I took this thread from another website because I think it NEEDS attention!
http://www.psych.org/MainMenu/Newsroom/NewsReleases/2008NewsReleases/dsmwg.aspx (http://www.psych.org/MainMenu/Newsroom/NewsReleases/2008NewsReleases/dsmwg.aspx)
Ken Zucker appointed Chair of the Sexual and Gender Identity Disorders Work Group and Ray Blanchard are members of the work group for DSM revision.
Chair Ken Zucker is the head of a trans-repairatist Clarke Institute and Ray Blanchard who heads up the gender department at the Clarke Institute as well.
Oy! Just the kind of people we need. ::)
I downloaded the pdf, it lists all the people on the Sexual and Gender Identity Disorders Work Group in case people want to write letters.
Z
Jack Drescher who has vigorously opposed both Bailey and Blanchard and who doesn't recognize Lawrence and Peggy T. Cohen-Kettinis who is the chair of Medical Psychology at the Free University of Amsterdamm are also on the panel. Both oppose the other two. Here's a link for Cohen-Kettinis: http://www.sagepub.com/authorDetails.nav?contribId=527167 and her bona fides.
N~
The other panelists have other areas of expertise and will likely be swayed by whatever arguments the four listed on this thread present when it comes to GID. I'd say scientific studies will be the decision-makers. Here's hoping Jack and Peggy prevail over Mr. "Reparative Therapy" -- Zucker, yep a huge proponent for TSes and gays, and Mr. "Penis-Meter" -- Blanchard.
As usually both Zucker and Blanchard totally dismiss the importance of women and sexuality altogether. In the usual psychoanalytic fashion women are merely the objects of sex and all TSes are MTFs who are desirous to be sexual objects.
And THAT is one of my major dislikes of the "I wanna be objectified" school of TS.
I think that this is one workgroup that needs to be monitored and that updates posted here as no doubt their decisions will affect everyone here to some extent. I did notice any links where this could be done! does anyone have any?
I think that keeping tabs on this issue would be a good project. Unfortunately my own person schedule/life prevents me from doing that, anyone here want to take it on?
Steph
P.S. I sent the link to my therapist for her ideas.
There is a lot of money riding on this decision. My guess, short any sort of outstanding new information, the Status Quo will reign.
Quote from: redfish on May 04, 2008, 07:23:23 PM
You know what would be a novel idea?
If they had transgendered people participating in the panel. But I guess then people couldn't play with their egos as much. ::)
Actually, that used to be a disqualification from being a party to the drafting and revision of the SOC. I assume that's changed, not that I know of any proud transsexuals that belong to WPATH... unless their ranks have expanded since I last knew.
Lia
Quote from: genovais on May 05, 2008, 05:19:48 AM
Actually, that used to be a disqualification from being a party to the drafting and revision of the SOC. I assume that's changed, not that I know of any proud transsexuals that belong to WPATH... unless their ranks have expanded since I last knew.
Lia
There are, and I know some of them.
The current DSM-IV classifications of 302.3 and 302.85 are wholy inadequate. We would be served a lot better if they would just take over the ICD-10 classifications of F64.0, F64.1, and F65.1.
What happens if they just drop it? No more coverage. No more payments from insurance. It's all just a personal decision? Thought I doubt that will happen, too much money in the therapy biz for that. Though, perhaps, it would be the best solution for all involved, minus the financial deal.
Quote from: Lisbeth on May 05, 2008, 09:45:00 PM
The current DSM-IV classifications of 302.3 and 302.85 are wholy inadequate. We would be served a lot better if they would just take over the ICD-10 classifications of F64.0, F64.1, and F65.1.
Even the use of ICD-10 seems to vary from country to country. Here (Finland) we use F64.0 (TS), F64.8 (TG/androgyne), F64.9 (interrim diagnosis, while waiting for a real one). Transvetism is not diagnosed here.
Hmmmm.... I've never looked at F64.8. Thanks for pointing it out. Of course, F64.9 is one of those "otherwise unspecified" diagnoses used when the therapist hasn't got a clue.
being on the panel is giving a fair ballence i feel....
2 biggots wont win against a whole panel, the two proponents of trans issue i feel will be able to win the other members over, without the biggots outdated and blinkered ideas being given time of day to be honest....
R >:D
The concern I have is that one of the two bigots is the chair of the work group. Being familiar with how the APA work groups function, I know that the chair has a huge amount of influence on the results of the group. So much so that in some cases the chair has virtually dictated the contents of the next version of the DSM.
Its very interesting how the DSM gets put together, and its been a source of constant critique from both inside and outside the profession. In the end its hard to see it as a scientifically based work as much as its a political one.
Quote from: tekla on May 06, 2008, 12:26:23 PM
Its very interesting how the DSM gets put together, and its been a source of constant critique from both inside and outside the profession. In the end its hard to see it as a scientifically based work as much as its a political one.
Points to tekla. It's mainly a book for getting paid and for being able to communicate what one practitioner 'sees' in a client with another practitioner.
And Lisbeth makes a good point about the power and influence Zucker is gonna have, especially with Blanchard whispering in his ear. Fact is though, that with four of the panelists working with GID/homosexuality that's rather a lot in any one area. These people get nominated to the various work-groups based on their field of interest and also on "how much do you want to decide." I expect some sort of fight is gonna occur behind the closed doors of their committee-room.
Perhaps like the gays in 1973 it would behoove what we have of a community to show up and demonstrate loudly over whatever they do. And this one will wind up affecting 'stealth' and most certainly anyone "pre-op" and might well affect us all if the Blanchard dichotomy makes it into the DSM. I'm certain that's why Ray is there.
That CAMH has two members on the panel is probably not for the best as far as we are concerned. I think that maybe the old Chinese curse about livng 'in interesting times' might be in order here.
N~
But what is it that trans people want. The gay issue was easy, they just wanted it out of the DSM entirely. As that affects lots of insurance payments, I'm sure not all Trans persons exactly want that.
Quote from: genovais on May 05, 2008, 05:19:48 AM
Quote from: redfish on May 04, 2008, 07:23:23 PM
You know what would be a novel idea?
If they had transgendered people participating in the panel. But I guess then people couldn't play with their egos as much. ::)
Actually, that used to be a disqualification from being a party to the drafting and revision of the SOC. I assume that's changed, not that I know of any proud transsexuals that belong to WPATH... unless their ranks have expanded since I last knew.
Lia
Well you can count the President of WPATH amongst us. He's also a leading campainer for trans rights in the UK.
He is already looking into how the appointments might be challenged.
Ann
Quote from: tekla on May 06, 2008, 12:55:23 PM
But what is it that trans people want. The gay issue was easy, they just wanted it out of the DSM entirely. As that affects lots of insurance payments, I'm sure not all Trans persons exactly want that.
Wearing a "Freudian" slip today, tekla? :laugh: :laugh:
And the insurance question is HUGE for those who live in states, or have employers with riders, that cover the surgery/surgeries and HRT. That might well disappear if it's de-pathologized and not included in the ICD-10 as a medical condition. The hope here would be that something can be worked out in that regard.
Of course that will play well with neither the APA (DSM) nor "gender-therapists" as that will deny them a hand in the gatekeeping. It also makes WPATH obsolete in that regard. Although I would expect the surgeons who currently follow WPATH's SOC would still want some cover for removal and rearrangement of "healthy tissue." That's pretty much certain.
What does "the community" want? What time and day is it?
Nichole
trans is in the dsm is the DOD excuse for booting out trans soldiers.... or stopping them joining...
we need it out, its not a mental illness......
R >:D
Quote from: Nichole on May 06, 2008, 12:44:54 PM
Perhaps like the gays in 1973 it would behoove what we have of a community to show up and demonstrate loudly over whatever they do. And this one will wind up affecting 'stealth' and most certainly anyone "pre-op" and might well affect us all if the Blanchard dichotomy makes it into the DSM. I'm certain that's why Ray is there.
Yes. That's what I've been thinking.
Quote from: tekla on May 06, 2008, 12:55:23 PM
But what is it that trans people want. The gay issue was easy, they just wanted it out of the DSM entirely. As that affects lots of insurance payments, I'm sure not all Trans persons exactly want that.
I know what we
don't want, and that's to have them write Repairative Therapy into the diagnostic criteria or the theraputic recommendations. We also don't want them to renumber Transsexualism into the Paraphilia section. These are the two greatest dangers, in my opinion, based on who the working group chairperson is.
Quote
Now the main competing theory is ->-bleeped-<- ( ->-bleeped-<-) theory, a theory based in the Freudian concept that every single human motivation is sexual in nature. In ->-bleeped-<- theory, the early transitioners are really gay boys who want to have sex with straight men. The late transitioners have a paraphilia, a fetish, that makes them want to have female bodies based on misdirected male sexual urges ( ->-bleeped-<-). This last is associated with talents for the military, computer science, or the creative arts for reasons unknown, and the neurological evidence is swept under the carpet as an irrelevant, unexplained phenomenon based on dubious evidence. As for FtoMs, they're all inexplicable and may not even exist. Any testimony by any TS women which contradicts this is a lie, and they must all be pathological liars as so many of them contradict it.
All men are heterosexual, gay, or liars too, bisexuality doesn't exist in men, those who say they're bisexual are gay. Except in transsexuals, where those claiming to be bisexual have to actually be non-gay to make it all work. And women are all bisexual. The evidence that many late transitioning women end up being androphillic is ignored as an unexplained phenomenon, or maybe they're just lying.
If we're not careful, that last is going to be enshrined as the official position of the American Psychiatric Association.
A. E. Brain: Transsexual Causation, the American Psychiatric Association, and Interpol (http://aebrain.blogspot.com/2008/05/transsexual-causation-american.html)
Ms. Brain is quite a wonderful and thought-provoking "girl geek." And she, personally, is an extraordinarily nice woman. Now, if her politics didn't remind me so much of Irving Kristol's she be pretty much perfect.
But, for someone who had a biological transition about three years ago and knew nothing about TS/IS when she started her learning curve has been extraordinary. Zoe is definitely a real deal on a multitude of levels.
Love her. Thanks, Lisbeth for the quote.
N~
Quote from: Nichole on May 06, 2008, 06:17:30 PM
Wearing a "Freudian" slip today, tekla? :laugh: :laugh:
There's a special on them this week! They're really cute ;) :laugh:
Quote from: Nichole on May 07, 2008, 10:54:44 AM
Ms. Brain is quite a wonderful and thought-provoking "girl geek." And she, personally, is an extraordinarily nice woman. Now, if her politics didn't remind me so much of Irving Kristol's she be pretty much perfect.
But, for someone who had a biological transition about three years ago and knew nothing about TS/IS when she started her learning curve has been extraordinary. Zoe is definitely a real deal on a multitude of levels.
Zoe Brain's blog post from today is the source of Lisbeth's quote, and has more information about the others on the committee https://www.susans.org/forums/index.php/topic,34545.0.html (https://www.susans.org/forums/index.php/topic,34545.0.html)
Z
Quote from: redfish the posthuman on May 07, 2008, 02:12:54 PM
That blog post is most excellent, but it leaves something to be desired...as in...
...what are we supposed to do about such a thing?
Heck, if people protest, I'd probably be game to join. There's too much on the line to leave such things be.
Queerunity just posted this link http://queersunited.blogspot.com/2008/05/apa-will-tackle-gender-identity-for-dsm.html (http://queersunited.blogspot.com/2008/05/apa-will-tackle-gender-identity-for-dsm.html) for emailing or calling the APA!
Z
Hi. I just got back from DC, and the annual APA meeting. I was very out as trans there, and had wonderful response from all. I met Jack Drescher, who is on that list, and spent a lot of time with him (about 10 hours). A good man, who I sincerely respect. He has a lot of experience with trans-people, is wise, funny. I'm glad he's there. Peggy I met at the last WPath meeting. A true expert. Compassionate, bright, a leader. A good choice. The others I don't know besides the disasters you mentioned. I met and talked with the past and new head of the APA, who are GLBT friendly. Other groups have "consumers" on their panels. I'm not sure why there can't be trans-folk on the Gender ID panel. I plan on talking more with Nada Stodtland, the new president of APA, and strongly recommending that. Perhaps you all can do the same. Can't hurt! There are a lot of respectable, accomplished trans-professionals who can help our voices be heard! apa@psych.org is the email I have, but will try to get a more direct one. I did a little shameless promoting of myself to be on the panel, but I know there are others better qualified.
Namaste, Tara
peggy will be heading up the GID task force
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/petition/412001300
Target: public.affairs@apa.org Sponsored by: The Transgender Community On the Task Force, named as Sexual and Gender Identity Disorders Chair, we find Dr. Kenneth Zucker, from Torontos infamous Centre for Addictions and Mental Health (CAMH, formerly the Clarke Institute). Dr. Zucker is infamous for utilizing reparative (i.e. ex-gay) therapy to cure gender-variant children. Named to his work group, we find Zuckers mentor, Dr. Ray Blanchard, Head of Clinical Sexology Services at CAMH and creator of the theory of ->-bleeped-<-, categorized as a paraphilia and defined as a mans paraphilic tendency to be sexually aroused by the thought or image of himself as a woman. Also Dr Ann Lawrence, a supporter of his JUNK SCIENCE.
We, the undersigned hereby object to their inclusion on this committee, and object to the hurtful theories they promote.
In order to have any credibility in the field of gender identity, the DSM must not include discounted theories or junk science.
Quote from: queerunity on May 09, 2008, 08:45:09 PM
peggy will be heading up the GID task force
um, zucher is chairing it....
R >:D
Zucker is chairing the section committee for Disorders of Gender and Sexuality. He's the overall chair of the group-as-a-whole. The section is divided into three areas and the chairs listed above are chairs of the working groups designated for those particular areas.
And, TBH, it looks like the big fight will be between Zucker & Kittinis about tx for children. It's a huge issue as can be seen from the NPR selections about Bradley and Violet in the "News" section.
Blanchard and Drescher will be there to discuss and fight over adults and the brain sex/sexuality etiologies of GID.
My guess is the the Clarke is trying to get their psychoanalytic parameters accepted and their position does look strong, but someone sought some balance in the equation by adding Kittinis and Drescher.
The entire affair helps make sense about the inclusion of Alice Dreger's hatchet-job in Archives of Sexual Behavior and the article by Bailey and Triii in the Johns Hopkins sponsored magazine. They are trying to lay the groundwork.
These people are not going to stop until they win or get staked through the heart. They perceive their arguments, apparently, as "the salvation of society and psychoanalytic psychology." And no matter what you believe about yourself and others transitioning or transitioned what we are seeing is this backlash effort by that group to "put women and men back in order." Late/early, primary/secondary, men/women, women or TS/TG, however you see yourself and however you feel about the others if their views prevail those views ARE going to cut you as well as the other groups.
Short-range thinking like that exhibited in the post on Beyond's thread by Laura Eva that suggested that 'dangerous' autogynephiles can be weeded out of the process don't get to the heart of the matter. In fact they ignore the heart in order to lash out at what the one group perceives somehow as a group that will 'hurt' them getting a comeuppance from the baddies.
The baddies are going after us all and you need to see that. And they are going after women as well as being somehow innately inferior and in need of proper training. Zucker makes no bones about wanting to 'cure' every child who comes through his 'clinic.' And given the SOP of the Clarke I am finding it difficult to make a distinction between he and Blanchard when it comes to HSTS/->-bleeped-<-TS.
To think that "this doesn't affect me, just those folks like THAT" is ludicrous in the extreme. It WILL affect you, post-pre-op wherever you find yourself. And if you think this will not affect 'real' women, where you, of course, are going to place yourself, you are deluding yourself. If allowed to be placed into the manual you will see other attempts to rollback thirty years of progress for women, trans men and women and gays and lesbians.
This really does "require" more unity than we have ever had before. It doesn't matter whether you think of yourself as HBS or not. The roots of this run much deeper than many are getting that they, the roots, go.
N~
I agree with your assessment, it is momentous as Janice Raymond's "Transsexual Empire" or Paul McHugh's successfully raising the bar of what constitutes a successful transition so high that Johns Hopkins shut down their transsexual program.
I have no idea how to make your message more palatable, though. Some will pooh-pooh it as paranoid thinking. But a local PFLAG officer and mother of a gay son told me in an interview that she felt the GLBT community would have to have their (our) 'Mississippi burning' and 'Selma, Alabama' before we are allowed by a majority of our society to have civil rights equality.
Listen Here (http://www.flashofinsight.com/soundfiles/PFl-%3E-bleeped-%3C-ieceMixdown.mp3)
And we (trans) are the soft spot for the Reich Wing to drive the stake into the LGBT community. Once they take out trans and start on 'homosexuals', the gays and lesbians may wake up to the danger. But will they be able to stop the momentum?
Karen
to be optimistic i think that the committee will only do one of two things, either move forward and be progressive on trans issue or remain the same. i really dont think they will transgress.