Things Can Get Worse
I apologize for creating a post out of links and re-directs, but the subject is too important to rely simply on what I might personally know. The American Psychiatric Association has named its work group members appointed to revise the Manual for Diagnosis of Mental Disorders in preparation for the DSM-V. The outcome of this revision will effect ALL trans gender medical treatment, and has significant implications that touch the entire LGBT community. The announced group is seriously biased by several very actively trans hostile appointees.
1) Via Lynn Conway ’s Trans News Update
2) Via Mercedes Allen : Dented Blue Mercedes & cross posted to The Belerico Project & Questioning Transphobia
3) Via Rebecca at Burning Words
Lynn’s site lists links to important background material, and Mercedes has some contact info for the APA.
The group has been named, apparently without imput from the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH, formerly HBIGDA) which maintains the the current Standards of Care derived from Dr Benjamin’s original model. Changes in the DSM-V will have very direct impact on that model.
Dr. Kenneth Zucker, the group Chair gained notoriety for his use of reversion therapy to “cure” gender variant children (by forcing them to conform to normative models, directed toward a normative heterosexual outcome). His work is publicly supported by right wing and religious groups, like The Catholic Education Center.
Dr Ray Blanchard is also named to the group. Blanchard does not recognize trans men. According to Dr. Blanchard’s theories trans women fall into one of two categories: 1) homosexuals in a stage of denial or 2) autogynephiles (his term): A compulsive addiction of males sexually obsessed with the eroticism of themselves as female.
Anyone, currently in or considering transition, should seriously consider that the presence of such thinking on the work group responsible for setting the conditions under which treatment of any kind is legitimately provided presents serious dangers not only to the success of their own transition, but to the possible elimination of transition itself as an option.
This is a horrific scenario. It does need international attention and I presume also lobbying with some of the appointed members.
The Dutch member, Dr. Peggy Cohen, works at the Free University genderteam. They are involved in redesigning the WPATH and Dutch derived protocols for treatment. Mainly to liberalise them and to allow musch clearer partial treatment for non-transexuel transgenders. So by nature they should be opposing the likes of Zucker. Also I think the international transgender community should address the appointed committee directly stating our worries very explicit. We can always condemn the way the committee’s composition by going very public on the issue.
Right. So we’ve got someone out to cure the kids and another expert who doesn’t believe the condition exists? The mind boggles.
It certainly deserves international attention Alice. The DSM-IV is pretty much the global bible that dictates standars of care (in countries that have such standards at least). Mercedes Allen posted a comment on Rebecca’s blog Burning Words, which places the expected publication date in 20011. That seems like enough time to organize opposition. It occurs to me though, that’s not quite as long as it seems to get accredited professionals involved in opposition. One potentially nasty possiblity I see is that the voices of opposing trans people could simply be summarily dismissed as an attempt by the “lunatics” to take charge of the asylum. Peer pressure, from professionals would be so much harder to dismiss.
Lynn, my mind is less boggled by this, since I tend to anticipate such occurences as possibilities in anything with political/power dynamics attached. The creditials of a degree in medicine don’t convey either the quality of care nor the ethical treatment a doctor will provide. The more people support the impact of his intentions, the less ethical considerations or quality of care are priorities. Zucker has justified his practice in print on several occasions by citing the “legal” right of parents to direct the development of their children as they believe is appropriate. Which he sees as being fulfilled by suppressing homosexual and gender variant expressions. He avoids bringing his own ethical responsibility into the question by making such considerations the responsibility of the parents.
Many trannies and crossdressders may not see any direct connection to them in all this. But if the validity of transition and SRS/GRS as treatment is removed, the legality of dressing itself can be requestioned.
[...] This is EmmaG’s commentary. [...]
@ Lynn Jones: You obviously do NOT know Peggy Cohen. I do. She never ever tried to ‘cure’ kids. She helps them including full transition. So your opinion concerning her is - excuse me - bollocks.
@ anyone else: Lynn Conway’s opinion should also not be taken for granted. The way she and some others acted in de Bailey case was a disgrace for transgenders. After some research on the persons in the committee it has become clear to me that their background is not as worse as described by some.
Yes we all need to be on guard on how the committee works. Being critical is essential, but disqualifying in advance is a bit silly.
Look at the short reaction Lynn Jones has on Peggy Cohen. Typically far from reality concerning that committee member and very, very short sightened. Argumentation is ok as long it can be supported by facts and not hearsay or prejudice. That should also be the way the transgender community INTERNATIONALLY follows the committee’s progress. This US committee has far to much influence on the international WPATH protocol. So what needs to be done is to make very very clear to the committee that as far as gender dysphoria is concerned they should be very much aware that society nowadays knows gender diversity and develops itself from a gender continuum. That simply excludes the term gender dysphoria from a psychiatric perspective. Rendering this committee as not appropriate to determine treatment of transgenders much thesame way that they are not supposed to define treatment of homosexuals. Knowledge of gender has advanced over the years in a manner that it is clear now that transgenders are not mental cases. They can became such as a result of social isolation an lack of acceptance. This means that society is sick, not the transgender involved.
Of course to resolve the problems transsexuals have with their physical gender medical intervention is necessary, but not from a psychiatric perspective but from a social perspective. It’s the psychologist who should be involved, not the psychiatrist. For us transsexuals it’s about dealing with society and it’s handling of us. And if WE decide that we should alter our body according to our gender identity than that’s our decision. That ofcourse can and should be challenged by psychologists because of the impact of such a decision. In the end it’s our life, our body, our decision.
When the committe learns to undeerstand that they can only skip gender dysphoria from the DSM.
Alice
Hi Alice, and welcome back.
I think you misunderstood the context of Lynn’s comment. I believe she was referring to Dr Kenneth Zucker & Ray Blanchard, the two peole I commented about in my post. I specically didn’t comment on Dr. Cohen. My own research on Dr. Cohen has left me with a positive impression about her. It would be beneficial in you or other members in the Dutch community could provide any additional information, since there is not a great deal available.
Kenneth Zucker has been consulted on the DSM before, on both DSM-3 and DSM-4. It is his inclusion WITH Ray Blanchard that upsets me. They are both from the same institution, with the same theoretical biases. Which I see as stacking the deck in their favor. They are allied professionally to NARTH, a right wing, religiously based anti gay collective posing as a legitimate scientic body, as well as several other dubious institutions. Neither is a medical doctor or a psychiatrist. Both are listed as clinical research psychologist. They do not publish their research data or conclusions in open peer review journals which leaves their research questionable.
Many of the other appointees have apparent positive backgrounds. Since the DSM covers more than gender, I would expect that there would be a diverse cross section of appointees. Which also makes the Zucker?Blanchard combination suspicious and dangerous. I agree with you also that the international makeup of the appointees in not actually international. However, the largest section of appointees comes from Canada (3) AND the US (3) with the remaining three spread through UK (1), Sweden (1) and Dr. Cohen of course from the Netherlands.
While I agree that gender issues are better known at present, I do not in anyway feel they are generally well understood. The number of gender related violent deaths has risen, not declined. My personal feeling is that gender variation is entirely natural. And there is alot of positive research being done to support that conclusion. But much as I want to believe it will be conclusively proven, I am also aware that we are not at that point yet. There are not enough verifiable facts to make that a complete assumption.
Academic science is a slow, conservative mechanism. If GID is removed from the DSM now it will be done more on the basis of economic factors than anything else. It will remove for one, any social obligation to provide treatment assistance. The assistance that exists is already abominable WITH the DSM classification. The expectation that the naturalness of gender variance will provide greater care to a greater number of people is not in keeping with the economic reality of health care globally.
In a worse case scenario, “autogyneophilia” might be added to the DSM. That would but all transgender identity on the same level as other sexually obsessive/compulsive behavior.
At the very least, the APA should consider removing one of the two allied Zucker/Blanchard team.
WPATH guidelines are not legally binding. Though I think they certainly are the ethical minimum that should be applied as Soc, they are in fact recommendations only. Violation/disregard of the current Soc happen all the time here in Australia. And in the US when I lived there.
All human rights violations are social problems. Better and accurate education, open dialogue, and open mindedness are all part of the solution to that problem. Along with tolerance, mutual respect and trust. The last three are much harder than the first. The fact that you and I can exchange thoughts while living on opposite sides of the world is a very good place to start. I would appreciate any further information you can provide about Dr. Cohen, and the state of care in the Netherlands. And thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts.
Alice, my comments where based on the article as originally posted - namely the paragraphs referring to Zucker and Blanchard - and not what you had posted. Indeed, I hadn’t read your original post until later today. I can see how they could be confused! Sometimes I quote the blog I’m referring, sometimes I don’t.
My reply was also more of a question rather than a statement of fact. I’m no expert on transition and I don’t follow what goes on in medical circles. I have a passing interest because of who I am and also the people I socialise with. Yet - and as Emma points out - I struggle to see how the views of some of the committee and others apply to my day to day life.
I suppose certain views could be picked up as ‘fact’ by parties interested in banning cross-dressing (regardless of you being CD / TV / TS / FT - pick your label) but that risk has always been with us. You don’t need *ahem* science to bring about a change in the law. Just enough people to push it through.
When science meets polictics, it rarely ends well. Chuck religion into that mix and you’re in for a bumpy ride. The debates of Creationism as Science springs to mind.