![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
This is more than slightly old news, but I only found out about this today and I am rather worried about this. The DSM (Diagnostic Standard Manual for Mental Disorders) series are standard manuals that every psychologist uses. It is originally a US American manual, but has become the international standard diagnosis manual, Europe as well as in the USA, from what I know. It's the one we've used in Scotland, it's the one we use here, it's the diagnosis bible.
There have always been scandals surrounding the DSMs, the last one was about the 1994 edition when it became clear that some of the scientists on the board's interests had been possibly affected by being on the payroll of pharma companies, if I remember correctly.
Now, the APA is working on the DSM-V. So far so good. What does not seem so good is the choice of people they've put in charge of the sexual and gender identity disorders section:
Now, whom do we have here?
The chair, Zucker, is fairly well known for his work in the Clarke institute and his work on children and gender identity disorders. I found something on what Zucker proposes for Gender Identity Disorder in Children - diagnosis and treatment on NARTH, although the "National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality" is not a very objective choice.
Here's a blog entry on an example case and what Zucker would propose vs. what another doctor would propose. And here's the backstory.
I can't understand why they have chosen this man. From what I have read on Zucker, his studies are concerned mainly with treatment of, of course, the cause, diagnosis and treatment of gender identity disorders in children, but also with establishing correlations for cross-dressing behaviour in males and homosexuality, poor social conditions and GID in children as well as later homosexuality, depression in the parents and homosexuality/GID, unattractiveness in girls and GID, and a significant correlation of depression and GID.
Altogether his studies are not methodologically convincing to me, but then, my view is as biased as his.
A.E. Brain has a rather good summary of who else is on the board and what they are doing at her blog, here is a shorter summary:
Obviously, LGBT activists are less than happy about the influence that Zucker is could have on the group. Someone who seems to reinforce the gender binary, pathologises gender deviations and links gender deviation with later homosexuality in a way that makes clear that he most likely does not even recognise that sexual orientation and gender are two entirely different things is not likely to have a good effect on the symptoms listed in the DSM-V, or the "disorders" these will indicate.
I always thought that the people who advocated the kinds of therapy Zucker recommends were, well, a minority on the outer fringes of the scientific community, and it is shocking to see what kind of power they suddenly received. It's bad enough to see that there are still people in there with a Freudian background. I wonder why the APA chose them, as their concerns do not seem to be the pathological varieties of SGIDs and sexual orientations, but the pathological nature of sexual and gender deviations.
Maybe I am overestimating the influence that Zucker and Blanchard could have on any section that deals with gender identity disordered people and their diagnosis, but since the other members on the team have such different areas of expertise it is likely that their influence will be rather important.
And because I suck at write-ups, here are two blog entries on the topic:
Kat Long: DSM-V Gender "Experts" Anger LGBTs - Trans Groups Oppose Psychologists’ Background in Reparative Therapy
A. E. Brain: Transsexual Causation, the American Psychiatric Association, and Interpol
Again, I know that the NARTH is not exactly a wonderful source for unbiased material, but there are a few articles which include quotes from Zucker and details of his works in their gender section.
I'm really curious about what the DSM-V will look like.
There have always been scandals surrounding the DSMs, the last one was about the 1994 edition when it became clear that some of the scientists on the board's interests had been possibly affected by being on the payroll of pharma companies, if I remember correctly.
Now, the APA is working on the DSM-V. So far so good. What does not seem so good is the choice of people they've put in charge of the sexual and gender identity disorders section:
The chair, Zucker, is fairly well known for his work in the Clarke institute and his work on children and gender identity disorders. I found something on what Zucker proposes for Gender Identity Disorder in Children - diagnosis and treatment on NARTH, although the "National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality" is not a very objective choice.
Here's a blog entry on an example case and what Zucker would propose vs. what another doctor would propose. And here's the backstory.
I can't understand why they have chosen this man. From what I have read on Zucker, his studies are concerned mainly with treatment of, of course, the cause, diagnosis and treatment of gender identity disorders in children, but also with establishing correlations for cross-dressing behaviour in males and homosexuality, poor social conditions and GID in children as well as later homosexuality, depression in the parents and homosexuality/GID, unattractiveness in girls and GID, and a significant correlation of depression and GID.
Altogether his studies are not methodologically convincing to me, but then, my view is as biased as his.
A.E. Brain has a rather good summary of who else is on the board and what they are doing at her blog, here is a shorter summary:
Obviously, LGBT activists are less than happy about the influence that Zucker is could have on the group. Someone who seems to reinforce the gender binary, pathologises gender deviations and links gender deviation with later homosexuality in a way that makes clear that he most likely does not even recognise that sexual orientation and gender are two entirely different things is not likely to have a good effect on the symptoms listed in the DSM-V, or the "disorders" these will indicate.
I always thought that the people who advocated the kinds of therapy Zucker recommends were, well, a minority on the outer fringes of the scientific community, and it is shocking to see what kind of power they suddenly received. It's bad enough to see that there are still people in there with a Freudian background. I wonder why the APA chose them, as their concerns do not seem to be the pathological varieties of SGIDs and sexual orientations, but the pathological nature of sexual and gender deviations.
Maybe I am overestimating the influence that Zucker and Blanchard could have on any section that deals with gender identity disordered people and their diagnosis, but since the other members on the team have such different areas of expertise it is likely that their influence will be rather important.
And because I suck at write-ups, here are two blog entries on the topic:
Kat Long: DSM-V Gender "Experts" Anger LGBTs - Trans Groups Oppose Psychologists’ Background in Reparative Therapy
A. E. Brain: Transsexual Causation, the American Psychiatric Association, and Interpol
Again, I know that the NARTH is not exactly a wonderful source for unbiased material, but there are a few articles which include quotes from Zucker and details of his works in their gender section.
I'm really curious about what the DSM-V will look like.
