I am not a transgenderI’d be happier if their very committee name wasn’t offensive.
and Transgenders (TG)
Transgender is an adjective, not a noun.  

Why HIV/AIDS experts?I’d rather it had been a panel of APA experts, but you take what you can get. I’m also not happy that they use the same stilted language fumbling in the dark for both culturally sensitive and technicly accurate verbiage and failed on both counts.
Still, the core ideas expressed, I can’t find fault with.

This likely is all based on insurance coverage, or state fundingWhile it might be done clumsily and not up to rigid PC standards, it allows SOMETHING, where as a definition of mental disorder covers NOTHING.
The fact HIV/AIDS group attempts to provide coverage and just meets criticism seems to me a case of
no good deed goes unpunished

Huh?I’m not even sure what you mean about insurance coverage or funding. With very few exceptions, all transitional expenses are currently covered by individuals not insurance. And that is not based on it being medical or psychological, it’s based almost exclusively on it being specifically excluded by the insurance policy (so as to avoid having to argue about whether it’s necessary, cosmetic, or whatever).

my guess is that it would allow HIV doctors to prescribe hormonesWhich wouldn’t fall under an HIV formulary for a mental disorder.

NONE of my hubby’s drugs for mental illness are covered under HIV formularyHe has to pay all the costs of those prescriptions, and for people living disabled with HIV/AIDS those on Medicaid are below the poverty level. I see people at this awful Louisiana state clinic, who are so helpless and mentally confused and psychotic trying to get any help through a system which truely doesn’t give a rat’s a$$ if they live or die.

Anyone can prescribeAny doctor can prescribe HRT. They just need to be willing to do so.  

Maybe they are just decent sorts…

Why the “Ugh?”

Ugh. This position statement is stated in convoluted, non-standard language that conflates Gender Identity Disorder (GID), transgenderism, transsexualism, and gender variance.

While I may not like the term “Transgenders” (preferring “Transgender People” or something like that), I don’t have a problem with using the term “transgender” as an inclusive or “umbrella” term.
We do not know enough, scientifically, about the genetic and developmental causes of the identified physiological differences in brain development.  The identification of physiological similarities of the BSTc in transsexual brains to those of the non-assigned birth sex (1995, 2000), and the identification of at least two separate genetic predispositions (long androgen receptor gene for WBTs, and gene for enzyme that efficiently processes testosterone for MBTs) are a start.
It is entirely possible that the term “transsexual” may include physiological differences based on more than one genetic predisposition, and may result in more than one kind of developmental difference, and it is entirely possible that similar predispositions and developmental differences may result in the development of people with very different self-perceptions, very different “identities” and very different needs.
Dr. Harry Benjamin first classified a spectrum based on the mumerous patients he had seen over the years.  While his work The Transsexual Phenomenon is based on the understandings available in the 1960′s, much of the range of the spectrum that Dr. Benjamin identified can be the result of different or gradated developmental responses to one or more genetic predispositions.  Perhaps only those whose causation of “gender variance” is due solely to a fixation on articles of clothing associated by them with sexual arousal might be a totally separate category.
There is evidence that cultural niches may make differences – some cultures have niches for people we would identify as trans.  In at least one case, the introduction of Western culture has resulted in older “WBT” niche members retaining their niche identity (continuing to wear distinctively-colored clothing and adopting female societal roles), while younger niche members have adopted Western attitudes, seeking HRT, SRS and recognition as women).  Modern Western civilization has evolved non-binary identities (genderqueer, genderfluid) that may seem just as strange to older binary-accepting transfolk, but are embraced by some younger transfolk. Identities should be separated from the genetic predispositions and physiological situations that make trans folk physically different (even if it is solely in brain deveopment) from cis folk.
The idea that trans identities be removed from classification as mental disorders is supportable by the available scientific evidence.
One should not have to have “treatment” in order to at least eliminate the initial binary birth sex classification as incorrect.  The extent of any further “reasonable accommodation” (i.e., reclassification as belonging to the other binary sex assignment) may fairly require some degree of treatment, though it should be sufficient that the trans individual seeking reclassification be able to show a permanent elimination of reproductive capacity in the initially-assigned sex. (Example: In such a situation, Thomas Beattie might be properly classified as “other” but not as “male” because he has retained his capacity to make use of his mullerian duct system to bear children, a “female” trait by definition, even if his brain development is “male.”)
Autumn, I wouldn’t go so far as to give that report an “Ugh,” and though I can understand a degree of disappointment over the “Transgenders” terminology, I don’t see a conflation, I see an umbrella.

terminologyyes I feel the term transgender when used as an adjective should be uncontroversial as an umbrella term for those who should NOT be classified as having a mental disease but but a condition, HOWEVER MUCH OR LITTLE they need treatment for dysphoria.
This I feel should in NO way be a term to lump together disparate people who have a sometimes very strong sense of their particular identity, but purely one to catch all who should have equal rights to needed treatment and common decency.
Martha (TransLondon, Transgender Outreach Yahoo Group etc)
(my first post on PHB hello and HNY 2010 to all!)

Speaking of mental disordersYou know what I think is mentally warped?  Posting on this blog that it is “funny” that a man tried to blow up a plane with hundreds of passengers and crew.  Autumn, I have no idea, nor do I particularly care, whether your GID is a mental disorder or a medical condition.  But mocking an act of attempted mass murder on the same day that it occurs is really twisted.  I know you apologized after someone called you out on it, but seriously, if someone posted on this site that an anti-”trans” hate-crime was funny, do you think that anyone would let it drop – the way Pam apparently has let your disgusting comment drop?  

i think that was a different articlelets try to stay on topic, and not so butt-squinching proper on ideas of ‘funny’

DO YOU KNOW A DAMN thing about an HIV formulary?I’ve lived with this disease for 25 years, and I don’t need some academic transgender in her ivory tower….splainin’ to me what does and doesn’t get covered.
As a hypothetical case….say someone with HIV is transitioning, or has transitioned but needs to continue their hormones, it’s fine and affordable when she’s working, now she’s completely disabled with AIDS, and her HIV doctor would like to prescribe her the hormones she needs….he can’t because only a certain list of drugs are covered. Now figure in states GUTTING all services to people living with AIDS, not accepting any NEW patients to Ryan White coverage
until next year….if there are funds THEN.

If she apologizedwhat is your problem? Or are you one of those nattering nabobs where nothing is quite good enough for you?

Huh?This has nothing to do with whether HRT is covered. It has to do with pushing the APA to stop classifying trans people as mentally ill.

Transsexuality…Has been used before now to exclude coverage of broken legs.
The theory being that any HRT regime, or not taking any HRT, can possibly be linked to osteoporosis.
Thus the broken bone is related to transsexuality, and thus excluded from coverage.

STOP.Let’s not go down this road.

If you have an issue, please do not call Autumn out on this thread but rather, email her by clicking on her chieklet eyes on left side of page. Thanks!

I know I don’t and never had a mental disorder.  I am glad that any group, HIV or what ever is willing to stand up and speak this opinion.  
 Let’s see, I had trouble trying to be a man as what was between my legs told the world at birth I was a man.  DAMN, surgery, not some priest or psychologist trying to tell me how to be a man cured me, but surgery.  I have finally been living now for over 4 years with my part matching who I knew I am.  It is great to be alive.
 Lets add, any other thing related to mental health with me is fine.  Generally mental disorders have other symptoms accompanying them.  NONE, not one, nadda, nothing else.
 I will take anyone who says being transsexual isn’t a mental disorder.  I would have to say I am living proof of that.  With over $17,000 spent at various Psychiatrists and Psychologists offices for examinations during my divorce trial, none of them found anything mentally wrong with me.

Something Missing From This Story…This article, although informative, leaves out one very important detail. Although we know that HIV specialists WANT to see Gender Identity Disorder taken off the books, and we can imagine why (no access to funds/insurance for proper HIV care? Diversion into overcrowded mental healthcare facilities which are not funded?) – it does not explain, however, who is holding up the OTHER side of the argument.
Allow me to introduce an organization called NARTH:
http://floridasqueezed.blogspo…
Not only does NARTH want to see transgendered people stay classified as “sick” but they also aim to have homosexuality put back in the DSM, as it was until the late 70′s. These people (as you may have guessed already) are fundamentalist Christians who just so happen to be a small faction of the APA and will be helping to make these sorts of decisions when it comes time for the DSM V to be printed up and distributed.
NARTH is the anti-PFLAG. They aim to tell society that anything relating to homosexuality is not just morally corrupt but mentally corrupt as well.
Keep your eyes on these jerks… we haven’t heard the last of them.

the entire thread….WHATEVERshould have known better than dealing with a transgender anything thread

Reclassification

“though it should be sufficient that the trans individual seeking reclassification be able to show a permanent elimination of reproductive capacity in the initially-assigned sex.”

I have very strong objections to government policies that are only willing to recognize my existence upon sterilization.  To do so strongly implies that we should not be allowed to reproduce and are therefore subhuman.  The argument could be made that this is a voluntary sterilization, but that argument ignores the medical reality of needing to transition.
The way I see it, this is nothing more than a subtle reclassification of transsexuals (and perhaps other trans people) into the historical company of Native American women, mentally handicapped people and ironically in this context, the mentally ill.  All have been subjected to eugenics to ensure that their genes do not get passed on.  This adds an additional layer of irony with the dawning realization that being transsexual likely has a genetic component.
The final bit of irony is the recent news regarding the fairly simple trigger (or rather removal of same) used to stop ovaries from becoming testicles (google: Sox9 FoxL2 if you’ve missed it).  Imagine the state forcing you to chose between letting your body produce the hormones you need, without drugs…or the same state recognizing your new gender.

The intersection of HIV and HRT sounds like a interesting topic……especially in terms of financing.
I don’t know much about any of those topics, but an article at the HIV site TheBody.com says:

To begin with, there is no therapy approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for transgender people to ease their chosen transition. Instead, hormones approved for other conditions are prescribed to them off-label.
[snip]
Moreover, insurance — if available — does not cover off-label medications.

http://www.thebody.com/content…
I’m not sure, but I think that for Medicaid (or other health coverage) to pay for transgender treatment the US would first have to recognize that HRT is an approved treatment for transsexualism.

That was quoted slightly out of contextAdd this to the context:

One should not have to have “treatment” in order to at least eliminate the initial binary birth sex classification as incorrect.  

That would get us to a “blank” or “other” sex designation without any need for sterilization, voluntary or otherwise – since if we have brains that develop in accordance with the blueprint of one sex, and a genital tract that develops in accordance with the blueprint of the other sex, we actually fall in between – as having elements of both sexes in our physiological makeup, but not being completely one or the other.
However, many trans people would want to be classified as belonging to the sex opposite that assigned at birth for all purposes, and would not like the idea of being classified as “blank” or “other.”
That’s where the voluntary sterilization comes in.  This would not prohibit the storage of sperm or eggs for future in vitro usage.
If there are advances in the medical science that would allow one to grow the gonads appropriate for one’s brain development, that would certainly be preferable.
I hadn’t seen that news – so thanks for the opportunity to check it out.  (Though it seems from a quick perusal that this only works one way – ovary to testicle, though sans sperm production, who knows what future developments may be in store)
Perhaps I should have been more clear, though –  
“trans individual seeking reclassification”
should have been  
“trans individual seeking reclassification to the other sex, rather than to ‘blank’ or ‘other,’“
I appreciate the criticism, and hope that addresses your concern.

Thank you for the clarificationI felt the words stood on their own.  If they did not reflect your intent I apologize for imparting meaning that you did not intend!
“However, many trans people would want to be classified as belonging to the sex opposite that assigned at birth for all purposes, and would not like the idea of being classified as “blank” or “other.”
That’s where the voluntary sterilization comes in”
I am assuming you mean the transsexuals, the ones that have a brain body map that screams, “those parts don’t belong to me”?  I guess I am having trouble understanding why only the most extreme cases deserve to be recognized as their correct gender?  I’m equally confused as to why anyone lucky enough not to be quite that extreme has to pay the price of lost reproduction in order to be recognized.  

It comes down to the concept of “Reasonable Accommodation”

Nature loves diversity, but society hates it.
- Dr. Milton Diamond

Society, at least Western Society, expects all people to fit squarely into two arbitrary sex assignments, male and female.
While this works for somewhere around 99% of the population, it does not work for everyone – and therein lies the problem.
If the division must be on binary lines only, then the solution is to recognize “brain sex” over “genital sex” as being a fairer and more reasonable assignment situation.  Such a solution was adopted by the British government with its Gender Recognition Act.  Surgery is not a prerequisite in Britain for a legal re-assignment to the correct sex.
Of course, there are those who would actually prefer an assignment of “other.”  They might identify as genderfluid or genderqueer.
Society might think it reasonable to limit reassignment to “other” for those who have not at least made themselves reproductively incapacitated in the originally-assigned sex (since the original assignment is clearly wrong based on the “brain sex” but is only “correct” based on “genital tract sex” – both go into the anatomical and biological factor.  With the brain going one way and the reproductive tract neutralized, the predominant sex would be the brain sex.  The society might make the judgment that the capacity for natural impregnation is a male capacity that precludes assignment to female (but does not preclude “other”), and a capacity for natural pregnancy is a female capacity that precludes assignment to Male (but also does not preclude an “other” assignment).
Such a society could require physiological reproductive neutrality (but not nexessarily a vaginoplasty or phalloplasty/metoidoplasty) as a minimum standard for a reasonable accommodation of an opposite-sex assignment.
Such a society would recognize that some members were incorrectly assigned their original sex without having to assign them to the other, by giving them a “neutral assignment.”
The binary sex assignments are arbitrary, and the society can set the parameters for assignment using whatever requirements it finds reasonable.
When transsexual experience is seen by a society as a mental illness in people properly assigned their original sex (based on infant genital shape) and holds that viewpoint, that society will not recognize any sex correction at all.  Examples of this “genital essentialism” would be a society built on the teachings of the Roman Catholic hierarchy, or the teachings of the vast right wing conspiracy, or the teachings of genital essentialist radical feminists who are inspired by the dreck written by Janis Raymond.
Such a society would be cruel – even after having GRS, the individual would only be seen as truly belonging to their original sex (see, for example, the Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins and his recent attack on Amanda Simpson).
Where I live, In New York State, the current state of the law involves different interpretations of the binary for different purposes for trans folks who are not post-op.
Driver’s license?  The rule is sex is based on a physician or mental health professional’s assessment of “predominant gender.”  Result? I’m legally female.
Birth Certificate?  The regulations require the completion of GRS.  Result? I’m still legally male.
For most purposes, the driver’s license controls.
But for marriage, the existing caselaw indicates that the birth certificate rules.  Result? I have a legal lesbian marriage entered into in New York this past November, after having to get a court order just to get my birth certificate, and being turned down for the marriage license by the White Plains City Clerk (and getting the license in New York City, where the City Clerk’s counsel had to wait 3 hours for a second opinion).
So – ultimately, it’s a question of how far the society is willing to go to accommodate us.  Remember, the assignments themselves are arbitrary – nature is diverse, society is not, though a more reasonable society would recognize the diversity.
However – if it’s the diversity that is recognized, the binary assignments can still be limited to those who “fully qualify” based on brain, chromosomal and genital attributes.  Such a society could conveniently assign all trans and intersex people as “other” – quite possibly without regard to what they want or how they feel.  Then again, people might realize that the “need” to be assigned to the opposite sex might well be an artifact of the societal binary itself – and if the society genuinely honored and respected the diversity, fewer individuals would see an “other” assignment in a negative way.
The question may well come down to how far the society can be moved.  The experience of Britain indicates that it’s not impossible for a society to be as enlightened as you might feel comfortable.  But will something like this fly elsewhere? And when?  And if not, why not?