On 15 Jan 00 at 14:31, [log in to unmask] wrote :
> the reality is that, according to the diagnostic systems, Gender Identity
> Disorders ARE mental disorders, ...i'm not saying that they/it SHOULD be,
> but simply that GID is a diagnosis, so the above statement is *just* a
> factual statement.
Aye, according to the latest, soon-to-be-rewritten-yet-again,
update of the SOC. Like "True Transsexual" and so many other concepts
which have been dreamed up then abandoned at a later stage, this one
may have a short self-life.
If you're at all interested, my views of this can be found on the PFC
website in http://www.pfc.org.uk/medical/mmacvw.htm. I have no
intention of wasting space on this list by rehashing them here.
> reasonable? no not reasonable, but i think this is because these experts are
> MEDICAL experts, not political activists....and as i'm sure you are aware the
> medical communities records on trans issues is well, less than exemplary....
But then, it is not their politics I am interested in or commenting on,
it is precisely their medical expertise as borne out by the evidence.
And the evidence, in Brook's case in particular, is highly
controversial. When someone has described a class of patients as "all
that rubbish" and is then invited to take a role in advising on medical
treatment for such a group, I feel I have a right and responsibility to
make my reservations known.
To paraphrase a famous quote - in order for evil to triumph it is
necessary only that good people ignore the evidence and keep their
mouths shut.
--
mairi macdonald
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|