect that they are on the hunt for the "True Transexual" and, they're including intersex people as being a part of gender incongruity. This group, as far as I know, for the most part, do not wish to be associated with TG at all. And, their condition is a VISIBLE condition anyway!

I really do not see much good coming from this "revision".


Dawn

[Karen564]

But, then I take a second look at your phraseology. It appears that the draft language uses the term "desire" as a verb. A synonym for desire is the word choose. In phrasing the proposed revision in such a way, this leads one to assume that desiring to become the other gender is as matter of choice.



Great catch Dawn!!
That one slipped by me....

And I couldn't agree more with you in trying to get that changed...It really never was my Choice to be born with this condition or my Choice to feel the way I do inside..I Had to change because I had No Choice.....My only desire was to be born as all male or all female....Not both.

:hugs:

[morgan51]

progress or a willingness to make it better for us seems so fleeting most of the time. or am I being over sesnitive? I've not met one t who had the thought that it is a choice. Who would choose to go thru this? I am afraid Dawn is correct about how even the people who are supposed to be helping are only trying to further the control. just the fact that we are even in the DSM is proof of that lf biology is ever acknowleged. That would be a sad day for all of the psych world. I guess they can still deal with the damage society has and will perpetuate.

[luvSophia]

Just as an FYI, the DSM follows the lead of the ICD. If the ICD lists the condition as a psychiatric one rather than biological then that is the way the DSM will reference it. And while there have been studies indicating a biological basis they have not been on a large enough scale and do not yet have the broad acceptance by the medical community to have the situation changed in the ICD.

[CharleneT]

Great catch Dawn!!
That one slipped by me....

And I couldn't agree more with you in trying to get that changed...It really never was my Choice to be born with this condition or my Choice to feel the way I do inside..I Had to change because I had No Choice.....My only desire was to be born as all male or all female....Not both.

:hugs:

:iagree: . :yt: !! ! ! !

Thank you Dawn !