QuoteI originally wrote this reply last night, before I went to bed. I woke about 1am with the thought on my mind that I had possibly been unduly blunt risking alarm rather than discussion. Since I couldn't sleep with that on my mind and was too tired to re-write it then, I decided to delete it and repost, with revisions, this morning.
I apologise for this and for last night's effort.
The inclusion in the DSM is needed so Americans can have any hope of claiming the costs on their medical insurance.
But the inclusion means you run the risk of being recommend for inpatient treatment in a psychiatric hospital.
I'm wondering if you are playing a dangerous game here. The 5th edition is due out in 2012. The same year as your election which seems likely to have someone of the ilk of Palen elected.
Playing with such dangerous people seems to me to be a hell of a risk. Especially when insurance companies might decide it's cheaper to lock people in psychiatric hospitals than pay for reassignment surgery.
The second point is that, there are, seemingly educated, trained professionals who take very different attitudes to the same issue. Both appear very certain of their positions. Since the positions cannot both be right, either, one is wrong, or the positions are based upon their subjective judgements and not upon any scientific justifications.
If it is the latter, then trusting your very liberty, not to mention your brains to such people seems an incredable risk.
Especially with the very real possibility of the likes of Zuckerman and a Palen type taking some of the most senior positions in American society.
I wonder if anyone has any observations here?
