Anonymous #2 1d

DSM-V

18

Anonymous #1 1d

People should do whatever they want with their bodies forever. However, certain things are regulated by legislation and public policy (like access to healthcare, insurance regulation and guidelines, etc) including “gender affirming care” and “gender dysphoria.” It important to understand that words have specific meanings and context.

43

Anonymous OP 1d

And yet that legislation is the same that creates barriers and denial for all of us. Not the big hoorah you’re trying to make it. Take a chill pill and find real reasons to protest.

-6

Anonymous #1 1d

definitely in some states. i’m lucky enough to live somewhere where the legislation gives me free access to hrt and even bottom surgery if i wanted to do that. and that’s all achieved thanks to the official definitions of gender dysphoria and gender affirming care. this is much better than where we were at 20 years ago. progress isn’t linear. this is, in fact, one big ass hoorah. so yeah, taking a stab at a solution is better than bickering and doing nothing, even if that stab is really a poke.

19

Anonymous #4 1d

this isn’t blanchard.

1

Anonymous #5 1d

DSM has Blanchard as a primary advisor for initial definition then built off of that over time

1

Anonymous #3 1d

Exactly. Stating “this is what the current frameworks are” isn’t endorsing them, it’s establishing a baseline shared understanding. It’s important to understand these terms have particular definitions and understand them in context. When states are banning GAC, they’re defining explicit as transgender/cross-sex healthcare and in many cases putting in carve outs for intersex and cis people to continue to access care. Legally GAC is understood to be trans-specific.

6

Anonymous #3 1d

Would it be great if the US healthcare system was different and covered more procedures for more people? Duh. However, single-payer/national healthcare systems have their own problems. It can be extremely difficult-to-impossible to access trans healthcare due to waitlists or care restricts. For several years, bottom surgery for trans men was not accessible through the NHS.

3

Anonymous #3 1d

It’s also important to understand the utility of revised/expanded definitions, the changes made to the DSM-V means that, for example, a nonbinary person with dysphoria now can access nullification through a gender dysphoria diagnosis. Previous definitions were much more binarist and/or only validated certain transition pathways.

10

Anonymous OP 1d

Cool, you’re still pissed at all the wrong things. Put that energy into advocating for GAC for everyone who needs it, not just us.

-2

Anonymous #1 1d

most people are against GAC specifically for trans people because we’re trans but ok. and any progress made for us tangentially benefits cis people with the same issues when they’d otherwise be a tiny & ignored minority.

8

Anonymous #4 1d

yes but the dsm v is now divorced in both time and content from that. when we talk about blanchard in trans spaces it’s typically regarding blanchardian typology (hsts vs agp).

10