GID Reform Now Protest At Annual APA Meeting - Speaker Madeline Deutsch, M.D.

thanks PHB!

I really have to thank Pam's House Blend for covering the APA protest and being involved in trans related issues!
for clarification , though we as of yet only have the footage from our two cameras the film-makers involved also included:
Andrea James, Elayne Wylie, & Breanna Anderson

co-host of trans-ponder

---

by: Jaynatopia @ Wed May 20, 2009 at 10:48:44 AM CDT

I was waiting for a attribution blurb...

...from Mila Pavlin, one of your five filmmakers, to attribute all of the videos to the consortium of filmmakers behind this. :) In other words, I wanted to do an add to this post of the five film makers, with one line attribution that your partner was going to write up for me. :)

I wasn't too worried about it in the short term though, as a version of the five filmmaker attribution list is in the end credits of the video.

I only mentioned Mila Pavlin in the text at this because she 1.) posted the video on the Intertubes, 2.) confirmed she edited this particular video, and 3.) I reeeeeeally wanted to make sure we gave a shout out to Trans-Ponder. :)

-----
~~Autumn~~

As if there were safety in stupidity alone.
--Henry David Thoreau

---

by: Autumn Sandeen @ Wed May 20, 2009 at 11:03:25 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

This is just as moving as the first time I heart it at the protest.

I found Maddie's speech to be particularly poignant and well thought out.  I only hope we were heard by enough of the people at the APA conference to make a difference.  Either way we can't afford to give up on this until we are  psychologically de-pathologized, de-stigmatized, and freed from the cage the APA has put us in.  It really IS time to change the system!

Gwen

---

by: Gwen @ Wed May 20, 2009 at 10:59:19 AM CDT

good questions

That the lack of a diagnosis will lead to a lack of treatment is a falsehood since there are some doctors already treating through an informed consent model, especially with AMA recognition as a medical issue.
Also as currently its also used to justify 'repairitive therapy' in non gender conforming children which includes both transgender and gay/lesbian identities.

co-host of trans-ponder

---

by: Jaynatopia @ Wed May 20, 2009 at 12:52:58 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

One Thing I am Curious About

What treatment options do transgendered folks have without a diagnosis?

The reason I ask is that some of the faculty whom I've studied psychology with have made jokes about the DSM along the lines of its only reason for existence is because of the insurance industry and diagnosis = coverage = treatment.

Also, one thing I note is that one of the criterion states that there must be "Clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning."

To me this recognizes that the transgendered "condition" (for lack of a better term) is causing a problem for these individuals and this diagnosis helps them get treatment.

I think some of the reason people disagree with having GID in the DSM is because they think of it as a terminal diagnosis where I see it as a temporary issue. While some disorders in the DSM are semi-permanent if not permanent, a lot are not. By this logic having a 296.3 diagnosis, Major Depression Disoder (Recurrent), would mean the person is forever to be depressed without ever hope of being non-depressed without medical/psychological intervention at all times.

For example there is a woman who works in the building my current academic program is housed. She went from being Jake to being Mary. Jake had Gender Identity Disorder, Mary does not.

So if this diagnosis goes away, would that close some doors?

Jon aka The Angry Fag
http://www.theangryfag.com/
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=TheAngryFag

---

by: TheAngryFag @ Wed May 20, 2009 at 12:17:44 PM CDT

What is needed is to remove the diagnosis as a psychological "disorder" completely and add it as a medical diagnosis

Just as homosexuality was classified as a mental disorder until not so many years ago, transgender people are forced into this heavily stigmatized and incorrect classification to this day.  This hugely affects us socially, legally, and in more ways that you can probably imagine.  Most insurance companies do not cover transgender related treatment and nearly all states in the US treat transgender people as little more than dangerous psychotics who have little or no protection under the law from discrimination at work, obtaining housing, in marriage, and the sad list goes on and on.

By moving transgender diagnoses from the DSM to a medical classification we will be taking a huge step toward de-stigmatizing transgender people and recognizing that gender variation is not a disorder but a normal human expression.  I believe we will undoubtedly be afforded better quality treatment out of medical necessity rather than being seen as mental ill people who need to be cured or locked up.  And perhaps we might even begin to be seen by the general public as something other than the freaks we're portrayed as in the movies and TV.

Gwen

---

by: Gwen @ Wed May 20, 2009 at 12:32:13 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

But How Do You Medically Define Feelings, Emotion, and Ideation?

Making it a medical diagnosis as opposed to a psychological one would mean that the cause is the result of a physical condition 95% of the time. I have not seen anything to show this yet.

One problem too is the lack of knowledge and social awareness of transgendered like homosexuality faced a while ago and still faces today. Back then homosexuality was considered treatable. Now we know differently as all treatment of homosexuality does is mask the homosexuality behind a host of new problems that crop up.

Transgenderism is just waiting for its time when medical and psychological research catches up. There will probably become a time when we can accurately predict the true gender of someone born a hermaphrodite (I use that as an example since the majority of transgendered people I know were born that way and then were sexed incorrectly based on the will of their parents, most often fathers wanting sons) or detect another cause of transgenderism and correct it before it becomes pathological.

Since I no longer am at the university I got my BSci in Psych from, I cannot access the research journal databases anymore so I cannot actually see what research is being published on this, but my guess is not as much as there should be.

Jon aka The Angry Fag
http://www.theangryfag.com/
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=TheAngryFag

---

by: TheAngryFag @ Wed May 20, 2009 at 12:56:32 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Not quite following this...

I'm not following your statement that "Making it a medical diagnosis as opposed to a psychological one would mean that the cause is the result of a physical condition 95% of the time."

I think the premise of the statement, that there is really a distinction between psychological versus physical conditions is a false one. The evidence that gender identity is formed in utero suggests that gender identity is in-born, and not really comparable to feelings or ideas experienced or learned later in life.

There are a number of studies that have identified differences in: brain structures, responses to pheromones, regions of brain activity indicated by positron emission tomography and functional MRI of transsexuals compared with non-trans people. It seems to follow that the observed differences in brain structures and patterns have a correlation to gender identity.

That these differences are in the brain doesn't mean they are on the same order as feelings, emotions, or ideation. It might be fair to say my gender identity generates and shapes my feelings, but my feelings do not generate my gender identity. Maybe it seems like a semantic distinction, but I think it's closer to how I experience my gender identity. It's the more deeper, generative source, not derivative.

I also don't follow your 95% figure. Most causes of almost every biological outcome are not known with this level of certainty. And too, there is evidence that there are a great many "causes" that can lead to the same or similar outcomes, making identification of a single "cause" extremely unlikely. This just seems like an extraordinarily high standard. I guess the counter-question would be: where is the proof that being trans is due to "psychological reasons?" Lots of theories have been kicked around, some quite demeaning and stigmatizing in their own right - if for no other reason than they were widely-held and widely publicized. e.g. John Money's theory that gender identity is determined based solely on the sex of rearing, following his psychosexually-neutral-at-birth hypothesis. None have had any usefulness or predictive power.    

But when we turn to the medical view, a different picture emerges. Yet every study examining the brains of trans people are from Europe; not a single study has been funded through NIH or any other agency (to the best of my knowledge) in the U.S. to try to identify any differences or to explore causal mechanisms. Instead, in this country, the entire treatment regime revolves around behavioral psychology, and this is not a field that is even asking the right questions.

Instead, the APA passes off GID as a treatment protocol that is purported to help trans people while at the same time pathologizing them. Oh, and also providing a guaranteed source of steady income, power, prestige, and lots of little people to power-trip over by denying treatment. That, and they will continue to use the GID diagnosis against all gender-variant youth, GLBT alike, a la Zucker's form of "therapy."

As for predicting someone's gender, I have to ask why it is so important to you that there be some biomarker or physical evidence that would be "definitive?" The reason I ask is fairly simple. I think anyone who isn't absolutely sure they are trans would be utterly insane to transition, and they would pay a heavy price for doing so. So I don't worry too much that there is "proof." If someone says they are trans, you can be pretty damn sure they are, or well, rather the surgeons could be quite certain.  

But all that said, none of this matters when it comes to civil rights. At the end of the day, I agree wholeheatedly with Madeline, and I think it's great these folks are out protesting a major source of injustice.  

---

by: Christine Johnson @ Wed May 20, 2009 at 23:15:28 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

With Neuroscience

All those brainscans, the functional magnetic resonance imaging.

And rather than having to put each one through a brainscan we could just go with their self-identification. Seeing as it matches the brainscan results.

Oh and check this out for neuroscience destroying another psych classification. People who claim they need a limb anputated? Not crazy after all, it too is neurology http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst...

Poor Dr Zucker, his field is vanishing before his eyes, replaced entirely by a more valid and measured science.

---

by: battybattybats @ Thu May 21, 2009 at 11:31:29 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Diagnosis doesn't result in insurance coverage

In almost all of the USA (and now many provinces of Canada), even the trans people who have medical insurance are routinely denied coverage for trans-related healthcare, even if they've been diagnosed with GID. So really, trans people that aren't diagnosed have the exact same options as those who are diagnosed: to pay for the procedures and therapies they need out of pocket.

You know, if a diagnosis of GID actually allowed people to get insurance coverage for trans-related medical intervention, having GID in the DSM would make at least a little sense. As it is, though, the pathologizing of trans identities as enshrined in the DSM serves little purpose other than helping researchers like Zucker and Blanchard get funding for their reperative therapy programs.

---

by: megan @ Wed May 20, 2009 at 12:57:57 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

My fist comment...

It's my first comment at PHB, so I'm sorry to say I don't agree...

It's hard for me to see how a condition where one's identity does not correspond to one's physical gender does not constitute a disorder. Perhaps it could be considered a physical rather than mental disorder (i.e. "my body doesn't match my identity" rather than "my identity doesn't match my body"), but it would still be a disorder. If it weren't, why would so many transgendered people go through the gargantuan task of changing sexes?

I do understand that a diagnosis of "disorder" can make people feel like they're "not normal," but this is true of ever disorder that we have a name for. People with GID have no more reason to feel ashamed about themselves than does a person with type 1 diabetes, or blue eyes for that matter.

When people say things like "it's time to stop pathologizing natural variations," they miss the point. ALL disorders are natural variations--what, exactly, would an unnatural variation be? Disorders are just natural variations that require some sort of intervention or adaptation to allow a person to live their life to the fullest. Just as a wheelchair can help the lame to ambulate, sex-change operations can help transgendered people feel "at home" in their own skin. Talking heads who point out that GID is a disorder in order to discredit transgendered people should be called out, just as if they were discrediting someone for being in a wheelchair.

IMO, the way to make people with GID more accepted in society is to break the habit of thinking of disorders as something that makes people less worthy of respect.

---

by: that_chris_guy @ Wed May 20, 2009 at 16:09:33 PM CDT

Why...

...redirect any and all needed new alterations to reflect pure science rather than politics?

That's just crazy talk.

Are you talking about what it is you know, or just repeating what it was you heard?

Grace Slick

www.anonymous-t-girl.blogspot.com

---

by: Anonymous T-Girl @ Wed May 20, 2009 at 18:36:06 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I agree to some extent

But the problem comes when you put the word 'sex' together with the word 'disorder.'

Next thing you know, you are characterized as a pedophile, a threat to women in the bathroom, and a sexual deviant.

It's not exactly the same thing as saying, oh, I can't regulate my blood sugar. (i.e. metabolic disorder)

On the other hand, your point about intervention has some legitimacy in that if it's just a normal natural variation, then why the medical treatment? That's a good question for those who espouse that they are normal.  

It's nice that you think people should be called out for pathologizing difference. But we have been saying that for decades and have been largely ignored. More trans people are coming to realize that to a large degree, it is the larger society, and particularly the institutions that control our fate, that will have to do most of the changing. I don't think the situation is really all that different for GLB folks either.

---

by: Christine Johnson @ Thu May 21, 2009 at 00:08:48 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Sex complicates

Haha, you're totally right that putting "sex" and "disorder" together sends a lot of peoples good judgment out the window. I mean, look at all the hubbub over the Shepard Act supposedly protecting pedophiles! It's crazy!

However, I still believe that science & medicine are two of the most important allies that GLBT's have. Study after study shows that we make good parents, that we're not pedophiles, and that any "pathology" that can be ascribed to us is attributable to the hate of those who attack us. But if we start messing with science/medicine for political reasons, I fear we'll lose credibility when we need them in other arguments.

There's no doubt that having GID listed as a "disorder" gives bigots an easy talking point, and perhaps my idea of depathologizing "disorders" is a little utopian. But if we change GID for purely political reasons, then the bigots will ignore all the rest of science and medicine that helps our cause.  

---

by: that_chris_guy @ Thu May 21, 2009 at 08:47:47 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Not for political reasons

I think the diagnosis should be changed to a medical diagnosis, that's all. I don't think we're really all that far apart in how we see things. Science shouldn't be subverted and ignored, but I think it's clear that has happened, and continues to happen.

The irony, I think, is that in the vast majority of cases, being trans or getting treatment has absolutely nothing to do with sex. It always makes me wonder how the loonie-toones can connect GID to pedophilia. I think it really says much more about where their heads are at than where mine is at.

---

by: Christine Johnson @ Thu May 21, 2009 at 21:13:16 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

"Joe" doesn't see the evidence . . .

Well, Joe . . . why don't you access the 'history', and see that a certain psychiatrist with offended catholic sensibilities decided that transsexuals were "yicky" and had a  condition that "must be managed as a mental illness". The medical model was swept aside forthwith, and the rest is, as they say, "history". Does the name Paul McHugh ring any bells?
The psychopathology theory is based on the fudged conclusions of dishonest academics. "Where is the evidence", indeed!  

---

by: BettyBstar @ Thu May 21, 2009 at 00:51:58 AM CDT