You've missed the discussions where some crossdressers oppose being labelled as trans anything. They refuse being put under the umbrella.Originally Posted by Jamie Ann
I'm going a bit off topic though.
You've missed the discussions where some crossdressers oppose being labelled as trans anything. They refuse being put under the umbrella.
Male to Female Crossdressing is a forum potentially relevant to 6.2 million men in the US alone who express feminine feeling through clothing. Not all of them are seeking transition. In fact, probably 98 percent are not. Even among those who are seeking that, the Benjamin standards have been challenged as a device for rich doctors to get richer by insisting that a lot of expensive counseling is required before they do what they want to do (which many have already known for years). WPATH clearly has some monetary interests. Moreover, they have been disavowed by more credible organizations. What IS the correct WPATH stance? If you would explain it, then I would be grateful.
I have not missed them. Not all crossdressers are transgender. I am well aware of that. The fact remains that many people see "crossdressing" as synonymous with "mental disorder." Is that correct, or is it not? Are those who resist being labeled (such as genderqueer teenagers) escaping the labeling problem, or are they not? Thanks for your comment.You've missed the discussions where some crossdressers oppose being labelled as trans anything. They refuse being put under the umbrella.
The general public may see it as a disorder but that's their problem and incorrect thinking. Any therapist will tell a CDer they are normal. Going to a therapist for CDing is not reqired and a waste of money. It is only necessary if the Cding is causing one extreme stress or discomfort. Times have changed and Cding is considered normal for one engaging in such activities.
I'm sure being trans exacerbates other mental issues in a medical/psychological (co-morbid) way, but I do not believe it is a "source" of mental issues.
As far as umbrella terms, I do believe non-transsexuals are, or can be labeled as transgender. Why?.....because transsexuals are often (and primarily) "cisgender". They just happen to have a body that does not align with their brain. the rest of us morph between gender roles, making us gender fluid in many ways.
I believe that many crossdressers that do not accept themselves and choose to remain in the closet are more susceptible to mental illness such as depression. After accepting yourself and coming out of the closet, the depression improves or is eliminated.
You will become stronger in the ways of the Pink Fog. May the Pink Fog guide you and be with you now and forever.
Standards Of Care for recommended treatment of GID in transsexuals is the primary function of WPATH.
Excerpt from SOC. "The overall goal of the SOC is to provide clinical guidance for health professionals to assist transsexual, transgender, and gender nonconforming people with safe and effective pathways to achieving lasting personal comfort with their gendered selves, in order to maximize their overall health, psychological well-being, and self-fulfillment. This assistance may include primary care, gynecologic and urologic care, reproductive options, voice and communication therapy, mental health services (e.g., assessment, counseling, psychotherapy), and hormonal and surgical treatments. While this is primarily a document for health professionals, the SOC may also be used by individuals, their families, and social institutions to understand how they can assist with promoting optimal health for members of this diverse population."
------
"WPATH Vision Statement
The vision of WPATH is to bring together diverse professionals dedicated to developing best practices and supportive policies worldwide that promote health, research, education, respect, dignity, and equality for transgender, transsexual, and gender-variant people in all cultural settings.
See:
http://www.wpath.org/index.cfm
----
Whilst the TG (transgender) umbrella is indeed broad, the WPATH speaks more about the TS (transexual) side. Crossdressers do not need the standards of care since CD's (crossdressers) aren't transitioning. As it was or has been said before, crossdressers don't need treatment unless they want therapy for depression or marital issues.
Last edited by TeresaL; 12-20-2012 at 01:42 AM.
You have it reversed. I suggest you focus on Lea's post #7. Also, have a look at the WPATH reaction to the proposed changes in the DSM V. See page 3, under "Points of Critique"
To put this in perspective, 150 million is 2% trans population worldwide. This means 20 boys in a high school of 2,000 students, assuming an equal distribution of male/female. Or, if Georgia Dome in Atlanta were filled to capacity (71,000), there would be 700 transpersons again assuming an equal gender split in the stadium.
Also, you mention in your thread starter the status of transgenders in India. It is not significantly different there, than here, in terms of active groups who fight for a stop to discrimination. India TGs were counted in the national census for the first time in 2011. There are half a million compared to a total population of one billion. This is significantly less than 1%. Things are beginning to change in India as they are here, but the Hijras are still shunned and still suffer discrimination, according to the census article that I link to, and this one as well:
http://akiliinitiative.org/trailblaz...d-populations/
Just wanted to get some facts straight.
To give my opinion on your question, I'd guess that mental illness (excluding depression) is equal among the TG and non-TG population. Depression may be higher in the TG population, which I would expect when the majority of TGs are discriminated against.
Reine
There is no accurate data available to serve as a basis for any conclusion. This makes it impossible to answer your question.
"We are shaped by our thoughts; we become what we think." - The Buddha
If you would read responses, I would be grateful. This isn't the first thread in which there have been responses to your comments on WPATH.
The comment on money does have some validity, but you have re-cast it from a complaint about PATIENTS needing resources to "doctors" seeking riches. The patient complaint primarily relates to the need for a period of therapeutic evaluation before approving hormones (and further treatments). It has been addressed in several ways, including recognizing exceptions to the rule (e.g., cases of self-medication), as well as shortening the evaluation period. Once again, however, you have confused the issue vis-a-vis WPATH vs the APA. NOTHING the APA has put out to-date changes anything in THIS regard, as the APA has yet to issue any treatment standards or practice guidelines. Moreover, the APA has claimed they (psychiatrists specifically, that is ... i.e., "doctors") should be the only ones with oversight over treatment with hormones! See the APA report on treating GID for specifics. Finally, the majority of gender therapists in the US, as far as I'm aware, are psychologists and social workers, not physicians. Who, by the way charge LESS, on average, than psychiatrists.
We'll see what treatment recommendations eventually emerge from the APA, but if you think they are going to involve less therapy and less cost, I have a bridge to sell you.
If you want to go to the topic of credibility, I suggest looking into controversies re: Drs. Zucker (mentioned above) and Blanchard. Going back a bit more, Dr. John Money (ironic name, eh?). Within psychiatry itself, concerns have been expressed about the lack of training in therapy! (ANY kind of therapy.) The fear is that psychiatry is becoming the province of doctors who treat with pharmaceuticals only and who churn patients for reimbursement. For a mass-market view of this, see Dr. Keith Ablow's comments on this topic. (Ablow is a psychiatrist who trained at Johns Hopkins) Finally, have a look at the history of the major medical school and hospital-based gender clinics. I'm not going to attempt to recap it here, but to say that there are implications for the credibility of psychiatry on the topic is the mildest thing I can state.
Last edited by LeaP; 12-20-2012 at 09:43 AM. Reason: syntax
Lea
The only crazies here are the ones who think they are normal.
Like me.
It is interesting that I scrolled past the serious discussion that is also included here.
Merry Christmas and happy holidays to you all.
Work on your elegance,
and beauty will follow.
Call it what you will Hon but it is really all about energy balance. When too many "big boys" (politicians, generals, etc.) play a lot in the "big boy" sandbox, there is a disproportionate amount of male energy being spread around which unbalances the system. The solution to this is people like us who not only release male but more so female energy which brings balance back to the human equation, thereby stabilizing things so as to keep going. Face it, if we had let them play unrestricted, we would have been "toast" long ago. That's my story and I'm stickin' to it.
Second star to the right and straight on till morning
WOW, REALLY? Are you speaking for yourself or for everyone?
Go talk to any therapist...
i am not a Dr. nor do i play one on the tube, and i did not sleep in a holiday inn last night.
but i would say a large number of trans-persons suffer depression. but not from something being wrong. but due to not being allowed to just be themselves.
WOW! A few thoughts are going to escape my clearly psycho mind and land on this page:
1) My first thought was to write something along the lines of: "Disproportionately of Unsound Mental Health? If you ask me that again, I'll have to kill you." But on reflection (hmmmm, reflection, that's a rather sane thing to do), in light of last week's mass shooting at the Sandy Hook ES, . . . well, you get it --- bad taste and all that.
2) I, like many, thought for years that I was the only one, or that it was just me and Rene Richards. Or me, Rene, Flip Wilson, Milton Berle, the cast of LA CAGE AUX FOLLE, Wesley Snipes, Patrick Swayze, and John Leguizamo (all in drag in "To Wong Foo, Thanks for Everything! Julie Newmar"), and a bunch of others. I agree with the above comments that generally recognize that the mental health profession makes decisions about what is a mental illness and what isn't by having committee's vote on diagnostic criteria. Remember, not too long ago, gay and lesbian were considered to be mental illnesses. In some countries you'd be put to death for being G or L. T's would likely be stoned to death. Intolerance is the disease.
3) Your credibility was immediately suspect when you gave credence to the Washington Post and implied that they would do a thoroughly researched story that is fair and balanced on the topic of us. That, as they say, ain't happenin'.
4) Take any recognizable segment of society and you'll find a distribution of the members who have varying degrees of mental illness, and unless the segment chosen is itself a concentration of mental disease (e.g., psychopaths), you'll likely find a distribution that is pretty much the same as other segments of society.
Rhonda
Thanks for the information — I was not aware of the 2010 statement changing the official view on transgender and whether or not it is a disorder. Both the APA and WPATH did define transgender as a mental illness for several decades. Transgender people lobbied against both groups for many years, arguing that transgender persons have better insights into transgender mental health than do doctors, who are just as prone as most others out there in society to buy into cultural stereotypes about what variations are to be classified as sicknesses and which are merely human diversity.
One minor corrections to your post is that the DSM-5 replaces GID with “gender dysphoria” and defines the latter as sadness — it is the antonym of euphoria, the latter understood as happiness or joy. GID is gone. Thus, the changes are not superficial; they are more than just a new vocabulary with no change in real meaning.
I am glad that real transgender people won out over both the APA and WPATH. Again, thanks for the information.
I don't need to talk a therapist. And what does that have to do with what the majority of society thinks anyway?
I just asked you a question, (which you didn't answer).
Cd-ing is definitely not considered normal.
Congratulations on knowing that 150 million is roughly 2% of the world's population, or roughly 4% of the world's male population. By coincidence, some estimates are that about 4% of men engage in some degree of crossdressing.
Regarding India's Census of Population, it you look at the last sentence quoted above, you will see one of the two reasons why 1% is an under-estimate of the true prevalence. On sensitive issues of any kind, some people do not give accurate information. In a Census they are not fully anonymous — or may worry that they’re not, since they are providing identifying information. The other reason is that “underdressing” and transvestic fetishism would not be counted in the Census. To what extent they are transgender phenomena is debatable (they are crossdressing, but their motivation might or might not be a transgender identity). India is interested, for social policy reasons, primarily in how many transsexuals are part of their population; for many purposes, we would be interested in crossdressers of other kinds as well. The 1% probably exceeds the percentage of transsexuals, but it surely falls short of the percentage of all crossdressers.
Most posters seem to agree that we are as normal as any cross-section of the community. My only questions involve 1) Statement that there are 150 million CDs of various kinds in the world. If true I would appreciate knowing the source of these stats as I have a hard time just estimating how many there are in the U.S. give or take a few million and 2) If there are disproportionate high numbers in certain countries, which might be true, I haven't come across any studies that may provide a clue culture-wise for their reasons. If someone has that information kindly divulge where we can find it. In the meantime it merely muddies the waters.
Personally I find CDs on this forum to be better informed with a higher intelligence level (Though I may often disagree with a comment)
than the general public. As an aside I'm an awful speller and do wish some posters would use either spell check or a dictionary as I try to do.
To conclude I came across an ad by a corporation that used the term "New Normal". That's what we are: the new normal.
Julie
I said:Times have changed and Cding is considered normal for one engaging in such activities.
Then you asked: WOW, REALLY? Are you speaking for yourself or for everyone?
So you say: Cd-ing is definitely not considered normal
So my answer again... ask any therapist, it is normal!!
The posed question has a simple answer. No, and most likely no data exists either way.
Lots of too much discussion on elements not directly posed in the original question. Too much extraneous information in the rest of the post. Mumbai paragraph irrelevant. Washington Post is a juvenile reference that will never be accepted as a thoroughly researching peer reviewed source, so it can be ignored totally except for general public consumption, and we all know what that is worth. The discussion of K street, and one individual serves to add nothing to the original question.
the last paragraph mentions what happens when people encounter poorly functioning transgenders. this presupposes that these individuals make up a larger than normal population, which is what the original question was posing. talk about posing a situation that presupposes an answer, but really only points out a cause for mental discomfort. what happens when people encounter a poorly functioning lawyer, or doctor, or Professor, or auto mechanic. this in no way implies a greater percentage of mental illness in these situations.
The answer is no.
Barbara
He (she) who would learn to fly one day must first learn to stand and walk and run and climb and dance.
- Friedrich Nietzche -
I may never get to fly like the other girls, but I do so want to dance, so I continue to climb.
It wasn't a recent change (WPATH position). It is important to note, however, that the scientific consensus on the nature of gender, gender etiology and gender issues has been evolving for many years. You are presenting a picture of intransigence that seriously distorts what has been a raging debate
Evaluation of dysphoria was critical to a GID diagnosis under the DSM 4. There's NOTHING new about gender dysphoria in relation to the various gender-related diagnoses over the several version of the DSM. For a good recap see:
http://www.cpath.ca/wp-content/uploa...TENIS.DSM_.pdf
The DSM does not define dysphoria per se, and certainly not as "sadness". I have my own definition. It is hell on earth. Sadness doesn't touch even the shallowest aspects of it.
Finally, I didn't say the changes were superficial. I said the name and category changes were less stigmatizing. This in response to your assertion that the diagnosis was depathologized, which simply is inaccurate. There are other refinements in the diagnostic criteria, but they are clearly a continuation of the refinements of past versions, continue much of the same language, and are viewed by the profession and the authors in that way. The entire effort was a revision effort, not one to create a new diagnosis.
Last edited by LeaP; 12-20-2012 at 10:33 PM. Reason: various, including structural changes
Lea
and just how many angels do dance on the head of a pin?
just sayin.
I don’t know why you are so hostile. My position is simply that transgender persons took issue with the professional organizations 40 years ago, after the professional organizations capitulated to the gay community and decided that sexual orientation was human variability rather than a bad choice or mental illness. Transgender persons said, in effect, “Then why is transgender feeling just a bad choice or mental illness?” There have always been efforts by both the APA and WPATH to discredit the other. In real time (not just when information was published), I think that APA was slightly ahead of WPATH (2010 is nowhere near when the behind-the-scenes debates took place), but the important point is that both organizations eventually decided that transgender persons might have a better understanding of transgender mental dynamics than the professionals. Yes, we can be freaked-out by widespread prejudice and discrimination. If someone who is highly qualified loses a job, they understandably can feel sad or even depressed. The changes that must occur are in Western culture, not in transgender persons. Do you or do you not disagree with that?
Posting Permissions
