Similarities & Differences: Why the DSM-V Makes Sense

Post Reply New Topic

Very eloquently said, if you ask me. You are totally right about cheap insurance companies not wanting to pay for gender identification surgeries and treatments unless there's some sort of label.

What you said makes great sense.

Since Gender Dysphoria and Transgenderism are seen as malfunctions of the mind, not the body, recognition as a 'mental disorder' is basically essential in order to receive coverage for treatments, as you said. Maybe one day it will be considered a sort of 'genetic defect', in that the body grew in opposition of the mind, instead of vice versa. It just comes down to how we, as a society, define sex and gender. If you look like a male and have all the male parts, you're male. If you tell someone you're female, they will obviously believe that this feeling is a disorder of your mind.

Homosexuality, aside from obvious reasons, shouldn't be in the DSM because it does not require any type of treatment. If you're transgendered, you'll most likely require treatment, so the label must stick. It's odd to think, though, that the 'cure' for a 'mental disorder' is physical alteration, not mental alteration.

Well technically the posssiblies are finite, just probably incomprehensibly large. anyway, I didn't mean for it to be broken down that much, just a bit more specific than it is right now.

[citation please]

Homosexuality might not require treatment in the same way as those seeking to physically change gender, but might still require support, counselling, and protection from intolerance. The finer details, I suspect lie in cultural differences. I would prefer if things were obvious, but like the rolling eyes, many things pass me by.



Edit: lazy and careless wording

Last edited by Orr on 14 Mar 2012, 1:47 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Sorry but how does the "ICD" or "DSM" protect from less intolerance ( by way if i missread it about after transgenderism as been also part for trangenderism & not just homosexuality ). Seems to cause a wake of destruction. Then they forget the part about the aftermath of destruction by not providing the actual service. I don't know what the NHS policy is on "require treatment" is it classed as cosmetic surgery with a medical reason or just "cosmetic surgery" & do you get it or do you need to pay private just interest.

Seems if they spent as much time as they did on the DSM, ICD as the services maybe we would have stuff.

Just seems it causes more ignorance than actually helping & (some)charitys don't help either on how they advertise for money.

What we need is services not stupid book updates. Proper services. & really all the data needs to be stuck under 1 roof as it's probably laying all over the place with a bunch of people doing the exact same research.

They not even got services for the last book let alone spitting a new one out.

( you know "sexual orientation" is about as complicated as these books are )

Edit: "I don't know if you were offending anyone or not Orr, I am also sorry if my post is offensive about that particular topic" But seems it's more than 1 type under the name.

Last edited by TechnoDog on 13 Mar 2012, 7:21 pm, edited 2 times in total.

I opine, possibly incorrectly, that education and recognition protects from intolerance. I was lazily refering to those who seek to physically change their gender. I am sorry if any of my post is offensive.

An interesting side note READ THIS CAREFULLY IT IS SIGNIFICANT: I've had a printout of this article for several weeks now, it was printed and given to me by my therapist. I used the address at the bottom of my printout to copy the link here and intended to copy and paste the following statement below. when I looked at the article a few minutes ago the text had been modified to the quote above as you will see it now when you click the link. At some point this article was edited to make the original statement, found in my older copy, much softer. Notice in the edited current version, quoted above, the bolded sentence 'The changes would narrow the diagnosis so much that it could effectively end the autism surge, said Dr. Fred R. Volkmar,' it is no longer a direct quote of Dr. Volkmar but a much softer paraphrase while in the original (quoted below) the direct quote of Dr. Volkmar is given. At some point after the article was released somebody put pressure on NYTimes to modify the language. It was pure accident that I realized this because it happened to be the statement that I intended to paste here for you and I noticed the change while trying to copy it a few minutes ago. In my printed article the text is exactly as follows, look at the difference-


Here is the link ---> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/20/health/research/new-autism-definition-would-exclude-many-study-suggests.html?pagewanted=all

Apparently Dr. Volkmar feels we are an epidemic to be nipped in the bud by changing the definition of what's wrong with us.




The following two paragraphs appear in my original copy and the current copy without modification and are also significant to what you are asking-



*edit* If you guys are not concerned you should be.

None of that makes any claims about people who are already diagnosed.

It makes claims about people who are not yet diagnosed using a bad study with faulty data, but it does not say anything about people not keeping diagnoses that they already have.

Might need it if you actually need support though, as they might not give access without it. Depends how they view it really & how the people offing the service take it. But ye its on nytimes site.

edit:- Might not give a "1", maybe if they look at your diagnosis and see a certain number not met of criteria. & ask you to retake. Or they might just do (2).

Really should ask someone who will know the answer really & not dwell on it.

Oh I get it, you think we'll be 'grandfathered' in. Good luck with that. Tell you what, after the DSM 5 comes out go to the DPS department of a college and tell them you need services because you have Aspergers. You think you're in some central database that's going to update you from AS to autism when the new DSM comes out? What ever place you are trying to get services from is going to tell you to get new documentation because AS no longer exists. When you try to get that new documentation you will evaluated under the new criteria. Sorry, I can't link common sense.

There is no central database or anything, but when you have the stamp, you have the stamp. The point is not to destroy what exists, but to put together a bunch of diagnoses with only differences of scale between each other, and then to distinguish between individuals.

In any case, changing the DSM does not delete the knowledge of what existed before. I don't imagine therapists will expect that everyone with Asperger's syndrome will be completely aware of the new diagnosis, and I think it is likely that the old terminology will be used concurently for some time.

You feel much too strongly about it. There are many things more important than just the symptom checklist. The actual help provided to people with any definition of the disorder, for a start.


No to both.

1) People with Asperger's could fit with the second level of severity too, I imagine. They would be "automatically" somewhere on the spectrum, though -- because, you know, they already are.
2) There would be no reason to restart the process.

If you're diagnosed with AS now from the DSM-IV-TR, you'll have an ASD insofar as the DSM-V goes. The only time anything will change is if someone requires you to be reevaluated (there's doubt over your diagnosis), then you'll be evaluated with the current manual. People diagnosed with autism back in the DSM-III and its updates still had it when -IV came out.

There's hardly any difference between AS in the DSM-IV-TR and ASD in the DSM-V in regards to meeting the threshold; one more in the social domain is needed, and one more in the repetitive behaviors section (they added sensory stuff to it though). I personally doubt that'd preclude anyone who actually has an ASD. The DSM-IV-TR had some strict bits needed too ("considerable disability").

Also, the DSM isn't the only criteria people use: I was diagnosed via Gillberg's Criteria at Attwood's place here. Does that mean I don't have AS if it's not from the DSM?

Which is exactly what happens when you apply for services. My point is when people apply for services, especially government services, the agency will look for every excuse to deny the person. I know this as fact because I went through it; including being forced to do an evaluation just 6 month after my original DX. This will be one more excuse.

I didn't quote all the quotes of what you wrote down, but I agree with you. I have a similiar and sneaky feeling that this will happen. And agree with everything you have said.

Add to the picture SCD (Social Communicaton Disorder), that's been proposed to include in DSM-V. What do you think, why?

Social Communication Disorder - A new category in DSM 5
http://crackingtheenigma.blogspot.com/2 ... r-new.html

See subtitle What is autism?
http://crackingtheenigma.blogspot.com/2 ... d-nos.html