Read it and weep! The DSM-5: take IMMEDIATE action or we're going to be labeled as psychos or worse!

Comment by Layna Roth on May 31, 2011 at 12:53am

Adria, for me your sexual orientation and what sex you feel like being romantically involved with has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on your transition. It is a separate issue for you to talk over with your counselor/therapist/psych* All of the questions you posed are for YOU to figure out. If you seek answers from someone else, you become their vision of what you should be. Didn't you already do that once with attempting to live with your dysphora because you were told that's what you are?

More importantly, I wanted to address your "tranny club" remark. The entire point of everything I've said in this thread is that such a thing does NOT exist. Anyone who wishes to tell you otherwise is simply lying to you. You are you. You have your issues to deal with as I have my own issues to deal with, and neither my experience or yours can affect the other either negatively or positively. I can LEARN from your experience, and use whatever lessons you freely offer but it still won't be your experience.

Delphi, I hate to break it to you but there is the TS vs TG debate going on. We just haven't started using those words and I can assure you I won't be =)

Annah, I'm sorry. I disagree with your assessment "that crossdressers can and do become transsexuals and that is not an opinion but a fact." At this point, I'd like to offer you the ability to take this off-blog and private. I'd like to see, and be able to verify your evidence. It could very well be, as I mentioned in my previous post, that we disagree semantically.

As far as being mean, I don't think I was overly mean. I insulted no one, labeled no one and definitely didn't Other anyone. I just made my stance as perfectly clear as I could =)

Comment by Traci O'Gara on May 31, 2011 at 1:15am

No Layna, Adria hits on the head with this...that is the big issue here, if a girl does not desire men, then she is in the "fetish camp"...period! Frankly, it frames all women in a demeaning way...rules for women behavior designed by men! (and Ann Lawrence, but that is another story)...the DSM-5 is just too narrow minded...it is NOT about CDs/TVs piggybacking the "top shelf" girls...civil rights and liberties downstream will be legislated using this logic as a basis! It is much bigger than the "fragged" TG community issue...

Annah, this is being done by the American Psychiatric Association, on their own accord.
The three people in charge of the revisions which will affect the TG/TS communities are:

Frank Zucker -- who radically believes in reparative therapy for GLBT issues

Kenneth Blanchard -- who devised the stupid notion of autogynephilia

"Dr." Anne Lawrence -- who has been a primary evangelist for the notion of autogynephilia
and who is a post op M2F TG/TS person....
Dr. in quotes because Anne's license to practice medicine was revoked a few years ago
Anne's medical speciality and practice was anesthesiology.

Note that Blanchard and Lawrence, over the past decade, have been very open to stating that autogynephilila
is a core issues for ALL (their words) TG/TS people.
And now that will become the official definition.

Comment by Rabecka Salisbury on May 31, 2011 at 4:02am

As someone who is studying Psychology I can tell you that you need not worry about these changes too much. First these are guidelines not absolute. Second, most psychologists and therapists do not dwell too much on what gender you date unless that is part of your problem. Third Transvestism has always been in the DSM and it actually has not changed much over time. It’s still considered a fetish because it meets certain criteria. Now, you would never be called psychotic if you don't date men. The biggest guideline that is looked at is if it impacts your daily life. So unless it becomes a problem to your social life or married life you aren't going to be labeled like someone with schizophrenia.
Ladies transsexualism is what it is. It impacts your life, you are already considered clinically crazy, but not technically crazy. Otherwise you would be locked up in mental health facility. Also, the people that write the DSM are considered the foremost experts in psychology and know more than any of us ever will because of the research they are given. They don’t make these decisions based on their own feelings. Yes Dr. Lawrence should know better than these other doctors because she is a transsexual herself, but the fact is she looked at the research and made an educated decision. I won’t lie there is a ton of research out there that people like us helped create. Sadly, transwomen like us made their decision for them. Look at how many transwomen were only dating women then had SRS and now only date men. That’s part of their research; we made our holes now we must fix them for the future.
Now I am not someone that hates on Crossdressers, but the simple fact is that if you get sexually aroused while wearing women's clothing then you have a fetish. Not everyone does and not everyone fits the criteria for being labeled with a psychosis. There are millions of people who have fetishes that function normally everyday. Foot fetishes are also included and as are people who have to have sex in a costume. Transvestism is a fetish end of story. It’s a fetish because it meets at least 3 categories to be considered a fetish
Do not worry too much about what they are saying. The DSM is a guideline not exact. Its YOUR therapists decision to make on whether or not you need psychiatric help or not. I for one know that yes I date women only, but I date women because I am not into men, and if that makes me crazy fine then. Because in the end I could care less what someone who knows me from only a handful of therapy sessions has to say about my love life.

Comment by Julia Giannopoulos on May 31, 2011 at 8:23am

I agree fully with Teagan, it just isn't there!

Blanchard and Zucker have already long been discredited as being religiously biased thus tainting their "medical" studies and their conclusions to such "studies".
They have based their entire argument on the fact that the entire transgender umbrella suffers from autogynephilia.

Transvestic Disorder is indeed a sexual fetish which by it's very nature fits the definition of autogynephilia.

TS people distancing themselves from those that fit this definition ( IE most of the rest of the transgender umbrella) is not only socially prudent but also life saving.


Julia

Comment by Vallin SFAS on May 31, 2011 at 9:40am

Oh I signed it. I tried to post it on Facebook, but I had browser issues yesterday. I will check that.

Comment by Vallin SFAS on May 31, 2011 at 9:42am

Just reposted from your link here.

Comment by Traci O'Gara on May 31, 2011 at 1:14pm

Cerise and Kathryn...excellent posts! You have the ability to see the forest from the trees here...Julia, Teagan, your "vision" is too short sided...as this DSM will no doubt lead to legislation regarding civil rights, it really does
play an important role for that process, one that will bot be overlooked or selected as needed...99.99% of the population is totally ignorant of gender issues and those making the laws will go by whatever published nonsense is given, and when they view the "credentials" and "serious study" of that "esteemed" group of Zucker, Blanchard, and Lawrence, will utilize their findings as gospel. It has the real potential to set our community back to the dark ages.

Comment by Traci O'Gara on May 31, 2011 at 1:24pm

Thnx Chloe...maybe they will isten to you! Thi does have long term ramifications for our future!

Traci xoxoxo

Comment by Vallin SFAS on May 31, 2011 at 2:20pm

re: "fodder for AdultFriendFinder"--were it not for that I would have never graduated here. We all start somewhere.

Comment by Christine Beatty on May 31, 2011 at 3:24pm

Unbelievable that a quack like Blanchard was even able to slither onto the DSM committee in the first place, much less have his laughable, *unproven* pet "autogynephilia" theory dignified as any kind of a criteria. It was sex-obsessed Ray and his kinky theories that gave even a smidgen of "respectability" to J. Michael Bailey's breathless little catalog on fantasies entitled "The Man Who Would Be Queen," which I excoriated in a review published in several periodicals. I have it archived in the writing section of my my personal website if anyone is interested.

Comment

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• Next ›
• Page