The working group drafts for the DSM-V are out. They are here:

When you read them, remember a couple things:

1 – These papers are not using regular old everyday English.  Simple words have very precise specific meaning that differ from what you might typically see in a dictionary. In other words, these are written in the language of psychiatry and psychology, not the language of the typical layman. This is important because there will be some markedly differing statements on all of it, and I'm going to ask you to keep in mind that if the person speaking isn't part of the field, they likely don't fully understand stuff.

2 – These are working drafts. They are not the finals, but they are so close to the finals that it's time to put the forward for the psychiatry and psychology professionals to consider.  There is a great deal of internal, professional and academic politics going on here — a nice way to say that there are some big ass ego's and some people's life's work being pitted against someone else's, with reputations and funding and importance in the fields at stake.

There are some who have made many points of saying that draconian measures will be put in place over us in terms of treatment.  

Some have said things like they will more narrowly define who is and who isn't a transsexual, they will put in place two year waiting lists, they will wreck the world we know, and on and on.

Well, I said they were wrong then, and I say they are still wrong, and all along I've said that people seriously over-estimated the importance of some people in the process.  

All the while I've maintained professional courtesy and respected professional ethics, even though I am not at this time professionally bound by such in this area.

I am, however, going to point you all over to again. Kelley Winters and I have not always agreed on some things, but I suspect that right now, she and I are going to be able to speak pretty harshly about something in common.  I don't know for certain that's the case, but we'll see shortly, as I'm sure she's studying these documents with the same attentiveness I am, and we will each have certain interpretive positions of what's been said.

That said, first the really, really, awful, horrible, unimaginably terrible, disgusting, insulting, dehumanizing news: Autogynephilia has made it into the proposed draft changes.

And it is there that you will see me — and many other people — working, because that, in my opinion, cannot remain in there.

My position is pretty simple:  it needlessly duplicates an entire classification that is already separate and far better established and supported.

If you have friends, or family, or you yourself live in Canada, you need to fight this inclusion on any and all levels possible at every turn and in every way.

Because it is harmful and demeaning if used improperly and you can bet it will be used that way.

And now for the good, awesome, wonderful news: Disorder is gone.  Removed.  Absent.

Incongruence is now the buzzy term, and its all about gender, baby…

For the last several months (at least since August) I've been cheating and using some information that was intended specifically to prepare for this.  The most recent version of this information in use can be found in my post here and at Bilerico entitled “What is Trans?” To fully grasp this, you have to understand the concept of Gender, which I also covered. Here's why I've said this.  It comes directly from the paper linked to above:

1. a marked incongruence between one’s experienced/expressed gender and primary and/or secondary sex characteristics (or, in young adolescents, the anticipated secondary sex characteristics) [13, 16] 2. a strong desire to be rid of one’s primary and/or secondary sex characteristics because of a marked incongruence with one’s experienced/expressed gender (or, in young adolescents, a desire to prevent the development of the anticipated secondary sex characteristics) [17] 3. a strong desire for the primary and/or secondary sex characteristics of the other gender 4. a strong desire to be of the other gender (or some alternative gender different from one’s assigned gender) 5. a strong desire to be treated as the other gender (or some alternative gender different from one’s assigned gender) 6. a strong conviction that one has the typical feelings and reactions of the other gender (or some alternative gender different from one’s assigned gender)


Any> 2 (or more) of those qualities, and what you have is a Trans person.

Someone who is gender incongruent.

CAMH  is almost certainly not going to use Gender Incongruence for any patient they have.  And they are the only state funded source for TS treatment in their part of Canada. Hence why it needs to be fought like mad.  

Over the next couple of days I'm going to write in detail about the various aspects of this report.  

Some of the background info I already know and am intimately familiar with, other parts I am still quite new to in terms of the rationale, which is the key and most important part of the whole deal here.

As a note, there has been a change made to the GI in Children (302.5) that is much more strict and narrow, in order to direct treatment more effectively to the 27% of gender variant children who become some form of Trans, and away from the 63% of Gender Variant children who grow up to be gay, bisexual, lesbian and cis/straight folks.

It's going to be a whole new ballgame, folks.

[crossposted from Edited for content and site appropriateness.] 




Leave a reply