The Banality of Insensitivity

[Julie Marie]

Rather than studying ->-bleeped-<- scientifically, psychopathology assumes there is something wrong with being transgedered. How does this shape the way transgendered people are misconstrued?

Citation: Wyndzen, M. H. (2004). The banality of insensitivity: portrayals of ->-bleeped-<- in psychopathology. All mixed up: A transgendered psychology professor's perspective on life, the psychology of gender, & "gender identity disorder".

Portrayals of ->-bleeped-<- in Psychopathology
When I usually think of insensitivity, I think of: bullies in school stealing lunch money, whispered gossip on the hallways, exclusion from groups, and so forth. Shockingly, the insensitivity expressed in psychopathology towards ->-bleeped-<- is actually quite similar. It comes in the form of stereotypes, as the imposition of value judgements, as the assumption that ->-bleeped-<- is a problem, and in a 'paternal' way of assuming they 'know what's best' for us. In short, it's a insensitivity so pervasive in psycho-pathology that it starts to appear like a normal, natural thing to do. In what follows I hope I can highlight this insensitivity and, having done so, help all of us become more sensitive in the future.

Stereotyping: "You throw like a girl."
"You throw like a girl!"

"You run like a girl!"

What could be worse???

Imposing Value Judgements: "Something is Wrong with You."
One thing I have noticed is that researchers of GID today are, on the whole, much more careful about appearing to defend gender stereotypes. Still, psycho-pathology continues to label gender identity issues as a "disorder." Using value-laden labels like this is antithetical to science.

Name Calling: "You're 'really' a man."
Psycho-pathologists with an interest in science seem, to me, to share a similar view. When they treat clients they primarily use their intuition even when they have knowledge about the research. There is nothing wrong about having non-scientific beliefs. I do. But what can be disconcerting is how sometimes the language of science, with it's implied objectivity, can be used to advance non-scientific beliefs. It is especially disconcerting to me, as a transsexual, when the belief that some male-to-female transsexuals are 'really' men is advocated as though objective science.

Cynicism: "What are your 'real' motives?"
A widespread cynical belief among clinical psychologists who study "Gender Identity Disorder" and "Transvestic Fetishism" is that transgendered people are deceptive.

Sensitivity or Science: Must We Choose?
...we have to choose between being scientific and being sensitive. This argument is often embedded in the words of scientists who like to promote themselves as "politically incorrect."

Conclusion

It's somewhat surprising to think about the mental health community as so insensitive to their transsexual clients and research participants. Afterall, by their choice of career, they have sought to help transsexuals. Many of them do and it would be a mistake to construe this essay as an attack on the mental health community. Yet, as the above examples illustrate, there is also a great deal of insensitivity embedded in this help. It's an insensitivity that is so commonplace, and so embedded in the way they think, that it is banal. Some GID researchers will describe us as fundamentally our biological sex. They talk about our gender atypicality as something that is wrong with us. In their research, they always seem to look for what is bad about us, never what is good. And when we don't fit the theories of GID researchers, they impugn our motives as a devious part of our 'pathology.' The root of the mental health community's sensitivity for transsexuals is their desire to help. The root of the mental health community's insensitivity for transsexuals is also in their desire to help. In particular, by classifying transsexuality and ->-bleeped-<- as mental illnesses, they make who we are something bad. This is very different from the way they help the gay and lesbian community.

LINK to ARTICLE

[gennee]

Julie, I think it's perception and reality. It's the perception that there is something wrong with us and the reality that we are intelligent, hard working, and productive people. It throws all of the theories out the window. I'm not indicting the mental health profession. I am indicting those who say there's something inherently wrong with us.

The last part you mention really bugs me to no end. Choosing to be who we are is good enough for me. I dislike when trans people are told that we have to choose. Bisexual people face the same dilemma.

Gennee

[juliekins]

I like what she says towards the end of her piece:

"If a man walks into a therapists office very depressed because he is attracted to men, the therapist diagnoses him with depression. Afterall, "depression" is the name of his suffering. The therapist does not diagnose his problem as "homosexuality." Yet when a depressed pre-transition transsexual seeks to transition, they are diagnosed with a label about who they are, "Gender Identity Disorder" rather than a statement about how they are suffering, "depression." This way of labeling transsexuals is more profound that a code-number for insurance. It sets up an entire, insensitive way of viewing ->-bleeped-<-. ->-bleeped-<- becomes viewed as the problem, rather than part of who were are, for better or worse. To begin to understand one another better and to advance our scientific understanding of atypical-gender, I hope the mental health community will remove "Gender Identity Disorder" and "Transvestic Fetishism" from their lists of mental illnesses. "

She also astutely addresses the methodology of Bailey and Blanchard. She makes the point that researchers, and I use that term loosely, impose their own personal biases into the studies and their conclusions. Perhaps, no worse an example is Dr. Kenneth Zucker, who now heads up the GID committee for the DSM-V  revision. I recently read that he has said, in working with children with GID, that we can't accommodate people's delusions. He compared trans people to those seeking to cut off perfectly healthy limbs, or to try and accommodate those who wish to be thought of as inanimate objects. The very fact that the psychological research community has allowed him to chair this committee says much about their view of us as confused, broken and inadequate people.

This research bias is exactly what Madelaine, the author, is taken to task. 

[Fencesitter]

I like what she says towards the end of her piece:

"If a man walks into a therapists office very depressed because he is attracted to men, the therapist diagnoses him with depression. Afterall, "depression" is the name of his suffering. The therapist does not diagnose his problem as "homosexuality." Yet when a depressed pre-transition transsexual seeks to transition, they are diagnosed with a label about who they are, "Gender Identity Disorder" rather than a statement about how they are suffering, "depression." This way of labeling transsexuals is more profound that a code-number for insurance. It sets up an entire, insensitive way of viewing ->-bleeped-<-. ->-bleeped-<- becomes viewed as the problem, rather than part of who were are, for better or worse. To begin to understand one another better and to advance our scientific understanding of atypical-gender, I hope the mental health community will remove "Gender Identity Disorder" and "Transvestic Fetishism" from their lists of mental illnesses. "

She also astutely addresses the methodology of Bailey and Blanchard. She makes the point that researchers, and I use that term loosely, impose their own personal biases into the studies and their conclusions. Perhaps, no worse an example is Dr. Kenneth Zucker, who now heads up the GID committee for the DSM-V  revision. I recently read that he has said, in working with children with GID, that we can't accommodate people's delusions. He compared trans people to those seeking to cut off perfectly healthy limbs, or to try and accommodate those who wish to be thought of as inanimate objects. The very fact that the psychological research community has allowed him to chair this committee says much about their view of us as confused, broken and inadequate people.

This research bias is exactly what Madelaine, the author, is taken to task. 

Very good point of the author. Hell, I even know a couple of transgendered people who just don't suffer much from their mind/soul and body being at odds (how do they manage to do that?).

Plus, I don't understand why "transvestitic fetishism" has its own DSM number. I mean, there are so many fetishes and it's just one of them, if if turns you on wearing women's underwear or dressing like a woman, that's not much different from loving to put yourself into a rubber or leather suit for sexual purposes etc. It would make more sense if they put that together with the other fetishisms.

I think the reason they put extra attention to this phenomenon is that it's considered inappropriate for a guy to embrace anything feminine about himself, even if it's just female attributes for his own sexual pleasure. It's more a question of power relations in the medical industry than anything else. And there's nothing wrong with being a fetishist as long as it does not impair your functioning and your intimate relationships too much.

And I absolutely get the point that if you are depressed cause of homosexuality, you won't get diagnosed with "homosexuality" (that sh*t got removed from the DSM). But if you are depressed cause of gender dysphoria, it gets you either the GID label or both depression + GID label.

[Julie Marie]

I think the reason they put extra attention to this phenomenon is that it's considered inappropriate for a guy to embrace anything feminine about himself, even if it's just female attributes for his own sexual pleasure. It's more a question of power relations in the medical industry than anything else.

Considering Kenneth Zucker, a believer in reparative therapy, also called conversion therapy, was originally named chairman of the DSM-V committee, it isn't hard to understand why GID is considered a separate mental disorder.  Zucker is considered an expert in the field yet he still holds the belief TGs can be made "normal" through therapy, as long as it's treated when the person is young.  After that, he says, you might as well let them just go but they will be in for a very difficult and unhappy life.

This resistance to accepting the factual evidence of modern medicine and psychology is all about conformity, not therapy.  Read his papers and conformity is a common factor in his theories.  Don't focus on the happiness of the individual, only on getting them to conform, as if conformity brings about happiness.