Homosexuality in the DSM: A Critique of Depathologisation and Heteronormativity (original) (raw)
Related papers
On the Proposed Sexual and Gender Identity Diagnoses for DSM5: History and Controversies
The Humanistic Psychologist, 2011
In February, 2010, the American Psychiatric Association unveiled its proposed revisions to the Sexual and Gender Identity Disorders for the fifth edition of its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5). The proposals have reinvigorated historical controversies about whether sexual and gender diagnoses may stigmatize and medicalize behaviors that are now considered nonpathological. This article traces the recent past of these controversies, beginning with early discourse about the future DSM-5. It addresses the content of the DSM-5's proposed changes to Gender Identity Disorder (GID) and the paraphilias, outlining responses to them in mental health and activist communities. Points of contention surrounding the recent proposals are assessed within the context of historical concerns. Additionally, my opinion regarding the potential of the DSM-5 proposals to assuage versus exacerbate longstanding controversies is presented.
The aim of this essay is to indicate the centrality of psychiatry's scientific discourse in the negotiation, construction and normalization of human sexuality. After a short historical account upon the dominant psychiatric discourse about homosexuality from the beginning of the nineteenth century when psychiatry emerged as a medical specialty, our focus will be on the presentation and negotiation of homosexuality in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). DSM was the first formal recording and scientific categorization of mental disorders, which was edited by the American Psychiatric Association (APA) in 1952 and is still being constantly enriched. Our target is to highlight the role of psychiatry and its functions as a means of the normalization of human bodies, as well as to highlight the role of gender within specific regimes of truth as another regulative norm.
Psychiatric diagnoses related to transgenderism span a wide range of terms, theories, and treatments. Similarly, intersexuality is coming increasingly under the psychiatric gaze, being incorporated into the “gender dysphoria” criteria as with or without a “disorder of sex development” (APA, 2013). Despite the diagnostic link between these two groups, histories of childhood sexual abuse within psychiatric theorizing are particularly visible within “gender dysphoria,” but markedly invisible within medical discourse on “disorders of sex development.” While sexual abuse has been problematically argued by psychiatry to play a role in the development of gender dysphoria, the potentially abusive touching of intersex children’s bodies in distressing or painful ways is legitimized and standardized. Thus pathological accounts of transgenderism and intersexuality are given prominence, whereas non-consensual touching is marginalized. The focus in both accounts is the pathologized body, rather t...
Frontiers in Psychology, 2015
Numerous controversies and debates have taken place throughout the history of psychopathology (and its main classification systems) with regards to sexual orientation and gender identity. These are still reflected on present reformulations of gender dysphoria in both the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual and the International Classification of Diseases, and in more or less subtle micro-aggressions experienced by lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans patients in mental health care. The present paper critically reviews this history and current controversies. It reveals that this deeply complex field contributes (i) to the reflection on the very concept of mental illness; (ii) to the focus on subjective distress and person-centered experience of psychopathology; and (iii) to the recognition of stigma and discrimination as significant intervening variables. Finally, it argues that sexual orientation and gender identity have been viewed, in the history of the field of psychopathology, between two poles: gender transgression and gender variance/fluidity.
Frontiers in Psychology
Numerous controversies and debates have taken place throughout the history of psychopathology (and its main classification systems) with regards to sexual orientation and gender identity. These are still reflected on present reformulations of gender dysphoria in both the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual and the International Classification of Diseases, and in more or less subtle micro-aggressions experienced by lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans patients in mental health care. The present paper critically reviews this history and current controversies. It reveals that this deeply complex field contributes (i) to the reflection on the very concept of mental illness; (ii) to the focus on subjective distress and person-centered experience of psychopathology; and (iii) to the recognition of stigma and discrimination as significant intervening variables. Finally, it argues that sexual orientation and gender identity have been viewed, in the history of the field of psychopathology, between two poles: gender transgression and gender variance/fluidity.
From here to queer? Pitfalls and possibilities
2009
In this article we consider the relationship between lesbian and gay psychology, latterly known as lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans and queer (LGBTQ) psychology and queer theory. We signal some ways that the field could become more intersectional by, for example, taking gender seriously, before turning our attention to queer theory. We explore some of the critiques of incorporating queer theory more fully into the field. In conclusion, we suggest that a tentative queering of LGBTQ psychology will provide fruitful possibilities for the future of the field.
The DSM-5 and the Politics of Diagnosing Transpeople
In the DSM-5, there has been a change in the diagnosis for transpeople of all ages from Gender Identity Disorder (GID) to Gender Dysphoria (GD), in part to better indicate the distress that transpeople may experience when their gender identity feels incongruent. The Workgroup for Sexual and Gender Identity Disorders, chaired by Kenneth J. Zucker, was employed by the American Psychiatric Association (APA) to update the DSM-5’s GID diagnosis reflecting contemporary scientific knowledge. Additionally, in a prepublication report to the APA, members of the Workgroup suggested that they would also be concerned with the destigmatization of transpeople while preserving a diagnosis that medical insurance companies would accept for issuing payments for transitioning treatments (Drescher, in: LGBT Health 1:9–13, 2013). The aims of this article are, firstly, to question whether changing the diagnosis lessens the stigmatization of transpeople. I will suggest that the semantic change from GID to GD marks “inverted” gendered expressions as pathological and, thus, continues to stigmatize transpeople. Secondly, the article explores the development of the GD diagnosis, and illustrates how the scientific data this were founded on are contentious. The article then demonstrates how the trans anti-pathologization movement has challenged the perceived pathologizing effects of the DSM-5 classification of GD. The article examines a selection of Western transgender community advocates’ websites, forums, and blogs. From these sources, the article then explores the different narratives of transpeople and political groups who offer details of their praxis, and evidences how the trans anti-pathologization advocates use the available science and human rights discourses to contest the role of psychiatry in the treatment of transpeople.