Okay--the debilitating comment is accurate. I mean, one can't walk on all fours in public. But what about the person who views themselves as legless and want those appendages removed to feel more "right" in their body? Example:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/22/h...ition=&pagewanted=print&position=&oref=slogin
Would you support cutting off whatever healthy tissue if one "feels" it's appropriate?
I'm not sure I have a definite opinion about BIID. I haven't really read extensively on this yet. As I understand it, this disorder is still fairly new, or at least the researches haven't offered much explanation of this disorder.
I'm glad you brought it up though, it most certainly have to do with what we're talking about.
I have mixed feelings about it. In one sense, it's like abortion. What I mean is when women conduct abortions on themselves because legal abortion is not available for them. Such as Mr Bondy in the story you linked. He seeked out a doctor in TJ to do the operation, but this could have been avoided if proper surgery was made legal. Also, a likely scenario is where people might plan out accidents and end up killing themselves instead of just amputating themselves. This crosses the line of insanity, however it
may (as in not definitely) have been avoided, if surgery was made legal.
On the other hand, I agree that this would in fact be cutting healthy flesh, and may actually feed into the disorder. This would also fit under the category of insanity because we have to factor in debilitation. However, it isn't complete insanity, because strictly speaking insanity constitutes a threat (either to themselves or to other people) which is why we institutionalize the insane. Those with BIID do not necessarily carry that same threat to themselves. But the debilitation factor should be considered.
The appropriate thing in my mind is to give extensive counseling to the client. And that's the farthest I can go, given that I do not have enough information about the disorder.
I am against the normalising of aberrant perceptions.
I think there is a difference between normalization and tolerance. I don't think anyone is going to say that Transsexualism is normal, that would just be a lie. I'm very certain that transsexuals understand that they are different, but despite that they can still live a "normal" life albeit with a social handicap.
What I'm saying is that people shouldn't view it as normal, but they shouldn't use that non-normalcy to discriminate. Myself being a minority, I wouldn't want my non-normalcy to dictate the way I have to lead my life.
talloulou has cast doubt on that conclusion--and all I have to do is find one transgender surgery recipient to regret the choice and your "treatment" is shot to hell.
Just one instance and it shoots my +95% satisfied reports to hell? I'm sorry, but I don't think that's possible.
The study that I've linked earlier, showed only 1-2% of the people regretting their sex change operation. This is indication that the operation is extremely successful in achieving satisfaction.
Statistically speaking, you will need to find at least 10% of the sample finding it unsatisfactory, and consistently find that 10% in all sampling. And this would only achieve statistical doubt, it still wouldn't show that the majority of the people will regret the operation.
I'm sorry Felicity, but you need to do more than just find one instance. Statistically speaking, it would be irrelevant.
I'm interested in looking at the Olsen and Möller article. Do you have the full article? What I want to see is what they wrote in the conclusion/discussion part of their report.
Psychiatric Comorbidity of Gender Identity Disorders: A Survey Among Dutch Psychiatrists -- à Campo et al. 160 (7): 1332 -- Am J Psychiatry
This case suggests that cross-gender delusions in patients with schizophrenia may mimic the persistent and stable cross-gender identification seen in patients with gender identity disorder. The psychiatric literature offers several anecdotal reports of cases in which cross-gender identification disappeared when patients were treated with antipsychotic medication (12–17). There are also case descriptions of patients whose cross-gender identification returned after antipsychotic medication was stopped (18). Finally, there are reports of remission of gender identity disorder in nonpsychotic, nonmedicated adult patients (19). The supporting text for the DSM-IV gender identity disorder criteria assumes that a patient with genuine gender identity disorder "feels like a member of the other sex rather than truly believes that he or she is a member of the other sex" (p. 537). In many cases, this clinical heuristic might be useful, but the example cited here suggests that it sometimes fails.
There is a distinct difference between "feeling" and "believing"--one is an
emotional disturbance, and the other is delusional.
The DSM isn't pointing that out (emotional disturbance). The DSM recognizes that transsexuals identify with the opposite gender. The DSM also recognizes that trannsexuals know that they are physically a man or a woman.
And while this article is very interesting, it is about Schizophrenia, not specifically about Transsexualism. It cites 25% of people with Schizophrenia to have cross-gender identification, which is what they called "comorbidity" (a fancy word for having multiple disorders). It also cites that because of comorbidity it makes it extremely difficult for the psychologist to diagnose the client.
It cites further that antipsychotic drugs helped that 25% by eliminating cross-gender identity, but they conclude that it was because they had Schizophrenia, not GID specifically. It's a good article. This would explain why sex change operations do not always have satisfactory results for all clients. Perhaps it was because they never had GID in the first place, instead they had Schizophrenia.
If he really thinks (not feels like) he is a woman, that is a delusion and should be treated with medication, not surgery.
Again, you're just not accepting the persons choice of identity. You are only calling it a delusion because you do not accept their choice.
I think you are too sold on letting people decide whatever they want to do to themselves when there is evidence that a permanent "solution" might bring about other problems, or no solution at all. To me, it's like letting the amputee fetishist cut off his legs.
I'm sorry Felicity, but +95% satisfaction is a huge number. I'm surprised you're not sold by it...
