If You Haven’t Signed the Petition To Remove GID from the DSM, it is Time For You to Quit Making Excuses and Sign It

Maybe you need more convincing…

So here’s a bunch of articles:

Jenna Talackova, transgender Miss Universe contestant becomes trans activist

Transsexualism: Petition to WHO an International Effort

Trans is not a Mental Illness

Petition calls on WHO to delist ‘transsexualism’ as illness

Miss Universe contestant petitions World Health Organization to remove transsexualism as a mental disorder

Man Petitions World Health Org: ‘We Are Trans, Not Sick’

This is a really big effort…  We like reached Critical Mass and it is time to kill off the whole Psychiatric Industrial Complex scam of labeling us as mentally ill just because we are Transsexual or Transgender.  We were born this way, we need appropriate medical treatment and when we have emotional issues we need the Psychiatric Industrial Complex to help us with those issues the same way they help non-trans people.

So Go here and Sign The Petition

9 Responses to “If You Haven’t Signed the Petition To Remove GID from the DSM, it is Time For You to Quit Making Excuses and Sign It”

  1. dentedbluemercedes Says:

    I actually have concerns about the petition as presented: not enough emphasis on developing an alternate medical model. The only other means people have out there is using an (voluntary cosmetic personal initiative) informed consent model, and that might work in SF or New York, but not so much in Regina, Saskatchewan, Cape Town, South Africa, or Ankhara, Turkey. And with Alberta recently reinstating funding for GRS, I can confidently say that without a medical diagnosis of some form and a medical model tied to it, that funding would never have happened. Funding and even just basic access can be jeopardized, unless there’s something alternate prepared.

    Yes, this needs to be done, but there’s also a gap. If this were a petition to develop a medical model that does not rely on a mental health diagnosis, I’d be happy to trumpet it. But in current form, I worry that if it were to succeed, it would seriously hurt access for many people dependent on the current system.

    • Suzan Says:

      Prior to 1980 when the Psychiatric Industrial Complex (APA) concocted the money making scheme called GID people were simply called transsexuals and got SRS as treatment for transsexualism.

      It was considered a pre-existing condition, something we were born with and was thus excluded.

      Much of the battle for coverage is a battle against bigotry. The bigots use the mental illness label as justification to deny us anti-discrimination measures and attack our credibility.

      Selling ourselves for the medical coverage of SRS is kind of like turning the twenty dollar trick that leaves us with a burden we carry for the rest of our lives.

      GID is going any how. We are returning to “gender dysphoria” which is still pandering to the Baileys and Blanchards.

      Better to take it totally out of the hands of the Psychiatric Industrial Complex.

      Why continue to support a demeaning lie?

      • dentedbluemercedes Says:

        I don’t. I’m saying that there needs to be a greater emphasis on contingency plans and devising a medical model that will meet peoples’ needs, rather than just dismantling this and replacing it with more-or-less nothing.

        • Suzan Says:

          So we are stuck with a “Sophie’s Choice”? Either we are mentally ill or we have to pay for our own SRS? That isn’t much of a choice. I had to pay for my own SRS because in the late 1960s, early 1970s it was considered a pre-existing condition, especially if you came out prior to ever having had insurance.

          In the US under Obamacare measures insurance companies can no longer exclude based on pre-existing conditions.

          But things like SRS and abortion carry a special onus, in that people consider them morally objectionable because they have to do with sexual rights and freedom to control ones own reproductive (sex) organs.

          Copping out to mental illness in order to get a treatment for something that is a condition that about one person in a thousand is born with is pandering to a right wing gang of superstitious bigots who still want to deny us our legitimacy. I might add also to more than a few overly educated self labeled smug progressives who hold the same contempt for us and what we go through.

          Better to fight an honest fight than cravenly accept a stigmatizing diagnosis that we have to carry through out our lives.

          Too many of us are highly accomplished people who don’t need that label applied to us.

  2. BlackSwan Says:

    Suzan, you know better than that and dentedbluemercedes is correct that a medical code must be used in place of a GID diagnosis to justify medical financing, one of the issues the single-payer crowd likes to tout the health care finance (insurance single or multi-payer) and the medical service providers (doctors & hospitals) are one in the same–they are not. This is the same whether the finance model comes from a single payer, free market delivery model or a blend of both.

    I agree the “sick” stigma needs to be removed–this will make it easier to receive financing However, if you DON’T want insurance to cover it remove the medical diagnosis code. .

    NB: People don’t really think about health outcomes, and only care about what they have to pay individually, yet there appears to be consensus one folks not wanting to see a surgery performed for a mental health issue. It’s different around the world in terms of medical finance to health care outcomes; American spend twice as much per capita and don’t really receive any better results (health outcomes) of the top ten healthiest countries in the world. It skews our value judgements about who receives and who doesn’t.

    I love the Canadian model where their health care cost there citizens about $75 average per month; less health cost waste, less.complications because folks get the doctor earlier and same if not better outcome’s then the US, the doctors don’t make as much as ours and they pay much higher taxes, yet they still require a proper diagnosis code for medical services. We shouldn’t take that away. For obvious reasons it needs to be global and uniform because people travel and may acquire a disease or injury in other countries.

    Losing the “sick” stigma cannot justify a throwing the baby out with the bath water and a diagnostic code must be implemented to justify medical finance. This comes with medical oversight; a gatekeeper to properly determine if your self-diagnoses is valid–keeps crazies from transitioning and reduces those that may have a hi potential for regrets. Its worked well so far.

    As far as the diagnosis in your analysis only about 1:30,000 (lowest estimate I’ve seen) will actually obtain SRS while 1:1000 will play dress up. There are varying degrees in between of medical needs in between. Hormones are real cheap and I’m totally against insurance paying for FFS–too many slippery slopes there. When you keep it simple the costs are really low, hormones are very cheap, SRS only happens once, we make a better argument for health care finance; aka health insurance albeit single or multi-payer models. . .

    • Suzan Says:

      FYI GID is history. It is being replaced with gender dysphoria.

      But I have always considered the idea of performing surgery on people for a mental illness to be sketchy at best.

      As a post-op I’d be elated if they were to take the position that SRS cures gender dysphoria but I doubt many transgender people would share that elation and rightly so.

      I have a really hard time with going along with an oppressive and demeaning lie just because of a bribe.

      Your estimate is wrong on the number who get SRS. Do the math. There are more than 10,000 of us in the USA. I trust Lynn Conway’s math better than the “professionals”

      • dentedbluemercedes Says:

        GID is being replaced with Gender Dysphoria in the APA’s DSM-V, but the petition is about the WHO’s ICD-10, where it’s still currently F64.1 GID. Even the APA’s name change is cosmetic, because it still remains in the DSM.

        In some of the harm-reduction approaches to the DSM review, an exit clause post-SRS was one of the things being pushed for, and it’s still hard to know if it will be in the DSM-V. But that’s only a partial solution, too.

        I guess, to me the question is who loses. I don’t personally lose if it’s delisted tomorrow. But I also know how it would affect people here who are in-process or coming out and planning to transition, and realize it could go a lot worse in other parts of the world. In 2009, Alberta delisted funding, and it took a lot of work from several people to keep hope alive, do suicide watches, etc. Given that we’re not talking only about funding but potentially also access (even if temporary), and on a global scale, that seems to me a bigger worry.

        And there’s still the concern about what happens if GID is removed but TF is left in.

    • dentedbluemercedes Says:

      A correction on Canadian health care. It varies from province to province, but wait times are in fact often an issue, largely because successive Liberal and Conservative governments have both played starve-the-beast economics with it, yielding both the lower cost and an unsustainable health system. The end purpose for many of these is to force the public to accept (or even clamour for) 2-tier or 3-tier semi-privatized or privatized health care, akin to the pre-Obamacare system.

  3. tinagrrl Says:

    So, then the health care issue goes far beyond SRS, trans health care, etc., etc. What seems to be happening is that poor people will be allowed to die in the streets — until folks decide it “looks bad”. In the USA, the overall health care issues go well beyond anything we have spoken about here. It seems Canada is also having its problems in that regard.

    I have come to understand that “unsustainable” when speaking about health care usually means, “I’m a Dr. and refuse to have ONE PENNY cut from my income”, or, “I’m an insurance company, and refuse to give up any part of my profit”, or, “we refuse to pay for ‘those folks’ (whoever those folks happen to be today)”.

    After a few massive public health emergencies, attitudes will (for a short time) change, to be followed by more of the usual.

    If we (trans folks) are not, in reality, mentally ill, to accept the “diagnosis” as a way of justifying, or having various agencies or insurance cos. pay for SRS is, in itself, immoral.

    It’s like a form of institutionalized FRAUD.

    Now, I happen to have said, more than once, that ALL of us are CRAZY.


    Well, because we have usually been abused from birth. In addition, most of those who wish to “help” us further that abuse simply because THEY think we’re “crazy”. So, society, family, and a hell of a lot of our “friends” both refuse to actually understand us, and then TELL US what WE feel, how WE feel it, and what WE have to do to become “better”.

    Our acceptance of the mentally ill “diagnosis” only furthers this abuse. We, in effect, accept and further our own abuse simply because we fear what will happen if we don’t.

    Maybe we really are crazy!

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: