I’m sure the frozen peachers are right around the corner » « Let’s talk about trans suicide

And then what?

Suppose I were to accept one of the common rallying cries of trans-antagonism: “Trans is a mental disorder.” I can completely sidestep the semantics of what should qualify as a “disorder” simply by replying “Sure. And then what?” There’s never any clear roadmap. “Therapy.” Well I went to therapy. That’s why I transitioned. >_>

It’s a simple and superficially appealing line of reasoning. It’s also completely wrong.

Those making this argument seek to apply the expertise of psychology and psychiatry – yet they wholly disregard the expert consensus of those fields on the treatment of gender dysphoria. The American Psychiatric Association, publisher of the DSM, stated in a 2012 report that “Overall, the evidence suggests that sex reassignment is associated with an improved sense of well-being in the majority of cases”, and “Gender transition can foster social adjustment, improve self-esteem, and relieve the anxiety and mood symptoms that can accompany gender dysphoria” (Byne et al., 2012). In a position statement, the APA concluded that transition is beneficial and medically necessary (Drescher, Haller, & APA Caucus of Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Psychiatrists, 2012):

Zinnia Jones discusses more here.

-Shiv

I’m sure the frozen peachers are right around the corner » « Let’s talk about trans suicide

Comments

  1. says

    One of the nice things about psychology is that it can support so many positions, having changed its mind so often – just pick whatever version of DSM suits. They used to say homosexuality was a moral flaw, then a disorder, now it’s a way of being – etc. That has vastly more to do with lobbying within the APA and nothing to do with there being some kind of identifiable and detectable state. (I am not saying there is not, but rather that there appears to be but psychologists don’t know any more about it than anyone else)

  2. Steve Caldwell says

    Marcus Ranum wrote:

    They used to say homosexuality was a moral flaw, then a disorder, now it’s a way of being – etc. That has vastly more to do with lobbying within the APA and nothing to do with there being some kind of identifiable and detectable state.

    Yes, some of this was due to lobbying the APA to change the DSM.

    However, part of that lobbying included research from Dr. Evelyn Hooker:

    Each participant took three projective tests: The Rorschach, the Make a Picture Story Test (MAPS) and the Thematic Apperception Test (TAT). After scoring the tests herself, she then gave the test protocols with all identifying information removed to experts in those tests: Bruno Klopfer for the Rorschach, Edward Shneidman, the inventor of MAPS, and Mortimer Meyer for the TAT. An adjustment rating was assigned to each participant based on the test scores, and then the experts were given paired Rorschach protocols, one from a gay participant, one from a straight participant and asked to identify the homosexual. As with heterosexuals, homosexuals’ adjustment varied from superior to disturbed. Two-thirds of the research participants in each group were judged as having average or better adjustment. Further, experts were unable to identify the gay participant’s protocol from the matched pairs at better than chance accuracy. There was no association between homosexuality and psychological maladjustment. One of her experts, who was sure he could distinguish the groups, asked for another chance to review the protocols, but was no more successful the second time than the first.

    Source — http://www.apa.org/monitor/2011/02/myth-buster.aspx

  3. Siobhan says

    @1 Marcus Ranum

    (I am not saying there is not, but rather that there appears to be but psychologists don’t know any more about it than anyone else)

    For a former student in psychology, you do strike me as strangely unaware of inter-faction bickering within the field of psychology. Not all methodologies are created equal, and while true double-blind tests are unlikely to be approved by an ethics board, it’s not like we are completely without data. The APA, particularly the section on gender & sexuality, has been the victim of an extended chokehold by a bunch of crusty sexologists, whose research continues to crumble under examination and reproduction by less motivated thinkers. It’s not simply “lobbying,” it’s people outside of the pet research projects trying to put these methods to the test and reporting their findings (or lack thereof).

    We can endeavour to improve the quality of that data, sure, but poo-pooing everything I post, simply because “it’s psychology,” isn’t really getting anywhere. I’m sure I don’t have to explain to you that a field of science adjusting its consensus to new evidence is how science is supposed to work. If that’s an indictment against psychology then, shit, dude, we can’t know anything.