Eliminating pathology of Gender & C/Ding from the DSM-IV-TR

[KewTnCurvy GG]

*climbs up on soap box*

Okay, so here I am again asking for support and input on eliminating the pathologizing of gender and crossdressing out of the DSM-IV-TR (the "Gold Standard" for diagnosing gender disorders in the USA). As many of you know I am a clinician whose SO I met on this site who crossdresses. I believe continuing with the diagnoses in the manual only serves to marginalize and pathologize gender in our society (I know others of you are not convinced of this from your previous input, but trust me, it does)! And if you're concerned that eliminating these disorders would mean that those who are seeking therapy currently would not have their insurance continue to support your therapy, you need not worry (sorry for the run-on sentence). Because there are other diagnoses that are more applicable and less pathologizing than GID or Transvestic Fethishism; such as, depression, general anxiety disorder or dysthymia (trust me, these are less pathological in the taxonomy of diagnoses than the former ones). Anyhow, I have found someone who wants to prevent the continued pathologizing of these diagnoses when the manual is revised again in 2010. Here is a link to her site: http://www.tsroadmap.com/donate/index.html. I would encourage all who are interested and committed to this effort contact her.

Remember the words of Margaret Mead, anthropologist:

A small group of thoughtful people could change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has.
Margaret Mead

hugs
kew

*steps off soapbox*

[KewTnCurvy GG]

If you don't like labels, all the more reason to get involved grrlies:)

hugs
kew

[Amelie]

I have no idea what you are talking about. This is beyond my level of thinking.

Soory about that Kew,,can't respond,,,I can tell you the best color of lipstick to buy.

Love Amelie

[Wen4cd]

Kew, you linked to a page begging for money.

The DSM4 should not be changed; it should be burned as it is.

[crispy]

I have no idea what you are talking about. This is beyond my level of thinking.

Soory about that Kew,,can't respond,,,I can tell you the best color of lipstick to buy.

Love Amelie
I know how you feel, Blondie.

My limit seems to be understanding the difference in texture between microfibre and nylon and how it feels on my smooth depilated skin.

There are some really shallow stupid flippant people on this site, aren't there? :rolleyes:

Sorry Kew, I know you mean well, but I can't seem to get into the politics of the workplace and that kind of stuff.

luv you anyway...... :)

< :D >

[ChristineRenee]

I agree with Julie on this one. Label it whatever you wish...the problem lies with society and it's refusal to accept the TG/CD for who they are. We are not sick, perverted, making a lifestyle choice, diseased, or what have you. Women emulating men is ok in this society and even admired. Men emulating and embracing femininity are ridiculed....even by many gg's. (which, in turn, only reinforces a 2nd class citizenry label onto themselves)

Acceptance by society of the TG/CD community is ultimately tied in to how women are viewed by society. Until the very positive qualities of the female and femininity are truly and highly valued by society as a whole, men who exhibit and embrace these qualities will continue to be scorned by what Julie accurately describes as a myopic society.

[Chrissycd]

I was with Julie until she said a label's a label's a label, and their all the same, and who cares as long as it helps classify us. Kew is saying that the classification is basically labeling us nut cases, and she thinks that's a misrepresentation and that it doesn't give us a class of our own that is more respectable and acceptable to society. I know I don't want to be called pathological. Can you say "Hannibal"?
Chrissy

[Chrissycd]

you silly broad! ;)
Chrissy

[KewTnCurvy GG]

I have no idea what you are talking about. This is beyond my level of thinking.

Soory about that Kew,,can't respond,,,I can tell you the best color of lipstick to buy.

Love Amelie

Sorry, Amelie, don't mean to razzle ppl and if ya feel it doesn't speak to your heart--np. As for best color of lipstick, I'm VERY pale, with hazel eyes and auburn hair; what do you recommend?

hugs
kew


If I went looking for a therapist and had to find someone who was experienced in depression, general anxiety disorder or dysthymia, I might go through 100 therapists before I found one who is well versed in the issues TGs have. But with GID being recognized as it is, all I had to do was find a therapist who specializes in this.

You're missing my point and not understanding how the mental health system works; and how pathologizing things DOES do damage. Firstly, even without the diagnosis of GID, there will ALWAYS be therapists skilled in gender work. Our work and specialties--you may be surprised to learn--are NOT shaped by the DSM-IV-TR. For example there are therapists who specialize in marital therapy, codependancy, men's issues and the like. Yet there are no diagnoses to fit these areas; however there are still professionals who declare these areas as specialties. Secondly, whether you accept what I'm telling you or not, the fact that things like GID and Transvestic Fetishism continue to be listed in the DSM-IV-TR shapes the opinions and views individuals and the public have. Ppl in general look to 'experts' to explain to them things they do not understand. Seeing something as a disorder, disease or pathology serves to taint it with a negativity and 'sickness'.

hugs
kew


Kew, you linked to a page begging for money.

The DSM4 should not be changed; it should be burned as it is.

Wen,

Yes, the link did include that; HOWEVER, it also included other information. Like the email address of the person who is helping to work on these changes in Toronto. I did not give money but instead emailed her indicating I was moving to the area and interested in helping effect these changes. She has since wrote me back and indicated she would appreciate assistance and she would be happy to introduce me to folks in the Toronto area who are also interested in effecting these changes.

hugs
kew


Kew is saying that the classification is basically labeling us nut cases, and she thinks that's a misrepresentation

Amen sister! This IS what I'm saying.

hugs
kew

And to Crispy or Amelie and et.al., if you are not interested in this I understand and respect ya just the same. I don't crawl up on all soap boxes either but this is one within my professional and PERSONAL domains--i.e., it is close to me heart. So, that's okay grrlies. I love ya anyways too:p

hugs
kew

[KewTnCurvy GG]

Kew, You started this thread. How about some more feedback that explains in laywoman's terms what this all means! :confused:

Hi Julie M.,

I'd be happy to and you'll have to excuse my ignorance or tiredness but what could I better explain? I'm not clear. Please point it out and I will be happy to be more clear, ok? Thanks!

hugs
kew

[KewTnCurvy GG]

To expand on a few of the things I have said here, I will add this.

"Disorders" are considered to have a clinically recognizable set of symptoms or behavior that in most cases is associated with distress and with interference with functions at the individual level. This may include the concept of "disease."
source: http://etoh.niaaa.nih.gov/AODVol1/aodhng.htm

The connection between philosophical issues in the study and treatment of mental illness and these other areas of philosophy is in many cases obvious. For example, it takes little thought to see how the question of when and how people with mental disorders are responsible for their actions is connected with the insanity defense in law, and the more general debate over the justification of punishment. Similarly, it is clear how studying the historical growth of the idea of madness and changes in the way societies treat those they classify as mad helps us assess claims that psychiatry today is a form of social control, and further, whether social control is a legitimate function for psychiatry.
source: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mental-illness/

A mind is "ill", just as a "joke is sick", or "he has a sick sense of humor". The usage of the words "sick", "ill", "illness", and "disorder", as relates to the mind, are metaphorical, but have been assumed to be actual, referring to real situations and things - when, in fact, they don't. There isn't and has never been any biological or physical basis to what are currently called "mental illnesses". These things don't exist in any sense as a "disease" or "illness" similar to their real physical counterparts. Psychiatry purports and asserts that these exist as illnesses, in the same way as physical illnesses, but this is not unlike how the medieval priest purported and asserted the existence of demons and devils (interestingly, often as explanations for the same or similar unusual or undesirable behavior). In both cases the general public believes the assertions and the entire complex belief system. Understanding and interpreting the ideas of "mental illness" and "mental health" in this way is really just playing with words and ideas, and is part of the complex nomenclature and concepts of modern psychiatry. If you honestly read through these pages, and follow up with some of the reference books, you will come to understand how this is so.
source: http://www.sntp.net/materialism_ideology.htm

Let me boil this down and sift out the important points. Disease and disoder can be seen as one in the same. Pathologizing something is a powerful tool, even so much so that it can impose control over an individual and influence public opinion. Mental health is not a 'hard science' and some even argue as to whether it is or should be a science. Does any of this help? I am too abstract still. Please let me know.

hugs
kew

*reminds the grrlies, she's only doing this out of her love for sherlyn and sherlyn' 'sisters' "

[Chrissycd]

Kew, give us a clue, we don't know what to do, how should our response ensue? :p
Chrissy

[Wen4cd]

Kew,

Heck, I don't even know what DSM-IV-TR is. What I do know is I'm not nuts. I just have a mind and body that are in conflict. Fix that and I'm perfectly normal.

It's a big fat $50 softback book full of every possible 'mental disorder' that the American Psychiatric Association has been able to come up with over the years.

People in the mental health industry keep a copy as part of their reference library, like any industry has its own technical manuals or 'bibles'

It gets revised every few years, supposedly as the state of the art of psychiatry advances.

On one of the latest revisions was changed so that homosexuality was no longer listed as a mental disorder, which was done through some sort of lobbying campaign on the part of the gay community who rallied to have their status legitimized, and no longer pathologized(?) by the APA.

(Although the same lobbyists, upon their victory, subsequently attempted to get "homophobia" listed AS a mental disorder, to which they were unsucessful.)

So homosexuality is no longer 'recognized' as a mental disorder by the APA, because it's no longer in the book. But Transvestic Fetishism, and Gender Identity Disorder are still IN the book to describe 'us.'

I think what Kew is saying is that the gender community ought to do a similar lobbying campaign as the gays did, and fight to have these 'disorders' removed from the book in it's next revision.

(Really, I'm not arguing with you this time Kew, promise! If you want to go for it, all the best to you. And I just meant you might want to change your link to that person's main page, instead of the 'donations' page.)

[KewTnCurvy GG]

It's a big fat $50 softback book full of every possible 'mental disorder' that the American Psychiatric Association has been able to come up with over the years.

People in the mental health industry keep a copy as part of their reference library, like any industry has its own technical manuals or 'bibles'

It gets revised every few years, supposedly as the state of the art of psychiatry advances.

On one of the latest revisions was changed so that homosexuality was no longer listed as a mental disorder, which was done through some sort of lobbying campaign on the part of the gay community who rallied to have their status legitimized, and no longer pathologized(?) by the APA.

(Although the same lobbyists, upon their victory, subsequently attempted to get "homophobia" listed AS a mental disorder, to which they were unsucessful.)

So homosexuality is no longer 'recognized' as a mental disorder by the APA, because it's no longer in the book. But Transvestic Fetishism, and Gender Identity Disorder are still IN the book to describe 'us.'

I think what Kew is saying is that the gender community ought to do a similar lobbying campaign as the gays did, and fight to have these 'disorders' removed from the book in it's next revision.

(Really, I'm not arguing with you this time Kew, promise! If you want to go for it, all the best to you. And I just meant you might want to change your link to that person's main page, instead of the 'donations' page.)


Thanks to all! And yes, Wen4cd, you are 100% correct in what I'm suggesting. I'll be happy to provide better and more specific information on what you can do that would help, ok? And Chrissycd, stay tuned, more news to follow. I am with them on this i.e., those who are committed to getting these terms extricated from the next revision due for 2010.

hugs
kew

[Wen4cd]

Well, I'd suggest, if you're going to do it, to find out who was responsible for the gay-rights activists' victory, and find out how they did it, who they wrote to, what they said. (Assuming there was some sort of letter-writing campaign.)

Find out what kind of evidence and support they used in their argument, whom they appealed to, etc. Make a similar case to theirs.

I don't think villianizing certain Doctors on the DSM Task Force is going to do any good, or get you any sympathy. It will probably do more harm than good to your cause. Doctors are *******s, and they'll gang up on you if you attack even the least liked of them.

[KewTnCurvy GG]

Okay grrlies, I've gotten some input. Andrea, who has the website, suggests this link instead: http://www.tsroadmap.com/info/gender-identity.html. It has information about what she is and does and some of the things you maybe concerned about. More info from me to follow. Best wishes grrlies and thanks for your support and interest.

hugs
kew

As a post-script, I'd also suggest you checking out this link:
http://www.transsexuality.info/db/db.php?i=1.2962

[Rachel Ann]

Ladies

The DSM isn't going anywhere, especially under managed care. Of course many diagnoses are "fudged" for insurance purposes.

It took them until 1973 to eliminate homosexuality as a pathology, although they replaced it with "sexual orientation disturbance", meaning coping with the consequences of being gay/lesbian in contemporary society. So, let's eliminate transgenderism as a pathology but continue to recognize things like GID. As if we got to vote. :mad:

[Natasha Anne]

Can this not be turned on it's head and actually aid discrimination in the workplace. Let's say my company recognises and is supportive of diagnoses listed in DSM. If that's removed, my company could then say I have to behave and dress in a role appropriate to my gender and I will have no backup or recognition of who I am.

I don't like the labels either, but I think when the anti-discriminatory laws are just right, then we can move on to this sort of thing.

[BobbieG]

I agree with Julie on this one. Label it whatever you wish...the problem lies with society and it's refusal to accept the TG/CD for who they are. We are not sick, perverted, making a lifestyle choice, diseased, or what have you. Women emulating men is ok in this society and even admired. Men emulating and embracing femininity are ridiculed....even by many gg's. (which, in turn, only reinforces a 2nd class citizenry label onto themselves)

Acceptance by society of the TG/CD community is ultimately tied in to how women are viewed by society. Until the very positive qualities of the female and femininity are truly and highly valued by society as a whole, men who exhibit and embrace these qualities will continue to be scorned by what Julie accurately describes as a myopic society.
Julie I agree it is OK for women to go in the mens dept. to shop for clothes, but a man in the womens dept: what is he a pervert or something.
Even women buying under ware for men is ok , but men buying womens under garments people do label us although I have no problem with this I pass pretty well as a girl, I hope.
Yeh I got up early to get on this site geez I'm hooked.

[Rachel Ann]

Natasha

If it's officially a "disease", it would be more of an "accomodation for disability" thing. You might even have to be in treatment for a "cure".

I would *really* like it recognized that CDing is NOT a pathology. There are still model laws against discrimination for us.

Love

[Rachel Ann]

All, see also thread "Can transsexualism be considered a work disability?"

[Natasha Anne]

Exactly, women view themselves as less than men, or at least catching up, and that's why everyone treats us like we're belittling ourselves.

OR

Maybe the brave women of years gone by who took the first steps to freedom got ridiculed the way we are now.

Every step we take now makes it easier for those who come after us.

We rule. Never a truer bit of rhetoric has been shouted at bigots than, "I'm more man than you'll ever be, and more women than you'll ever have" - of course you could flip it if the bigot is a woman.

Even my wife, who is very conservative now understands, I am who I am and that it's not a hobby or a lifestyle choice.

[Rachel Ann]

Well said, Natasha!

Love

[clarissa3d]

ok I guess I am just not able to follow. I went to the link but I get to a donation page.. Is that right?

help me understand kew

Thanks

[KewTnCurvy GG]

I was just thinking about the effect of removing homosexuality from that big fat $50 book. What was the result of that? How did it help gays and lesbians? I'm not saying I don't think it should be done, I was just wondering, outside of the professional world, what effect it would have?

I try to imagine walking into the boss's office and saying, "I am a transsexual." Then getting fired for having an emotional problem. Then suing because it's not an emotional problem.

Crumby example but would the rest of the world even care? Would this change how we are viewed in their eyes?

I guess where I'm going with this is if we don't get ourselves out of the closet and into the streets we will forever be seen as crazy even if gender identity and CDing are removed from the DSM-IV-TR.


Julie,
I would argue that it was a series of events that led to de-pathologizing homosexuality allowing ppl to view them as just ppl and one variation of sexuality. I don't think anyone could say or put their finger on anyone event and say, this was the moment. Perhaps Stonewall but there were other events too. Certainly removing homosexuality from the DSM was one event that also assisted in this process. I don't think anyone could point to anyone event and say, that was the moment. And being out of the closet is not an option for all. Not all want to live this aspect of their lives publically. Your greatest concern seems to be that somehow descrimination will increase and there will be no protections for TG persons without these diagnoses in the DSM, am I correct? I'm sure Julie, that ppl argued this about homosexuality. I still don't agree with having the diagnoses in the DSM that it helps TG folks. I don't. If anything removing Transvestic Fetishism to me is the most important step right now. I again argue that how maintaining something as a mental illness help you as I don't understand that. I don't think it helps in the long run. I think I've made my arguments as clear as possible here. I don't know how to clarify it further.

hugs
kew

[Rachel Ann]

How did it help gays and lesbians?
I will defer to what a gay or lesbian person says, but I saw it seem to help in two ways:
It removed an official "blessing" of prevailing attitudes.
Treatment focus shifted from homosexuality itself to the difficulties of living in a world that persecutes same



I try to imagine walking into the boss's office and saying, "I am a transsexual." Then getting fired for having an emotional problem. Then suing because it's not an emotional problem.
It's a catch-22 for sure. But usually they fire people for reasons other than those stated, and it's hard to prove. For example, they might fear having the medical costs of transitioning and SRS driving up their premiums.



... would the rest of the world even care? Would this change how we are viewed in their eyes?
Over time, it might. People would not have official support for negative viewpoints. I think that a good place to start would be lots of public educationo about TG and what it is/means. Too many people, even many doctors still believe that TG = TS = gay = pedophile.

It's a numbers game. We will never win them all over, but as the public gets used to us, attitudes will evolve.



I guess where I'm going with this is if we don't get ourselves out of the closet and into the streets we will forever be seen as crazy even if gender identity and CDing are removed from the DSM-IV-TR.
I think you're right. I'm a little hypocrite though. I am in no way ready to be up-front-visible in many spheres of life, especially the political. Usually the younger ones in any movement take the lead in political action.

And, of course, we will always be seen as crazy or evil by some, but at least this can make it possible to live without fear or persecution. Or, for those who follow us. Remember, it took gays decades and blacks over 100 years to get anywhere with freedom and rights issues.

But, we must start somewhere. :)

[Rachel Ann]

I was playing Devil's Advocate.
I wondered if that might not be the case. But from the number of replies, I think that Kew and you made a successful thread!



And since Kew pointed out there are other emotional problems related to TGism (depression, anxiety, etc.) that could be covered by insurance, I see no reason to keep them in the DSM.
Yeah, it sort of worked out that way for gays and lesbians who were still dealing with issues like being disowned by family, employment and housing discrimination etc. etc..



The problem is if we aren't seen in numbers, no one will pay any attention to us. That means anonymity gets tossed out the window which would result in almost no one coming forth. A true Catch-22.
How true. That is why it's likely to take the younger generation to lead the way in this. They always have more passion and less fear of repercussions!

Unfortunately in the GLBT "rainbow", there is still a tendency for some Gs and Ls to snipe at each other, both of them to snipe at the Bs and all three to snipe at us. There are even TSs who snipe at other TGs.

Splintering in to factions has always been the bane of progressive movements. We'll never get anywhere without some unity.

==================================================

I got to be involved in a hilarious incident in 1964, when I was still working with the Velvet Underground and for Andy Warhol. That year, the American Psychiatric Association had its annual conference in New York, and it was the first year that there was a proposal to remove homosexuality from the DSM (or whatever they called it back then). The proposal failed, but not without lively and acrimonious debate featured in the press.

At the end of the week came the banquet. For some reason, Andy (who had many connections in high society) was tapped to organize the entertainment. I guess they thought he was going to do some sort of "pop art" thing. But, he put on the Velvet Underground, doing their most sexually degenerate, outrageous tunes. It was like a Mel Brooks movie, the whole crowd just sitting there with bug eyes and their mouths hanging out. :D And, it made the front section of the New York Times the next day!

:cool:

[Since12]

Crossdressing is wearing a Cross around your neck, dressing in a costume of a Cross or generally putting a cross some where on your body.

I am not a CDer at all because I am ME. I am no more a Crossdresser then a Girl who wears mens clothes is. That is just how I feel.