Because of the power of religious fundamentalist and the Zucker nomination to DSM-V I am asking will it be harder to get SRS in the future? I have still quit a time to wait before I get my recomendations. Using Zucker criters I am not a transsexual. Does that matter more in the future?
Quote from: goingdown on October 05, 2008, 01:16:00 AM
Because of the power of religious fundamentalist and the Zucker nomination to DSM-V I am asking will it be harder to get SRS in the future? I have still quit a time to wait before I get my recomendations. Using Zucker criters I am not a transsexual. Does that matter more in the future?
What does this mean "Zuckers Criteria" of TS, what is different about his definition of TS?
I am curious, I did not know that there are different criteria for what a TS is.
Perhaps this article may shed some light on the subject?
http://www.exgaywatch.com/wp/2008/05/the-apas-dsm-v-development-kenneth-zuckers-involvement/ (http://www.exgaywatch.com/wp/2008/05/the-apas-dsm-v-development-kenneth-zuckers-involvement/)
tink :icon_chick:
In the future will there be surgeons that will perform SRS for patients those are transsexuals (according to old criterias) but not if used more narrow (My assumption) DSM-V criterias?
Well, look on the bright side; DSM-V is not expected out until 2012.
Get your SRS while it's hot!
I takes a time to get my surgery recomendations. My best hope is that some SRS-surgeons will continue treating all transsexual and do not fall biased DSM-V criterias. I even dare to hope that because of DSM-V criterias are not objective instead very biased some gendertherapist will continue giving recomendations for all transsexuals.
Last time I checked, most surgeons follow the WPATH Standards of Care. (or a variation of it)
Which is not to say that a more restrictive DSM isn't a bad thing, (it is) but I think you are jumping the gun when you claim that getting GRS will be more difficult in the near future (within 2 years) because Zucker and Blanchard are in a work group on it now. (for the DSM-V)
Quote from: Tink on October 05, 2008, 01:04:03 PM
Perhaps this article may shed some light on the subject?
http://www.exgaywatch.com/wp/2008/05/the-apas-dsm-v-development-kenneth-zuckers-involvement/ (http://www.exgaywatch.com/wp/2008/05/the-apas-dsm-v-development-kenneth-zuckers-involvement/)
tink :icon_chick:
Thanks for the info, Tink.
I think this man should go talk to my father and see if aversion therapy and gender reinforcing activity actually works. I think this is the most ludicrous thing I have ever heard of.
I was raised by a father who was 100% male, there was no room in his family for a boy who did not conform to this. My father would not even let my brother and I play with armymen or other type toys because he said that girls played with dolls.
I was forced to work like an adult from the time I was 11 yrs old, and because I was (still am) small and because I was a white child in predominately black area, I had to act even tougher than most people just so nobody would bother me (picking tomatoes, is not a place to find openminded understanding people).
I lived (on the outside) a very hard male life from this age on, I never even had the ability growing up to crossdress or experiment, I sure did not engage in any "homosexual behavior" which is what Dr. Zucker suggests our true motivation is.
If there is a poster child for the failure or his type of therapy I am. There was no-way he could enforce a male lifestyle any better than my father did, and since that failed (because I have worse feelings today than I did when I was young) I am highly skeptical of the claim that 80% of his patients do not develop TS.
I think most likely that the 80% he claims as success, either never were suffering from TS or are more likely living in misery to this day and are most likely unwilling to ever seek help from the medical community again!
Zucker and his cohorts can kiss my ass. I have met the man, he is more of an idiot then his coworkers. Read his book "Gender Identity in Childhood and Adolescences". I advocate his immediate dismissal because he is abusing children and they can't stand up for themselves any more then an intersexed infant can choose surgery. If I wanted to transition through a gender program it would of been him destroying my life. As always the DSM will say we are crazy but it hasn't and won't stop me from ignoring them and getting the proper medical treatment for my disorder. Surgeons will always make their own judgment calls no matter what the psychiatrists say.
Where this man is dangerous is getting insurance coverage and for the children being brought to him. I repeat he should be fired and have his license revoked. I have seen his care and it would only worsen dangerous situations. I have never seen him make a good call on a kid and thats who he works with.
->-bleeped-<-boy
I am afraid that I cannot give a thoroughgoingly authoritative answer to the question posed in the OP. However, you will find that the more thoroughly educated therapists out there very rarely refer to just one source of information on a subject. They are also a lot better at using their own judgement to resolve complex problems. If real research continues pointing to transsexualism as a legitimate condition, then it should become ever easier to get adequate care through the better therapists out there.
If you're seeing a therapist who follows the DSM-IV like some kind of bible, get out of there, quick. I've had good friends get really messed up from allowing low-budget shrinks to try to treat them for depression, anxiety and other disorders. Never trust a therapist who obviously doesn't know what he's doing. You're better off buying mexican wild yam root by the bottle and doing it all on your own.
Just to stress how important it is to make sure you're getting decent care, let me tell you a little story. If you've been screwed like this before, you're going to love this. One of my husband's employees had to start taking her daughter to a new therapist. They had moved recently and didn't know the area very well, and they didn't have a whole lot of money. They ended up going to a relatively inexpensive professional somewhere in town. This turned out to be a very bad move. In fact, it was an exceptionally dangerous move because her daughter had been suffering from a potentially life-threatening form of anorexia nervosa. Well, what happened was that the quack took her OFF of a medication that had been helping her, and it nearly killed her.
You know what his premise for it was? His reasoning was that it had some risk for abuse. In his words, "Do you really want to give your daughter a drug that is used by drug addicts!?" He was afraid that this woman's daughter was going to start crushing up her meds and snorting them through a straw (this is actually pretty ridiculous because the young woman has otherwise behaved respectably). Well, as a result of this man's closed-minded ignorance, this girl may have died young if it had not been for the excellent healthcare provided at the hospital in town. He was right to be concerned about the chance for substance abuse, yes. What he didn't recall from his lessons, however, was that 1) anorexia nervosa can become lethal, and 2) taking a person off of that type of drug too suddenly can result in a life-threatening rebound, even in a healthy individual. He was a QUACK. She couldn't sue him for malpractice, though, because he was technically acting in accordance to acceptable and mainstream literature.
If you can't afford to see a therapist who has the good sense to ignore the DSM where it conflicts with real science, then keep patiently rolling your pennies until you can afford the care you need. Don't cut corners on your healthcare, particularly if the instutution you intend to entrust yourself to will be handling such an intimate and fragile thing as your mind. Your mind is not a toy.
Quote from: goingdown on October 05, 2008, 01:16:00 AM
Because of the power of religious fundamentalist and the Zucker nomination to DSM-V I am asking will it be harder to get SRS in the future? I have still quit a time to wait before I get my recomendations. Using Zucker criters I am not a transsexual. Does that matter more in the future?
From what I've been lead to understand the amount of people that would be eligible for Grs would be greatly reduced. Only those who are identified as "homosexual transsexual", M2F transsexuals that are sexually attracted to men, would be allowed to move forward. Lesbian, asexual like myself & bisexual transexuals would be painted autogynephilic and be classified as "mentally unstable" for surgery. I think that this will turnout to be a return to the earlier standards for transsexuals for m2f's that means being seen as the perfect Stepford wife. Thank heavens I'm getting my grs in three weeks. ::)
So I am in danger. I have been diagnosed as a transsexual. I have been eaten hormons for a year now. I have spent a lot of money to remove my facial hair that is now quit complite. My hope is that atypical transsexuals as me can get even in the future resomendations from gendertherapists and some surgeons will use their own judgement.
My own suspicion is that people in the system will likely get an easier ride but those coming in will suffer more perhaps.
Also the amount of time for this way of looking at TS will vary depending on therapist involved, I know for one that my clinic have no plans to follow this as I have discussed this with my therapist and his team. Unless they throw out the whole SOC I cant see it being as widely affecting as it might seem. I could be way off the mark though and we're all going to burn :(
I identify as lesbian though so im marked as well then.
Vanna, in gender clinic where I go the clear sexual identification is plus despite of what is it. Many patient that have gone faster than me have been lesbians. In case you are a shy girl and believe that sex is only for serious relationships when you are complited you are much more stuck.
Quote from: goingdown on October 05, 2008, 02:54:56 PM
I takes a time to get my surgery recomendations. My best hope is that some SRS-surgeons will continue treating all transsexual and do not fall biased DSM-V criterias. I even dare to hope that because of DSM-V criterias are not objective instead very biased some gendertherapist will continue giving recomendations for all transsexuals.
They will treat all transsexuals even after dsm-V
there will just be less transsexuals
Could they say that I am not a transsexual after 1 year succesful hormone treatment and current formal diagnose?
yep, deffinately, the diagnosis wont hold if the definition changes...
But as I said some therapist and surgeons may continue to treat ''patients that has been diagnosed as transsexuals using the old criteria''. All doctors cannot refuse to treat me. It is irresponsible to make a diagnoses and start body the treatment process and the leave as she-male.
it does depend, what the new criteria are? we wont know, but i doubt they will treat paients who dont qualify as transsexual, they wont treat you now if you arnt transsexual, why would they in the future?
It would be medically irresponsible to make a diagnose and start treatments and then stop them/ do not give chanche to complite them.
Hi ->-bleeped-<-boy hon, we certainly have discussed these two shady characters Zucker and Blanchard before on another thread a few months back, I do quite agree with you though. But I beleive they are to busy breaking children's spirits right now to worry much about us older buzzards.
There was even a petition going around but I am not to certain if an Internet petition would carry much weight. Then the thread died out and I never heard anymore. I just wish those two air heads would get abducted by aliens and left on some asteroid somewhere on the other side of the universe.
Hi Fer hon, I don't think you have to worry much about Zucker and Blanchard, I don't think they'll for-close on you and repossess it. I know the banks and all in the US are kind of ailing right now but if they start repossessing Trans-folks poozzles, we got some big time problems in the US and maybe it's time to start looking for our own asteroid. "Hee, hee, hee." Just tugin on your socks sweets.
I can't say for sure but I don't think the other provinces of Canada and the US will have to worry about those two pee brains for a wee while at least. It just might be that they may mess around with one kid to many and some irate parent may sue the pants off of them. Poor kids, that is just down right torture, "cruelty!!" and I do pray the parents wake up and smell the coffee.
Cindy
I signed the petition and at least two people with whom I discussed with other issues I got to do it.
Posted on: October 17, 2008, 05:38:26 am
So I should get SRS befor 2012 but I doubt that I will be able to get it before. In my gender clinic there was first a young, politically right wing gendertherapist who spoke lot of like Zucker. He say directly that I am not a transsexual. Then two other unbiased therapist had made the diagnoses of ''obvious transsexuality''. So I do not get SRS in probably case I have to wait to 2012.
Hi Goingdown hon, Even after 2012 I beleive that what ever authority this Zucker will be given in regards to the decision of allowing him to perform his new method of diagnosing transsexuality. I believe it will take time before gaining ground sufficiently to spread much outside of Ontario in Canada. We can only hope he self destructs before then, or that he doesn't get awarded the research grant by the province. There are many factors there that are not truly known enough to make any type decisive conclusion with certainty.
If you found that petition would you re-post it here for others here to assay for themselves.
Cindy
The petition has been closed. It got over 9000 signatures.
Maybe we can start another one.
Cindy
Technically its not iresponsible... its irresponsible if the previous diagnosis is now deemed incorect to continue treatment...
it all depends how the guidelines apear and which doctors change thiers... If it is professionally deemed transition is wrong for you. continue yourself by all means, but dont whine that you dont like the decision that doctors made for your own good... or in your best interests... whatever that may be. As much as people here will disagree, doctors are not out to hurt you, Doctors follow the hypocratic oath to do the best possible for thier patients... regardless of beliefs.
Zucker and Blanchard are a couple of screw ball quackers like my rubber ducky you know, the one I play with in my bathtub, "quack, quack, quack!" Jeepers per quackery anyway. "Hee, hee, hee." Hi Rachael hon, Cindy waves, *big grin.* ;D
Cindy
Quote from: goingdown on October 05, 2008, 01:16:00 AM
Because of the power of religious fundamentalist and the Zucker nomination to DSM-V I am asking will it be harder to get SRS in the future? I have still quit a time to wait before I get my recomendations. Using Zucker criters I am not a transsexual. Does that matter more in the future?
I'm not sure what a "Zucker transsexual" is, goingdown. Perhaps one who's in remission or has become a gay male and is happy with that.
The APA will absolutely
not have a huge effect on surgeries, I think. For the doctors who do them and the majority of therapists who write the letters and make the referrals to those doctors there is little effect the DSM will make even if Zucker and Blanchard personally write every word of the sexual identity disorders sections. For the most part their ideas are not mainstream in the first place. Their methods are badly flawed and as a lot of psychological research does they begin with the
fact that their pov is the
truth and then they cram whatever they can into the research to
prove it.
What's always missed in these cases seems to be that the surgeons will be intent on making a living. There is no legal requirement, as far as I am aware, that WPATH or DSM criteria must be used to perform a surgery. Most of that, as is a lot of DSM stuff, is for insurance coverage and the surgeons will be concerned with the appearance of psychotic disorders in a patient that might lead to nasty lawsuits later on. They do need to carry malpractice insurance that doesn't require them to work all year to pay an insurance company.
As someone said, 2012 is the year the DSM-V is supposed to be out. But trust me, no well-trained and experienced therapist is going to go strictly and rigidly by what the DSM says. That would be totally absurd as huge hunks of the DSM are nothing more than new and better ways to pursue pharmaceutical marketing goals and huge hunks are merely ways to strait-jacket a lot of people into a particular societally-acceptable mode of behavior. That's why every conceivable human behavior appears at some point in one or more diagnoses. Those reasons and insurance-reimbursement pretty much are the DSM when you get past psychotic disorders.
The DSM is a good guide to getting paid for treatment when one needs to get paid through insurance. That one reason alone is enough to guarantee, as it already does, that diagnoses like "transvestic fetishism" are only used by high-priced psychiatrists who have self-pay clients. The people who actually work with transsexuals don't use the codes or those diagnoses simply because almost no insurance-provider accepts them as reimbursibles.
Quite honestly that doesn't strike me as problematic at all. It forces us to actually discover whether or not the client has a mental disorder or is simply depressed and anxious over their dysphoria. Not a bad result for any and all concerned.
Nichole
My problem was that they insisted that my transsexuality was ''the logical outcome from genderdysphoria '' rather than ''core identity disorder with no other reason.''
It might help if SOMEONE knew what actually constituted a transsexual.
So far as i can tell, nobody can ;)
Rachael
Nicole wrote that DSM-V has no huge effects for surgeries. Do you agree?
I would say it will affect and is affecting only those who go see Zucker and company to have their evaluations. Ontario is a big province probably bigger then many European countries although not as heavily populated and Toronto is a metropolis where there are many different places one could go to find a shrink who specialises in GID as well as a therapist. I have already directed a couple of folks in this group away from those two.
Cindy
I'd say it depends largely on what doctors subscribe to the DSM-V definition, whatever it may be. if that pertains to diagnosis, sure, it will ahve an effect because if you arnt diagnosed transsexual, you wont get surgery, but for those already in transition, id say the chances of it being revesred during a sucessful rle, are unlikely.
Quote from: cindybc on October 17, 2008, 10:33:05 AM
I would say it will affect and is affecting only those who go see Zucker and company to have their evaluations. Ontario is a big province probably bigger then many European countries although not as heavily populated and Toronto is a metropolis where there are many different places one could go to find a shrink who specialises in GID as well as a therapist. I have already directed a couple of folks in this group away from those two.
Cindy
The direct them toward Sherbourne Health Centre in Toronto. The CAMH would not be my choice of places to have gone for either "therapy" or for "treatment." Sherbourne stays crowded, of course, but at least you work with people like Rupert Raj (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Raj) and others like him. His article here (http://www.symposion.com/ijt/ijtvo06no02_04.htm) is and was seminal for therapists and other providers. And this (http://sexualities.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/10/1/101) he contributed to as well. He's a man with a transsexing history himself.
Nichole
Thanks for the info Nicole I copy.
There is a good suport group here in Vancouver as well, next to California down under from here. ;D
Cindy
One thing that really have made me difficulties are my views of sexual ethics. However I am strong support of legal contraception in all forms I also personally believe that young people should not have sex without a very serious relationship. And I am worried how some ''sexy'' advertasing affects growing people expectionally girls.
(Am I pro-life or pro-choice. Of course pro-choice.)
Posted on: October 17, 2008, 12:56:50 pm
Quote from: Fer on October 16, 2008, 11:43:26 PM
Quote from: goingdown on October 05, 2008, 01:16:00 AM
. I think that this will turnout to be a return to the earlier standards for transsexuals for m2f's that means being seen as the perfect Stepford wife.
[/quote/]
Actully I have very much common with this type of transsexuals. But not enough using the Bailey-Lawrence taxonomy.
I think that pre-op sex with a man would feel like being sexually abused. So I am strickly sinle.
How would sex with a guy pre op feel like sexual abuse?
I love my boyfriend very much, and we have had sex... it was an amazing loving sharing experience... HOW you get abuse out of consentual sex i dont know.... either way thats a bizzare statement...
i agree with nichole...i don't think the dsm-v is going to affect surgeries much at all. let's face it...why zucker is there at all is a mystery, clearly some kind of politics going on...i know of no one in the business of dealing directly with gender disorders with whom he has any credibility. i have a feeling that the train has truly left the station on the reality of transssexualism now and we're going forward in spite of goofballs like him.
i do think it's important that we make accurate diagnosis' though. i'm old enough to remember the chaos created when johns hopkins bought into the idea of self-identification without documentation...now, that set surgery back for nearly twenty years in this country and provided people like zucker with ammunition to fire at the rest of us. it was this fiacso that led to the adoption of the hbsoc...or now it's successor wpath. i know lots of people who hate the intrusive nature of the standards of care but i personally think they have been a very positive thing for transsexuals and surgery overall. until we can devise some kind of positive test for transsexualism we're just going to have to accept some subjectivity in the diagnois.
the soc....while can be telling, is not the vehicle for diagnosing transsexualism. it's a process by which surgeon's can identify good candidates for surgery. more then just a diagnosis of transsexualism...or harry benjamin syndrome... goes into that. there are many factors by which a clear transsexual might not be a good candidate. performing grs on a bad candidate can be disasterous so we do need to be careful.
my surgeon, while not in full agreement with all aspects of the hbsoc, made it clear that she would abide by them none-the-less. apparently her insurance company is a stickler. my therapist is a little more in oposition...she is kind of in the mindset that once a patient is fully informed then whatever risks they want to take are up to them...but she adheres to the standards as well...she knows it's best for her patients right now if they wish to get surgery to take care of all the paperwork and housekeeping. it will be nice when none of this matters anymore, when we do perfect that test, but until then the bottom line is...it's a subjective diagnosis.
First I have never had boyfriend or girlfriend (according Bailey-Lawrence makes me an autogynephile). And because I identified very strongly as woman ''gay''-sex with some male with me having still my hated male parts feels like a disgusting idea. And also my personal moral views give me objection to sex without a very serious relationship.
Posted on: October 17, 2008, 04:44:50 pm
Long time ago I explained my feelings and situation to a person who knows very much about transsexuality. After discussion she said: There are strong stairts that could be best relating to a severe form of transsexuality. After countless ''experts'' my diagnose has changed from ''casual gender confusion'' to ''very obvious case of transsexuality''.
Quote from: Fer on October 16, 2008, 11:43:26 PM
Quote from: goingdown on October 05, 2008, 01:16:00 AM
Because of the power of religious fundamentalist and the Zucker nomination to DSM-V I am asking will it be harder to get SRS in the future? I have still quit a time to wait before I get my recomendations. Using Zucker criters I am not a transsexual. Does that matter more in the future?
From what I've been lead to understand the amount of people that would be eligible for Grs would be greatly reduced. Only those who are identified as "homosexual transsexual", M2F transsexuals that are sexually attracted to men, would be allowed to move forward. Lesbian, asexual like myself & bisexual transexuals would be painted autogynephilic and be classified as "mentally unstable" for surgery. I think that this will turnout to be a return to the earlier standards for transsexuals for m2f's that means being seen as the perfect Stepford wife. Thank heavens I'm getting my grs in three weeks. ::)
Oh wow. Guess I should get good at lying then... Cause I totally heart penises don't I?
Right?
I hate those people...
I do not usually advice people for lying. But one of the worst mistake I have did was that I told the truth and only that part of truth that I felt them to a psychoanalysists with ''strong moral beliefs'' and no experience in gender identity issues when I first came out. So beware to whom you tell and what.
Well thats my point. I wouldn't be doing this if I didn't know what I was, and someone to tell me otherwise pisses me off...
Text removed and transfered to Just for us section under the topic My experience about gender identity examinations because of sensitive and private info.
Quote from: goingdown on October 18, 2008, 02:42:53 AM
Text removed and transfered to Just for us section under the topic My experience about gender identity examinations because of sensitive and private info.
Was it me? I forget...
Hi Deviousxen hon, I doubt it had anything to do with you, you were only just asking a lot of pertinent questions as far as I can see. Any questions directed towards those two shady characters Zucker and company is open season to some controversy but I have not yet observed any controversy over and beyond the etiquette of the rules of this board, that I am aware of, unless I missed something?
The way I see it and as many message boards as I have been in my life is probably an open book to the entire planet earth through the cyber waves. It won't stop me from enquiring, informing, supporting, sharing my life, searching, telling stories about what ever I believe is relevant to the opportunity to express my feelings, I love my humor, but I also know the value of being serious and get to the point and this could be all in the span of one day. Who is going to do what to me? Are the Russians going to abduct me? Is the secret society of the Masons going to indoctrinate me into theirs society? Get abducted by Area 51 and used as a experimental subject to send me to another dimension through their experminental star gate? Or how about Montauk to inspect their new interdimensional time transporter, then drop in at local restaurant for some clam chowder. "Hee, hee, hee."
Toodle-llo Cindy Wing Walker's Cutesy Shmootsie, international spy signing off. Hmmmm and I don't even have my status card to live on the reservation.
i still dont see how its sexual abuse.... and its not 'gay' sex.... i'm female bodied, with the notable exception of a penis, my body doesnt look male, the times my boyfriend and i have had sex, it has been between a guy and a girl, hes never even SEEN that part of me.... suggesting its gay is suggesting both protagonists are male, and if i could be arsed to post a photo, you'd see the error there.. disgusting maybe to you, but to most, its called love, im afraid i still find the 'sexual abuse' comment very offesive to a straight female such as myself.
From what you describe Rachael I would call it having intimate love and however you have sex is between you two but what I see is a woman having sex with a man. All I can say is God bless that you have a man who is standing at your side, that alone says a lot about your man. Very few men would.
Cindy
Hell, she is drop dead. Any guy would feel good to have her. And should. In the end, most men are a lot more flexable then people seem to give them credit for.
haha you so cant be talking about me!
I am sorry that I offended you Rachael. It was not my intention, however.