Susan's Place Transgender Resources

Hello,

So I'm writing a research study proposal for a class. As such, this study is 100% pretend, imaginary, fake, NOT REAL.

But here is what I was thinking, and I just wanted to collect some varying/supporting opinions: what if instead of the usual WPATH hoops to jump through to qualify for surgery there was a hospital that admitted patients seeking GRS, or even just hormonal access, to psychiatric hospitalization. After successful evaluation and completion—and once the diagnosis of GID could be confirmed—the patient would be allowed to proceed with sex-transformation treatment. In fact, the patient would be offered treatment as though it were as simple as changing medicines or being administered ECT. 

In such a study, the independent variable would be the length of psychiatric hospitalization prior to sex-transformation services: ranging from 0 hours all the way to 168 hours with partial hospitalization and 72 hospitalization in-between. This variable would be undisclosed to participants with those randomly choosen for 0 hours held to WPATH standards. The dependent variable would be patient satisfaction/if they choose or were considered eligible for sex-transformative treatment after psychiatric hospitalization. Patient satisfaction would be determined by post-op surveys given 6 months, 12 months, and 24 months after treatment.

With such a study, there would be grant funding and all services would be provided free of charge to consenting and complient participants. I think such a study would be beneficial as it would give patients suffering from GID a safe and secure place to discuss and work through some of the major issues they are experiencing. It would give them the chance to develop a treatment plan that meets their needs and to do so in a medical setting with skilled and experienced doctors. Also, there are those people who GRS is perhaps the worst thing they could be allowed to do. With mandatory evaluation prior to services, perhaps these individuals could be spotted and offered a different treatment plan.

Again, this is all imaginary. Resources are scare, yadayada, such a program would never work, yadayada, but that's not the point of this assignment. The point is to write a hypothetical medical research grant proposal. 

I want opinions based on what I've provided. Would you participate in such a program? What are the pros? The cons? Can you identify any possible flaws or problems with this idea?

well, to honest I already have found easy access to extremely excellent  profession care and HRT without any stipulations and with Medicaid my treatment and even GRS is free or will be in the near future. I know I am extremely fortunate , but it already exists. As a side note if your studying to be a psychiatrist or other health care professional , I'd like to say that ECT is a barbaric form of treatment, not to be taken offensively , but I have a very strong opinion of ECT.

I thought that the only purpose Electroconvulsive Therapy still served was in attempting to nullify Epileptic fits and seizures, like severing the connections between hemispheres of the brain.

Never in a million years would I participate, recommend, or condone such a system. Psychiatric hospitalizations are for tier one diagnoses. GID is not tier one. In any given day those facilities are populated by people with schizophrenia, psychosis, bipolar disorder. Seriously Ill people. Besides the strain of spending your day associating with very ill people at a time when they are vulnerable and symptomatic, such a system would stigmatize a population, us, whon do not need to be further stigmatized. It would also take beds in facilities already overstrained to meet the needs of the people who currently need them and subject us to medical professionals in an environment where they are inclined to look for the quick fix.

Don't think that I fear, disrespect, or dislike the mentally ill. I spend 40 or more hours per week in their company. Some of them are transgendered in addition to their illness. Some, many, of my colleagues treat anything out of the norm with them as pathology. It's very hard to be GLBTQ and mentally ill, we don't need people equating the two again. We just won that battle.

ECT is also used to reduce the impact of traumatic memories.

Quote from: Dee Walker on July 06, 2014, 08:10:11 PM
ECT is also used to reduce the impact of traumatic memories.

I can definitely understand the use for wiping out memory

The public at large would never approve funding for this project.  :)

It is the old question if you could take a pill would you? That is one question most therapist ask there GD clients.

If only life was that easy we would not have cancers, health issues and other mental disorders

Only thing is science can never guarantee anything past 99%

My question i asked if there is a pill then what is the cause?

Isabell

Quote from: mind is quiet now on July 06, 2014, 09:00:38 PM
My question i asked if there is a pill then what is the cause?

That blew my mind! you rock Sis!! :eusa_clap:

Wouldn't the study require a control group?  What happens to them?

Is there some sort of placebo hospitalization that could never result in a change?

Ok, my gut level reaction was "heck no!". But skipping my own emotional response for a moment...

why would you want to isolate transgender folks from the general population? As much of the challenge of transition is dealing with society, work/school, loved ones, etc wouldn't hospitalization miss the point to a degree? often times, isn't the most support needed when you are learning how to interact with others through the time of transition? you wouldn't get that in a hospital setting.

perhaps, for the sake of your argument a partial hospitalization program would make more sense but I still don't really see the benefit. I also wondered about what Randi asked.

That is one crazy proposal! Ect for trans issues? Sounds 1950s! I did a mental health qualification in the UK recently and it can still be used for extreme depression. 

Basically, it depends where you are conducting the study. In the UK it would need to be ran through a research and ethics council and I don't think it would get through as,  to me your study just isn't ethical!  Besides,  it seems to be approaching trans issues from a dated perspective that it is a disorder,  when it is I believe listed as a condition and your treatment of Ect is not established as being effective and has very high risks. We are not crazies that you lock up and electrocute! Psychiatric hospitalisation is for those who cannot function in public.  Personally I would find a real life implementation of your idea offensive and dangerous. 

Kira x

Well, apart of ECT (at least I hope so), this is the system we have here. No GICs, no gender therapists, nothing. If You want to be diagnosed F64.0 then You must apply to the psychiatric hospital (which is a closed type medical institution which deals with mental disorders and drug addicts) and undergo an interdisciplinary examination. I have no idea if You are allowed to leave the premises before they take decision on You, but this kind of attitude just made me to rebel, but since I could not anything I just circumvented the system. Plus, You have to pay the costs and once diagnosed, You just get a paper and can start scratch Your funding for next steps - endo, HRT, lab tests, SRS etc etc etc.  Maybe we will be able to change this system, but IMO, ICD needs to be updated and F64.0 taken out of its psychiatric section before we could argue that psychiatrists should have no saying over this.

Quote from: Falconer on July 06, 2014, 08:03:00 PM
I thought that the only purpose Electroconvulsive Therapy still served was in attempting to nullify Epileptic fits and seizures, like severing the connections between hemispheres of the brain.

No!!!! Trust me if that was the case you wouldn't get me anywhere near a hospital. It can be hard enough getting me to go to hospital now after a seizure, add that and THERE WOULD NOT BE A NEUROPHYSIOLOGY WARD STANDING after I was done

<calm blue ocean, calm blue ocean Tidal Wave>

The problem with your proposal is your are missing a key part called 'real life experience'. We are all not cookies cut from a mould we all have different levels of dysphoria. Some need GRS some HRT is enough, but I could probably assume we all wish to blend in and disappear into what ever social network we choose. Now visits to doctors and hospitals are sometimes not so easy to cover up as 'everything is okay here folks nothing to see here move along'. A regular extended stay that can be near impossible, adding additional unwanted stress to people who want to remain as stealth as possible.  How are they going to cope with the extra stress, one or two visits you could MAY be able to write of as a anxiety attack but it can attract another stigma you don't need with more pressure that goes with. Why would you want to transition when even tho you need to the path one must take, is worse than the road they are on now.

Yes this is for a class project but by Cthlulu I hope this never becomes a reality

Quote from: Rena-san on July 06, 2014, 07:22:16 PM
Hello,

So I'm writing a research study proposal for a class. As such, this study is 100% pretend, imaginary, fake, NOT REAL.

But here is what I was thinking, and I just wanted to collect some varying/supporting opinions: what if instead of the usual WPATH hoops to jump through to qualify for surgery there was a hospital that admitted patients seeking GRS, or even just hormonal access, to psychiatric hospitalization. After successful evaluation and completion—and once the diagnosis of GID could be confirmed—the patient would be allowed to proceed with sex-transformation treatment. In fact, the patient would be offered treatment as though it were as simple as changing medicines or being administered ECT. 

In such a study, the independent variable would be the length of psychiatric hospitalization prior to sex-transformation services: ranging from 0 hours all the way to 168 hours with partial hospitalization and 72 hospitalization in-between. This variable would be undisclosed to participants with those randomly choosen for 0 hours held to WPATH standards. The dependent variable would be patient satisfaction/if they choose or were considered eligible for sex-transformative treatment after psychiatric hospitalization. Patient satisfaction would be determined by post-op surveys given 6 months, 12 months, and 24 months after treatment.

With such a study, there would be grant funding and all services would be provided free of charge to consenting and complient participants. I think such a study would be beneficial as it would give patients suffering from GID a safe and secure place to discuss and work through some of the major issues they are experiencing. It would give them the chance to develop a treatment plan that meets their needs and to do so in a medical setting with skilled and experienced doctors. Also, there are those people who GRS is perhaps the worst thing they could be allowed to do. With mandatory evaluation prior to services, perhaps these individuals could be spotted and offered a different treatment plan.

Again, this is all imaginary. Resources are scare, yadayada, such a program would never work, yadayada, but that's not the point of this assignment. The point is to write a hypothetical medical research grant proposal. 

I want opinions based on what I've provided. Would you participate in such a program? What are the pros? The cons? Can you identify any possible flaws or problems with this idea?

if I may ask , are you part of the trans community or just a student searching the web. No offense just curious.

I could be taking this wrong , but it sounds like your proposing institutionalizing transgenders or those who think or behave as transgender then arbitrarily deciding first of all who gets treated. The chosen and the ones who get sugar pills are then indeterminately institutionalized to be subjected to a small group of psychiatrists who will determine whether or not you  get GRS. Which seems to be the intended cure offered for free with no gradient of options. It seems like herding the cattle in to the slaughter house and diverting the diseased cattle to one pen and the healthy to another with a small group of over seers determining who's healthy and who's not by an arbitrary rule defining health. Please this is not intended to be anything other then my opinion of what your proposing . I might be completely misunderstanding your proposal and if I am  truly sorry for misunderstanding.

There are parts of your proposal which I actually like and could agree with. I have actually gone into a voluntary inpatient psych ward on three different occasions all of them occuring over a six month period and each being about 2 weeks in duration. When I first started going in it was in regards to severe clinical depression and suicidal ideation/ attempts as I was able to clinicians there it slowly came out that the reason behind this was gender dysphoria which I had been repressing since an early age. The people I met there were some of the nicest I have ever met they were sick, knew it and were there to get help. My experience was that thee most help you receive is not from the clinician but the group therapy sessions and your daily interactions with other patients. In regards to your plan I would support the hospitalization idea for the initial diagnosis but then outpatient treatment for everything else.

As far as ECT goes it has come a long way from the 50's and is considered an effective treatment for seizures, PTSD, and severe depression in cases where antidepressants have not worked. ECT works by causing a grand mal seizure in the brain causing the brain to rewire certain neurological pathways. This can cause temporary short term memory loss and mobility problems. I have met several people who had received the treatment and were undergoing the treatment and they all said that it gave them their lives back. Ect is not for everyone but for those who do need it it is a miracle.

A) I think switching to a method involving psychiatric hospitalization undermines the fact the field of psychology no longer deems GD as a psychiatric disorder.

B) HRT is a slow process requiring years to work and thus would be impractical to ask people that can fully function in society to remove themselves for years and can be problematic upon returning to society after such an absence.

Quote from: Colleen♡Callie on July 07, 2014, 10:36:10 AM
A) I think switching to a method involving psychiatric hospitalization undermines the fact the field of psychology no longer deems GD as a psychiatric disorder.

B) HRT is a slow process requiring years to work and thus would be impractical to ask people that can fully function in society to remove themselves for years and can be problematic upon returning to society after such an absence.

that's what I thought was being proposed

My experience with psychiatric hospitals tells me that this is a horrible idea. I've been hospitalized twice in the last two months due to suicide attempts and there are some seriously ill people in these places. It was downright frightening. It was traumatizing. I think it was an extreme environment for me, a person declared a danger to self and others, to be placed in. Placing someone suffering from Gender Dysphoria in one of these facilities would do far more harm than good.

Quote from: Jessica Merriman on July 06, 2014, 08:55:30 PM
The public at large would never approve funding for this project.  :)

This is just really a narrow-sighted answer, and does nothing for the question, or the possibilities. While the public has had a lot to do with promoting various health and sciences research, all the way from cancer research down to orphan drug studies, it has little to do with limiting research that special interests or people in certain political positions have want, or how that research is conducted.

I understand that ECT was used as a figure of speech to show the black and white of the proposed hypothetical treatment plan - obviously not endorsed, or offered as any kind of option for anything.

Rena-san - Are you sure your class project isn't instead to gauge people's reaction to this proposal?

Personally, I think it's a really good idea. The professionals who provided treatment would not be the proponents of auto-gyna-whatever-it's-called, Freudian proponents,  or dim-witted shrinks with a diplomas hanging on their walls, salivating and just waiting for a trans person to walk through their door.

Of course, there would be trans types who would have to be brought in kicking and screaming, but lots of people who are brought into psych wards fit this category - they just don't know or want what's best for them (so, yes, if they go more than half way, 84 hours, SRS should be mandatory). It think also that a mandatory outpatient release group home that could provide reintroduction into the real world would be beneficial. Agree with... probably it would be better to call it something other than psychiatric hospitalization.

Randi - Maybe people who don't get a 'Go' should be secretly transferred to the placebo hospital.

As a side note, maybe tattooing the forehead or implanted digital IDs so that other people in society would know that these people have been through the program would also be beneficial. We might find lawyers, bank tellers, politicians, check out girls, mechanics, ACTORS and ACTRESSES, and all sorts of people who went through the program. It wouldn't and couldn't be a secret to anyone, and "stealth" would be completely out of the question.

I really really hope that your response is a joke or you might be the kind of person I would not like to be stuck on a bus with!

I like the tattoo on the forehead idea. I want a purple butterfly.

Quote from: Suziack on July 07, 2014, 12:06:39 PM
Of course, there would be trans types who would have to be brought in kicking and screaming, but lots of people who are brought into psych wards fit this category - they just don't know or want what's best for them (so, yes, if they go more than half way, 84 hours, SRS should be mandatory).


As a side note, maybe tattooing the forehead or implanted digital IDs so that other people in society would know that these people have been through the program would also be beneficial. We might find lawyers, bank tellers, politicians, check out girls, mechanics, ACTORS and ACTRESSES, and all sorts of people who went through the program. It wouldn't and couldn't be a secret to anyone, and "stealth" would be completely out of the question.

This type of writing or even thoughts make me sick, joke or otherwise.
I'm sory but for people who think like this should be a very special spot in hell. seriously , I am very offended by this. >:(

Quote from: stephaniec on July 07, 2014, 12:45:20 PM
I like the tattoo on the forehead idea. I want a purple butterfly.

Stephaniec, You can have two of them.

Quote from: Suziack on July 07, 2014, 12:51:52 PM
Stephaniec, You can have two of them.

well, in that case, one purple and one orange

 No no. It must be a pink butterfly tattoo.

I was hospitalized in my 20s. What you don't take into account is that in hospitalization you essentially have no rights-- you are actually a bit worse in status than a prisoner, since you have no right to attorney. I don't care if you voluntarily put yourself in. You are not allowed privacy. You are not treated as an adult person, but immediately any ideas or thoughts you might have are viewed within the scope of your "illness". I was politically active, so this was considered to be some kind of evidence of my psychiatric state. ECT is a specific treatment, which is not entirely safe. Many folks did lose short term memory skills in a significant way. You are inducing epileptic seizures. To just give this to folks doesn't seem like a good plan to me. It might have helped me (in some cases) but it didn't really treat the underlining condition.

Some kind of special house with folks totally understanding and geared to GD (perhaps who WERE trans) would of course be an option. But it would be hard to fund.

--Jay

So this is a fairly emotive topic, however the original question is hypothetical (personally I wouldn't go for it) ...there have been three mod reports on this thread but it doesn't appear to be aflame, yet, so everyone remain calm. If you are being sarcastic in your response please be aware that some people can't read that very well, also be mindful that some people have had utterly traumatic experiences with the mental health system, some 'jokes' just aren't that funny in any context.

Quote from: Suziack on July 07, 2014, 12:06:39 PM
As a side note, maybe tattooing the forehead or implanted digital IDs so that other people in society would know that these people have been through the program would also be beneficial.

Anyone attempting to do this to me would have their teeth kicked in and beaten to a bloody pulp. There is NO WAY in hell I would allow someone to do this to me.

Quote from: Laura Squirrel on July 07, 2014, 02:35:04 PM
Anyone attempting to do this to me would have their teeth kicked in and beaten to a bloody pulp. There is NO WAY in hell I would allow someone to do this to me.

Well, I could imagine a lot of ways how that could be accomplished, but lets not delve into details cause they are not fun really... I have been in such institution (work-related visit, mind You) and seen the type of people working there. Umm... there are bouncers who would look quite petite in comparison.

Quote from: aleon515 on July 07, 2014, 02:11:21 PM
I was hospitalized in my 20s. What you don't take into account is that in hospitalization you essentially have no rights-- you are actually a bit worse in status than a prisoner, since you have no right to attorney. I don't care if you voluntarily put yourself in. You are not allowed privacy. You are not treated as an adult person, but immediately any ideas or thoughts you might have are viewed within the scope of your "illness". I was politically active, so this was considered to be some kind of evidence of my psychiatric state. ECT is a specific treatment, which is not entirely safe. Many folks did lose short term memory skills in a significant way. You are inducing epileptic seizures. To just give this to folks doesn't seem like a good plan to me. It might have helped me (in some cases) but it didn't really treat the underlining condition.

Some kind of special house with folks totally understanding and geared to GD (perhaps who WERE trans) would of course be an option. But it would be hard to fund.

--Jay

I think the idea of having raw electrons forced into a water soak place like the brain doesn't particularly make me think that's such a great Idea . If there are synapses the aren't functioning properly to cause problems in the circuitry , an overload of electrons isn't going to heal the broken synapsis. just my opinion. of course if you want to lobotomize your brain go for it. not to be taken as being directed towards jay , just a general statement.

Quote from: ♡ Emily ♡ on July 07, 2014, 02:37:02 PM
Well, I could imagine a lot of ways how that could be accomplished, but lets not delve into details cause they are not fun really... I have been in such institution (work-related visit, mind You) and seen the type of people working there. Umm... there are bouncers who would look quite petite in comparison.

That wouldn't matter to me. I would fight back with whatever I could get my hands on. I wouldn't care about the repercussions, either. The whole thing is sick, screwed up and just plain wrong. I would have every right to defend myself regardless of what they or anyone else had to say, since I would see myself as being under attack.

The whole proposal is just screwed up.

I'm going to reiterate...

This is a fairly emotive topic, however the original question is hypothetical (personally I wouldn't go for it) ...there have been three mod reports on this thread but it doesn't appear to be aflame, yet, so everyone remain calm.

If you are being sarcastic in your response please be aware that some people can't read that very well, also be mindful that some people have had utterly traumatic experiences with the mental health system, some 'jokes' just aren't that funny in any context.

Thanks
:police:

Yo!

Ok so ECT has nothing to do with my study. Just throwing that out there. And like some have said, this is entirely hypothetical. It's for a medical ethics course I'm taking. The purpose is to identify ethical issues/write a medical research proposal. (yes, with ethical flaws to point out).

Now, yes I am a post-op transsexual woman—though I don't really like to talk about that. So I'm not some old guy with a white beard trying to heard young mentally ill people around like cattle and shock them.

So far, I've actually really enjoyed the responses I've gotten and I'm glad that people are opinionated about this topic. But please do drop the ECT and Psychward horror stories/belittling people's mental health experiences by making jokes. This is a very serious topic, as all health related issues are. 

I myself am writing this from a perspective as a transsexual who feels she could have benefited from inpatient care. For those interested in this topic. So far I have identified the following variables and written this hypothesis:

Independent Variables
0 hours (control group): patient not required to be admitted to hospital prior to procedure(s). A control group. Normal WPATH standards apply. Participants randomly assigned to this group will have consented to the study, but as the variables are not disclosed to participants, will have no idea of the other groups.
Partial Hospitalization: patient will participate in most of the services offered to inpatient participants, but will not be housed or observed overnight in the hospital.
72 hours Commitment: patient will be admitted for a mandatory 72 hours. If, at the end of the 72 hours the patient decides to stay longer or the patient's assigned doctor feels a longer stay will help the patient may in fact stay over the 72 hour variable. They will still be accounted as a 72 hour patient but with an added amount of hours.
168 hours Commitment: patients in this group will be committed for a mandatory 168 hours, or one week. At the end of the week, as with the 72 hours group, the patient or doctor may feel a longer stay is required. 

Dependent variables: Patient Satisfaction/surgery decision
1.   Declined surgery: either the patient or their assigned doctor declined to follow-through with services after completion of the program.
2.   6 month follow-up
3.   12 month follow-up

Hypotheses: Individuals who receive partial hospitalization prior to being considered for hormonal treatment/sex-reassignment surgery will show more positive long-term satisfaction than the control group. Individuals in the 72 or 168 hours group will have a smaller number of follow-throughs with treatment due to a realization and understanding of more significant mental health problems, but for those who are recommended for surgery, they will show even more positive long-term satisfaction than the Partial hospitalization group.

And again, bear in mind this is just me—a lowly student—writing a mock research proposal that she personally thinks would have been a good program for her to have been part of. I just want to get ideas/see what others think. This is in no way meant to offend anyone.

My biggest problem with these kinds of thinking it is old school as in we are mental.

It is not mental and that is why it has is changed from GID to now GB

Research needa to find what went wrong in utero. But there are so many other things that are in utero that also happen.

So ya. that is how i feel. To much blame on GD patient and not enough help letting them lead a life that feel is normal.

Isabell

well for me any mention of a doctor that seems to be one that I've never seen before suggesting I have an indeterminate amount of extra time in an institution because they don't like what I say is harking back to the early Soviet  Union or the present day North Korea especially given this program is supposed to be voluntary. I'm also concerned about the scope of the medical team involved in the decision making process considering this seems to be approaching an assembly line production for GRS. It's great to get excellent  professional medical care but this seems to be an assembly line approach to medical care. Put them in an institution decide who's worthy and do the operation. I'm all far great care , but this proposal would definitely not be my cup of tea. Now if I received free individual out patient care with a team of doctors and counselors that would be acceptable. I don't understand the institutional commitment idea or the doctor that's only known me for 72 hours or a week making that kind of decision about my care. Maybe you have a good proposal, but It's not for me.

Quote from: aleon515 on July 07, 2014, 02:11:21 PM
Some kind of special house with folks totally understanding and geared to GD (perhaps who WERE trans) would of course be an option. But it would be hard to fund.

--Jay

I currently manage a house for the mentally ill which is otherwise exactly what you're suggesting. If such a place could be funded I would gladly run it. And to be clear, I'm NOT saying we're mentally ill, just showing my credentials for running a halfway house for delicate residents.

If it could be, say, in Maui or the Florida Keys, so much the better. ::)

Well excellent houses for homeless trans people or halfway houses and so on  have been funded. I'm talking about residential programs to provide services. The whole idea to me is kind of offensive and suggests that being transgender is a psychiatric illness. I don't agree it is any kind of illness at all. I think that programs using informed consent, free and/or low cost counseling, etc is the way we should be going. My transition has been 180 degrees different than the above model and didn't involve months and months of waiting. I had counseling which was free for about 11 months. That was what I needed it wouldn't have been required. I know folks who had 1-3 sessions. I have a PA who is very sensitive to gender issues and totally awesome. I go to support groups which are free to me. If I could clone THAT. I would. I have no current psych issues. I am very happy with my transition.

--Jay

Quote from: aleon515 on July 07, 2014, 06:13:06 PM
Well excellent houses for homeless trans people or halfway houses and so on  have been funded. I'm talking about residential programs to provide services. The whole idea to me is kind of offensive and suggests that being transgender is a psychiatric illness. I don't agree it is any kind of illness at all. I think that programs using informed consent, free and/or low cost counseling, etc is the way we should be going. My transition has been 180 degrees different than the above model and didn't involve months and months of waiting. I had counseling which was free for about 11 months. That was what I needed it wouldn't have been required. I know folks who had 1-3 sessions. I have a PA who is very sensitive to gender issues and totally awesome. I go to support groups which are free to me. If I could clone THAT. I would. I have no current psych issues. I am very happy with my transition.

--Jay

Well said. If we just had the real help to move forward and acceptance would make a HUGE difference.

There is a well documented path to happiness, just to many want to force us to fit there model or mold.
Isabell

I went to a psychiatric hospital yesterday to give flowers to a friend who has been hospitalized. It was a horrible, horrible place in more ways than one. As bad as GID can be when it goes untreated (i.e. not being able to transition) most trans people do NOT belong in a place like that.

I think that it would further stigmatise us. Plus it would force us to give up our jobs and as you know, getting a job while trans is a massive problem for people afterwards and would be even worse with a long phych stay on your CV. Plus, then, who pays for the persons house and kids, or are we forced to lose them too? Plus it would add further distance from the support network that they would need post transition - their friends.

I would really really really not like that system. Really really. 

Quote from: birkin on July 07, 2014, 06:26:17 PM
I went to a psychiatric hospital yesterday to give flowers to a friend who has been hospitalized. It was a horrible, horrible place in more ways than one. As bad as GID can be when it goes untreated (i.e. not being able to transition) most trans people do NOT belong in a place like that.

I was in a psyche ward in a hospital . Probably a lot better than an institution. but I got out of their as soon as I could.

Hi.  I would reject this research proposal.  These are my reasons.

- From the listed IV (independent variables) and listed DV (dependent variables), and your stated hypothesis, it actually seems that you are comparing the current (at least in the USA) standard of WPATH vs an alternative system of consent-based GRS.  If I'm misunderstanding your study - well, then that's a problem with the proposal.  If you are, in fact, (essentially) comparing the current USA standard of WPATH vs an alternative system of consent-based GRS - it must be stated as such.  Research hypotheses must be very literal without opportunity to misconstrue their intent. 
- This will be a prospective study?  If so, you run the very real risk of not having enough GID+ individuals to tease into control vs subject groups  - you will have inadequate N.  Without adequate N - results are suggestive at best.  Would not fund.  If you were to select from a pool of GID+ individuals - you risk selection bias.  Would not fund. 
- What are the criteria to diagnose GID?  Also - will it require only one specialist, or more than one specialist?  If more than one specialist, how many?  If more than one specialist, must it be unaminous agreement or numbers weighted agreement? 
- Is the evaluation for GID a single point in time, or are there multiple evaluations?  What happens to those individuals diagnosed as GID, enrolled into the subject pool, and then at 168 hours (and for whatever reason) are no longer gender dysphoric?  How are they removed from the study?  Or are they?  I assume they are taken out of the eligible for GRS arm?  What if the subject no longer feels gender dysphoric, but the treating clinicians think otherwise (it happens...)
- With your listed DV -   patient satisfaction/if they choose or were considered eligible.  These are actually two very different elements wrapped within the same variable; indeed, you state that patient satisfaction will be measured post-op.  But how can those considered eligible but declined surgery be post-op?  If you wish to measure patient satisfaction among those considered eligible but declined surgery - what if the patient wished to proceed, but the assigned doctor declined to follow through?  Are you anticipating a negative satisfaction result?
- What is your testing scale for satisfaction?
- What are your mathematical methods?

Just a few concerns from a cursory glance.  And remember, even though just a cursory glance, I'm already questioning methodology and study objectives.  In the real world - sometimes a cursory glance is all you're given with research proposals.  Ironic, I know...

Quote from: summer710 on July 07, 2014, 08:09:19 PM
Hi.  I would reject this research proposal.  These are my reasons.

- From the listed IV (independent variables) and listed DV (dependent variables), and your stated hypothesis, it actually seems that you are comparing the current (at least in the USA) standard of WPATH vs an alternative system of consent-based GRS.  If I'm misunderstanding your study - well, then that's a problem with the proposal.  If you are, in fact, (essentially) comparing the current USA standard of WPATH vs an alternative system of consent-based GRS - it must be stated as such.  Research hypotheses must be very literal without opportunity to misconstrue their intent. 
- This will be a prospective study?  If so, you run the very real risk of not having enough GID+ individuals to tease into control vs subject groups  - you will have inadequate N.  Without adequate N - results are suggestive at best.  Would not fund.  If you were to select from a pool of GID+ individuals - you risk selection bias.  Would not fund. 
- What are the criteria to diagnose GID?  Also - will it require only one specialist, or more than one specialist?  If more than one specialist, how many?  If more than one specialist, must it be unaminous agreement or numbers weighted agreement? 
- Is the evaluation for GID a single point in time, or are there multiple evaluations?  What happens to those individuals diagnosed as GID, enrolled into the subject pool, and then at 168 hours (and for whatever reason) are no longer gender dysphoric?  How are they removed from the study?  Or are they?  I assume they are taken out of the eligible for GRS arm?  What if the subject no longer feels gender dysphoric, but the treating clinicians think otherwise (it happens...)
- With your listed DV -   patient satisfaction/if they choose or were considered eligible.  These are actually two very different elements wrapped within the same variable; indeed, you state that patient satisfaction will be measured post-op.  But how can those considered eligible but declined surgery be post-op?  If you wish to measure patient satisfaction among those considered eligible but declined surgery - what if the patient wished to proceed, but the assigned doctor declined to follow through?  Are you anticipating a negative satisfaction result?
- What is your testing scale for satisfaction?
- What are your mathematical methods?

Just a few concerns from a cursory glance.  And remember, even though just a cursory glance, I'm already questioning methodology and study objectives.  In the real world - sometimes a cursory glance is all you're given with research proposals.  Ironic, I know...

Awesome! Awesome! Awesome! Thank you, I was hoping for ideas like these. Believe it or not, I've actually answered most of these questions in my actual proposal. I just copied and pasted the variables and hypothesis to keep things simple--but I actually do have a methodology to my madness . . . um, no, like I said this study is hypothetical. And at the beginning of the paper I actually have a preface/disclaimer that takes the proposal out of this world and places it into a completely different world where services are more abundant as are people suffering from GID--so population/sample size and quality becomes irrelevant.

But yes, you did read my idea correctly. I'm suggesting an alternative to WPATH. I want to know if WPATH is actually hindering people/negatively impacting people's mental health. I feel that people suffering from GID would benefit greatly from group work with both others suffering from GID and other mental illnesses and constant evaluation in a safe and secure place. Other treatment could be offered first before hormonal or surgical intervention. But once both doctor and patient conclude that a diagnosis of GID is accurate and establish a short and long term plan for stabilization, hormonal or surgical treatment can proceed.

I know that such an idea is horribly unpopular among this community. But it's what I think I would have wanted myself. For people who might read this and become hateful or judgmental, remember it's just pretend and ultimately, it's just a signifier of my own mental health issues—not yours. Keep an open mind.

Quote
I know that such an idea is horribly unpopular among this community. But it's what I think I would have wanted myself. For people who might read this and become hateful or judgmental, remember it's just pretend and ultimately, it's just a signifier of my own mental health issues—not yours. Keep an open mind.

You asked for judgement though! :-)

Quote
I want opinions based on what I've provided. Would you participate in such a program? What are the pros? The cons? Can you identify any possible flaws or problems with this idea?

If your sample group was a group of people who were effectively hospitalised against their will how would that affect the results? It is not clear whether this was optional, with WPATH provision alongside for those who elect not to be hospitalised, or a replacement system. I think if you had suggested that this is an elected option, then you may not have received so much resistance from those for whom such a system would not work and would not have chosen that pathway.

It might be what you would have wanted, but you are one person and would it be a one size fits all, like the current system? If so it would have to consider how it would affect others who are not in the same position as you. My judgement was based on the position of people like me and the effects that I listed would be massively negative for me and people like me. It might also have negatively affected you too in that, if you had experienced such a system, you might find, though there were aspects that you felt you needed at the time, the ongoing issues caused by it would still leave you wanting something different.

I realise it is just a proposal, but at the same time, it is just a proposal which you asked for feedback on, and we provided you feedback. When you are providing a system for everyone, it is you who should listen to how it affects them and keep an open mind, not the other way round! :-) If you received very negative feedback, that should mean something to you.

As an option for those who feel that they are not able to function in society already, it could be an option, otherwise, I think it would be a terrible idea for those reasons which I have already stated.

" I know that such an idea is horribly unpopular among this community. But it's what I think I would have wanted myself. For people who might read this and become hateful or judgmental, remember it's just pretend and ultimately, it's just a signifier of my own mental health issues—not yours. Keep an open mind. "

I couldn't disagree more that anybody has been hateful! I don't think there have been any personal attacks on the OP! The comments have been on what we would think of psychiatric hospitalization as a alternative to some other kinds of systems. I don't think it's popular here for a few reasons (none of which are "hateful"): 1. Psychiatric hospitalization is, in itself, not benign, but many of us found it harmful and stigma producing. 2. It continues the harmful conception of trans as being a psychiatric illness. 3. It is not really a good model (and there are other possible models that reduce the problems the OP sees in WPATH--these problems do exist, in many cases). It's possible that there are some other concerns as well that I missed.

I think some people might benefit from a more in depth kind of situation, say if they had concurrent mental illness or substance abuse (though whether you still want to hospitalize them is dubious). It is possible to intervene in community based situations which are more normalized. (Think Chicago House.) I feel very strongly that being transgender is normal (maybe not convenient!!). (I'm not opposed to Maui or the Florida Keys either. :) )

I got the idea that you see this as a diagnosis and evaluation to HRT and SRS kind of as a one stop thing. (I dont' actually agree with the concept of a "diagnosis" of being transgender. But that's perhaps another issue.) Maybe I got this wrong, but I think that sometimes a few years isn't a horrible idea for all that, as long as it is payed for and not out of pocket. Also people's desire for such things can actually change over time.


--Jay

(BTW, someone suggested what I said was favorable to ECT. I feel the treatment for even depression is highly questionable. If was very mild in my criticism, it wasn't the point of what I was writing about.)

I don't think anyone's been hateful yet. That's why I said "might be hateful." I was more qualifying the response I wrote that basically reverted Gender dysphoria back to GID. (I myself believe I have a mental illness and would prefer to say it as such) 

But anyway,  I've actually really enjoyed the input and feel like I've gotten the type of feedback I wanted...and I'm not really sure what I expected. But anyway, I'm glad people are opinionated about this topic! It means it's a good topic to raise.

 Also, if I didn't make it clear...and this is pry my own fault...but consent and confidentially would be of utmost importance in this study. I know practically it may be difficult to ensure that, but again...it's all hypothetical. 

Quote from: Rena-san on July 08, 2014, 08:42:47 AM
I don't think anyone's been hateful yet. That's why I said "might be hateful." I was more qualifying the response I wrote that basically reverted Gender dysphoria back to GID. (I myself believe I have a mental illness and would prefer to say it as such)

You may feel that way but it something because it has been drilled into you or you had an unfortunate lack of acceptance. Other cultures in the world view being trans as something completely normal and have adapted ways of dealing with it. Being gay was once viewed as a mental illness but this view is such a minority opinion now that I think it is considered unusual to think that. I think transgender experience will at some point be viewed the same way. I mean I hope so!
I know someone who thinks we are about 30 years behind gays and lesbians in terms of social acceptance. Kind of outside your OP but I think it is interesting what your "model" is here.

--Jay

Quote from: Rena-san on July 07, 2014, 10:05:19 PM
I feel that people suffering from GID would benefit greatly from group work with both others suffering from GID and other mental illnesses and constant evaluation in a safe and secure place.

Too bad there is no such thing as GID anymore.  The psychiatric community no longer acknowledges this as a disorder.  Which is the entire point of the change in terminology from Gender Identity Disorder to Gender Dysphoria (GD).  It is no longer considered, deemed or treated as a mental illness.  It is still handled by the psychiatric community, yes, not because it is still deemed a mental illness, but because there are other illnesses that can occasionally present like Gender Dysphoria while not being GD, in which transitioning and not treating the actual issue can be more harmful than not for the person.  It is done to rule out other possibilities.

The idea you present here, to me would be more harmful to the mental well being of most trans* people than WPATH, by claiming and convincing through action that being trans* is a mental illness both to the person suffering from GD and to society at large.  What do you think telling people that who they are is nothing but a mental illness would do to the psyche of that person?  You can state as loudly as you wish that "No, 'GID' isn't a mental illness" in your study and to your subjects, but by hospitalizing them with people suffering from other mental illnesses, and treating them as such, negates that statement to such a degree it firmly states the opposite.  That you and your study have deemed GD a mental illness to be treated as such.  That, my friend, is more damaging and harmful to a trans* person's identity and mental state than the WPATH could ever be.

Just because you are more comfortable with considering it a mental illness doesn't mean it won't be harmful to many others to classify it as such.  Not to mention, the whole point of considering it a mental illness is and was an attempt to discredit the use of hormones and transitioning as treatment.  That the problem lies in the mind not the body and thus the mind must be fixed, not the body.  However, all attempts to fix the mind have failed, where as fixing the body (through transitioning) has succeeded.  This is the number one reason it has been disqualified from being deemed a mental illness.  As treating the mind has failed entirely.

Quote from: Rena-san on July 08, 2014, 08:42:47 AM
...(I myself believe I have a mental illness and would prefer to say it as such).

Rena-san,  Could you elaborate with why you consider it a mental illness? I find that surprising, especially coming from someone who is post-op.

When I detransitioned twenty years ago I then spent a long time believing I had a "mental illness" at the time I was going through transition. Not true of course I now realise, it was just how I tried to rationalise my feelings and actions.

Quote from: Colleen♡Callie on July 08, 2014, 03:29:07 PM

Too bad there is no such thing as GID anymore.  The psychiatric community no longer acknowledges this as a disorder.  Which is the entire point of the change in terminology from Gender Identity Disorder to Gender Dysphoria (GD).  It is no longer considered, deemed or treated as a mental illness.  It is still handled by the psychiatric community, yes, not because it is still deemed a mental illness, but because there are other illnesses that can occasionally present like Gender Dysphoria while not being GD, in which transitioning and not treating the actual issue can be more harmful than not for the person.  It is done to rule out other possibilities.

The idea you present here, to me would be more harmful to the mental well being of most trans* people than WPATH, by claiming and convincing through action that being trans* is a mental illness both to the person suffering from GD and to society at large.  What do you think telling people that who they are is nothing but a mental illness would do to the psyche of that person?  You can state as loudly as you wish that "No, 'GID' isn't a mental illness" in your study and to your subjects, but by hospitalizing them with people suffering from other mental illnesses, and treating them as such, negates that statement to such a degree it firmly states the opposite.  That you and your study have deemed GD a mental illness to be treated as such.  That, my friend, is more damaging and harmful to a trans* person's identity and mental state than the WPATH could ever be.

Just because you are more comfortable with considering it a mental illness doesn't mean it won't be harmful to many others to classify it as such.  Not to mention, the whole point of considering it a mental illness is and was an attempt to discredit the use of hormones and transitioning as treatment.  That the problem lies in the mind not the body and thus the mind must be fixed, not the body.  However, all attempts to fix the mind have failed, where as fixing the body (through transitioning) has succeeded.  This is the number one reason it has been disqualified from being deemed a mental illness.  As treating the mind has failed entirely.

I think the better solution is better funding for outpatient care and group therapy if desired. Institutionalization seems to be  pretty backward and drastic. It was my understanding people are institutionalized because they can't care for them selves or they harm others or themselves. I keep thinking of the movie "one flew over the cuckoo's nest"

True that there are a lot of people suffering who are transgender, but there are still very many people who are employed, happy, in relationships, etc. and do continue to be transgender, which doesn't seem consistent with any sort of mental illness. I'm not in a relationship, but I am happy and feel comfortable in my own skin for the first time. I believe suffering comes from self-hate, lack of acceptance, and those kinds of factors. If you come to terms with those factors you can be happy. This is not at all what happens in a mental illness.

--Jay

Quote from: stephaniec on July 08, 2014, 10:39:24 PM
I think the better solution is better funding for outpatient care and group therapy if desired. Institutionalization seems to be  pretty backward and drastic. It was my understanding people are institutionalized because they can't care for them selves or they harm others or themselves. I keep thinking of the movie "one flew over the cuckoo's nest"

Yep. Exactly what institutionalization is about.  Which is why I previously pointed that out as a flaw in this proposal and again consider it harmful to most trans*people's mental health being institutionalized with "other" mentally ill people.  Regardless of whether the study states people with GD aren't mentally ill, the practice of institutionalizing them with mentally ill people will overwhelmingly state otherwise, and be more harmful, not "more helpful their mental health than WPATH" as OP seems to believe.

This study if it were ever actually done would send trans* rights and wellbeing back to the beginning in the worst way possible.

Quote from: Colleen♡Callie on July 09, 2014, 02:36:41 AM
Yep. Exactly what institutionalization is about.  Which is why I previously pointed that out as a flaw in this proposal and again consider it harmful to most trans*people's mental health being institutionalized with "other" mentally ill people.  Regardless of whether the study states people with GD aren't mentally ill, the practice of institutionalizing them with mentally ill people will overwhelmingly state otherwise, and be more harmful, not "more helpful their mental health than WPATH" as OP seems to believe.

This study if it were ever actually done would send trans* rights and wellbeing back to the beginning in the worst way possible.

I think it could be argued that institutionalization is harmful for everybody regardless. The whole topic of what institutionalization does to people is very well documented elsewhere. But in short the effects are lowered autonomy, self-confidence, etc. Sometimes there are no other good answers, but at in this case we know of various other kinds of ways of delivering services to trans* people without it. In the case of trans people with drug addiction and so on, I believe community type services are a good option and are also MUCH cheaper than institutionalization which all by itself is very expensive ,without the side effects. There are actually programs designed to prevent institutionalization in people with mental illness, intellectual disability and other groups who have been historically institutionalized (group homes, community based drop in centers, free/low cost counseling, etc.).


--Jay

Quote from: Colleen♡Callie on July 09, 2014, 02:36:41 AM
Yep. Exactly what institutionalization is about.  Which is why I previously pointed that out as a flaw in this proposal and again consider it harmful to most trans*people's mental health being institutionalized with "other" mentally ill people.  Regardless of whether the study states people with GD aren't mentally ill, the practice of institutionalizing them with mentally ill people will overwhelmingly state otherwise, and be more harmful, not "more helpful their mental health than WPATH" as OP seems to believe.

This study if it were ever actually done would send trans* rights and wellbeing back to the beginning in the worst way possible.

I agree with this and what Colleen said in her prior post above. And I too beleive a proposal such as this if implemented would send the trans rights we've gained, right back to the stone age.

I have never considered or viewed myself as having a mental illness. Instead, I feel I have a birth defect that is now being medically corrected through transition.

Ally :icon_flower:

Quote from: Allyda on July 09, 2014, 09:59:34 PM
I have never considered or viewed myself as having a mental illness. Instead, I feel I have a birth defect that is now being medically corrected through transition.

I agree.  :eusa_clap:

Quote from: Allyda on July 09, 2014, 09:59:34 PM

I have never considered or viewed myself as having a mental illness. Instead, I feel I have a birth defect that is now being medically corrected through transition.

Ally :icon_flower:[/font][/size][/color]

+2 for here as well,  I'm still curious about why the OP views being trans as a mental illness

Im going to reply to the original poster.

I've always felt ugly as a male (not cause of my looks or anything but because I have male features) so going through hrt and everything, would make me feel better as I'd feel beautiful as a woman.

Quote from: calico on July 10, 2014, 05:14:24 AM
I'm still curious about why the OP views being trans as a mental illness

Same here if that's truly the case.

Ally :icon_flower:

Quote from: Allyda on July 10, 2014, 07:33:55 PM
Same here if that's truly the case.

Ally :icon_flower:

ditto

As the OP, I don't know. No matter what I say, it's not going to sound good. It's not going to sound good to me, or you, or anybody . . . I struggle with reality sometimes and figure that this must all be a delusion. And why is GID (or gender dysphoria, if you prefer) the only mental illness where the delusion is encouraged? I don't really care about what the answer is to that question (it's a horrible question anyway with lots of holes in it) . . . in my mind, it has to be a disorder. It just seems so disordered. I don't want to say more cause I don't want to offend anyone. My original question, and the topic of my essay, literally combines my fascination with hospitals—especially mental hospitals—with my own self-hatred. But if people want to say they have a birth defect—then my birth defect is not my sex, nor my gender, but my perception of reality.  Being born with a female gender identity in a masculine body is not—to me—a birth defect but a delusion. And yes, I am post-op and I don't regret it at all because I had a lot of fun. The results of the surgery were unexpected. But the surgery itself (all the fear and anxiety and release) and being in the hospital and recovering—it's all been really enjoyable and fun and interesting. It's been a very amazing adventure. So whether I'm real or not, I don't really care anymore, because at least I've had fun.

I don't know. I feel relaxed and slightly humourous. A tad bit confused. Irritated. My therapist tells me I need to pay attention to my feelings and emotions. He thinks I'm repressing them and substituting conditioned responses.

I still have a desire to want to be mentally ill. Does that mean I should go take medicines/have surgeries to become mentally ill? No. Of course not! Why, if one has the desire to change their sex should that be allowed???

I'm a confused individual. Haha. Just ignore me if it offends you. I think I'm done. Turn me over, I'm done on this side.

Rena-San,

Might it not be more appropriate to say (and perhaps this is what you were hinting at by birth defect) that a person might be born with the wrong body for their brain, rather than a "disordered brain" that didn't match their body? The person is their brain.

I am also somewhere on the landscape of autism, which is also considered a "disorder", but it is a part of my identity too.
Many within the neurodiversity movement would say, and I would agree with them, that to label one person's way of being a "disorder" because it does not conform to the perceived norm, when so many people are "aflicted" with that "disorder" seems a bit, what's the word, oh yes.. Stupid.
The fact of the matter is that if we had a society which was accepting of difference, and provided easy access to transitioning services for those that wanted them, our lives might not be so "disordered" by our "disorders".

I certainly know that being forced to act like a normal teenager when I could write complex software in my head but couldn't listen to lectures in high-school would have been greatly helped by a society that did not try to treat everyone as though they were identical cogs rolling off of a factory line to be sold to the corporations as labor.

To the OP:
I have two thoughts on this. Firstly, institutionalization is (generally speaking) dangerous. Once a person is given any kind of institutional status they immediately are subject to an unintentional power dynamic which nearly always leads to incidence of abuse by those at the top of that dynamic. To place transgender individuals who are already mistreated by society into a situation in which they are made powerless and judged by others.. I think would be a horrible mistake.

On the other hand, I could readily see the benefit of something akin to a transition spa. It would be fantastic to take all of my vacation days and spend them being pampered by people who are there (working for me) to help me through the transition process, and mingling with others who are also transitioning.

The difference is that the latter empowers rather than dis-empowers the transgender individual.
I would no more want to be institutionalized for my autism "disorder" than my gender identity "disorder".

Quote from: Rena-san on July 10, 2014, 10:04:00 PM
As the OP, I don't know. No matter what I say, it's not going to sound good. It's not going to sound good to me, or you, or anybody . . . I struggle with reality sometimes and figure that this must all be a delusion. And why is GID (or gender dysphoria, if you prefer) the only mental illness where the delusion is encouraged? I don't really care about what the answer is to that question (it's a horrible question anyway with lots of holes in it) . . . in my mind, it has to be a disorder. It just seems so disordered. I don't want to say more cause I don't want to offend anyone. My original question, and the topic of my essay, literally combines my fascination with hospitals—especially mental hospitals—with my own self-hatred. But if people want to say they have a birth defect—then my birth defect is not my sex, nor my gender, but my perception of reality.  Being born with a female gender identity in a masculine body is not—to me—a birth defect but a delusion. And yes, I am post-op and I don't regret it at all because I had a lot of fun. The results of the surgery were unexpected. But the surgery itself (all the fear and anxiety and release) and being in the hospital and recovering—it's all been really enjoyable and fun and interesting. It's been a very amazing adventure. So whether I'm real or not, I don't really care anymore, because at least I've had fun.

I don't know. I feel relaxed and slightly humourous. A tad bit confused. Irritated. My therapist tells me I need to pay attention to my feelings and emotions. He thinks I'm repressing them and substituting conditioned responses.

I still have a desire to want to be mentally ill. Does that mean I should go take medicines/have surgeries to become mentally ill? No. Of course not! Why, if one has the desire to change their sex should that be allowed???

I'm a confused individual. Haha. Just ignore me if it offends you. I think I'm done. Turn me over, I'm done on this side.

please don't take this as any thing other then my own perception of the argument and not to be take as mean spirited. What I gather is that because you believe the problem is mental illness , your projecting you belief system on everyone else as to their cause. I was born with this there is no mental causation no damage inflicted by the environment , absolutely nothing was done after my birth to cause this. Genetically something happened , an incursion of natural events. maybe genes from the beginning of evolution.. I don't know . all I know this is my brain and it just got stuck using the wrong hormones for unknown reasons. It an experimentally verifiable fact that it works and it just the other hormone in dominance not metal illness in my opinion.

Quote from: Rena-san on July 10, 2014, 10:04:00 PM
As the OP, I don't know. No matter what I say, it's not going to sound good. It's not going to sound good to me, or you, or anybody . . . I struggle with reality sometimes and figure that this must all be a delusion. And why is GID (or gender dysphoria, if you prefer) the only mental illness where the delusion is encouraged? I don't really care about what the answer is to that question (it's a horrible question anyway with lots of holes in it) . . . in my mind, it has to be a disorder. It just seems so disordered. I don't want to say more cause I don't want to offend anyone. My original question, and the topic of my essay, literally combines my fascination with hospitals—especially mental hospitals—with my own self-hatred. But if people want to say they have a birth defect—then my birth defect is not my sex, nor my gender, but my perception of reality.  Being born with a female gender identity in a masculine body is not—to me—a birth defect but a delusion. And yes, I am post-op and I don't regret it at all because I had a lot of fun. The results of the surgery were unexpected. But the surgery itself (all the fear and anxiety and release) and being in the hospital and recovering—it's all been really enjoyable and fun and interesting. It's been a very amazing adventure. So whether I'm real or not, I don't really care anymore, because at least I've had fun.

I don't know. I feel relaxed and slightly humourous. A tad bit confused. Irritated. My therapist tells me I need to pay attention to my feelings and emotions. He thinks I'm repressing them and substituting conditioned responses.

I still have a desire to want to be mentally ill. Does that mean I should go take medicines/have surgeries to become mentally ill? No. Of course not! Why, if one has the desire to change their sex should that be allowed???

I'm a confused individual. Haha. Just ignore me if it offends you. I think I'm done. Turn me over, I'm done on this side.

I'm appalled at this, and highly offended. Many more will be too when they read this...................

Please tell me I'm somehow not getting it? I'm making a mistake here and this is some sort of joke? You did it all because you had fun? You went through hrt and transition, then SRS because it was fun?

I can't look at this anymore it's so appalling and upsetting to me.......

Ally

As the OP stated i think she is right in her own minds fact. and could stem from a comorbidity ie: Delusional disorder is an uncommon psychiatric condition in which patients present with delusions, but with no accompanying prominent hallucinations, thought disorder, mood disorder, or significant flattening of affect. Delusions are a specific symptom of psychosis. Non-bizarre delusions are fixed false beliefs that involve situations that could potentially occur in real life; examples include being followed or poisoned. Apart from their delusions, people with delusional disorder may continue to socialize and function in a normal manner and their behaviour does not generally seem odd or bizarre. However, the preoccupation with delusional ideas can be disruptive to their overall lives. For the diagnosis to be made, auditory and visual hallucinations cannot be prominent, though olfactory or tactile hallucinations related to the content of the delusion may be present. (from Wiki)

Many can work there away around to get what they want for there own reason.

I wish this was all a dream. But for me it is real and its a outcome of what happened before my birth

Everyone who understands know that the WPATH SOC works in anyone who is GD.

Isabell

Quote from: Rena-san on July 10, 2014, 10:04:00 PM
why is GID (or gender dysphoria, if you prefer) the only mental illness where the delusion is encouraged?

And with this the topic has run it's course.

Topic locked.