I read an article from the Irish Independent today, and just had a s short series of tangential thoughts on the piece. So, humor me for quoting a large section of an article I read on the web, and then not writing much about what I quoted. Enh, it happens. 
From the Irish Independent (bold emphasis added):
There are times when the world ceases to make sense, and tips over into such a state of craziness that it might as well have been rewritten as a lost chapter from Alice in Wonderland. So it was last week, when Europe's leading human rights organisation condemned the Czech Republic for carrying out the surgical castration of sex offenders on the grounds that it "removes a person's ability to procreate".Sorry, but since when did it become a tragedy for a child abuser not to be able to have children?
The Council of Europe didn't object to the surgical castration of sex offenders merely on the dubious grounds of procreation rights. The organisation also said it had "serious physical and mental consequences", and I'm sure it does. Whether the consequences are as serious for the offenders as the victims is another matter altogether. But there lies a testament to the startling oddity of public debate right now: castrating sick individuals in order to protect vulnerable children is considered a terrible and inhumane thing to do, but chopping off parts of the bodies of perfectly healthy children is regarded as a great medical advance.
That's what also happened last week when a 16-year-old German boy became the youngest person ever to undergo a sex-change operation. Kim, formerly Tim, Petras had wanted to be a girl since the age of two. Now he is. Or rather, she is. It's the culmination of a process which began at the age of 12, when Kim persuaded doctors that she was really a girl, and was allowed to begin hormone replacement therapy...
The writer of the article quotes a specific clinic as acknowledging that "80 per cent of [children diagnosed with Gender Identity Disorder (GID) in Children] do not go on to become transsexuals." So, it sounds really, really bad to accomplish genital reconstruction surgery (GRS) on children diagnosed with GID (Child).
However, I don't believe this is a problem of being able to identify which children have strongly expressed gender identities that don't align with their natal genitalia, nor one of children who express regret for affirming gender identities that don't align with their natal genitalia after psychological and medical treatment, but instead is a problem of having a diagnostic tool that labels almost all gender variant behavior in youth as Gender Identity Disorder in Children [GID (Child)].
Specifically, what the writer of the article didn't point out is that diagnostic criteria for GID in Children are nebulous, and cast a very wide net -- see the GID Reform Activists' (gidreform.org's) page on how broadly written the DSM-IV TR diagnostic criteria actually are.
Trans civil rights activists like me are concerned about how GID in Children is applied not only to ego-dystonic children are diagnosed, but...
High functioning children may be presumed to meet criteria A and B on the basis of cultural nonconformity alone, if they exhibit 4 of the 5 characteristics of criterion A and any of those listed for criterion B. Thus, a child may be diagnosed with gender identity disorder without ever having stated any desire to be the other sex. Most puzzling, the DSM-IV-TR admits that:Only a very small number of children with Gender Identity Disorder with continue to have symptoms that meet criteria for Gender Identity Disorder in adolescence or adulthood (p. 579).This calls into question the therapeutic purpose of GID of Children. Overbroad diagnosis contributes to the stigma and undeserved shame that gender nonconforming youth must endure. Parents accepting of their gender nonconforming children live in fear of persecution by courts, school officials and government agencies who infer a broad interpretation of GID of Children and seek punitive treatment remedies.
As Dr. Zucker -- a psychiatrist on the committee supervising the upcoming DSM-V -- and Dr. Bradley have quoted Richard Green in their book Gender Identity Disorder and Psychosexual Problems in Children and Adolescents:
The rights of parents to oversee the development of children is a long-established principle. Who is to dictate that parents may not try to raise their children in a manner that maximizes the possibility of a heterosexual outcome? If that prerogative is denied, should parents also be denied the right to raise their children as atheists? Or as priests?"
I guess my point is that there is an assumption that we, as western society, are experimenting on the bodies of gender variant youth by seeing genital reconstruction surgery (GRS) accomplished with a male-to-female, 16-year-old. My point isn't whether or not it's a good thing to accomplish GRS on people who are not yet 18-years-of-age, but instead pointing out that one of the arguments against performing the surgery -- the one based on the how 80% of those diagnosed with GID (Child) aren't transsexuals -- is a problem of an overinclusive diagnostic standard for the condition that includes the children who's natal sex doesn't match their gender identity.
I know I believe that part of the reason why the diagnosis of GID in Children is written so broadly is a veiled attempt to prevent homosexuality in adults. You can't blame gender variant youth for the less than adequate diagnostic tool.
And, what that has to do with punishing child molesters? Absolutely nothing -- This is a subject I believe is unfairly linked to youth diagnosed with GID (Child).
~~~~~
Related:
* Zucker and Bradley
* Documenting The DSM-V And GID Controversy
* Gender-Variant Children And Transsexuals Will Likely Still Be Disordered In DSM-V
A new website called Marriage4All.org has launched with a handy, searchable database and map so you can find out who in your area gave money to take away the rights of others. But this site provides more than just names of contributors, it also has information on conflict resolution and how to approach those around you to talk about the real impact of Amendment 2.
It's not retribution, it's about changing minds and holding people accountable.
Readers may remember that there was much controversy and investigation into the illegal campaign tactics of the Yes2Marriage Campaign. Illegal money funneling to shield donors, 3rd party produced ads, and other misdeeds helped the group pass the Amendment in November.
Perhaps this is a chance to see what businesses gave financial support and take your money elsewhere, as well as see who in your neighborhood gave money and start a dialogue to help in future pro-equality efforts.
So check out www.Marriage4All.org and see what names pop up. You may be surprised...
FOR the backers of Proposition 8, the state ballot measure to stop single-sex couples from marrying in California, victory has been soured by the ugly specter of intimidation.A Web site takes names and ZIP codes of donors supporting the measure and overlays data on a map.
Some donors to groups supporting the measure have received death threats and envelopes containing a powdery white substance, and their businesses have been boycotted.
The targets of this harassment blame a controversial and provocative Web site, eightmaps.com.
This is a terribly shoddy job by the NYT. It is never appropriate to buy in to the "Gayz R Eevil" drone of the GOP/haters. And it's just plain pathetic that the journalist failed to do his homework.
Cross-posted at Blue Mass Group.
No comments:
Post a Comment