I have a story that will affect all future transitioners. The American Psychiatric Association (APA) has begun the process of updating the DSM. It was last updated in 1994 and version 5 is projected to be out in 2012. However, preliminary indications don't look good. The APA released the names of people who will be involved with undertaking. Here is the list for group dealing with sexual and gender identity disorders:
QuoteSexual and Gender Identity Disorders Work Group
Kenneth J. Zucker, Ph.D. (Chair) Head, Gender Identity Service Clinic, Child, Youth, and Family Program Centre for Addiction and Mental Health Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Irving M. Binik, Ph.D. Professor Department of Psychology McGill University Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Ray Blanchard, Ph.D. Professor, Department of Psychiatry University of Toronto Head of Clinical Sexology Services Centre for Addiction and Mental Health Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Peggy T. Cohen-Kettenis, Ph.D. Head of the Department of Medical Psychology VU University Medical Center Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Jack Drescher, M.D. Clinical Assistant Professor of Psychiatry, New York Medical College Associate Attending Psychiatrist, St. Luke'sRoosevelt Hospital Center New York, NY
Cynthia Graham, Ph.D. Research Tutor Oxford Doctoral Course in Clinical Psychology Isis Education Centre Warneford Hospital Headington, Oxfordshire, United Kingdom
Richard B. Krueger, M.D. Medical Director, Sexual Behavior Clinic Department of Psychiatry New York State Psychiatric Institute and Columbia University New York, NY
Niklas Långström, M.D., Ph.D. Associate Professor Centre for Violence Prevention Karolinska Institutet Stockholm, Sweden
Heino F. L. Meyer-Bahlburg, Dr. rer. nat. Professor of Clinical Psychology Department of Psychiatry College of Physicians & Surgeons Columbia University New York, NY
Robert Taylor Segraves, M.D., Ph.D. Chairperson Department of Psychiatry MetroHealth Medical Center Cleveland, OH [/color]
Recognize a couple of those names? A couple of guys from the Clark in Toronto, Canada:
http://www.tsroadmap.com/info/kenneth-zucker.html (http://"http://www.tsroadmap.com/info/kenneth-zucker.html")
http://www.tsroadmap.com/info/ray-blanchard.html (http://"http://www.tsroadmap.com/info/ray-blanchard.html")
Here's more on Zucker and how he "treats" children with GID:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=90247842
It's more accurately described as reparative therapy.
This is NOT a positive development, especially Zucker being the chairman of this work group.
Please help prevent Zucker and Blanchard from dictating the future of treatment for all people born transsexual by signing the following petition.http://www.thepetitionsite.com/petition/412001300 (http://www.thepetitionsite.com/petition/412001300)
Make your voice heard, WE CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE!
The petition link is bad.
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/petition/412001300
Zucker is vile in the way he messes up the minds and future adulthood of children who are 90% probability core TS.
Blanchard has a valuable contribution to make because " ->-bleeped-<-", (a very real paraphilia), categorises a significantly high percentage of late transitioners, even though the TS community denies this fact, and shy's away from acknowledging that the condition even exists ....
Whether autogynophiles need to be identified and "filtered out" of the definitions of transsexuallity is an issue that needs real debate, as it's a condition that muddies the water between TS as a "born condition" and a "sexual deviation".
And that's not to say many autogynophiles don't lead a happier life post surgery, except their chance of regretting is maybe way higher ? Or that they should be denied surgery per se ? But are they as deserving of acceptance (maybe public funding) for their condition as someone who presented for diagnosis as a pre-teen transsexual ?
Very ambiguous about this petition other than get Zucker off the chair ....
Laura x
Quote from: Laura Eva B on May 09, 2008, 06:44:42 PM
Blanchard has a valuable contribution to make because " ->-bleeped-<-", (a very real paraphilia), categorises a significantly high percentage of late transitioners, even though the TS community denies this fact, and shy's away from acknowledging that the condition even exists ....
Whether autogynophiles need to be identified and "filtered out" of the definitions of transsexuallity is an issue that needs real debate, as it's a condition that muddies the water between TS as a "born condition" and a "sexual deviation".
And that's not to say many autogynophiles don't lead a happier life post surgery, except their chance of regretting is maybe way higher ? Or that they should be denied surgery per se ? But are they as deserving of acceptance (maybe public funding) for their condition as someone who presented for diagnosis as a pre-teen transsexual ?
I presume that you are classifying yourself in that phrase "someone who presented for diagnosis as a pre-teen transsexual?" And transitioned at what age? The pic you posted of you at 1 month hrt just made you look a good bit older than pre-teen is why I ask.
So, Laura Eva, where are you getting all these statistics about autogynephiles that are being withheld by the TS community? Could you please post references to the studies you are basing this opinion on? I would really love to see them because the 'facts' as you just presented them above sorta tend to make a couple of papers I am writing look like they are wrong. I'd rather not submit them since you have this autogyephile evidence.
You could surely do me a great favor by just pming me the links.
Thanks so much.
Nichole
Quote from: Beyond on May 09, 2008, 05:35:25 PM
Please help prevent Zucker and Blanchard from dictating the future of treatment for all people born transsexual by signing the following petition.
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/petition/412001300 (http://"http://www.thepetitionsite.com/petition/412001300")
Make your voice heard, WE CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE!
Signed!
tink :icon_chick:
Zucker is on there? That's disgusting. It's a bit like asking Anton Lavey to reform the Catholic Church. I guess the lesson is to transition before 2012.
Kristi
My own personal opinion and thoughts on this is that when the ground work this Zucker performs begins to fall apart after the brainwashing fails, will be when his harbor chickens will come home to roost.
Wing Walker is doing a web search in some other on websites devoted to TS information to see if there is another petition link we could use.
Cindy
I've signed it, and am forwarding the link to everyone I can think of.
Z
Thank you Zythyra
Cindy
Quote from: Kristi on May 09, 2008, 10:13:34 PM
Zucker is on there? That's disgusting. It's a bit like asking Anton Lavey to reform the Catholic Church. I guess the lesson is to transition before 2012.
Kristi
Oh... From what I hear he's probably much worse than Lavey... Hahah.
And plus he's hilarious, cause he's got a chrome dome...
But yeah. Signed. I hate doctors that practice like that... NOT COOL. Every result I've heard of from a therapist like that has not ended well, including one guy who killed himself with a shotgun. That one was on Discovery. NOT GOOD.
I fixed the link in the top post. Thanks for correcting me!
In my opinion anyone who believes most late transitioners are "autogynephillic" has shame and self-acceptance issues to deal with. Because by Blanchards own definition "autogynephillics" are MEN. >:( Also Blanchard has NO explanation of FtM's. People like them are hell bent on protecting the patriarchy by pathologizing any "man" who would give up male privilege. We aren't (MtF's) driven by sex, they (Blanchard et al) are. We are driven by identity, specifically gender identity, a concept that they say doesn't exist!
Zucker AND Blanchard must go!!!
I signed too.
Jay
Quote from: cindybc on May 09, 2008, 10:39:52 PM
My own personal opinion and thoughts on this is that when the ground work this Zucker performs begins to fall apart after the brainwashing fails, will be when his harbor chickens will come home to roost.
Q: How many psychologists does it take to change a lightbulb?
A: Only one. But the lightbulb has to
want to change...
And that is the 'out' that reparative therapists use to absolve themselves of failure when their clients don't change -- they they didn't
want to change bad enough. And in this case, the blast radius of that guilt-missile includes the childs' parents <sigh>.
Still, the effectiveness of transition as treatment is a LOT higher than with schizophrenia and other severely debilitating conditions, even if you slice-and-dice the community as Laura Eva B has proposed.
Karen
What I am always amazed at is this: let's say for the sake of the argument that ' ->-bleeped-<-' affects 75% of the population of women and men who transition past 30 years of age. And that it affects 10% of those who transition before age 30, because there will be some overlap. All this is never all that.
So, who makes, and how do they make, the distinction of who has a paraphilia and who doesn't? Currently the BBL theories make the distinction based on age, whether or not someone gets married and, in Bailey's case, whether someone served in the military, had children, worked in a professional field of endeavor that is historically male-dominated. So all professors, biologists, physicists, mathematicians, engineers, politicians, med-techs, doctors, lawyers, writers and psychoanalysts CANNOT be HSTS. Does there appear to be a 'sexist' bias at the base of those designations?
Otherwise, all HSTSes are "well-suited,' he states, as prostitutes, hair-dressers, show-girls and sales-clerks plus they yearn to be sexualized. Their deepest desire is to have sex with heterosexual men and be sexual playthings.
Now who is fantasizing about women?
Blanchard has not openly made those designations in the way Bailey has; yet, they work hand-in-glove, one coming in to support the other. Thus, lil ole me has trouble making a distinction that doesn't demand a difference in that regard. Zucker's insistence that children with penises not be allowed to play with dolls, ponies, 'girl'-games, like pink!! or be better conversationalists than fighters is also not different, is it? (I'm serious, if anyone shows me how none of these are related to one another and do NOT present the world's most blatant and reactionary sexist distinctions, please enlighten me. I will be happy to change my mind and make a public apology.)
That some women want to place themselves on the 'good side' of the Blanchard, Zucker, Lawrence and Bailey criteria doesn't surprise me in the least. Except that the attempt seems horribly short-sighted and internally dismissive of one's self and of other women. How do you, when you transition in your forties, make anyone believe (if they work from those criteria) that you are more 'real TS' than the ->-bleeped-<-TSes?
Since surgery is as efficacious as it has been shown to be, the 'regret' rate in less than 2%, perhaps less than 1%, does it dawn on the pro-dismiss- the-so-called ->-bleeped-<-TSes-and-only-allow-surgeries-for-those-'truly'-in-need-of-it school, that this will make it very difficult to justify surgery for anyone? The general public is gonna see it all, as Paul McHugh has shown us, as surgeries are merely 'mutilation' of the sacred penis? The pressure on the surgeons will be as great as that on doctors who perform abortions after 12 weeks. And availability will quite probably be restricted to countries like Thailand and Iran that do not work with the current SOC. Getting any 'publically-funded' surgeries is going to be closed down. Again, look at McHugh and Johns Hopkins.
Thus, the distinctions that were being made above are short-sighted and just plain beg the question: so who does get approved for surgery if the children are being 'repaired' and the women and men who are not between 20 and 30 are not given surgeries, and how do we determine that someone between 20 & 30 does not fall into the ->-bleeped-<-TS category? Afterall, in a matter this serious one would wish to establish a fool-proof way to deny all mutilators-by-surgery-for-sexual-purposes. What better way than to just cut the Gordian Knot and deny surgeries for all?
My guess is that the long-run decision under that model is gonna be, deny all surgeries and 'brainwash' anyone who does say they are TS. That way we can put that genie back into its bottle and be done with these very uncomfortable occurrences of anything that makes us uncomfortable with the physical binary we currently wish to uphold.
There are reasons that Bailey and Blanchard also belong to work-groups that openly discuss eugenic work that will rid the genome of 'problematic' genetic markers: like homosexuality, transsexuality, etc. But, show me some evidence that I am way off-base and, like I said, I will publically apologize on this board in whatever space is required and admit that some women and men are more 'real' than are others.
Nichole
And for those of you long-done with surgery or just about to have it or who will have it in the next 3 years (the DSM-V is scheduled for 2011 publishing,) I'd say you better think again. This will affect you if ALL and every record isn't totally expunged. Now how would it look to allow any of you to run around 'mutilated' if you can be found and outted? *sigh* Not wanting to be affected hardly kept blacks, Hispanics, closeted-gays and other minorities from being detected and handled in the same fashion as the more visible ones of their minority.
Good luck getting estrogen at all after you are post-op if this kind of regime takes hold. And you will need that for the rest of your lives.
QuoteThere are reasons that Bailey and Blanchard also belong to work-groups that openly discuss eugenic work that will rid the genome of 'problematic' genetic markers: like homosexuality, transsexuality, etc. But, show me some evidence that I am way off-base and, like I said, I will publically apologize on this board in whatever space is required and admit that some women and men are more 'real' than are others.
Are you freaking serious? Thats terrible. How would they allow people like that, involved in something like that, to do ANYTHING? >:(
change of a word.
After reading the article about Zucker's way of "curing" young transsexuals it reminds me from those stories from the 1960's or something. It's "parked" in the same lane as "ooh, let's cure homosexuality".
And now we're 40 years further and if someone says he/she is homosexual hardly anyone who is sane would suggest he/she should get "cured" for that.........
Also the following statement from Zucker on that site somewhat surprises me: "Suppose you were a clinician and a 4-year-old black kid came into your office and said he wanted to be white. Would you go with that? ... I don't think we would."
Ridiculous, it's like comparing an apple with a pear........ :S
Hi Beyond, Thank you very much for fixing the link.
Wing Walker was in touch with a friend in Washington DC and recommends having a look at this website www.ts-si.org
Cindy
Posted on: May 10, 2008, 05:47:51 PM
I really don't understand what all this BS is but yea, sounds like a lot of BS that is going to hurt a whole bunch of us.
Cindy
As of this morning there are over 1200 signatures. Im hoping this will be a cry that will bring positive light to our lives. And for you girls that havent signed, you really need to. Hugs
Wendy
I'm assuming they will verify your name and information once you sign?
(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fganjataz.com%2F01smileys%2Fimages%2Fsmileys%2FloopyBlonde-blinking.gif&hash=4545ddf8251cf9c32ae6074d56e48bc34a755857)
Not yet.
N~
Quote from: Kristi on May 12, 2008, 10:04:59 AM
I'm assuming they will verify your name and information once you sign?
(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fganjataz.com%2F01smileys%2Fimages%2Fsmileys%2FloopyBlonde-blinking.gif&hash=4545ddf8251cf9c32ae6074d56e48bc34a755857)
I'd assume so.
And for anyone who is concerned about privacy, you can sign it and choose to not have your name displayed publicly!
Z
I doubt they are going to go through the costs of trying to do that.
Hi, Has anyone thought of forwarding the petition to any other TS forums and message boards for members there to sign?
Cindy
This is on the website for the TS Symposium. Have a look.
http://ts-si.org/content/view/3194/995/ (http://ts-si.org/content/view/3194/995/)
Wing Walker
Quote from: cindybc on May 12, 2008, 02:33:57 PM
Hi, Has anyone thought of forwarding the petition to any other TS forums and message boards for members there to sign?
Someone originally posted it on BeginningLife and I reposted it here and on Laura's Playground. I also know it's on True Selves. And it's also listed on Lynn Conway's news page, so it is getting around. As of a few minutes ago about 2,000 people have signed!
Hi Beyond, thank you for the information, That's great, the petition should find it's way around pretty good now. Great the amount of signatures have just about doubled maybe more since I last checked this morning. Note, also have a look at www.ts-si.org for more information on the DSM-V revision
Cindy
No offense, but online petitions are generally laughed at when it comes to real events that do require some sort of public outcry to change.
Names and identities can easily be made up and 'signed' to an online petition, and tracking people down to verify identity is practically impossible, due to ISP tracking and the variants that entails. There's also the fact that numbers could be easily be skewered. I could, for example, use a proxy and sign the petition 100 times (with different information I nabbed from my phone book).
Online petitions are generally not admissible or even thought of as 'true' petitions in most cases.
If you really want to fight against this---write an actual letter, or call. THAT will make them notice.
Hi Discarded
Wing Walker and I have been discussing this subject about Zucker and Blanchard on and off most of the day and we both have come to agreeing that a letter would hold more weight than emails. Might be a good idea to pass this along to the same TS folks to whom we sent the email petition earlier.
Cindy
So where could a letter be sent?
(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fganjataz.com%2F01smileys%2Fimages%2Fsmileys%2FloopyBlonde-blinking.gif&hash=4545ddf8251cf9c32ae6074d56e48bc34a755857)
American Psychiatric Association
1000 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 1825
Arlington, Va. 22209-3901
phone: 703-907-7300
email: apa@psych.org
Hi Nichole, thank you so much for posting the appropriate address. Wing Walker and I are working on a petition letter to present the folks on this thread later today.
Cindy
Posted on: May 13, 2008, 07:20:58 PM
Hi all, I was wondering where this thread had gon to.
Wing Walker and I are still working on a petition letter to the APA for anyone here to use
Cindy