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

[Julie Marie]

Tammy, that's the direction this is going.  But we need to consider that, at this time, most insurances don't cover HRT or GRS.  Mine doesn't because they claim this is a mental disorder and they will gladly pay half of whatever therapy I have and 90% of any hospitalization that results from my mental problem until the day I die.  But they will not cover anything related to what they call "Sex transferral".

The AMA has urged insurance companies to cover GRS and HRT because it categorizes the TS condition as medical.  Many in the mental health community are also on board with this.  It will happen but many of us here might be long gone unless we actively engage in pushing this forward.

Some other readings:
http://www.gidreform.org/
http://www.mindofmodernity.com/not-sick-the-1973-removal-of-homosexuality-from-the-dsm
http://womenborntranssexual.com/2009/09/03/why-gid-must-be-removed-from-the-dsm/
http://www.transgender.org/gidr/
http://www.professionals.gidreform.org/

[Tammy Hope]

perhaps if someone made the case that as a fiduciary matter, they would spend less on the surgery than they would spend on long term therapy and treatment for the side effects (depression et al)?

[Ayaname]

TGs and TSs are uncomfortable in their own skin. Their brains reject their bodies and they feel overwhelmed by what your average person finds comfortable. It's not natural and it doesn't serve any specific purpose. If that's not a mental disorder then I don't know what is. I don't see what the big deal is in admitting it though. It's not like it makes us insane. Some people have mental disorders that cause them to sense things differently than most people. Some have their wires crossed and think foul smelling things are pleasant while sweet smelling things make them hurl. Some listen to Bach but only hear random, off rhythm tones. Some taste nothing but bitterness in sugar... none of these disorders would cause anyone to think any less of these peoples' abilities to reason. The only reason GID falls into another category of mental disorders is because it's so closely tied to sexuality in most peoples' minds. However, in reality they couldn't be further apart, which is what mental problems like transgenderism seem to be evidence of. It's a case of the GID/TS victim(?) having more insight into an area that is more natural to be taken for granted without the disorder. I think the whole "GID is not a mental disorder" stance is only keeping people blind to what it is that we suffer from.

[rejennyrated]

Apologies for slight necrobump here but this morning I was browsing and came across this article http://cjonline.com/news/state/2010-09-01/city_cant_define_gender_identity
which made me think of this thread. In particular one comment in the article seemed to sum up the difficulty and at least partially prove the point which a lot of people have been making in this thread.

Commissioner Bob Strawn is concerned with another definition, though. The American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistics Manual IV defines Gender Identity Disorder as a mental disorder.

Strawn said that he doesn't necessarily think gender identity is the root of a mental disorder, but he's wary because some professionals consider it one.

"I feel strongly that we should not codify discrimination by what professionals call a mental disorder," he said.

Of course in DSM V there is an exit clause in that once we have transitioned and had surgery we can be regarded as cured. However you can bet your bottom dollar that those who would want it to be legal to discriminate against us would not accept such an idea.  They would doubtless maintain once trans always trans, which is why this kind of argument is so worrisome.

[Julie Marie]

Jenny, thanks for the link.  I just read the article and over half the responses.  Anyone wanting to get a feel for how middle America feels about us should read the responses.  There are some very positive ones and some very negative ones.  From this girl's perspective, it seems the positive ones are rather intelligently written.  Not so much with the negative ones.

Example
Submitted by AdAstraKS on Wed, 09/01/2010 - 1:52pm.

You put your rental property up for rent. A person wearing a beard and a dress shows up to tour your property, introducing themsleves as Jennifer. You decline the offer to rent. Jennifer sues claiming her(his) right to self-gender identification led to being discriminated against...

That is what Manhattan is talking about.

Cateluv, if you own
Submitted by smellmyfinger on Wed, 09/01/2010 - 2:42pm.

Cateluv, if you own property, do you have to rent to anyone? No. You can make choices based on non-protected criteria. Don't want to rent to a biker, don't have to. Don't want to rent to someone you think is creepy, don't have to. You can't discriminate based on race, sex, skin color, religion, national origin, etc. If someone doesn't want to rent to a crossdresser, they don't have to, but Manhattan is trying to change that. Do you understand any of this issue? If you can't see both sides, you're kind of a moron honestly.

If you want social equality it will be a lot tougher to achieve if stigmatized.

I think I have as much right
Submitted by Nunyabiz1 on Thu, 09/02/2010 - 6:27am.

I think I have as much right to NOT rent to bearded "Jennifer" as I do to not rent to a wild-eyed toothless wifebeater-shirt-wearing Jim-Bob who has a Pabst in one hand, driving up in his rusted-out 4-wheel-drive Chevy pickup with his barefoot wife sidled up next to him, and 6 kids in the back.

Or, will that start a push for protected status for meth-head rednecks?

My property. My choice. Keep out of my business. If I want to rent to he/she, I will. If I don't want to, I won't. Fix the streets, do something to free people up to create jobs, catch criminals...and stay the %#%& out of my personal business.

[Cruelladeville]

A key underlying issue with this....for me comes down to quality work prospects and the chance of regaining serious money graded jobs....once your transitions is many years past – history in fact......

i.e. You're successfully through the GID programme, now a lovely smart woman living a completely normal life ala femme, you're Bsc/MA qualified..  have shown real stability with behaviour for years....so apply for senior grade jobs in the current double-dip depression market, and though you're more than a match and meet all the criteria, tick boxes and all the relevant experience required...

However as your very honest, you state quite openly on your CV that you've been a man and transitioned some years back...?

And this blatantly honest CV hits the blue-chip HR dept desk where all the other applications go to be graded (and out there its well known and clearly defined and accepted that as a bunch of peeps we TS folk are all mentally ill!!)

So what are your 'real' odds then of making the short-list interview selection....?

Now do you get the 'difficulty' that we all have to accept with such denigrating labelling...?

(Well that's a problem, I don't accept, and is why my CV doesn't mention at all my career or life pre 1989)

(And all my first-rate references only relate to me as a woman)

[rejennyrated]

A key underlying issue with this....for me comes down to quality work prospects and the chance of regaining serious money graded jobs....once your transitions is many years past – history in fact......

i.e. You're successfully through the GID programme, now a lovely smart woman living a completely normal life ala femme, you're Bsc/MA qualified..  have shown real stability with behaviour for years....so apply for senior grade jobs in the current double-dip depression market, and though you're more than a match and meet all the criteria, tick boxes and all the relevant experience required...

However as your very honest, you state quite openly on your CV that you've been a man and transitioned some years back...?

And this blatantly honest CV hits the blue-chip HR dept desk where all the other applications go to be graded (and out there its well known and clearly defined and accepted that as a bunch of peeps we TS folk are all mentally ill!!)

So what are your 'real' odds then of making the short-list interview selection....?

Now do you get the 'difficulty' that we all have to accept with such denigrating labelling...?

(Well that's a problem, I don't accept, and is why my CV doesn't mention at all my career or life pre 1989)

(And all my first-rate references only relate to me as a woman)

Hey I resemble those remarks

Which is why I operate a mixed mode in my life. As far as social circles are concerned I will be honest, if asked about my past. As far as work is concerned I remain very quiet about it all.

I am not actually formally in stealth but I make no mention of it on my CV, my references make no mention of it and I do not volunteer any information, precisely because I got utterly sick of being turned down for jobs where in one case at least I could PROVE that I was better qualified for than any other candidate, wholly and solely due to misplaced honesty and certain corporate HR people explaining to me "well our corporate policy will not allow us to employ a person with what we view as a potential history of mental instability"

And in my case it all happened nearly 30 years ago for God's sake, almost before I started work. But I know from conversations that I have had, that even now, IF I were to mention it, there are many employers out there who would still treat something which happened 30 years ago, as relevant!

[Sarah B]

That's why I never ever open my mouth.  I never say anything to any one period about my previous life.  One its none of their business and two by saying nothing, I eliminate all the 'discrimination' and other problems associated with my change.  I have only revealed my personal life 6 times over a period of twenty years and some of those times I should not have, but I live and learn.

Yes, by saying nothing I have to tell lies, for example 'when I was little girl', or 'I went to a girls boarding school', I would rather put up with telling lies than having to deal with any ramifications of people knowing about me and treating me completely different from other females.  Yes there are some wonderful people out there that would be totally understanding of my situation and others.

So why in the hell would I want to be labeled with 'mentally ill' across my forehead as well and be 'discriminated' even further?  So that is why all my past papers and pictures do not exist and I never ever will tell anyone about my past unless it is a doctor or a long time partner.

Kind regards
Sarah B

[Cowboi]

Tammy, that's the direction this is going.  But we need to consider that, at this time, most insurances don't cover HRT or GRS.  Mine doesn't because they claim this is a mental disorder and they will gladly pay half of whatever therapy I have and 90% of any hospitalization that results from my mental problem until the day I die.  But they will not cover anything related to what they call "Sex transferral".

The AMA has urged insurance companies to cover GRS and HRT because it categorizes the TS condition as medical.  Many in the mental health community are also on board with this.  It will happen but many of us here might be long gone unless we actively engage in pushing this forward.

This is my hope too, that it will be seen as a physical condition as opposed to a mental one. I see and understand WHY they consider it a mental disorder and with the crazy definitions we have of mental disorders, it is to vaguely defined imo.

I think there is a lot more political standing in it being seen as medical/physical in nature because it gives us more opportunity to push for health care coverage and in some cases political rights too. The American people tend to be more friendly towards those of us they see as "disabled" due to physical medical issues when it comes to protecting us from hate and discrimination (certainly in social situations this is not the case).

I do agree with them considering those who have undergone a SRS and HRT cured though. This is purely based on my experience with being bipolar. There is a different between my being bipolar and my being transsexual. Having SRS and undergoing HRT will relieve the negative symptoms of transsexualism like depression and dysphoria in my opinion, with those things gone I no longer feel "ill" in any way. It no longer is something that prevents me from living my life happily. However I will always have to take medication for being bipolar. Without medication I cannot function in a normal way and would honestly be a good candidate to be classified as disabled legally. I know we have to do HRT for our entire lives but I don't see that as being the same, I think I see the two differently though because I feel one is a physical illness and the other is a mental illness.

It's different needing insulin than it is needing medication for a mental illness. One is like a physical upkeep or follow up designed to prevent our body from crashing or functioning improperly while the other is designed to create normal mental function, I would not have a physical body reaction to not being medicated for bipolar disorder, I would only have a mental one and while I do see the chemicals in my brain as being a physical function these particular ones don't create a body disorder or illness.

I don't even know if that made sense... I kind of got lost in what I was trying to say there. As my english teacher once told me, "The point of the paragraph was lost in the sentences." I have a special talent for talking in circles and then forgetting my actual point, it usually leads to vain attempts at making my point after having forgotten what it even was.

[Arch]

Tammy, that's the direction this is going.  But we need to consider that, at this time, most insurances don't cover HRT or GRS.  Mine doesn't because they claim this is a mental disorder and they will gladly pay half of whatever therapy I have and 90% of any hospitalization that results from my mental problem until the day I die.  But they will not cover anything related to what they call "Sex transferral".

Actually, it sounds like you're "lucky" (I use that word reservedly) compared to me and a lot of other folks. My insurance classifies GID as a mental problem and won't cover anything transition-related. But once GID or something like it is reported to them, they STOP covering the therapy.

Fu**wads. You cannot have it both ways...and yet they do.

[glendagladwitch]

I don't think it should be necessary to have TG classified as a mental disorder to get medical coverage.  Therapy can certainly get coverage using the same code they use for anyone dealing with stress, just like therapists still treat people who are gay for coming out issues, despite homosexuality being removed from the DSM decades ago.  And having it in there as a mental disorder hasn't resulted in insurance companies covering surgery.  What's the benefit supposed to be?

[Julie Marie]

Actually, it sounds like you're "lucky" (I use that word reservedly) compared to me and a lot of other folks. My insurance classifies GID as a mental problem and won't cover anything transition-related. But once GID or something like it is reported to them, they STOP covering the therapy.

Fu**wads. You cannot have it both ways...and yet they do.

I've never heard of any insurance not covering GID... until now.  The general idea is therapy will CURE you and then they won't have to worry about "you people" anymore. 

With enough brainwashing and social punishment anyone can have a "normal" life.  It's easy! 

[Fencesitter]

With enough brainwashing and social punishment anyone can have a "normal" life.  It's easy!  [/color][/font]

Hilarious!
May I use this as my signature? I'll write behind it that it came from you

[Julie Marie]

May I use this as my signature? I'll write behind it that it came from you

By all means.   

[Cowboi]

I don't think it should be necessary to have TG classified as a mental disorder to get medical coverage.  Therapy can certainly get coverage using the same code they use for anyone dealing with stress, just like therapists still treat people who are gay for coming out issues, despite homosexuality being removed from the DSM decades ago.  And having it in there as a mental disorder hasn't resulted in insurance companies covering surgery.  What's the benefit supposed to be?

No, but having it listed as a medical disorder rather than a mental one could result in getting insurance companies to cover surgeries. It is harder to convince them that one thing can be both a physical and mental disorder.

[Julie Marie]

The American Medical Association has publicly urged insurance companies to cover hormones and GRS.  The American Psychiatric Association has publicly stated it feels GID needs to be removed from the DSM. 

So far the insurance companies aren't listening.  I guess that means further "encouragement" needs to be applied.  The DSM-V committee has drafted some changes that will remove GID but in it's place will be "gender incongruence".  So they will still list some forms of gender related dysphoria in the DSM.  I'm not sure that's progress.

[Sarah B]

Hi Julie Marie

You said in your previous post:

The American Medical Association has publicly urged insurance companies to cover hormones and GRS.  The American Psychiatric Association has publicly stated it feels GID needs to be removed from the DSM.

I have had a quick look on Google and have not found any reference yet, Its early morning where I am, so I will not be able to look again until much later and my beautiful work is calling me.  Do you have a link for the "The American Psychiatric Association has publicly stated it feels GID needs to be removed from the DSM"? or source for this?

I would have thought that a statement such as this would be more widely known among our 'circles'.  Especially coming from the APA.

Kind regards
Sarah B

[Cowboi]

I don't have a reference (and am honestly too lazy to look for one right now) but I can second the statement about the AMA saying insurance should cover it. It was something that came up in our local trans groups email conversations a few months back and I know that it was linked to several references, it's just been so long and I don't commonly keep things like that.

I have never heard about the APA stance, but then again sometimes I'm shocked at the things that don't make it around the circuit.

[Northern Star Girl]

@Sarah B
Dear Sarah...
Thank you for posting in this thread  ..  14 years ago !!!!
It is very, very, true today.
HUGS, Danielle

[Allie Jayne]

Hi Julie Marie

You said in your previous post:

I have had a quick look on Google and have not found any reference yet, Its early morning where I am, so I will not be able to look again until much later and my beautiful work is calling me.  Do you have a link for the "The American Psychiatric Association has publicly stated it feels GID needs to be removed from the DSM"? or source for this?

I would have thought that a statement such as this would be more widely known among our 'circles'.  Especially coming from the APA.

Kind regards
Sarah B

This from link below:
The American Psychiatric Association has revised its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders and it no longer lists being transgender as a mental disorder, among other changes announced this past weekend.

Transgender people will now be diagnosed with "gender dysphoria," which means emotional stress related to gender identity. "Gender identity disorder" had been listed as a mental disorder since the third edition of the DSM more than 20 years ago.

https://nicic.gov/weblink/being-transgender-no-longer-mental-disorder-apa-2012

Hugs,

Allie