Susan's Place Logo

News:

Please be sure to review The Site terms of service, and rules to live by

Main Menu

Getting SRS in the future (religious fanatics, Zucker in DSM-V)

Started by goingdown, October 05, 2008, 01:16:00 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

goingdown

Because of the power of religious fundamentalist and the Zucker nomination to DSM-V I am asking will it be harder to get SRS in the future? I have still quit a time to wait before I get my recomendations. Using Zucker criters I am not a transsexual. Does that matter more in the future?
  •  

Jesslee

Quote from: goingdown on October 05, 2008, 01:16:00 AM
Because of the power of religious fundamentalist and the Zucker nomination to DSM-V I am asking will it be harder to get SRS in the future? I have still quit a time to wait before I get my recomendations. Using Zucker criters I am not a transsexual. Does that matter more in the future?


What does this mean "Zuckers Criteria" of TS, what is different about his definition of TS?

I am curious, I did not know that there are different criteria for what a TS is.
  •  


goingdown

In the future will there be surgeons that will perform SRS for patients those are transsexuals (according to old criterias)  but not if used more narrow (My assumption) DSM-V criterias?
  •  

Renate

Well, look on the bright side; DSM-V is not expected out until 2012.

Get your SRS while it's hot!
  •  

goingdown

I takes a time to get my surgery recomendations. My best hope is that some SRS-surgeons will continue treating all transsexual and do not fall biased DSM-V criterias. I even dare to hope that because of DSM-V criterias are not objective instead very biased some gendertherapist will continue giving recomendations for all transsexuals.
  •  

Flan Princess

Last time I checked, most surgeons follow the WPATH Standards of Care. (or a variation of it)

Which is not to say that a more restrictive DSM isn't a bad thing, (it is) but I think you are jumping the gun when you claim that getting GRS will be more difficult in the near future (within 2 years) because Zucker and Blanchard are in a work group on it now. (for the DSM-V)
  •  

Jesslee

Quote from: Tink on October 05, 2008, 01:04:03 PM
Perhaps this article may shed some light on the subject?

http://www.exgaywatch.com/wp/2008/05/the-apas-dsm-v-development-kenneth-zuckers-involvement/

tink :icon_chick:


Thanks for the info, Tink.


I think this man should go talk to my father and see if aversion therapy and gender reinforcing activity actually works. I think this is the most ludicrous thing I have ever heard of.


I was raised by a father who was 100% male, there was no room in his family for a boy who did not conform to this. My father would not even let my brother and I play with armymen or other type toys because he said that girls played with dolls.


I was forced to work like an adult from the time I was 11 yrs old, and because I was (still am) small and because I was a white child in predominately black area, I had to act even tougher than most people just so nobody would bother me (picking tomatoes, is not a place to find openminded understanding people).


I lived (on the outside) a very hard male life from this age on, I never even had the ability growing up to crossdress or experiment, I sure did not engage in any "homosexual behavior" which is what Dr. Zucker suggests our true motivation is.


If there is a poster child for the failure or his type of therapy I am. There was no-way he could enforce a male lifestyle any better than my father did, and since that failed (because I have worse feelings today than I did when I was young) I am highly skeptical of the claim that 80% of his patients do not develop TS.


I think most likely that the 80% he claims as success, either never were suffering from TS or are more likely living in misery to this day and are most likely unwilling to ever seek help from the medical community again!
  •  

trannyboy

Zucker and his cohorts can kiss my ass. I have met the man, he is more of an idiot then his coworkers. Read his book "Gender Identity in Childhood and Adolescences". I advocate his immediate dismissal because he is abusing children and they can't stand up for themselves any more then an intersexed infant can choose surgery. If I wanted to transition through a gender program it would of been him destroying my life. As always the DSM will say we are crazy but it hasn't and won't stop me from ignoring them and getting the proper medical treatment for my disorder. Surgeons will always make their own judgment calls no matter what the psychiatrists say.

Where this man is dangerous is getting insurance coverage and for the children being brought to him. I repeat he should be fired and have his license revoked. I have seen his care and it would only worsen dangerous situations. I have never seen him make a good call on a kid and thats who he works with.

->-bleeped-<-boy
  •  

Silk

I am afraid that I cannot give a thoroughgoingly authoritative answer to the question posed in the OP. However, you will find that the more thoroughly educated therapists out there very rarely refer to just one source of information on a subject. They are also a lot better at using their own judgement to resolve complex problems. If real research continues pointing to transsexualism as a legitimate condition, then it should become ever easier to get adequate care through the better therapists out there.

If you're seeing a therapist who follows the DSM-IV like some kind of bible, get out of there, quick. I've had good friends get really messed up from allowing low-budget shrinks to try to treat them for depression, anxiety and other disorders. Never trust a therapist who obviously doesn't know what he's doing. You're better off buying mexican wild yam root by the bottle and doing it all on your own.

Just to stress how important it is to make sure you're getting decent care, let me tell you a little story. If you've been screwed like this before, you're going to love this. One of my husband's employees had to start taking her daughter to a new therapist. They had moved recently and didn't know the area very well, and they didn't have a whole lot of money. They ended up going to a relatively inexpensive professional somewhere in town. This turned out to be a very bad move. In fact, it was an exceptionally dangerous move because her daughter had been suffering from a potentially life-threatening form of anorexia nervosa. Well, what happened was that the quack took her OFF of a medication that had been helping her, and it nearly killed her.

You know what his premise for it was? His reasoning was that it had some risk for abuse. In his words, "Do you really want to give your daughter a drug that is used by drug addicts!?" He was afraid that this woman's daughter was going to start crushing up her meds and snorting them through a straw (this is actually pretty ridiculous because the young woman has otherwise behaved respectably). Well, as a result of this man's closed-minded ignorance, this girl may have died young if it had not been for the excellent healthcare provided at the hospital in town. He was right to be concerned about the chance for substance abuse, yes. What he didn't recall from his lessons, however, was that 1) anorexia nervosa can become lethal, and 2) taking a person off of that type of drug too suddenly can result in a life-threatening rebound, even in a healthy individual. He was a QUACK. She couldn't sue him for malpractice, though, because he was technically acting in accordance to acceptable and mainstream literature.

If you can't afford to see a therapist who has the good sense to ignore the DSM where it conflicts with real science, then keep patiently rolling your pennies until you can afford the care you need. Don't cut corners on your healthcare, particularly if the instutution you intend to entrust yourself to will be handling such an intimate and fragile thing as your mind. Your mind is not a toy.
  •  

Fer

Quote from: goingdown on October 05, 2008, 01:16:00 AM
Because of the power of religious fundamentalist and the Zucker nomination to DSM-V I am asking will it be harder to get SRS in the future? I have still quit a time to wait before I get my recomendations. Using Zucker criters I am not a transsexual. Does that matter more in the future?

From what I've been lead to understand the amount of people that would be eligible for Grs would be greatly reduced.  Only those who are identified as "homosexual transsexual", M2F transsexuals that are sexually attracted to men, would be allowed to move forward. Lesbian, asexual like myself & bisexual transexuals would be painted autogynephilic and be classified as "mentally unstable" for surgery. I think that this will turnout to be a return to the earlier standards for transsexuals for m2f's that means being seen as the perfect Stepford wife. Thank heavens I'm getting my grs in three weeks. ::)
The laws of God, the laws of man, He may keep that will and can; Not I. Let God and man decree Laws for themselves and not for me; And if my ways are not as theirs Let them mind their own affairs. - A. E. Housman
  •  

goingdown

So I am in danger. I have been diagnosed as a transsexual. I have been eaten hormons for a year now. I have spent a lot of money to remove my facial hair that is now quit complite. My hope is that atypical transsexuals as me can get even in the future resomendations from gendertherapists and some surgeons will use their own judgement.
  •  

vanna

My own suspicion is that people in the system will likely get an easier ride but those coming in will suffer more perhaps.

Also the amount of time for this way of looking at TS will vary depending on therapist involved, I know for one that my clinic have no plans to follow this as I have discussed this with my therapist and his team. Unless they throw out the whole SOC I cant see it being as widely affecting as it might seem. I could be way off the mark though and we're all going to burn :(

I identify as lesbian though so im marked as well then.
  •  

goingdown

Vanna, in gender clinic where I go the clear sexual identification is plus despite of what is it. Many patient that have gone faster than me have been lesbians. In case you are a shy girl and believe that sex is only for serious relationships when you are complited you are much more stuck.
  •  

Rachael

Quote from: goingdown on October 05, 2008, 02:54:56 PM
I takes a time to get my surgery recomendations. My best hope is that some SRS-surgeons will continue treating all transsexual and do not fall biased DSM-V criterias. I even dare to hope that because of DSM-V criterias are not objective instead very biased some gendertherapist will continue giving recomendations for all transsexuals.
They will treat all transsexuals even after dsm-V



there will just be less transsexuals
  •  

goingdown

Could they say that I am not a transsexual after 1 year succesful hormone treatment and current formal diagnose?
  •  

Rachael

yep, deffinately, the diagnosis wont hold if the definition changes...
  •  

goingdown

But as I said some therapist and surgeons may continue to treat ''patients that has been diagnosed as transsexuals using the old criteria''. All doctors cannot refuse to treat me. It is irresponsible to make a diagnoses and start body the treatment process and the leave as she-male.
  •  

Rachael

it does depend, what the new criteria are? we wont know, but i doubt they will treat paients who dont qualify as transsexual, they wont treat you now if you arnt transsexual, why would they in the future?
  •  

goingdown

It would be medically irresponsible to make a diagnose and start treatments and then stop them/ do not give chanche to complite them. 
  •