Transvestic Fetish & Gender Indentiy D/O?

[KewTnCurvy GG]

I want to know how you all think and feel about the above two "diagnoses" being in the DSM-IV-TR (which is the Diagnositic and Statistical Manual for Mental Health Disorders in the USA)? I ask this because it seems disturbing to me that "cross-dressing" (i.e., Transvestic Fetish) is even classified as something to be 'treated'? I believe it was in two revisions ago that they removed Homosexuality and Bisexuality from the manual. As far as Gender Identity Disorder goes it seems to me that this is something for which treatment (be that therapy, hormones or surgery) can address. Furthermore, when I looked in the back for the advisers to sexual disorders text revision work group (fancy way of saying the 'experts' who still call this a disorder) and the first physiciian mentioned is Dr. Ray Blanchard. I did a lil' web search and found that this man is like the Josef Mengla of psychiatrists and runs the Clark Institute in Toronto:

http://www.tsroadmap.com/info/ray-blanchard.html.

This website has a paragraph which reads:

Blanchard's program is more like a parole office than a therapeutic setting. It is a system based on mutual distrust, and treats gender variant clients like sex offenders. In fact, Blanchard's program uses the same halls, offices and staff for treating sex offenders. Imagine the dynamic that creates, especially for children. Following in the footsteps of his mentor Kurt Freund, he even subjects clients to the same sort of testing he uses on sex offenders (see plethysmograph: a dispued device).

Ok, now I maybe a lil' behind the game in being au currant but is this the biggest bunch of shit you ever read?!?

I truly want participation and input here kids, okay?

thank you
kew

[Stelli]

To my personal opinion in general unless in some other function I see CD more like addiction than disorder. I do not believe that many here are disordered (on contrary many have very ordered minds) yet CDing, to me it is more like addiction like addiction to coffee, tobacco, alcohol, eating sweets, drugs etc. I would not call that disorder otherwise lets go to coffee shop and call everyone disordered cofee drinkers because they drink their portion of coffee there every morning claiming that they cannot do it without ...

I know that you are in psychotherapeutic area and to my understanding (as I have many opportunity to see practice and have some friends in this profession) this area did not come to development of proper approach to this subject. Taking in account that this is practice based on many controversial ideas in the past, and taking that it is asked by general public to classify the issue in order to establish policies and laws the task is not easy. But mistakes made so far need also to be addressed.

I would like rather to see term "addiction" than "fetish" or "disorder". As for fetish term it has very much of sexual conotation while CD spectrum albeit having sexual followers too there is plenty of examples of completely different reasonings as to why we crossdress.

As for Anais Nin, as I understand, this is the half of current description of "being normal" another half is "ability to work". As far as I know many CD's have loving relationships and they do work. Thus their activity cannot be classified as abnormal. Unaccpeted yes, uknownon yes, unaddressed yes, barely described and understood, yes, but abnormal in any way - I am sorry, but, no.

I welcome your thread.

[Stelli]

Oh yes, not to be forgotten: Thomas Szasz, Ideology & Insanity: Essays on the Psychiatric Dehumanization of Man - Chapter 12 - About classification.

I bet whole book will be pleasure for you to read (if you did not already)

[KewTnCurvy GG]

Thank you for your reply Stelli. I want to clarify that the words I've used are taken verbatim from the DSM-IV-TR. And I would be more comfortable with fetish as opposed to disorder or addiction, as both of those terms imply a pathology (however, I do understand your reservation in this area). Also, as far as addictions go I think we have over-pathologized what addiction is. Sweets and coffee are not substances I BELIEVE are addictive--now I differ with colleagues on this area sometimes. I believe addiction has to produce a psychological or chemical dependancy and that there has to be a sequala (disease process) that follows. So this doesn't seem to apply in regards to sweets and coffee. Again, invite more replies.

[Stelli]

I am sorry but coffee is highly addictive, it is just the force od industry that bless that addiction and silence eventual tries to address that in this fashion.

I know several people that develop different psychological effects if they do not drink their portion of coffee. Salt and vinegar chips? Or chocolate (as antidepressant)....

[Stelli]

Maybe you will be more conformtable with "fetish" in such case I would call you "mind control puritanism elithist"... how does it feel ?


Please do open your mind.

[KewTnCurvy GG]

But Stelli, if you define addiction this way, then where is the end? What isn't an addiction? Everything is addictive. You could then say air is addictive as it affects me negatively if I don't have it.

[Stelli]

Life is addiction of 300 bilion cells that you are consisted of in needing to perform chemical reactions that has outcome in thinking and writing replies to this forum (and CD)

[KewTnCurvy GG]

Stelli, you're WAY off here. That is NOTwhat I am saying. I simply said that disorder or addiction implies pathology whereas fetish does not. However, I also said I could understand where you are coming from on that. I am not, sweety, by a long shot a "mind control puritan elitist".

You are misunderstanding me here.

hugs
kew

[Stelli]

Thank you. So now you know how it feels if someone tries to clasify you in the word you do not agree to be.

Addiction is strechy word. That's why I like it. If you wish to attribute it with psychopathological contotation, you are welcome. If you wish to approach it from the phylosophical point it also works. If you wish to approach it from human perspective - it is common and comparable.

Fetish is not strechy word, it has strong sexual and somewhat freaky conotation.

Now, go on. I know what you wished to do, I just wanted to give you very strong example not to stray away by your professional conditioning.

p.s. There is again IMHO strong addiction to create sane puritanistic view of the world. But all of that is human.

Exuse my force in replies, I hope that I have moved you out of the box.

[Stelli]

As for disorders there is part in spectrum that needs to cross sexual line in order to tune their mind with the body. Gender for me is very weak term and mostly undefiend especially if many people claim that they are exploring gender borders. Like people that CD. Gender to me is set of social conditioning issues based on your sex. By no means curiosity to explore alternative conditioning that is not provided on the way can be called disorder and by no means it is fetish. Therefore there is no classification as yet in that taxonomy (BTW I have read that classification in full it is public on the web site)

Now, in your profession you need appropriate terms with very strong definitions. But the definitions are ones here that vary. Be aware of that.

That is the thing I wanted to say, I do understand what was your question but I also know that you could misunderstand me. I have had to lead you on the emotions level in order to understand what official terminology creates.

If you did not, please Read Szasz book. It is revelation.

[Amelie]

Sorry- to many big words being used here. Haven't the faintest idea as to what's being said.

Amelie

[Jennifer_Ph]

Disorder? Condition? Addicted? To me crossdressing is just a hobby, like racing my truck!

[Julie]

Labels, classifications, justifications. :confused:

I think society today spends way too much time trying to put each and every malady into a neat package. Humans are far too complex for this to ever be done to the satisfaction of everyone.

Acceptance is what really matters. If a person is basically good what difference does it make that they happen to be different from you? What is in a person's heart is all that really matters.

Classifications have been created for professionals to better communicate with each other as to how to treat a problem. The problems usually eminate from a lack of acceptance from loved ones.


"My (fill in the blank) thinks my crossdressing is repulsive"

The individual is okay until he (she) is told they are not okay. They want to be accepted so they do something to change, maybe enter into counseling. The counselor needs to classify the problem so they can better treat the person.

If the person's loved ones looked into his (her) heart and saw that they were truly a good person and considered nothing else, there would be no problem. There would be no guilt feelings. There would be no need for counseling. There would be peace in the relationship.

Yes, this is an idealized viewpoint. But it wouldn't hurt to try to apply it the next time we don't like what we see in someone we care about. :D

Julie

[KewTnCurvy GG]

Hello All and Thank You for your replies,
Stelli I think you and I understand this all differently and from wholely different perspectives. Being a community of diversity here; I would hope we could both try and step out of the box to look at each other's view. And to address several points that you make.

1) By no means curiosity to explore alternative conditioning that is not provided on the way can be called disorder and by no means it is fetish.

Response: I think because of, I believe language barriers here, I'm not able to understand your sentence. And I'm sorry. It isn't always easy to communicate here, ok? However, fetish in and of itself does not mean a sexual act necessarily but that, FOR SOME, it is: Something, such as a material object or a nonsexual part of the body, that arouses sexual desire and may become necessary for sexual gratification. This is not bad or anything to be ashamed of for those who experience this. I understand that for others, there may be more of a desire to explore other aspects of their gender that do not have to do with sex or any aspect of it. I do get that.

fet·ish also fet·ich ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ftsh, ftsh)
n.
An object that is believed to have magical or spiritual powers, especially such an object associated with animistic or shamanistic religious practices.
An object of unreasonably excessive attention or reverence: made a fetish of punctuality.
Something, such as a material object or a nonsexual part of the body, that arouses sexual desire and may become necessary for sexual gratification.
An abnormally obsessive preoccupation or attachment; a fixation.

And btw I will look into Szasz's book. Thanks for your input and participation.

And Amelie, I'm not trying to overwhelm folks here but I'm just saying to folks. Do they understand that people in the psychiatric community have an agenda to keep them pathologized (looked at as sick); is this something you feel is helpful? I believe it is part of the, obvious, reason that cross-dressing is viewed as something "wrong"/"broken"/"needing to be fixed". Therefore, I am just asking how does this community feel about this? Do you feel having this changed would make a difference in your lives and how others treat you? I think the removal of homosexuality and bisexuality has led to a greater acceptance of variations on sexual orientation.

kew

who comes in peace and means no harm, truly!

[Wen4cd]

Disorder? Condition? Addicted? To me crossdressing is just a hobby, like racing my truck!
That's exactly the word I would use to describe my crossdressing, too.
10 points to Gryffindor! (Although I had to quit racing my clay-slinger 2 years ago)

KewTnCurvy,

My copy of the DSM-IV-TR has the two 'disorders' classified that you cited, but with very important disclaimers in the diagnostic criteria.

So according to the APA, neither is to be diagnosed as a 'disorder' unless:

302.3 Transvestic Fetishism:

Diagnostic criteria B: "The fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning"

Gender Identity Disorder: "To make the diagnosis, there must be evidence of clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning (Criterion D)

So they're basically saying, neither of these things is to be considered a problem or pathology unless it's ruining the subject's life. They're admitting that it's the distress that some have with crossdressing that is the problem, not the dressing itself.

Which is what they do for their general category of fetishism AND sexual masochism as well. It's because many many people practice all sorts of things as a lifestyle, and in a free country, you're allowed to do whatever you want as long as you're not hurting anybody.

Personally, I don't care too much for the psychiatric folk either, but in the case of this text, it looks like they're at least attempting to be objective in their pidgeon-holing. They couldn't have just said "Ignore this if you don't agree" so they just negated their whole diagnostics with disclaimers.

Wen

[Stelli]

And Amelie, I'm not trying to overwhelm folks here but I'm just saying to folks. Do they understand that people in the psychiatric community have an agenda to keep them pathologized (looked at as sick); is this something you feel is helpful? I believe it is part of the, obvious, reason that cross-dressing is viewed as something "wrong"/"broken"/"needing to be fixed". Therefore, I am just asking how does this community feel about this? Do you feel having this changed would make a difference in your lives and how others treat you? I think the removal of homosexuality and bisexuality has led to a greater acceptance of variations on sexual orientation.
kew
who comes in peace and means no harm, truly!


Kew, I think you still do not understand. Therefore I will take you by hand and step by step explain how encapsulated you are....

Q: is this something you feel is helpful?
A: No

Q: Therefore, I am just asking how does this community feel about this?
A: That approach is: Awful. Nasty. Cruel. Inhumane.

Q: Do you feel having this changed would make a difference in your lives and how others treat you?
A: Just partially.

Q: I think the removal of homosexuality and bisexuality has led to a greater acceptance of variations on sexual orientation.
A: You are right on this again just partially.

More in other quotes.

[Stelli]

I simply said that disorder or addiction implies pathology whereas fetish does not.

Only in psychiatric dictionary.

----

From another side fetish implies sexual deviation (I am careful here not to use word disorder). Using fetish to describe antropological issues in tribal clutures comes in this light as alegory.

Implying is the word that you should use carefully. Implication from one understanding and implication from another understanding may not be the same.

[KewTnCurvy GG]

Thanks Wen, but actually--at least your first assertion--is inaccurate. The Diagnositc Criteria for 302.3 Transvestic Fetishism is:

A: Over a period of at least 6 months, in a heterosexual male, recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving cross-dressing.

And to be clear in this instance the specifiers for the diagnosis are to be concurrent. Therefore, it is neither A nor B but both. And, yes, that may provide some hope that a diagnosis won't be 'slapped' onto every cross-dresser but trust me here I have over 12 years of post graduate experience in mental health. And this, in my opinion, does not bode well for folks with any cross-dressing tendancies. Apparently, I thought I was preaching to the choir but I'm not.

[Sara Kat]

I'm just going to add my opinion on this from my experience. A lot of people I've known have thought this was a disorder and it was wrong (they didn't know I did it), and for awhile when I was younger I thought it was wrong too and I wanted it to be fixed. Slowly, I'm coming to terms with this and realizing it isn't going to go away and that I should just do it and enjoy it. I'm getting there I suppose, albeit slowly.

Right now, I say to hell with society and their labels. We are what we are. This is something that we love to do and dammit, we're going to do it. Society just needs to get over its antiquated views and learn to accept everyone the way they are.

[KewTnCurvy GG]

Ok, ok..........I am just trying to be a supportive GG here and feel you're kicking an ally. Honestly. I'm flabergasted!

[klinger]

Your original post enquires how we "think and feel" about these two "disorders" being listed in the DSM IV.
I "think" they are probably well intending physicians trying to "fix" what they see as a problem, because they don't understand it.
I "feel" sorry for them.

-Belinda

[Stelli]

1) By no means curiosity to explore alternative conditioning that is not provided on the way can be called disorder and by no means it is fetish.
Response: I think because of, I believe language barriers here, I'm not able to understand your sentence. And I'm sorry. It isn't always easy to communicate here, ok? However, fetish in and of itself does not mean a sexual act necessarily but that, FOR SOME, it is: Something, such as a material object or a nonsexual part of the body, that arouses sexual desire and may become necessary for sexual gratification. This is not bad or anything to be ashamed of for those who experience this. I understand that for others, there may be more of a desire to explore other aspects of their gender that do not have to do with sex or any aspect of it. I do get that.


In spite of the fact that you deny and accept sexual conotation in the same paragraph I think this is good track. Are you still conformtable with the term fetish ?

BTW I am not ashamed of my sexuality, I was not born in the culture that controls understanding of sexuality until official maturity age. Do not assume that by default.

(I am very patient to express here that you are jumping from the nerve to the nerve stepping hard on each one)

In my personal case even desire is wrong word. I was explict that this is curiosity. I understand that you do not understand. In order to understand I have to take you out form your culture and studies. But, my god, this is hard job (to undo 12+ years of postgraduate experience life in mental health in merely couple of messages).

Back to the meanings of my words. Let me lightly rephrase it and insert right punctuation.


By no means curiosity to explore alternative conditioning, that is not provided on the way (of upbringing), can be called disorder and by no means it is fetish (either).


To explain this, as I told myself that I am going to be patient here, let me ask a question: Do you believe that you are conditioned into the profession you do?

[Wen4cd]

Thanks Wen, but actually--at least your first assertion--is inaccurate. The Diagnositc Criteria for 302.3 Transvestic Fetishism is:

A: Over a period of at least 6 months, in a heterosexual male, recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving cross-dressing.

And to be clear in this instance the specifiers for the diagnosis are to be concurrent. Therefore, it is neither A nor B but both. And, yes, that may provide some hope that a diagnosis won't be 'slapped' onto every cross-dresser but trust me here I have over 12 years of post graduate experience in mental health. And this, in my opinion, does not bode well for folks with any cross-dressing tendancies. Apparently, I thought I was preaching to the choir but I'm not.

But it if must be both criteria, then there's always a loop-hole.
I had always thought of this as adequate. It protects the crossdresser from being legally diagnosed (or at least offers a point of rebuttal) with a disorder which may keep him from his children in a custody case. It offers him a point for a discrimination case. It totally negates the diagnosis unless the patient requests it.

Nazi doctors opressing all crossdressers by keeping their lifestyle in a 'book of known insanities" is a compelling image, but I seriously doubt it's accurate, otherwise there wouldn't even be the disclaiming criteria.

Are we to try and follow the gay community, who, upon having their names forcibly removed from the manual, immediately turned 180 and tried to get their opponents listed as phobics?

It's all just name-calling, and the area is so vague and sketchy that any legal case can't hold up without a lot of other evidence besides the clothes we wear.

(Forgive me if I'm not actually in the chior, but the devil has me, and the old hellhound is on my trail)

:rolleyes:

[Tristen Cox]

I agree with Julie's post. That covers me...on this

[Wen4cd]

I agree with Julie's post. That covers me...on this

I forgot to mention that, too. Julie, your post is very true. Dissaproval from our loved ones causes distress, and beign able to communicate with them, and make things right would solve all problems. Mostly they're not reacting to social conditioning, or psychiatric consensus, but to a simple confusion in the way they percieved their own relationship, and the person they loved.

We don't stay in the closet to hide from psychiatrists, but from the people we call friends.

It doesn't matter that nazi doctors think, or the APA, because they wouldn't even be aware of you if you and your friends and loved ones were blissfully far from their radar.

[Julie]

Ok, ok..........I am just trying to be a supportive GG here and feel you're kicking an ally. Honestly. I'm flabergasted!
I understand what you are asking. The question is how do we feel about the prospect of being re-categorized in the same manner as gays and bisexuals.

My answer is if society could accept us for who we truly are, not how they have been taught to believe who we are, I would be happier for it.

I work in construction with the most anti-everything individuals you will ever meet. I see no event that will change their attitude towards GLBT issues in my lifetime but I believe everything needs to have a starting point. If the psychological professions recategorize our issues in a way that will lead toward acceptance I'm all for it. If this is just another bit of fluff so someone can add to their accolades, they won't see me supporting them.

Work towards solving the problems and I'm with you. Promote your personal agenda and you're on your own. (And this is not directed to you Kewt, it's just a general statement)

Julie

[klinger]

Yup, Julie's post is very solid.
Therapy taught me three important questions.
1. Am I happy? yes
2. Am I healthy? yes
3. Am I productive? yes

Who cares what the books say about you as long as you are loved by your loved ones.
Oh yes, and you love yourself.

-Belinda

[Julie]

1. Am I happy? yes
2. Am I healthy? yes
3. Am I productive? yes

Who cares what the books say about you as long as you are loved by your loved ones.
Oh yes, and you love yourself.

-Belinda
Beautifully stated!

[Stelli]

Ok, ok..........I am just trying to be a supportive GG here and feel you're kicking an ally. Honestly. I'm flabergasted!

This is nothing to do with the fact that you are GG with a wish to be supportive. As far as I am concerned you may be piece of paper or weird dream of some unknown god or in my own terminology in this particular case a wetware internet process. I am fighting not with you, but with ideas that bring the questions in the way they were asked.

Of course that you are welcome, but being for such a long time working with people especially with disoredered people you should know better. This approach is hardly making you an ally albeit your interest.

Honestly, I do not know shrink that is gentle, even being a girl. BTW I have found that I almost did not know a girl in my life that was/is gentle (they were very rare and these days they are even more rare). Peculiarity of that extrapolates into the language: you surely know term gentleman... but did you ever heard of the term gentlewoman?!? Oh, yes, it is assumed. But, How right/wrong is that assumption....?

[Tristen Cox]

I agree with Julie's post. That covers me...on this
Sorry to be so short on this topic but I'm no doctor and I don't care what they say frankly. Those around me are directly influenced by me and I by them. That's what matters most in my opinion. Klinger - Right on sister!

[Wen4cd]

BTW I have found that I almost did not know a girl in my life that was/is gentle (they were very rare and these days they are even more rare). Peculiarity of that extrapolates into the language: you surely know term gentleman... but did you ever heard of the term gentlewoman?!? Oh, yes, it is assumed. But, How right/wrong is that assumption....?

On my personal experience it is a wrong assumption. Curious, though, that many men who play the part of women are gentle, and act more gentle as a woman than they do as a man.

[Stelli]

Disorder? Condition? Addicted? To me crossdressing is just a hobby, like racing my truck!

Just for fun of tought: How much racing of the truck has to be present before it overcome being hobby and starts to be addiction? I did race too - on two wheels. Gives real feeling! But, I also know the (bio)chemistry behind it...

[klinger]

Thanks for the positive feedback. Just trying to share some of what I have experienced.

[Stelli]

Yup, Julie's post is very solid.
Therapy taught me three important questions.
1. Am I happy? yes
2. Am I healthy? yes
3. Am I productive? yes

Who cares what the books say about you as long as you are loved by your loved ones.
Oh yes, and you love yourself.
-Belinda

This gives a great peace of mind! Personally.

But, in the same time: homo sum; humani nihil a me alienum puto (I am a man; and I consider nothing that concerns mankind a matter of indifference to me). The books that influence laws and policies and consequently regulate our world I cannot ignore just because I do not understand them. On contrary I do understand, and what I understand makes me react.

I will be here short and clear and as much as accurate as I can be:

1. I do not see our activities as psychological disorder (in some cases they may be as outcome of other influences but not as source itself) I do not see them as phenomenon for phychiatrist concern at all. Thus, I do not see need of its presence in their official classification. It should be removed.

2. Consequently, I am for decriminalization (if present) of our activities that is (eventually) based on above classification.

3. Achieved that, I am for criminalization of harrasment (if present) that is put against such activities.

This may sound as political agenda, but I see it as wish list of a human being that will enjoy it's environment adjusted to the particular need and circumstances. I know that this do not solve any of our every day issues (e.g. we will not gain acceptance of Julie's buddies on the construction site although we would maybe gain some approval for looking sexy :) ) but in the same time gives official freedom from being treated as disordered (crazy, insane) with all other outcomes that this classification brings.

Interestingly, gay people managed throught the set of so called civil rights to remove themselves from the disorder classification and as result we have new phobia (see: homophobia). As we appear in numbers and claim what we claim we will likely manage to create some Transvestic-o-phobia for ones that can not accept us.

It is not easy to cure human kind. But for the time doing baby steps are conforting:

1. Am I happy? yes
2. Am I healthy? yes
3. Am I productive? yes
4. Am I able to love? yes
5. Am I being loved? yes

but...also...

6. Am I treated properly by doctors and law? I am Unsure. Any lawers here? (or I have to explore books of law as well?)

7. Am I treated/understood properly by psychiatrists? By this classification - No, Not at all. As currently officialy insane person, as others in my group I believe that shrinks are crazy by calling us disordered! :)

Love
Stelli

p.s. Let me open a new thread.... for addiction, I find it fun.

[HillaryArtemis]

Again this thread needed to be pointed out to me, cause I was not paying attention. God, I love this brown nail polish. You know tonight my wife and I bought a full set of professional make up brushes for 160$. I tell you girls they are great. Oh, sorry I am supposed to be serious in the face of what those psychoat or silly me I can't even spell the damned word. Well, Wen, if you don't trust books, I don't trust those damn psyhc ... whatever they hell .... they just listen to you and write shit down on paper. I don't like the word addiction, nor fetish. What I do and others do is beyond understanding ... so I just do it ... cause if I don't I am misreable. I am happy when I do it. Those people at the Clarke Institute ... God ... beware of them. This is not surprizing. Reading a older psych text on CDiing these days brought me to an interesting point ... sorry don't gots the name of the book .... see I am dressed and don't want to wake the kids like this ... God, I look nice tonight to ... anyway it quoted some research where CDs and psychiatris where each given a group of titles like mother, father, CD, psychopath etc ... and told to rate them on a grid up for well - down for ill - left for content - right for malcontent. The results were similar for every term accept CD. The CDs place themselves at content and well, but the psychtrustio placed the CDs on ill and malcontent. What the hell does this say. They think there is something wrong with us and we think we are okay? How can this be reconciled.

JodiArtemis

[Sonya Love]

I'm not really interested in what psychologists have to say since so much of what they have done in the past has been unverifiable and unscientific.

Psychiatry is different, if lithium or prozac increases people's serotonin and makes them happier to an extent, that's verifiable. And some psychotherapy clearly is valid: if someone survived the Vietnam War or child abuse or what have you and still has nightmares about it, obviously that is demonstrable and therapy could help.

But too much of psychology is just speculation. For example there was a famous experiment in the 60s where some psychologist took a genetic boy who in an unfortunate circumcision accident lost his penis. The psychologist proceeded to have him raised as a girl, in an attempt to prove that gender is entirely defined by culture (http://flatrock.org.nz/topics/men/mother_nature_strikes_back.htm) and that we are all blank slates at birth. Beyond the obvious violations of the Hippocratic Oath, the experiment was a dismal failure.

To say nothing of "Homosexuality" being listed as a disorder, even though homosexuality has been a part of human civilization for as long as recorded history -- much longer than psychology itself, and also occurs in Nature, suggesting there is some biological or evolutionary survival value to it.

Without any real science to back up their elaborate theories, psychologists are to the mind what medieval doctors were to the body in the Middle Ages -- their vague theories about id, ego, and superego correspond to equally imaginary theories about the four "bodily humors" of ancient Greek science. That's not to say Freud wasn't a pioneer and psychology isn't a discipline without potential, but it's a field in its infancy and its theories highly suspect.

[Marda]

" Hey There KewTnCurvy,"
~
Marda sends her Love !!!
~
" Sorry to see you dug a hole ... "
" I don't have any questions or answers for you ... "
~
Your Friend,
Mr.Spaceman

[joannablake]

Wow so much knowledge being posted and half of it I cant make heads or tails out of i will have to agree with Sara Kat when she said:
Right now, I say to hell with society and their labels. We are what we are. This is something that we love to do and dammit, we're going to do it. Society just needs to get over its antiquated views and learn to accept everyone the way they are.

Just thought I would throw my 2 cents in

Love Always
Joanna

[KewTnCurvy GG]

Well, lil' kew here is feeling kicked in the teeth. I suspect some of you wouldn't recognize kindness or support if it bit you in the ass. That having been said, I must defend a few points here:

Psychologists vs Psychiatrists:
I am neither let me first clarify. I am a psychotherapist. Psychotherapists may have a wide range of degrees, such as: Master's, Ph.D. or Psy.D. in Psychology, be a Psychiatrist, have a Master's or Ph.D. in a related discipline (e.g., counseling psychology, pastoral counseling) or, as is the case for me, have a Master's in Clinical Social Work.

Sonya Love's quote:
I'm not really interested in what psychologists have to say since so much of what they have done in the past has been unverifiable and unscientific.

Oh where dear god do I start with this? Firstly, I will simply say, you do not know what you are talking about. A Ph.D. in Psychology focuses PRIMARILY ON RESEARCH. This is the focus of the degree, more so than mine, more so than a Psychiatrist and more so than a Psy.D. in Psychology (as this degree has a clinical focus). The amount of research conducted in psychology up to this point in history could fill a football stadium or more. So to say it is "unverifiable and unscientific" is simply a falsehood. However, I will agree some things have been and are unverifiable and unscientific. This, though, is true in other fields as well: physics, mathematics, astrophysics, etc. As theories and hypothoses are just that and not facts or truth.

Now as for your point that experimental activities have been conducted and tragic decisions been made by 'the experts'--be they Psychiatrists or Psychologists--I agree. This has happened for a variety of reasons: ignorance, lack of practice standards, lack of ethics, etc. HUMANS HAVE AND WILL CONTINUE TO MAKE MISTAKES THROUGHOUT THE EXISTENCE OF THE PLANET. FACT! I understand your point of the young boy having been raised one gender and that having been traumatic for him. However, believing that people are mostly good, I don't believe his 'decision makers' intended harm. What they did was out of ignorance. Very sad, I agree. Keep in mind all the medical treatments that have been done in the name of a cure only to have inflicted more harm. This is due to the fact that science, however precise humans try to be about it, is not exact.

My point of this whole thread, and it exasperates me to no end that I have to spell this out for folks, was to say: "Do you like or agree with the fact that some professionals still classify you as having a disorder or pathology?" and, if not: "Would you like to see this changed and/or do you feel being put in a class of folks with pathology only serves to spur on the notion that you are 'sick, weird or an anomally' of sorts?" I have to say from where I stand--as a professional and as a human being who loves someone who does cross dress--I DO NOT like this and feel it only serves to have folks who are transgendered to be at the fringes of society and marginalized.

And here I thought I was being the voice of reason. Silly me.

kew

[Julie]

Kewt,

First of all let me say that I and most of the others here (probably) are with you to at least some extent. I understand where you are and I am fine with that. What this thread has clearly shown me is most of us are fed up with so called experts telling us who or what we are. WE have a hard time figuring this whole thing out and we live it every minute of every day. How in hell can someone who hasn't lived the life have any prayer of doing what those who live it every day have not been able to do?

If someone was asked what color they liked and then were subjected to the same level of scrutiny that we have been eventually they would scream out, "What difference does it make that I like green? What's the big deal?" That's what it's like for us. We know this is just as harmless as preferring one color over another but we have to deal with a myopic society who attaches all sorts of deviant behavior to our "color preference". My retort to them is, "Get your perverted minds out of the gutter! This is just us being ourselves and nothing more! If you want perversion you'll have to go someplace else to find it. We want none of it!"

Now I know there exceptions to every rule but I think I speak for the true transgendered person, the person who, for an entire lifetime, has had a mind-body conflict. Society's narrow-mindedness has made our life a living hell. We harm no one, he hurt no one, we love, we hurt, we have feelings, we laugh, we cry, we bleed, we live, we die. We are just another of God's creatures and God don't make junk.

With kindest and most sincere intentions,
Julie

[Emily Black]

The crossdressers who defy the experts seem to be those who are open about who they are and don't appear to care what others think. These people aren't hiding, keeping secrets, focusing on sexually gratifying things outside of their relationships to be point of not showing up, and seek out people who accept them as they are and leave the rest to get over it. They rest of us are probably a little whacked - but so what. Attitudes towards gays and lesbians didn't change until people realized that these were their sons and daughters. But I don't see the same thing happening with crossdressers, we're too busy being our birth gender to much of the time to be a consistent reminder to folks that this is more than a sexual issue for us. Cha-ching! My two cents! :D

[KewTnCurvy GG]

Julie M. I do appreciate your support and certainly read in your earlier thread that you supported me here and, to an extent, agreed with part of what I was saying. I do appreciate that. And I hope that people heard that I don't agree with their being classified as having "anything" in a book on mental illness. I would like to see it change! I can, perhaps, accept that Gender Dysphoria may still be classified as a disorder and, partially, agree with that given there are treatments. Since now my life is very affected by this (loving a cross dresser) as well I would like to see it change (i.e., Transvestic Fetishism). So, I will work toward this and garner support from my colleagues. If enough of us say, enough is enough and demand change it just might happen.
thanks
kew

[clarissa3d]

First ..Group hug!!!

Now for my 2 cents. {getting on podeum} After talking to three different doctors about gender disforia and crossdressing I feel that for the Dr. out there they really are at the same point in time when they where triing to diagnos Gays and why they are the way they are. At this point I will have to say that for myself I am for a better words gender balanced... Defining- I have male body with a female mind set. For me this is NOT a fetish but normal. I do have fetishes and those to me are a sexual erotic drive or addiction. Dressing or feeling a female mentality is normal normal normal for me. This is how I felt as a child, yes I was the quite one that did not exactly fit in with the boys or the girls. For lack of a better term fem-male.

Now as to others this is going to be different we all fall on a different part of the spectrum. Please correct me if I am wrong Kew but you are simply wanting feed back as to the black and white definition of a crossdresser.

I would have to be classed as gender disforia. Not a fetish not as a addiction.

Please girls I take from this is where do you stand far left center or far right as to what do you want to be called by the "Professionals" No affence kew.

I have lived my life to stay out of the rutts that sociatie has created like walking a beaten path. I tend to walk off the beaten path but keep it with an eyes shot.

So what do you want to be called? is how I read this thread

Clarissa

BIGGGG BIGGG HUGGS

[BiOpi]

Thanks Wen, but actually--at least your first assertion--is inaccurate. The Diagnositc Criteria for 302.3 Transvestic Fetishism is:

A: Over a period of at least 6 months, in a heterosexual male, recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving cross-dressing.

Well, I guess I'm covered ;-p

[BiOpi]

Well, lil' kew here is feeling kicked in the teeth. I suspect some of you wouldn't recognize kindness or support if it bit you in the ass.
kew

Well. I thoght your posts were reasonable, if that helps.

When I went through school (college) I was also coming to terms with my sexuality; and it's really hard to feel challenged -- whether someone meant to do it or not.

It can be tough.

[Julie]

One of the thoughts that just came to mind was the phrase "march to the beat of a different drummer". Go back and remember all the times you heard that phrase being used. What was the general feeling of those who used it? My personal experience has been that the phrase has been used to describe someone who was noble, someone who answered another call, usually for the overall good, someone who people thought well of but just didn't follow the mainstream ideals.

I think it's safe to say we all march to the beat of a different drummer. Many of us can tell you that we do all sorts of good for others, that we are positive contributors to the lives of others, that we are kind, thoughtful and considerate.

Is it any wonder then that we can become frustrated or defensive or even angry when we are labeled perverts, abominations or any other host of degrading names by people who don't even know us?

I have a mind body conflict for only one reason - because a myopic, uneducated society thinks there's a problem with a male associating himself with things female. Who made those things female in the first place? Mother Nature? God? A Supernatural Being? No, humans did. It's almost as if someone made up some rules that we just accepted without questioning them.

In the USA we are intensely protective of our freedom. Where's my freedom from persecution or ridicule or ostracization if I express myself in feminine form? It doesn't exist. Aren't I entitled to freedom of expression without suffering major repercussions? So far the answer is "no".

I don't want to be categorized or labeled. I just want to be accepted or rejected for the person I am, not the person others project me to be.

Julie

[Sonya Love]

Well, lil' kew here is feeling kicked in the teeth. I suspect some of you wouldn't recognize kindness or support if it bit you in the ass. That having been said, I must defend a few points here:

...

Sonya Love's quote:
I'm not really interested in what psychologists have to say since so much of what they have done in the past has been unverifiable and unscientific.

Oh where dear god do I start with this? Firstly, I will simply say, you do not know what you are talking about. A Ph.D. in Psychology focuses PRIMARILY ON RESEARCH. This is the focus of the degree, more so than mine, more so than a Psychiatrist and more so than a Psy.D. in Psychology (as this degree has a clinical focus). The amount of research conducted in psychology up to this point in history could fill a football stadium or more. So to say it is "unverifiable and unscientific" is simply a falsehood. However, I will agree some things have been and are unverifiable and unscientific. This, though, is true in other fields as well: physics, mathematics, astrophysics, etc. As theories and hypothoses are just that and not facts or truth.

...

And here I thought I was being the voice of reason. Silly me.

kew

Aw kew, I didn't mean to make you *angry* or put down your field of study, I was just sharing my opinion. Sorry! :(

I still don't have much trust in psychology, though, and they never helped me. Medieval theologians filled several stadiums with books on such esoteric matters as how many angels could dance on a head of a pin, most of which no one pays any attention to anymore. So sheer volume of output isn't necessarily indicative of anything other than that that society, at that time, found study of these subjects of vital importance. But things change.

I wouldn't compare it to mathematics or physics either, it's too young a field with too few tools. How do you study thoughts and the mind when we can't "see" or record them as hard data? Math on the other hand goes back 2500 years at least, and they can build atom smashers and Hubble telescopes to study the makeup of the universe, but there's no comparable projects in the field of psychology.

What does gender dysphoria mean anyway? Are "drag queens" (mostly gay men) the same as transvestites (mostly straight men)? What about transsexuals?

I'm not real happy about how psychology defines things as "normal" and "abnormal" when too much of what is normal is dictated by cultural norms. Gayness for example was a disorder for a long time because it was socially unacceptable. Cross-dressing still seems to fit in that raft. And those are consensus definitions by bodies of psychologists. Or you could look at Soviet psychology, where having thoughts that didn't fit the politics of the day could have you labeled "insane." That's not the actions of a few -- that's an entire society that one point used psychology to define normality, precisely because of the nebulousness of the discipline itself.

I shouldn't say all psychology is "unscientific" or without value, that's a sweeping statement that is unfair. I like Zimbardo's study of dreams, psychology obviously has uses in criminal profiling, etc. But we have to be very careful about letting a group of people define what is normal and what is not unless the "cure" is worse than the "disease."

[KewTnCurvy GG]

Well, Sonya Love, ya do make some good points. And I am listening. Truly I am. I'm just saying, I think it would be helpful to have "Transvestic Fetish" removed from the USA's diagnostic manual in mental health. I hope this does happen and feel it would help. I do appreciate the feedback though. It's just that I wasn't prepared for how folks were going to react here. And the reaction was pretty strong. Some folks have blocked me now from even communicating with them implying I'm here for some other agenda. Anyhow, thanks to all. I do appreciate the participation and feedback, tis helpful. Hugs to you Julie M., Clarissa3d and BiOpi.
hugs
kew

[Stelli]

First ..Group hug!!!

<snip>

So what do you want to be called? is how I read this thread

Clarissa

BIGGGG BIGGG HUGGS

A human being.... like any other. The fact that I choose different clothes than majority of population doesnot make me less of it. In fact isn't it weird that we have clothing at all? But nobody calls that vestic-fetish ... wander why.

[Stelli]

Well, lil' kew here is feeling kicked in the teeth. I suspect some of you wouldn't recognize kindness or support if it bit you in the ass. That having been said, I must defend a few points here:

Oh where dear god do I start with this? Firstly, I will simply say, you do not know what you are talking about. A Ph.D. in Psychology focuses PRIMARILY ON RESEARCH. This is the focus of the degree, more so than mine, more so than a Psychiatrist and more so than a Psy.D. in Psychology (as this degree has a clinical focus). The amount of research conducted in psychology up to this point in history could fill a football stadium or more. So to say it is "unverifiable and unscientific" is simply a falsehood. However, I will agree some things have been and are unverifiable and unscientific. This, though, is true in other fields as well: physics, mathematics, astrophysics, etc. As theories and hypothoses are just that and not facts or truth.


The only problem is slippery grounds, the fact that Hawking was wrong at a time on black holes (and he may be still worng) or that Enstein (wrongly) introduced graviatational constant, or that Rusell did not approve Wittenstein's stands on logic, or that fourth Fermatt theorem that has been resolved after 400 years to prove wrong all mathematicians that argued that fermatt had solution, and that this or that theory for what we know it is a theory, did not directly influence my life a such except indulgery of curiosity. The classification of being *freak* or *disordered* did to many - directly. Even in self-research where no PhD is necessary. Including my own astonishment after finding it in official American classification.

C'm on Kew, your stand and intention is understood, and I know that I have been nutcase here, but do you understand what I am talking to you? Wake up!

[Stelli]

My point of this whole thread, and it exasperates me to no end that I have to spell this out for folks, was to say: "Do you like or agree with the fact that some professionals still classify you as having a disorder or pathology?" and, if not: "Would you like to see this changed and/or do you feel being put in a class of folks with pathology only serves to spur on the notion that you are 'sick, weird or an anomally' of sorts?" I have to say from where I stand--as a professional and as a human being who loves someone who does cross dress--I DO NOT like this and feel it only serves to have folks who are transgendered to be at the fringes of society and marginalized.

And here I thought I was being the voice of reason. Silly me.

kew


Well, Sonya Love, ya do make some good points. And I am listening. Truly I am. I'm just saying, I think it would be helpful to have "Transvestic Fetish" removed from the USA's diagnostic manual in mental health. I hope this does happen and feel it would help. I do appreciate the feedback though. It's just that I wasn't prepared for how folks were going to react here. And the reaction was pretty strong. Some folks have blocked me now from even communicating with them implying I'm here for some other agenda. Anyhow, thanks to all. I do appreciate the participation and feedback, tis helpful. Hugs to you Julie M., Clarissa3d and BiOpi.

Jawohl Herr Obersturmbandführer!!!

Not an agenda...., something else....

If I may be free to ask a question instead of providing feedback and participation: What kind of power you think you have to change this classification?

[Stelli]

Well, I guess I'm covered ;-p


:D :D ROFL! :D :D

[Alayna]

Jawohl Herr Obersturmbandführer!!!

Not an agenda...., something else....

If I may be free to ask a question instead of providing feedback and participation: What kind of power you think you have to change this classification?
Okay, we've now past the point of intellectual discourse to just plain nastiness! As far as I can see, the same argument is being presented from both sides, but neither can agree how to go about it. (what were you saying about myopic viewpoints Julie;) ?). We all seem to be of the same mindset here: we are who we are - no psychoanalytical jargon is going to change that core truth. To me the point is moot anyways since American English is almost unintelligeble. What I mean by this is that even though there may be a clear and definitive, legal, Webster's definition of a term - be it gender dysphoric, transvestic fetishism, or whatever - that definition goes right out the window when taken out of the legal context. It's already been demonstrated here: the word fetish for example. So far I've seen it have negative and positive (or at least neutral) connotations as well as being a clinical and social term. I guess what I'm saying is that it looks like a lot of bitterness and anger is being churned up over what is practically (repeat, practically - not legally, clinically, ideologically, etc) a semantic issue.
Sorry Stelli, forgive me if I'm wrong. It just seemed that given the hot emotions of this thread and the tone of that question that you were casting a bait-filled line rather than asking a question

[Stelli]

Okay, we've now past the point of intellectual discourse to just plain nastiness! As far as I can see, the same argument is being presented from both sides, but neither can agree how to go about it. (what were you saying about myopic viewpoints Julie;) ?). We all seem to be of the same mindset here: we are who we are - no psychoanalytical jargon is going to change that core truth. To me the point is moot anyways since American English is almost unintelligeble. What I mean by this is that even though there may be a clear and definitive, legal, Webster's definition of a term - be it gender dysphoric, transvestic fetishism, or whatever - that definition goes right out the window when taken out of the legal context. It's already been demonstrated here: the word fetish for example. So far I've seen it have negative and positive (or at least neutral) connotations as well as being a clinical and social term. I guess what I'm saying is that it looks like a lot of bitterness and anger is being churned up over what is practically (repeat, practically - not legally, clinically, ideologically, etc) a semantic issue.
Sorry Stelli, forgive me if I'm wrong. It just seemed that given the hot emotions of this thread and the tone of that question that you were casting a bait-filled line rather than asking a question

Thank you, I promise, I will go off on (other) arguments, because you bring the point of reading the text between the lines. And you understand what I am talking about - by criticizing me. I am completely fine with that and happy that you have slapped me. I know to be nasty, but I do it for a good cause (have you heard of Machiavelli?)

Apart from above, can you really accept honesty of the question? Kew is professional in the field, and there is certain power that her opinion may hold in circles that may have influence on the classification. I am honestly interested in her power in approaching of this change. We do share one understanding here (in spite how this discussion may be understood) and that is that this classification should go away. Maybe my tone (or context) brought you to understand something else?

And three, what is so wrong on having heated discussion? After all, a good clash of toughts is the device for advance and second rising emotions from time to time is healthy. Also, this thread is far from flame, some other threads with more trivial content have much more messages. I think that Kew got a lot of material here to her own benefit of study. And I got a pleasure of heated discussion for something I strongly believe.

I honestly think that Kew may be angry with me but I would be really sad to learn that my arguments did make her angry, her background and knowledge simply gives much more opportunities of reaction than to be angry. On the other side, she may have feel slapped here for which I should take responsibility by being slapped myself. But believe me when I say this thing: Being her opponent, I am her strongest ally here - "Dagli amici mi guardi Dio, che dai nemici mi guardo io" ("God save me from my friends - I can protect myself from my enemies.")

[Stelli]

Okay, we've now past the point of intellectual discourse to just plain nastiness!

I forgot one thing to say and it comes in the form of question for you to ponder: Have you ever experienced mental clinic?

[Alayna]

I have no problems with and am definitely no stranger to heated discussions. I just don't like when they begin to take on a personal tone, as that is difficult to break away from once brought up - a pandora's box if you will.
QUOTE: Apart from above, can you really accept honesty of the question? Kew is professional in the field, and there is certain power that her opinion may hold in circles that may have influence on the classification. I am honestly interested in her power in approaching of this change

I could just be naive, and you might see something that others cannot in the message, but the question seems sincere enough, and I agree with Kew on this one:
QUOTE: I'm just saying, I think it would be helpful to have "Transvestic Fetish" removed from the USA's diagnostic manual in mental health. I hope this does happen and feel it would help.

Just the tone of the definition sounds creepy - again that language thing. To understand my feelings on it though I feel I need to explain where I'm coming from - which I think you are in the same place Kew... of all the terms and labels used to define "us", the one I hate most is the word transvestite. It takes all humanity and emotion out of the equation and makes it much easier to engage in the "it" classification. Worse still, this consequently opens up the door to engage in more discriminating and insensitive/inconsiderate behavior as the offending person has less experience interacting with a person, and more experience interacting with a medical term and stereotype. Add that to the negative connotations (that at least I attach to it) to the word fetish and, well you know the rest. Imagine if a person who had no experience with crossdressers/transgendered, and had no personal opinions one way or the other came across this definition. What is their most likely reaction? This isn't rhetorical, I'd really like to hear some opinions on this. Personally, I think that regardless of a positive or negative reaction, the outcome will still be negative as this hypothetical person will only be able to relate in a medical/technical sense instead of talking to a person. (of course this is putting the situation in a bubble, but I'm still curious;) )

[Alayna]

I forgot one thing to say and it comes in the form of question for you to ponder: Have you ever experienced mental clinic?
Please enlighten me

[Stelli]

No you are not naive, you are just able to do what many people do not, use your feelings to understand more than just the text and articulate thatback in the tex. Knowing that you can read several levels of this discussion.

[Alayna]

Thanks for the ego boost:p . In reality though I'm denser than lead when it comes to reading and using my emotions. Anyway, it seems were the last two on the board tonight. I'm going to stop thinking, have a smoke and try on my new nail polish before bed (metallic pink!!). Great discussion, great topic, I love this community! Night Stelli

[Alayna]

duh, I was reading the thread and not the forum:rolleyes: Time for bed!

[Stelli]

Please enlighten me

I do not have to, and very possibly I cannot, erither, by using any kind of words.

If you have been there and in the same time you have been a sensitive and knowlegeable human being (as you are) you will likely understand the magnitude of human suffering, then I do not have to tell you anything that you did not already feel by being there. If you haven't been, maybe you should go and pay a visit (if you have chance) but also that may be dangerous to a knowlegeable human being mind especially sensitive one (like yours). I did took my chance, but I am generally hard on myself.

But in the same time, I was not being cured for Cross Dressing. I understood some of members here have been and for what I know their experience is far from being pleasurable. However, I am not a good reference point to give you first hand experience. Most of all I believe Kew can give you quite of a insight.

If you are asking me why I did all of this, I think I clearly stated my interest (couple of posts above), the only thing I did not clearly stated is the motivation. And that is purely human (philantropic if I may say). Maybe I can address this also as indulgery of nobleness. Whatever it is, I find myself often to react strongly to my beliefs. And my beliefs I find quite complex. I believe that I gave here a good articulation of the feeling that CD-ing *IS NOT ONLY A PERSONAL ISSUE*.

Honestly I doubt that things are going to change easily. We alll here have to put much more effort to influence these kind of things. I doubt also that Kew has enough power, as much as I would wish to (unless I am completely wrong, which I doubt too). And I doubt that we are all at the point to feel the urgent need for this change. But I do not doubt that there is practical value of this. You should not underestimate the power of public information.

The fact is that many people here got happy to find a place that they belong. I admit that I am one of them.

[KewTnCurvy GG]

I feel the discourse here is now in the direction I intended in the first place. I am for taking labels off. Also, Stelli, no I don't have that kind of power; the power to 'single handedly' have the diagnostic manual changed. Didn't think so from the beginning. Besides the manual is compiled with the help and support of many, many professionals. I think it will take a group and A LOT of pressure but I do believe it can happen. And I believe it will take years! I'm not 'crazy' meself. I say 'crazy' with all the love and admiration I have for me clients. I've been one too! I have struggled with depression and have been hospitalized for it, as well as having been in therapy over 20 years for it. I know both sides of this coin quite well.
hugs
kew

[Elinor]

I just love being a GIRL! :p

[Wen4cd]

KewT,

I hope you don't think that I was getting snippy with you, I was only disagreeing about the manual. I don't think it should be played with for socially-masturbatory reasons.

I'm not any expert on debate, but I think that the status quo already has the capacity to deal with potential problems. The only problems that can arise from a diagnosis are legal problems. A wife wants you declared unfit to have custody of children, an employer discriminates against you, etc...

Changing the classifications is not going to change the attitude of the average person, and anyone with any sense either already takes the DSM classifications with a grain of salt, or completely disregards them, if they even know they exist.

If you want it removed, I'm certainly not going to fight you, because I don't really put any faith in your profession in the first place. (no offense meant to you personally) I see the manual as a resource for potential (although arguable) legal definitions, but so far as I can tell, it's completely null when it comes to crossdressing.

I can only see one valid reason for removing the classifications, and that would be to protect the taxpayer from anyone attempting to use such diagnoses to earn 'disabled' status, and collect fraudulent money. And in today's world, it's not hard to imagine that happening, either.

(If you decide to lobby for this, feel free to use that point in your case. :) )

Wen, not a tooth-kicker...

[KewTnCurvy GG]

Thank you Wen4Cd for your reply and clarification. I did feel a lil' like I was getting beat up about what I had said. I do differ with you about the only thing that could come of getting a diagnosis is legal problems. I think that lots of problems come with this being in a diagnostic manual on mental health. And I would argue that public opinion can and is formed in part by the 'experts'. I believe it carries a lot of weight in the public's eye view of things as to whether something is classified as a disease or illness. HOWEVER, to me far worse in this case it implies some sort of perversion/compulsion (though the latter may be true for some or the many) by calling it a fetish when I believe it is nothing more than someone's preference sexually.

hugs
kew

[Alayna]

HOWEVER, to me far worse in this case it implies some sort of perversion/compulsion (though the latter may be true for some or the many) by calling it a fetish when I believe it is nothing more than someone's preference sexually.
I can't agree more! We rarely take notice of how easily societies are manipulated by "experts", and also a lot by popular opinion.