Transvestic Disorder, the Overlooked Anti-Trans Diagnosis in the DSM-5

[Kate Thomas]

http://gidreform.wordpress.com/2011/05/26/transvestic-disorder-the-overlooked-anti-trans-diagnosis-in-the-dsm-5/

Kelley Winters, Ph.D.
GID Reform Advocates
[url=http://www.gidreform.org]www.gidreform.org[/url]
kelley@gidreform.org
On May 5th, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) released a second round of proposed diagnostic criteria for the 5th Edition of The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5). These include two diagnostic categories that impact the trans communities, Gender Dysphoria (formerly Gender Identity Disorder, or GID) and Transvestic Disorder (Formerly Transvestic Fetishism). While GID has received a great deal of attention in the press and from GLBTQ advocates, the second Transvestic category is too often overlooked. This is unfortunate, because the Transvestic Disorder diagnosis is designed to punish social and sexual gender nonconformity and enforce binary stereotypes of assigned birth sex. It plays no role in enabling access to medical transition care, for those who need it, and is frequently cited when care is denied (Winters 2010). I urge all trans community members, friends, care providers and allies to call for the removal of this punitive and scientifically unfounded diagnosis from the DSM-5. The current period for public comment to the APA ends June 15.
Like its predecessor, Transvestic Fetishism, in the current DSM, Transvestic Disorder is authored by Dr. Ray Blanchard, of the Toronto Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH, formerly known as the Clarke Institute). Blanchard has drawn outrage from the transcommunity for his defamatory theory of  ->-bleeped-<-, asserting that all transsexual women who are not exclusively attracted to males are motivated to transition by self-obsessed sexual fetishism (Winters 2008A). He is canonizing this harmful stereotype of transsexual women in the DSM-5 by adding an  ->-bleeped-<- specifier to the Transvestic Fetishism diagnosis (APA 2011) . Worse yet, Blanchard has broadly expanded the diagnosis to implicate gender nonconforming people of all sexes and all sexual orientations, even inventing an autoandrophilia specifier to smear transsexual men. Most recently, he has added an "In Remission" specifier to preclude the possibility of exit from diagnosis. Like a roach motel, there may be no way out of the Transvestic Disorder diagnosis, once ensnared.

[JulyaOrina]

Here are some additional links that will aid in defeating the proposed revision of Transvestic Disorder that will effect us all  (and yes, it has the real potential to derail many pre-op transitions if the therapist so chooses...).

http://www.gidreform.org/blog2010Oct15.html

http://www.dsm5.org/ProposedRevision/Pages/Default.aspx

http://dsm.ifge.org/petition

Please sign the petition the last link) so that those who do, or have cross-dressed aren't marginalized by the latest revision and categorized as a sexual perversion...

[leflauren678]

I know that I'm known for being outspoken both here and in my local group, but I feel that cross-dressing is an abnormal fetish and should be in the DSM as a psychological disorder. However, I DON'T believe that gender identity disorder should you be in the DSM. I know that there are truly TRANSgendered ( ->-bleeped-<- in Blanchard's terms), but from my experiences most people with GID haven't "always wanted to be a woman" (allow me to limit this to MtF to keep this simple) but rather from a very early age "thought they were a girl". I don't see myself as Transgendered, but rather as having a birth defect that caused the improper masculinization of my genitals, leading to the masculinization of my body at puberty. I see my extra appendage no differently than a sixth finger, however those children receive corrective surgery without years of therapy (and therapy bills) to make sure that they don't feel attached to their finger. I understand that there is a need to separate those with  ->-bleeped-<- and those with true GID, and make sure that the former undergo significant counseling before surgery, however when most of us fall into the latter group, it is an unfair burden on us. Also, I'm not saying that we don't need therapy, most everyone in this country could benefit from therapy, and the social implications alone warrant counseling support, but mandating the amount of that support, and the type of support (professional vs. peer-group) is what I take issue with.

I will note that my local group is almost unanimously opposed to my view of GID as a birth defect, but I believe that if we present as a unified front that this is not a psychological disorder but a physical birth defect, we will get a lot further in winning acceptance.

-Lef