Recent years have seen the advent of the term “Gender Dysphoria”, a somewhat loose term thrown about to justify much of the activists activities.
But just what does it actually mean? As Psychiatry Online says “The area of sex and gender is highly controversial and has led to a proliferation of terms whose meanings vary over time and within and between disciplines”.
I’d like to take this opportunity to share my thoughts.
This is part one of a two part blog. In part two I will look at the diagnostic criteria of yesteryear and show the significant changes that have taken place.
For a precise definition there is only really one source we need to consider….the DSM V, the practitioners “bible” for diagnostic criteria.
Starting with section A, several things immediately leap out.
Firstly, there is no requirement at all to be uncomfortable by ones natal anatomy. Wow! Points A.1 and A.2 makes reference, but as you can see only two of the six criteria from point A are required. If we consider the often fetishistic agenda of transition you can see that points A.3 and A.5 make for uncomfortable reading; the combination of having a desire to have the body of the opposite sex and be treated as the opposite sex are sufficient to meet the requirements of this section. Many quite reasonably assume that A.2, a persistent desire to rid oneself of sex characteristics is a requirement and I know many of you will be shocked to read this is not the case.
Many times I see a response on Twitter run the lines of “how can you say you have gender dysphoria when you talk about your penis all the time”. The truth is terrifying; because merely wanting a female body is sufficient.
Secondly, it should be blindingly obvious that the conflation between sex and gender is misleading if not deceptive. For example consider “the desire to be treated as the opposite gender”; what does that even mean? To me this implies a very superficial desire and one very different from biological sex.
One need look no farther than the opening line and to the phrase “assigned gender”. I don’t know about you but I never had an assigned gender, I had a biological sex recorded. Very peculiar to use such language with diagnostic criteria.
Surely if one shows a “desire to be the opposite gender” then little more is needed than to reject gender stereotypes. After all sex is biology, gender is sociology.
Finally, and most worringly of all, is perhaps point A.6. Yes, thats rights it’s about “feelz”. I have spoken in previous posts about the fact it is impossible for me to “feel like a woman” because I have no basis for comparison, yet here it is in black and white. Toxic masculinity leaves little room for men to exhibit an emotional response in many situations; does this mean therefore that men who do so should consider their response as belonging to the “opposite gender”? I have a massive issue with this.
Section B, whilst I feel poorly worded, is the one typically ignored. In some ways it should prove some measure of protection from section A because it requires there to be a demonstrable distress or impairment. All to often we see the proud declarations of the “trans” ideology and blatant acknowledgement that they have no distress or impairment. How then can they claim Gender Dysphoria?
Sadly point B has been challenged and it has already been announced that the next iteration of the DSM will be “Gender Incongruence” rather than “Gender Dysphoria”. Isn’t it bizarre that we have a psychological disorder be so manipulated because so many want to have it? But of course manipulating language is a common theme.
A few years ago many delineated between medicalised and non medicalised “trans”. Self ID was the enemy and the medical profession was the defence. The issue isn’t with these poor people with Gender Dysphoria is it, it’s with those who self declare themselves the opposite sex? This is now a very dangerous position to take. There is quite clearly a world of difference by someone expressing a desire to rid themselves of their primary sex characteristics and someone who stated a desire to be “treated as a woman” yet both share equal standing within the diagnostic criteria.
Whilst we can and should recognise that the UK has rejected legal self ID, it should not go unnoticed that diagnostic criteria have substantially weakened and therefore non self ID may not offer what you think.
Indeed “affirmative” diagnoses are starting to take over. If you say you have Gender Dysphoria then guess what? You do. Rather than self ID as “trans” with no medical diagnosis you can simply self diagnose the medical label.
This is terrifying.
It’s terrifying to those with genuine life changing distress at their natal anatomy.
Its terrifying to women for obvious reasons.
Its terrifying to society for what this means long term.