APA Revises Manual: Being Transgender Is No Longer A Mental Disorder

[Dave (imported)]

>>FYI

>>

APA Revises Manual: Being Transgender Is No Longer A Mental Disorder

By Zack Ford on Dec 3, 2012 at 10:50 am

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/12/0 ... ?mobile=nc

This Saturday, the American Psychiatric Association board of trustees approved the latest proposed revisions to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, what will now be known as the DSM-5. This marks a historic milestone for people who are transgender and gender non-conforming, as their identities are no longer classified as a mental disorder. Homosexuality was similarly declassified as a mental disorder in 1973.

Until now, the term “gender identity disorder” has been used to diagnose people who are transgender. For conservatives, this has provided rhetorical carte blanche to describe the entire trans committee as disordered, delusional, and mentally ill. In some cases, this diagnosis has even been used to discriminate against trans people, with claims that they are unfit parents or employees, as examples. On the other hand, insurance companies have been more willing to cover the expenses associated with transition under this language, because treatment for a disorder is considered medically necessary, rather than cosmetic.

The new manual will diagnose transgender people with “Gender Dysphoria,” which communicates the emotional distress that can result from “a marked incongruence between one’s experienced/expressed gender and assigned gender.” This will allow for affirmative treatment and transition care without the stigma of disorder. Earlier this year, the APA also released new health guidelines for transgender patients, as well as a position statement affirming transgender care and civil rights. Both documents align with a new standard for respecting trans people in the medical community.

It was only after homosexuality was declassified as a mental disorder that ex-gay ministries formed, protesting the medical community’s decision to affirm non-heterosexual orientations. Some dangerous ex-trans ministries exist already and are championed by Focus on the Family, NARTH, PFOX, and other anti-LGBT organizations. It’s possible that these efforts may similarly increase in the wake of this DSM revision.

[Losethem (imported)]

It was only after homosexuality was declassified as a mental disorder that ex-gay ministries formed, protesting the medical community’s decision to affirm non-heterosexual orientations. Some dangerous ex-trans ministries exist already and are championed by Focus on the Family, NARTH, PFOX, and other anti-LGBT organizations. It’s possible that these efforts may similarly increase in the wake of this DSM revision.

[/COLOR]

Now if we could get membership in

Focus on the Family, NARTH, PFOX,

etc. recognized as a mental disorder things would be wonderful.

--LT

[Elizabeth (imported)]

As far as I am concerned, this is a welcome change. I have been a proponent of getting rid of the stigma that we are mentally ill. I am not mentally ill, this is just how I am. I know many are upset because insurance is going to pull back in some cases. However, overall I see this is a huge step towards being accepted as a citizen and not a second class citizen.

Elizabeth

[Uncle Flo (imported)]

Losethem is onto something here. There are some other organizations that would fit into that category, too. --FLO--

[JessicaH (imported)]

Yay, I'm not crazy anymore!!!

[JesusA (imported)]

Some of the changes that are coming in the new DSM-5 (to be published next May) are thanks to those members of the Eunuch Archive community who took the time to answer the survey that was posted here.

Data from the survey was important in preparing the report to the World Professional Association for Transgender Health that loosened the rigid male/female binary to include a wider variety of possible gender targets (Vale et al. 2010). While “eunuch” is not specifically mentioned in the new Standards of Care, it’s within the range of genders encompassed. It’s no longer necessary to be diagnosed as Male-to-Female or Female-to-Male. It’s now possible to be diagnosed as Whatever_You_Were_Assigned_at_Birth-T0-Whatever_is_Your_Appropriate_Gender. Neither of which must necessarily be “male” or “female”. Counselors and medical personnel still need to be educated to the new criteria, but they have been adopted by the international organization.

Survey data was also used in a proposal to the APA to change the diagnostic criteria for Gender Dysphoria in

the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders

(DSM) from a desire to be the other sex or the opposite sex to a “strong desire to be of the other gender (or some alternative gender different from one’s assigned gender).” Again, it opens possibilities of gender assignment other than the binary pigeonholes of “male” and “female.”

Those here on the Archive have had an important impact in freeing up the definitions.

While information on Body Integrity Identity Disorder from the survey was used in an attempt to get it recognized as requiring medical treatment (i.e., surgeons willing to help), it looks as if we failed in this round. While we won’t know for certain until May, it seems as if BIID will be relegated to the “research appendix,” meaning that it needs more study, but is recognized as possibly valid. It’s a small, but important, step just to get it mentioned….

[Uncle Flo (imported)]

Not totally satisfactory but in these things you need to be thankful for the advances that you actually get - and keep working for more. --FLO--

[bobover3 (imported)]

I applaud the change. It's many years late as is.

But the frequent changes in its definitions made by the APA bring psychiatry into disrepute. Every year or two, an article on the front page of the Times informs us that the APA has revised yet another definition, usually something having to do with politically contested topics. This makes it seem that their definitions are more a matter of politics/fashion/norms than they are of anything essential or objective, which is probably the case. Perhaps the APA should be honest enough to say their definition of illness is based on whatever "enlightened" society disapproves of; that it's all a question of being "normal," and that what's normal can change.

[devi (imported)]

This is such a welcomed relief. In the seventies growing up I remember being shocked beyond belief that I would be required to take testosterone treatments since I was T deficient, to develop a full beard, start dating (females) and most importantly to have an indefinate amount of psychiatristic sessions which would require a large sum of unspecified money and for an unspecified number of years, and if requested to take any head drugs required of me... -just in order to have what was my divine right. As a youngster I knew someone whose life had been ruined by psychiatry for a different reason. (They used to make all adults take the same subsription of anti-depressants whether 100lbs or 300). So how was I to trust these people? I suppose psychiatry has become more responsible but it still would be hard even now for me to trust them.

[riotgrrl (imported)]

I hate to be the only Debbie Downer here, but this change will most likely make it that much easier for health insurance companies to deny coverage for psychological and medical treatment.