I have to say I agree with Teresa, and, to an extent, Solange.

Kelly, your use and citation of clinical information is often of invaluable use on this forum. But the CURRENT clinical diagnostic criteria for GD, for example, are, one would hope, far from the last word on the subject. Diagnoses are typically best guesses based on symptoms presented. But this is why the DSM has grown from only a few dozen pages to several hundred in only, what, fewer than 7 decades?!

My own wife's genetic condition is one first disgnosed as a separate disorder a tad over a hundred years ago. She was 44 before being diagnosed because it presents as a variety of other, more likely conditions. For this reason Ehlers-Danlos is considered a Zebra of a condition. On description one assumes a horse, and one would be very wrong, is the analogy.

Labels are only ever any use as a matter of expediency. I can variously identify as gender-nonconforming, Non-binary, gender fluid, genderqueer, panvestite, transvestite, or crossdresser. I'm not particularly adverse to any, though I have my preferences. But the gamut here runs from occasional knicker wearer to transgender who seeks SRS. That's a broad church yet we've all made a compact to agree CD as being sufficient.

Clinical diagnoses are not, however, what Solange was necessarily disputing. We all understand the necessity of such in determining prognosis and treatment. But it's neither disingenuous, nor unhelpful, to point out that there are limits to both labels generally and even clinical diagnoses specifically. As we learn more we necessarily alter out language to more accurately reflect our deeper understanding. This is progress. But absolutism, except of clinical necessity can be deeply damaging.

Just to stick with labels and gender look at the historic treatment of intersex individuals. The fight is still being fought to normalise the reality that these people live, instead of continuing to force them into one of two boxes.

I think the point both Teresa and Solange make is that, yes, boxes can be usefully as neat containers but often the edges are way too sharp.

Language defines and shapes perception but that's often a two edged sword.

As Teresa puts it, an NB fetish dresser is not an oxymoron.

[SIZE=1]- - - Updated - - -[/SIZE]

In other words, labels (including clinical diagnoses) are useful right up to the point where they're not.

... and. Please. Could no-one waste anyone's time with accusations of being post-truth? I'm simply arguing that current scientific and societal discourse is shaped by CURRENT understanding. Hopefully we'll have better, more helpful, more inclusive ways of discussing each other like, I dunno, 'human' when we finally evolve past our petty need for belonging, which is predicated, always, on defining someone as 'other'.

Dammit, destroyed another perfectly good soapbox...