Gender Issues

Psychiatrists, physicians, and mental health professionals are often asked to treat patients facing issues of sexual orientation and gender identity. Here are quick Tips for trans-inclusion of LGBTs.

Sexual identity development is a complex, multidimensional, and often fluid process. One must consider cognitive, social, emotional, cultural, and familial complexities among other aspects of the individual’s experience to contextualize a narrative concerning sexual identity development.

A lack of male mental health clinicians is having a huge effect on men who would otherwise benefit from psychotherapy.

A DSM critic, Andrew Hinderliter sent this perceptive email questioning the wisdom of the most fundamental decision we made in preparing DSM IV-- ie, our goal of keeping the system stable.

Forensic psychiatrists expressed near-unanimous opposition to 3 controversial new sexual diagnoses after a spirited debate at a recent conference of the American Association of Psychiatry and Law (AAPL).

Forensic psychiatrists expressed near-unanimous opposition to 3 controversial new sexual diagnoses after a spirited debate at a recent conference of the American Association of Psychiatry and Law (AAPL).

Designers of descriptive diagnostic criteria for mental disorders face some of the same problems as fishermen. Fishermen, like nosologists, want to capture not just any fish but a particular kind. Fishermen deal with this problem in various ways.

Just imagine. If you are not a transgender individual, what must it feel like to always think, as far back as you may remember, that you should have the body of the opposite gender? That you were “born in the wrong body”.

A 17-year study found that children raised in lesbian-mother families appear to grow up to be well adjusted and have fewer psychological problems than do children reared in more traditional families.

Many have challenged the claim of the APA/DSM-5 Task Force that the current process is the most “open process in the history of the manual.” Few have actually provided an argument or evidence of why this might, or might not, be so. What has changed dramatically in the DSM process since DSM-IV in 1994, and even DSM-IV-TR in 2000, is the rise of Internet culture and the “blogosphere.” What does this have to do with DSM-5?

In his recent David Letterman–like Top 19 list of DSM5 issues, Allen Frances1 targeted a proposed revision of the DSM-IV diagnosis of Pedophilia, and 2 proposed new diagnoses: Hypersexual Disorder (HD) and Paraphilic Coercive Disorder. He protests the inclusion of pubescent teenagers in the definition of the proposed revision of Pedophilia (including the renaming of it as Pedohebephilic Disorder) and criticizes the quality of writing of these criteria.1 As the chair of the DSM5 Work Group responsible for those draft criteria, I need to address his poorly reasoned claims.

A major general problem in the preparation of DSM5 is that the various Work Groups have been given far too little guidance and support. This explains why: 1)most of the criteria sets are written so obscurely and inconsistently; 2) the rationales for change vary so widely in depth and quality across Work Groups,and; 3) so many suggestions that should have no chance at all have made it this far without being tossed.

As transgender activists protested outside the American Psychiatric Association meeting, speakers at the meeting were presenting on the same topic: gender identity disorder. Some of their words would add clinical weight to the political slogans.

After some members and mental health writers criticized the American Psychiatric Association (APA) for “secrecy” surrounding the development of DSM-V, the Board of Trustees of the APA voted to make public regular DSM-V reports as well as summaries from work group chairs on the Web site at www.dsm5.org.

Racial/ethnic and sexual orientation minorities and women historically have been relegated to social, legal, and economic disadvantage in the United States.

In this article we discuss psychoneuroendocrine influences on sexual orientation and the psychodynamics of internalized homophobia. Because of space limitations, we focus on homosexual orientation, although research in this area sheds light on heterosexual and bisexual orientation as well.

Any sexual behavior--normal or abnormal, masturbatory or partnered--ultimately rests on biological elements, psychological elements, interpersonal elements, and cultural concepts of normality and morality.

Paraphilias are defined by DSM-IV-TR as sexual disorders characterized by "recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges or behaviors generally involving (1) nonhuman objects, (2) the suffering or humiliation of oneself or one's partner, or (3) children or other nonconsenting persons that occur over a period of 6 months" (Criterion A), which "cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning" (Criterion B). DSM-IV-TR describes 8 specific disorders of this type (exhibitionism, fetishism, frotteurism, pedophilia, sexual masochism, sexual sadism, voyeurism, and transvestic fetishism) along with a ninth residual category, paraphilia not otherwise specified (NOS).

Paraphilias as defined by DSM-IV, are sexual impulse disorders characterized by intensely arousing, recurrent sexual fantasies, urges and behaviors (of at least six months' duration) that are considered deviant with respect to cultural norms and that produce clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational or other important areas of psychosocial functioning. The common paraphilias described include exhibitionism (exposure of genitals to a stranger), pedophilia (sexual activity with a prepubescent child, generally 13 years of age or younger), voyeurism (observing others' sexual activities), fetishism (use of inert objects, such as female undergarments), transvestic fetishism (cross-dressing), sexual sadism (inflicting suffering or humiliation), sexual masochism (being humiliated, beaten, bound or made to suffer) and frotteurism (touching, rubbing against a nonconsenting person).

Source: Simons RC (1983)