->-bleeped-<-: The Infallible Derogatory Hypothesis, Part 1

[Butterfly]

->-bleeped-<-: The Infallible Derogatory Hypothesis, Part 1


November 10, 2008
by Kelley Winters
www.Gidreform.org


In the Third Edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) in 1980, the American Psychiatric Association explained the reasons for removing the diagnostic category of homosexuality: [1]

"The crucial issue in determining whether or not homosexuality per se should be regarded as a mental disorder is not the etiology of the condition, but its consequences and the definition of mental disorder."  [2]

This marked a significant shift in diagnostic policy toward the consequence of a condition rather than speculation of its cause. Two decades later, the APA discarded this principle by emphasizing the controversial and inflammatory theory of " ->-bleeped-<-" in the supporting text of Gender Identity Disorder diagnosis of the DSM-IV-TR:

"Adult males who are sexually attracted to females, to both males and females, or to neither sex usually report a history of erotic arousal associated with the thought or image of oneself as a woman (termed  ->-bleeped-<-)." [3]

This statement and its supporting literature, that hypothesize sexual deviance as a cause of transsexualism, have sparked dissent among clinicians and researchers and outrage within the transgender and transsexual community [4-8]  While theories around " ->-bleeped-<-" seem exceptionally impervious to contrary evidence, the controversy has raised questions about tolerance and bias in American Psychiatry– at what point do bad stereotypes preclude good science?

[NicholeW.]

While theories around " ->-bleeped-<-" seem exceptionally impervious to contrary evidence, the controversy has raised questions about tolerance and bias in American Psychiatry– at what point do bad stereotypes preclude good science?

The short answer here is that most of the time, outside of work in psychotic disorders, science plays almost no part in diagnoses like this.

When they do get science, like a lot of the work by Bessel van der Kolk and Judy Hermann on PTSD, they dismiss it and act as if the researchers have done everyone a disservice or are insane.

Truth is the Am. Psychiatric Assoc. is becoming more and more disregarded by people who actually work with the clientele.

Nichole