For those who think it's okay for TG to be a mental disorder

[Julie Marie]

Right now transgender persons are considered to have a mental disorder because they are TG.  Right now we are pushing to have ENDA passed including the T.

In the recent ruling on Prop 8 in California, Judge Walker cited a number of reasons why same-sex marriage should be allowed.  On page 76, item 47e it reads:

e. Tr 2027:19-2028:2 (Herek: Homosexuality is not considered a mental disorder. The American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association and other major professional mental health associations have all gone on record affirming that homosexuality is a normal expression of sexuality and that it is not in any way a form of pathology.);

Imagine what the proponents of Prop 8 would have been able to say if homosexuality was still recognized as a mental disorder.  "We are allowing mentally disordered people to marry!"  That alone would have made it an uphill battle. 

Our battle for equality, our battle to end discrimination, are tough enough.  Having TG listed as a mental disorder will only make it that much tougher.

[Sinnyo]

*Nodding*

Thanks for the 'pause for thought', Julie Marie. I've always believed that anything approaching mental disorder was the natural result of emotions brought on by gender dysphoria - basically, quite well removed. But I'd not considered the legal and societal implications of it.. until now, of course!

[Nicky]

My first psych appointment is on Monday, to get the letter for my surgeon. It leaves a bitter taste in my mouth the necessity of it. Someone needs to develop a new assessment for suitability for surgery that does not involve classification as a mental illness.

[Sinnyo]

My first psych appointment is on Monday, to get the letter for my surgeon. It leaves a bitter taste in my mouth the necessity of it. Someone needs to develop a new assessment for suitability for surgery that does not involve classification as a mental illness.

I thought such appointments were always there to rule out mental illness, as I'd have thought a deeper problem would not leave you in a mind sound enough to consider undergoing life-changing procedures. I've already been screened for my own safety, to make sure I'm not at risk of really potent depression, and presumably any chance that my issues about something else have simply been misplaced as gender dysphoria. As far as that sort of check-up is concerned.. I'm kind of glad mental health checks are involved, as it confirms that what I have is not some form of illness.

[Cindy Stephens]

Unfortunately, I think that you have a misperception of what a "mental disorder" is.  From the WIKI, "A mental disorder or mental illness is a psychological or behavioral pattern associated with distress or disability that occurs in an individual and is not a part of normal development or culture".  Certainly, most of us have had distress from being trans and we are most certainly not part of normal development or culture.  I have a number of others; Social anxiety disorder, general anxiety disorder, clinical depression.  Maybe a third of all humans experience a "mental disorder" at some point in their life.  So says the Wiki.  It just isn't a big deal.  YOU feel perfectly fine about it, but they don't.  Maybe some day in my lifetime it will be perfectly accepted.  Hopefully in yours.  But as it is now, an opinion poll asking if transsexuals are "perfectly normal", would, I think, generate a huge no in response.  Saying it shouldn't be is not the same as convincing others that it isn't so.  The perception must be changed first, then there will come a day when everyone looks back and says, "damn, we had some stupid ideas back then"!   It wasn't that long ago that a black and white straight couple walking down the street in any city, north or south, would have been fearing for their safety.  I am old enough to remember those days.  I remember the first black/white kiss on tv, the first black/white relationship presented as just two people.  Look at it now.  It will happen for us. 

[spinaltap]

Unfortunately, I think that you have a misperception of what a "mental disorder" is.  From the WIKI, "A mental disorder or mental illness is a psychological or behavioral pattern associated with distress or disability that occurs in an individual and is not a part of normal development or culture".
Maybe a third of all humans experience a "mental disorder" at some point in their life.  So says the Wiki.  It just isn't a big deal.  YOU feel perfectly fine about it, but they don't. 
The perception must be changed first,

I mostly agree with the poster above me.
it doesn't bother me at all. Is homosexuality a mental disorder? no, but being gay and being a transsexual are a lot different.  and I guess I feel like gender identity disorder belongs in the DSM for diagnostic purposes. there's nothing abnormal, per say, about having a mental disorder, but it's a problem, that when severe enough requires some sort of treatment to prevent harm. in this case the treatment is transitioning. it would certainly be nice if the perception changed, and people viewed the disorder the way they might depression or bipolar or borderline personality disorder, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't remain in the DSM

[rejennyrated]

I don't want to fall out with anyone but I so disagree with those who want to separate gender ID and sexuality completely. Yes they are different, but they both form part of my core identity, my mind. They are both triggered by the grey matter of the brain and not the body. Neither allows my biology to function as intended.

Ergo I am 100% convinced beyond any possibility of debate that IF gender ID is to be classed a mental disorder then so is having an inverted sexual orientation. Sorry but the medical logic involved here is simply indisputable and the only reason why one condition is so designated and the other isn't is because more people suffer from alternate sexual orientation than do alternate gender Identity.

Simply put it would appear to me to be pure prejudice to say otherwise, and I firmly believe it should be called out for what it is. Oh - and before anyone starts, there are plenty of examples of people who are prejudiced against their own kind, so just because someone is trans themselves doesn't mean that they can't exhibit prejudiced thinking towards themselves and others like them. It's quite logical really. If you see yourself as in some way defective then you will tend to also project that perceived defect as a "defect" onto others that have the same attribute.

Well for the record I do not see having a trans past as a defect or something to be ashamed of. It's not a flaw, it's a gift, and actually something I am quite proud of, even if I don't choose to advertise it to everyone I meet.

Calling gender ID a mental disorder whilst maintaining that sexual orientation is not seems simply unacceptably illogical. I will accept either that BOTH are, or than neither is, but not some arbitrary pick and choose where one unusual aspect to the functioning of my brain is regarded as simply a valid lifestyle choice whilst the other is labeled as disordered thinking.

For goodness sake. Just as I am free to choose to mate with someone with whom I will never be able to procreate, so I should also be free to choose what shape and form my body will adopt. It's as simple as that really.

Or it is for me.

[spacial]

The defination of a mental illness that I used, when working in that area, was any reaction to a given situation that caused a problem.

Homosexuality is not a mental illness. But being undualy distressed over it, for any reason, is.

The problem with mental illness is its association with a loss of reason. This loss of reason tends to create fear of loss of liberty.

There was a short horror story which was shown when I was still studying. A man was labeled as mentally ill. His protests were taken as evidence of his lack of insight. His distress was taken as evidence of depression and confusion. His anger was taken as evidence of his agitation and behavioural problems and so on. A number of associates were interviewed and encouraged to express their negative feelings toward this man. Just stop and think very carefully about everything you have done in the last few weeks, every person you've met. It's surprisingly easy to build a pretty convincing and self fulfilling case.

Mental illness is used frequently by politically motivated people. One of the most common is the label paranoia. In the West of Scotland and N Ireland, complaining about the Masons, for example, is generally labeled as paranois. The Masons there have a preverse influence that corrupts so much of society, but complaining about it, at least up to the early 90s was unadvisable.

In western societies, there is a generall acceptance of individualism. Expressing yourself as the opposite sex from your birth is, gradually becoming more accepted. Especially if, in the case of genetic men, you look fairly female. Genetic females, generally have more scope.

Moreover, western society is in a state of flux. Previous certainties, the church, have been dismissed. The last 400 years has seen various attempts to define new certaintities. 17th century, Protestantism, 18th century, capitalism, 19th century, imperialsm, 20th century (up to the 60s), cultural certainties. This has allowed each of us to define our own destinies. Within certain limits, we are able to express ourselves as we choose.

Gradually, mental ilness is being replaced as a means of social control by the notion of intelegence. Disagrement and dispute is said to be an example if limited intelegence. We, as a society must accept even preposterus notions, because these have been determined by experts. If we don't understand, it's because we lack the intelegence. If we openly disagree, it's because we have less intelegence than those who simply lack.

But, if we try to point anything out, that is conspiracy which means paranoia, which is mental illness.

So, there would appear to be some life in the mental illness industry yet.

Oh Woopee!

[Cindy Stephens]

to rejennyrated.
I respect your right to your beliefs, but am having a great deal of trouble following the logic.  I think that the idea of two gay males having sex was, at one time, seen the same way as transsexualism.  It took a while to change that.  One success was having the shear numbers of gays.  People have gay friends.  Most people don't know a transsexual, and never will.  They know what they read, or see on Jerry Springer or Dr. Phil.  It also involves extensive surgery. I believe that that is a big hurdle in peoples minds.  I certainly hope that at some point empathy, compassion and just human kindness will overrule concerning us.  It hasn't yet.  Again I really see the effort at gaining this understanding FIRST, then any mental disorder association will simply fall away and people will be asking themselves how civilized people could ever have thought that.

[Julie Marie]

I contend that if one is okay with TG being a mental disorder they must be prepared for prejudice and discrimination. Society has its prejudices against those it considers mentally disordered.  It's just a fact of life.

The last time I checked on the progress of the new DSM the suggestion is to rename those who are transgender but have not transitioned.  They will remain in the DSM and they will be considered by the "experts" as having a mental disorder. I doubt mainstream society will disagree with them.

Those who HAPPILY transition will no longer be considered mentally disordered but that represents only a small percentage of TG persons.

When it comes to the fight for civil rights, the courts will consider the mental stability of those fighting for their rights.  As long as there is a book that is supported by professionals in the mental health field that says someone has a mental disorder, obtaining those rights will become more difficult if not impossible.

In the Prop8 trial it was important to note that gays and lesbians were not mentally disordered and therefore their desire to wed was the result of sound thinking.  Expert witnesses that are called to testify are usually those who have a degree or some other sort of certification that shows they are well studied in the area they are being called to testify about.  If TG rights were on trial and the experts said "yes, this is a mental disorder" one can only imagine where the opponents of TG rights would take that.  And there are a lot of people out there who don't want to grant TGs ANY rights.

The AMA recognizes medical intervention as a necessary part of the TS condition and has encouraged insurance companies to cover the that.  The new DSM will, it seems, have an "out clause" for happily transitioned TS persons.  It seems the general direction is for the removal of TS from the DSM and to provide medical insurance coverage for at least GRS and HRT.

However, I have not seen any indication that any professional group is changing their stance on the pre-transitional TS, the non-transitional TG or the crossdresser.  They will continue to be mentally disordered.

ENDA was originally going to be presented to Congress without the T in it.  I suspect that was in part because of the mentally disordered status TG has.  TG has a negative stigma and I would think being listed in the DSM plays a big part in that stigma.  And so it goes.

When you look at the L, the G, the B and the T, which one ranks at the top of the list as experiencing the most discrimination?  T wins by a landslide.  In one part of the Prop8 ruling the proponent's witness was asked for evidence to support their contention that "responsible procreation is really at the heart of society's interest in regulating marriage."  Their answer was "you don't have to have evidence of this point."  In other words, it's so obvious to us we don't need evidence.  "Why do you think it's acceptable to fire someone for being transgender?"  Answer: "I think that's obvious!"  And that's the attitude we have to deal with. 

I think the Prop8 ruling is huge if for no other reason than it points out that no majority can vote away the rights of any minority.  That alone is a cause for celebration.  But if that minority is considered by the experts to be mentally disordered, you may want to hold off on celebrating just now.

BTW: I recently loaded Windows 7 on my computer and all the words I saved in the spell check dictionary were erased.  Now, when I type in crossdresser, transgender or any variation of those words, the spell checker doesn't recognize them.  What does that tell you?

[rejennyrated]

It also involves extensive surgery. I believe that that is a big hurdle in peoples minds. 

It seems to me that you have actually followed the logic quite well - and indeed one of the points you make is kind of a clincher really.

Do you think that someone who does not have surgery but instead chooses to suffer the pain is any less trans? Because I don't. Yes I have had surgery. They just haven't acted on the feeling whether through lack of opportunity or whatever, but in all other respects they are as valid as I am.

In the same way someone who is sexually attracted to members of the same sex is gay in orientation, irrespective of whether they choose to act upon it.

In the case of people who do no act upon these desires they remain a hidden attribute of the inner person, ie a part of the mind.

So it is picking and choosing if you say that one disposition represents a disorder, whilst the other does not. Neither is exactly biologically helpful to the individual. Having sex with your own gender will cause you to fail to reproduce - which is after all the biological point of sex - so in that regard it COULD and I emphasise the word COULD be regarded as a disorder.

Similarly having your bits messed about with by a surgeon will similarly prevent successful procreation and hence that too COULD again emphasise the word COULD be regarded as a disorder.

Point is, as you say, people have grown to realise that in the case of someone gay, this simple biological reasoning is flawed. To call it a disorder is insulting to the intelligence and free will of the person involved.

My logic is merely that what works for one condition also applies equally to the other, since in their purest form both are merely mental dispositions.

I must therefore respectfully submit that it remains my considered opinion that the logic is inescapable. NEiTHER condition is a disorder. Both of them are just valid alternative forms of human identity.

[Vanessa_yhvh]

As best I can tell, my therapist is way less inclined than am I to pathologize any aspect of the trans part of my life.

At this point, I don't think she has even jotted down a trans-related diagnosis of any kind. She & the rest of the team down there don't even phrase things the same way I do.

For example, quoted from my "carry letter":

Although born with male anatomy, this patient has consistently demonstrated that her life would be better lived as a woman.  (....) it is essential for her to wear female attire and live life for all intents and purposes as a female, including the use of female-specific facilities such as restrooms in locations where such facilities are gender-specific.  We have several patients in our practice that are making such a transition and it has been quite rewarding to find them happier and more fulfilled with their new gender.

We'll be hashing out some bit of cobweb in my head, and she'll challenge me: "What makes you think that's trans-related? I'm about your age, and I feel the same thing. It's just how you keep from strangling people who desperately need it." (Not a word-for-word quote. heh)

[Julie Marie]

I must therefore respectfully submit that it remains my considered opinion that the logic is inescapable. NEiTHER condition is a disorder. Both of them are just valid alternative forms of human identity.

And as your opinion, in a court of law, it would likely be considered inferior to the opinion of anyone who is degreed, certified or otherwise considered an expert by the courts.  In other words, you can have all the opinions you want but they would matter very little, if you were in court fighting for your civil rights, compared to your opponent(s) expert witnesses' testimony.

[spacial]

Those who HAPPILY transition will no longer be considered mentally disordered but that represents only a small percentage of TG persons.

The utter arrogance and preposterus stupidity of this clearly politically motivated approach is becoming funny.

A perfectly well balanced person, not depressed or anxious, holds down a job ect. not transisioned, is hereby, a loony.

A heed case if you will. Nutty as a fruit cake. Bonkers. Off their rocker.

Why? because it says so in the book and the book was written by experts.

(Anyone know what these guys are expert at??).

Sorry for the cynicism. I'm sure that, as scientists, these people have more right to grace this planet than I do. I am eternallly grateful to them for allowing me to breath.

[rejennyrated]

And as your opinion, in a court of law, it would likely be considered inferior to the opinion of anyone who is degreed, certified or otherwise considered an expert by the courts.  In other words, you can have all the opinions you want but they would matter very little, if you were in court fighting for your civil rights, compared to your opponent(s) expert witnesses' testimony.

Quite so, but of course we are on the same side here Julie. I posted my argument in support of your original post, not against it... at least that was my intention, although it may perhaps not have been as clear as it should have been. I have signed all the petitions and written letters to various people. I totally agree that it should be removed from DSM.

[Julie Marie]

Quite so, but of course we are on the same side here Julie. I posted my argument in support of your original post, not against it... at least that was my intention, although it may perhaps not have been as clear as it should have been. I have signed all the petitions and written letters to various people. I totally agree that it should be removed from DSM.

I understand and I wasn't debating you. I was just using your post to remind everyone that it really doesn't matter what we think when presenting our case in a court of law.  The expert's testimony will always be given more weight.  So it is to the advantage of all for TG to be removed from the DSM.

I realize many TGs think if it is they won't be covered by insurance for their therapy but that simply isn't true.  There are many legitimate reasons for seeing a therapist that insurance will cover.  The "why" you are feeling depressed, anxious, unhappy, etc doesn't matter.

The sooner it is removed from the DSM, the sooner we can begin to advance medical intervention as the acceptable form of treatment.  In time that could mean not only would GRS and HRT be covered but also, in some cases, BA & even FFS.  The intent would be for medical procedures and treatments to result in a happier person and hopefully end the psychological distress.

Of course, if society was as accepting as they are towards people with red hair, most of us wouldn't suffer the effects of prejudice and discrimination.  Though I doubt I'll see that in my lifetime.

[Jeatyn]

I have to be the one to go against the grain here. From a medical standpoint, my body is perfectly fine. It all works...it just doesn't match my mental state. The mind cannot be "fixed" ... so instead you "fix" the body. In that sense, I think it's logical to have it in the DSM. There's nothing wrong with my body in a biological sense and the need to transition comes from the mind.

If not classed as a mental disorder, what would it be classed as? It's not an illness like diabetes or something else physical so there's nowhere else to put it. We require medical help (the ones who choose to transition anyway) so it needs a medical label.

Comparing TG's to homosexuals doesn't work at all, homosexuals don't need treatment of any kind, body...mind, it's all fine the way it is.

There are many different kinds of mental disorder, all perfectly valid and treatable. This disorders treatment is transition. The fact that their are many TG's who cope perfectly fine with their dysphoria and live happy lives in their birth gender proves their are different levels of severity, just like with any other mental disorder.

[Nicky]

I have a problem with it being considered a mental illness. We all know it is not just in the mind. It is not just in our thoughts, but is wired deeper than that, into our very neurology.

I don't want people to say "you are not a woman, you just think you are, you have a mental illness". It just robs my validity as a woman.

Why not call it a physical disorder? I'm a woman, it is not my mind that is wrong but my body. Ok, medically my body is sound, but it is wrong, I was born without a vagina, a vulva, uterus, and ovaries. That is a real physical problem right there. Ar the intersexed considered to have a mental illness? Not at all. Our 'condition' is very much like an intersexed one.

Perhaps it is the stigma of having a mental illness that I don't like. But then I can't escape that anyway considering I suffer from clinical depression.

[Fencesitter]

Wait a moment,

you still have homosexuality (and bisexuality and asexuality or - theoretically - even heterosexuality or God knows what) in the DSM-IV and the ICD-10.

To be more precise, it's called "ego-dystonic sexual orientation" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ego-dystonic_sexual_orientation).

Being gay or bi or whatever is not the issue here, but if you suffer like hell from what you are into and desperately want to have a different orientation. And I think this is okay as a diagnosis, as it may pay your visits to a therapist to get along better with yourself and find out what works best for your life - having gay partnerships or staying abstinent or whatever. I rather want this to stay in the ICD-10 and have people get help than seeing them shoot themselves as they cannot stand being straight  .

So I don't see that much of a problem having TG in the DSM-IV as long as it limits itself to the suffering, not the fact that people are transgendered.

[Cindy Stephens]

Here in the US, with our arcane health care laws, it could at some point become a financial blessing to have it in the DSMV.  A girl in Boston was able to get a deduction for her surgery after a lengthy fight.  I believe that a large part of her argument was that it wasn't simply a "cosmetic" procedure which under American tax law is not deductible, but rather a cure for a medical diagnosis.  I wouldn't want to argue for inclusion based just on this fact, but it is helpful to those who may be in the higher income levels-$20,000 at the 28% tax rate is a tax savings of $5,600.  Once SOCIAL norms include us, It may even make it easier to have it included as part of medical insurance policies. But that isn't what I am arguing. 
    My argument to leave it the way it is at the moment is that it is the one clear, logical, argument against the right wing wacko's-it isn't SIN, it is a birth defect that causes a harmless divergence from the social norm that often produces social "distress" because of the right wing wacko's insistence that Christian "witch-doctoring" can "cure" it. People can understand that, and I think that that is the politically expedient way to social acceptance.  Taking it out of the dsmv does nothing for acceptance.  People, at least in America, will consider you mentally disordered whether it is in there or not.  Then, when people go looking for an explanation of what you are, the wacko priests can fall back on "they are sinners who hate God", kind of a thingy.  If you have a diagnoses of "mental disorder" people have at least some empathy.  "Gee, they can't help it." Empathy begets compassion, and compassion breeds allies.  Don't forget, there are many transsexuals on this board, but in real life we are few and far apart.  We need allies in this fight.  I live in Florida, and for every brave >-bleeped-< willing to speak up, there are a hundred christian priests pointing fingers and yelling, "kill the witch!" I kind of like the idea of a medical professional standing next to me saying,"don' be silly it is just a harmless divergence from the statistical norm, and we have ways of treating it and producing a happy, productive citizen  Now, won't you help us?"  Seems like a more productive way to fight then the "tilting at windmills" some seem to suggest.  I'm just saying.