Drafts from the DSM-V workgroup are out and they're continuing to pathologize tr

[Natasha]

Drafts from the DSM-V workgroup are out and they're continuing to pathologize trans people

http://transgroupblog.blogspot.com/2009/04/drafts-from-dsm-v-workgroup-are-out.html
4/27/09

Blanchard proposes keeping the current disagnostic criteria for "transvestic fetishism" -- only now it's a "transvestic disorder," which by definition, according to Blanchard, can only occur among hetero men. (Apparently gay crossdressers and women who crossdress don't exist in his world.) Blanchard would also add two subcategories -- "transvestic disorder with fetishism" and "transvestic disorder with  ->-bleeped-<-" -- based on "unpublished research, which I conducted specifically for the Paraphilias Subworkgroup." [emphasis mine]

[placeholdername]

I'm no expert on this, but wasn't transvestic fetishism 'always sexual' to begin with?  So technically Blanchard's proposal is really just subcategorizing the existing term.  It's not better, but I'm not sure it's 'worse'.  I could easily be missing something though.

[imaz]

If I said what I really think of Blanchard, Bailey, Zucker and their ilk I'd be banned. Pieces of... doesn't even come close.

[sd]

Based on something he will be publishing?

Great, so changes are going to be made based on his personal opinion before anyone else can review the material.

That isn't how this stuff is supposed to work.


Let me build a dam to protect your city out of sticks and twigs. When I'm done, I will publish why it works and why you should trust it.

[NicholeW.]

I'm no expert on this, but wasn't transvestic fetishism 'always sexual' to begin with?  So technically Blanchard's proposal is really just subcategorizing the existing term.  It's not better, but I'm not sure it's 'worse'.  I could easily be missing something though.

I suspect there's a huge political and personal motive and that that's what you're missing. He gets to have "his" terminology raised to a pathology and it will also reinforce his attempts to do away with the "brain sex" model that he, Lawrence, Bailey, Zucker and Dreger are trying to submerge. In spite of the ongoing repeatable results findings for "brain sex."

I understand that there's a certain segment of women with transsexing histories who are all hot to have these definition included and for there to be these listings in the DSM. But they don't believe that any of the definitions apply to themselves, of course.

But to be honest, if they (the APA) make the new pathologies the purposive reason to undermine all of the brain-sex research and to make the BBL model "the" model, then it will likely "catch" pretty much all women and men who transsex or have.

Which will basically also undermine the proposed standards of care by that group of women with transsexing histories. I think they are so driven by animosity for "transgender" that they remain unaware that they will also be pathologized as either homosexual men or autogynephilic men themselves. Those will be the only options left. There is NO "neurological intersex" option that's being delivered.

So, were I part of that particular group of women I would hope that someone gets a clue and makes this plain to them.

But ideology, generally speaking, tends to trump reason, logic and good sense so I expect almost nothing from that group. And nothing from the committee either. These sorts of things are normally "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" professional societies whose work is often as much or more political, social, and remunerative (for themselves) as they are in any way "scientific."

For instance the Blanchard "science" doesn't open itself to the possibility that it is falsifiable. That, as I recall, is one of the basics of scientific method.     

Nichole

[sd]

I won't pretend I know all about their work, other than some basics which I don't agree with, but what all would this mean for someone in transition or looking to transition?


And wasn't a previous edition of the D.S.M. thrown out shortly after release because of how bad it was?

[tekla]

Are you expecting the people who make their bread (and careers) from this to give it up?  You're kidding right?

[placeholdername]

I suspect there's a huge political and personal motive and that that's what you're missing. He gets to have "his" terminology raised to a pathology and it will also reinforce his attempts to do away with the "brain sex" model that he, Lawrence, Bailey, Zucjer and Dreger are trying to submerge. In spite of the ongoing repeatable results findings for "brain sex."

I understand that there's a certain segment of women with transsexing histories who are all hot to have this work and for there to be these listings in the DSM, but to be honest, if they make it the purposive reason is to undermine all of the brain-sex research and to make the BBL model "the" model.

Which will basically also undermine the proposed standards of care as proposed by that group of women with transsexing histories. I think they are so driven by animosity for "transgender" that they remain unaware that they will also be dismissed, actually pathologized, as either homosexual men or autogynephilic men themselves. Those will be the only options left. There is NO "neurological intersex" option that's being delivered.

So, were I part of that particular group of women I would hope that someone gets a clue and makes this plain to them.

But ideology, generally speaking, tends to trump reason, logic and good sense so I expect almost nothing from that group.

Nichole

Okay I see that... definitely hope it doesn't get finalized like that.

[NicholeW.]

Okay I see that... definitely hope it doesn't get finalized like that.

It may well do. The book itself has a lot of useful information when it is used properly as a "non-pathologizing" reference.

The pathology interests come into it, for example, when Dr. Zucker runs his own "reparative therapy" clinic in Toronto and Dr. Blanchard is his mentor and the first chairs the committe and the second is on the committee and some of their cronies and fellow-travelers are "consultants" to the committee, including Bailey, Lawrence and Dreger.

And new pathologies are also helpful to insurance companies that want to maintain a bottom line and to pharmaceutical companies that get to make nice new and expensive drugs to "treat" the problems.

As far as I am aware DSMs of various editions (this will the fifth) have revised editions, but no, none have ever been scrapped in toto.

Nichole

[Natasha]

for the life of me i can't see how this could affect fully transitioned (post-grs) women.  "nooneinparticular" said it, her posts may still be here somewhere, nobody wanted to believe her. why? because ideology, generally speaking, tends to trump reason, logic and good sense.

[NicholeW.]

for the life of me i can't see how this could affect fully transitioned (post-grs) women.  "nooneinparticular" said it, her posts may still be here somewhere, nobody wanted to believe her. why? because ideology, generally speaking, tends to trump reason, logic and good sense.

Really? And how would you expect the next group of "women like you" will get through surgeries while being labelled "homosexual males who are very effeminate," Katia? O, that's right, no concern at all about anyone else and results for them. "I got mine, now deal with it." Right?

Cathryn said that and she claimed to have "inside knowledge" due to a friendship with a member of the APA. Yet, this writing was on the wall from the minute the committees were announced: everyone knew what was gonna happen so I am not seeing that Cathryn was a seeress at all. She was reading the same script laid out for this as was everyone else. So, she has a friend. It didn't take a weatherman to see which way the wind was blowing in the APA.

Does it affect you, prolly not, unless, of course some untoward circumstance makes it affect you when you don't expect it to. Of course you could employ a seeress to avoid that occurrence I suppose.

Sometimes it does feel good to think of one's self as better or unaffected. The terrible truth is that things are often more closely-related and tied together than a first and rather jaundiced glance will allow the jaundiced observer to believe.

This sort of stuff will "affect" all sorts of things, possibly to include those "F"s we manage to currently get after transition is completed with GRS. I mean, a finding of "homosexual male" may make the legislatures think they should rescind their former procedures and adopt new ones, no? And procedural changes, unlike laws, can be made to rescind what was already granted.

Short-sightedness and sophistry do not good sense or reason make. Neither does some atavistic wish not to be "lumped" with others you don't care for.

There are all sorts of convergences; beware where you run across them they might bite when you least expect it.

Nichole

[imaz]

You are certainly right Nichole about the sheer animosity of Blanchard et al. I have often though it borders on the pathological.

[imaz]

i wish i could provide some new info about this but [...], my resources are no longer welcome on this site.

Steady there sister, I don't grass people up...

^edit-quote

[Natasha]

i'm not "grassing" anybody up.

[imaz]

i'm not "grassing" anybody up.

Never said you were, you talked about us 'running to Mamma Susan"!

[Sarah Louise]

I suggest that everyone calms down on the retoric.  Anymore attacks on or against any individual and this topic will be locked.

Sarah L.

[NicholeW.]

The topic is locked for 24 hours to allow cool downs.-- Nichole

Oops, Sarah, sorry, I hadn't seen your warning when I locked the topic. I'll unlock it and let you carry on . I apologize.

Nichole

[transheretic]

Really? And how would you expect the next group of "women like you" will get through surgeries while being labelled "homosexual males who are very effeminate," Katia? O, that's right, no concern at all about anyone else and results for them. "I got mine, now deal with it." Right?

Cathryn said that and she claimed to have "inside knowledge" due to a friendship with a member of the APA. Yet, this writing was on the wall from the minute the committees were announced: everyone knew what was gonna happen so I am not seeing that Cathryn was a seeress at all. She was reading the same script laid out for this as was everyone else. So, she has a friend. It didn't take a weatherman to see which way the wind was blowing in the APA.

Does it affect you, prolly not, unless, of course some untoward circumstance makes it affect you when you don't expect it to. Of course you could employ a seeress to avoid that occurrence I suppose.

Yes, I have a friend with direct access to the "inside" dope.  Yes, I predicted exactly what is happening and although now, in hindsight, you think I wasn't that much of a seer, I was dead on........and I am no happier about it than anyone.  The situation is actually worse than it appears.  Zucker, who was listening to at least some reason before, has dug his heels in big time in response the the highly personal attacks on his credibility and credentials.  The bright side? The DSM and the IDC must compliment each other by mutual agreement and transsexuality (as in classic) is defined in the IDC as a medical condition and with now over 230 different studies confirming the neurological intersexed basis of classic transsexuality, wiggle room has been left intact.  Bottom line, testing will be developed for separating the AGs from the classic transsexuals, it's already in place in psychiatry as specific "markers".

Just as it is much harder these days to finish switching ID to one's gender of identity than it was back in the day when I did it, transition itself will be a longer road.  On the otherhand, it's more possible today to bypass the system than it was then.

None of this had to come to pass, but given the nature of trans people, it was almost, at the same time, a sure thing.  Any work towards gaining civil rights across the board for trans people in general will need to happen well in advance of the first release of the DSM V (prepublication is scheduled for 2011)  After it's out, the ship will have sailed on that........of course you can ignore me on this as well, and most will because I'm an evil bi*ch bent on world domination or whatever.

[imaz]

So let me get this right... We are to be defined by someone who is reacting to personal attacks against himself?

God Bless the APA and their integrity, not.

Someone get Zucker some medication.

[NicholeW.]

None of this had to come to pass, but given the nature of trans people, it was almost, at the same time, a sure thing.  Any work towards gaining civil rights across the board for trans people in general will need to happen well in advance of the first release of the DSM V (prepublication is scheduled for 2011)  After it's out, the ship will have sailed on that........of course you can ignore me on this as well, and most will because I'm an evil bi*ch bent on world domination or whatever.

O, not much of an evil bi*ch at all, Cathy. Just perhaps not as prophetic as one might think. I don't think anyone thought that Blanchard and Zucker were open to amelioration given that their own pet theories and clinical research would have to be revamped if anything ruled out " ->-bleeped-<-."

The "markers" are going to need to be pretty valid, doncha think, or would you imagine that more instances of "what kind of job does he work" will actually be passed as a "marker?"

And the "classic transsexual" is a hyper gay-male, right? I mean how do you have  ->-bleeped-<- and not homosexual transsexuals? The theory and the proceeds from it will follow the same course. Blanchard and Zucker will not want half the presumption left behind, especially not in light of the new guidelines posted the other day at AE Brain indicating that even CAMH has changed the policies in place regarding how to interact with "transgender" folk.

A full vindication will be what these academic people will want, otherwise they may be absurdly unable to use their own doctrines at their own research facility. That would not be good, ya know.

Then the committee will have to actually forward its recommendations and although Zucker will have some major influence on what gets sent to the entire APA he won't have veto authority and substantial disagreement within the committee might still cause something other than the predictions.

Are you suggesting that Zucker's ire at Lynn Conway, Andrea James, etc is causing him to wanna "pathologize" all people with transsexing histories? Hmmm, I can see where his politics might lend itself to doing that, question is, how prone to allowing him to do that will be the entire committee?

And, does one just need to kowtow to what the powerful professor believes so he'll be nice to us, or are there other directions that might be effective to counteract such matters?

Do be aware though, that if "brain sex" is discounted in favor of a whole cloth and un-disproveable, scientifically unsound thought-experiment approach based on sexuality rather than sex that the repercussions might cause some weeping and gnashing of teeth among those whose ideas about themselves are totally founded on the truth of brain-sex.

At the point both prongs of the Blanchard theory become writ in the holy book the "classic transsexuals" are "classic homosexuals" period. Not "born-women" but born men who are gay and either in denial or simply unable to grasp our own homosexuality without transitioning our bodies. Ironic, no?

Nichole