Petition for the removal of transsexualism from DSM-5

[caliyr]

I thought this might be interesting here so I thought I would make it a post since I couldnt figure where to put it:

http://www.change.org/petitions/remove-transgender-from-the-dsm-5#

[A]

I disagree. ->-bleeped-<- being considered an illness is the absolute requirement for us to get treatment and credibility. And until they can prove it's something else, it can only be a mental illness, so its removal from the DSM is irrelevant for now. We're not gays (well, we can be, too, but you get my point); we need treatment from doctors that involves the destruction of functional organs and the taking of otherwise unjustified risk.

[Eve87]

Think hard before you vote. Think real hard.


Maybe read this.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/nataliereed/2012/04/27/is-gender-identity-disorder-a-disorder/

Look at the actual changes already being made to the DSM here.
http://www.medpagetoday.com/MeetingCoverage/APA/32619
"Gender identity disorder. Individuals who believe their biological gender doesn't match their gender identification will no longer be labeled with a disorder. Instead, if they seek psychiatric treatment, they can be labeled with "gender dysphoria."

The workgroup responsible for dealing with the hot-button issue considered a variety of other approaches, addressed later in this article. Ultimately they settled on a formal diagnosis -- potentially qualifying a patient for insurance-paid treatment if they want it -- but with a less pejorative name than "disorder.""

[A]

If I think of it from an entirely logical point of view, I can't see any other way to justify medical treatment than defining it as a mental illness.
Edit: Look at Eve87's edit. I find that a very sensible way to act.

[Carbon]

I think some of this is just not wanting to be associated with mentally ill people. Because you know, I/we are obviously not like THOSE people.

Transsexuality is an internal condition that cannot be understood in any kind of objective or consistent criteria beyond extrapolating from the person's words and choices. In our culture that pretty much means it has to be a mental illness. Maybe if people could transition without external approval we wouldn't need it to be in the DSM and it would just be part of the kinds of choices people are allowed to make, but taking it out of the DSM wouldn't accomplish that.

[peky]

Thank you Caliyrfor bring this important petition to the attendtion to our community, I hope many of us will sign it

[peky]

I disagree. ->-bleeped-<- being considered an illness is the absolute requirement for us to get treatment and credibility. And until they can prove it's something else, it can only be a mental illness, so its removal from the DSM is irrelevant for now. We're not gays (well, we can be, too, but you get my point); we need treatment from doctors that involves the destruction of functional organs and the taking of otherwise unjustified risk.

Gender Identity Dysphoria is currently consider a mental illness, by removing it form the DSM it will just become a development neurological birth defect, and thus subject to coverage by Health Insurances.

[kelly_aus]

While I have no issue with removing GID/GD from the DSM, I will not be signing this petition. Any move that seeks the removal without also ensuring it is covered by another diagnostic area is short sighted. No mention in any diagnostic manual means that the medical profession will have no obligation to treat us at all.. Sure some will, but you can forget any possible insurance coverage or coverage by any national health system like the NHS in the UK or Medicare in Australia.

There is also the complication that therapists, gyno's, endo's and surgeon's that work with us may not be able to get insurance coverage, which would then prevent many of them from continuing to give us the services we need..

Gender Identity Dysphoria is currently consider a mental illness, by removing it form the DSM it will just become a development neurological birth defect, and thus subject to coverage by Health Insurances.

Only if it is included in another diagnostic manual or similar...

[A]

Unless I'm terribly wrong, I don't think so. If it had been proven as such, it wouldn't be a mental illness. There is no physical illness that I know of that can be in the DSM. As an example, AD(H)D automatically stopped being a mental illness the moment it was proven to be a neurological one, right?

[peky]

While I have no issue with removing GID/GD from the DSM, I will not be signing this petition. Any move that seeks the removal without also ensuring it is covered by another diagnostic area is short sighted. No mention in any diagnostic manual means that the medical profession will have no obligation to treat us at all.. Sure some will, but you can forget any possible insurance coverage or coverage by any national health system like the NHS in the UK or Medicare in Australia.

There is also the complication that therapists, gyno's, endo's and surgeon's that work with us may not be able to get insurance coverage, which would then prevent many of them from continuing to give us the services we need..

Only if it is included in another diagnostic manual or similar...

Is Parkinson's Disease covered in the UK and Australia?

[Asfsd4214]

My only input on this....


1. An online petition won't do anything, they won't see it and wouldn't care even if they did.
2. It does NOT have to be in the DSM, that is close minded thinking. There's no absolute reason what we need should be governed by any third party. Make HRT informed consent, same with surgery. Take it out of the psychiatrists jurisdiction all together.
3. The transgender community is so plagued by infighting nothing will get done any time soon anyway. Bunch of sheep letting themselves be hurdled around by the medical establishment.

[kelly_aus]

Is Parkinson's Disease covered in the UK and Australia?

Can't comment on the UK, but I'm pretty sure it's covered my Medicare - symptomatically at the very least.

And it is also covered in the ICD..

[peky]

Can't comment on the UK, but I'm pretty sure it's covered my Medicare - symptomatically at the very least.

And it is also covered in the ICD..

Well, Parkinson's disease is not a mental illnes but a neurological disorder, just like GID. So no need to be afriad of not getting coverage.

[Carbon]

Gender Identity Dysphoria is currently consider a mental illness, by removing it form the DSM it will just become a development neurological birth defect, and thus subject to coverage by Health Insurances.

All my DSM diagnoses are covered by insurance and yes I have multiple ones. I'm not diagnosed with GID yet, but it's the only one I know of that they wouldn't cover. They actually specifically mention not covering "gender therapy" and that kind of thing.

[A]

My only input on this....


1. An online petition won't do anything, they won't see it and wouldn't care even if they did.
2. It does NOT have to be in the DSM, that is close minded thinking. There's no absolute reason what we need should be governed by any third party. Make HRT informed consent, same with surgery. Take it out of the psychiatrists jurisdiction all together.
3. The transgender community is so plagued by infighting nothing will get done any time soon anyway. Bunch of sheep letting themselves be hurdled around by the medical establishment.

I couldn't disagree more, and can't help but think that you are speaking more out of frustration than cogitation. I know your opinion is rather opposed to mine regarding what doctors should and shouldn't do, but regardless of that point, isn't it extremely unrealistic to think that doctors would even consider destroying functional organs if they have no diagnosis to work with? Because if they don't have a diagnosis, any justification they could give for treatment would be personal opinion that the surgery would help the person psychologically, and this is not valid from a medical viewpoint.

Doctors act upon diagnosis. No diagnosis; no treatment. It's common sense, really. If they don't have a medically valid reason, i.e. diagnosis, i.e. DSM-5 entry in our case, any treatment is irrelevant. Except purely aesthetical procedures, but those don't involve destroying healthy organs, nor do they work upon the basis of there being a medical problem to begin with. And if you subject transsexualism treatments to the same conditions, then you deny transsexualism being a medical problem to begin with, and the implications of that are huge and negative.

Carbon: That insurance company is being pretty immoral... Geez, why do they even have the right to choose which illnesses they cover and which they don't? It's like they said "we cover lung cancers but not colon cancers"...

[Carbon]

Carbon: That insurance company is being pretty immoral... Geez, why do they even have the right to choose which illnesses they cover and which they don't? It's like they said "we cover lung cancers but not colon cancers"...

It's actually a new insurance company for me but the old one did it too, so I assumed it was pretty common. And it is awful, but we're also talking about a class of people you are legally allowed to discriminate in terms of work, housing, etc. (Edit: Oh you are Canadian. Yep welcome to the US, healthcare is treated as privilege that you need to justify having, same as we approach jobs.)

I'm lucky that I'm screwed up enough to be diagnosed with a few different things already. If I can get on HRT I should be able to afford it without a prescription if I go through walmart and I can justify therapy by already being "mentally ill" by most people's standards. A lot of us probably have ways to do this, like I saw someone here say that their therapist listed the sessions as being for "anxiety." It's stupid though because it basically is forcing us to look for loopholes/lie/play the system.

Doctors act upon diagnosis. No diagnosis; no treatment. It's common sense, really. If they don't have a medically valid reason, i.e. diagnosis, i.e. DSM-5 entry in our case, any treatment is irrelevant. Except purely aesthetical procedures, but those don't involve destroying healthy organs, nor do they work upon the basis of there being a medical problem to begin with. And if you subject transsexualism treatments to the same conditions, then you deny transsexualism being a medical problem to begin with, and the implications of that are huge and negative.

I kind of agree, but I wish hormones were a lot more available than they are now since the permanent changes are gradual. I get how SRS is a Big Deal though and I wish less people were coerced into it, even as I wish it was more available to the people who need it.

[Jeneva]

It isn't the insurance provider, but rather who you are buying it through (your employer for example).  They "buy" the package to offer you and they can add riders to reduce the cost.  A very common option is to drop trans surgeries.

[A]

Carbon, I fully agree too. I believe in a system in which swift treatment would reach a nice compromise with medical soundness and prudence. We'll get there, I'm sure.

[peky]

It isn't the insurance provider, but rather who you are buying it through (your employer for example).  They "buy" the package to offer you and they can add riders to reduce the cost.  A very common option is to drop trans surgeries.

Most if not all the top fortune 500 companies provide insurance that covers GUD treatment. The reason it has not widely offer has nothing to do with cost but rather with plain prejudice. The company I work for is about 80,000 people, since GID is about 1:30,000, then it follow that maybe there is 2 or 3 of us, which hardly rises the price in an 80,000 employees.

[Carbon]

Espicially since part of what's specifically barred generally includes therapy with a counselor. In other words 200 dollars an hour for therapy related to depression is okay, but 200 dollars to therapy for gender issues is not okay. It costs exactly the same either way.