I'm writing a research paper for my abnormal psychology class on gender identity disorder... so I have to read a lot of dreck with some good stuff sprinkled on top. I came across a lengthy article on the subject of reparative therapy for children. Like the APA, AMA and Am Assn of Pediatrics, I believe that reparative therapy can do a lot of harm. But I am always interested in what people have tried and what sorts of effect it actually had. These are typically accompanied by a "case study" that is either fraudulent or goes counter to the main thesis. "Carl" was brought in at almost 9 years old and diagnosed with "Gender Identity Disorder" despite not meeting the crucial criteria (he only met the "not intersexed" part). He self-identified as "f*g" and "sissy" and did not want to be female. So, he was not trans at all -- just a little nelly. According the the article, he didn't mind being as he was, but the boy's mother was "deeply concerned." He was enrolled in 15 months of sports education, went through a year of therapy to get rid of any feminine traits, was trained to not ask questions about 'girl stuff' and was transferred to a new school to develop a non-gay reputation. Result? He became more popular and was no longer considered to be "overly feminine." So... success, right? Not really. At 16, he was followed-up on, and still self-identified as gay ("f*g" and "queer" this time). He had just learned that expressing any interest in 'women stuff' was bad and wrong, so he stopped asking questions and displaying any "bad" mannerisms. He could have done all of that just by going to acting classes and speech therapy. The researcher obliquely referenced the 'excellent' success rate throughout the paper, which kept me reading. Keep in mind that most of their patients did not even have gender identity disorder (or substantial issues thereof). 75% of their patients identified as gay or bisexual after their (ahem) 'successful treatment' -- which amazed me, because if I were in a similar situation, I'd probably be in the closet after that type of traumatic experience. Of the 25% left, a large number actually had GID and sought legit medical treatment for it. I don't think that it's unreasonable to assume that the ones left were straight guys who simply were a little feminine as kids (or possibly cross-dressed as adults). So, the whole thing was pretty much a failure. He points out that he had never heard of a successful RT study "before," but declares it a success and posits that "homosexuality per se" should be re-examined for inclusion as a mental disorder because of his work. I found it extremely entertaining, but also incredibly aggravating as I have to deal with people who go gaga over crap like this. Considering the work this is based on is decades-long, I would hope that this put the idea to rest, but it crops up constantly. It feeds into what they wish was true, and any evidence to the contrary is chalked up as some sort of "militant, left-wing, homosexual agenda" thing. Anyway, I hope I get an A on this research paper because at this rate I'll need blood pressure medication and a vacation in The Virgin Islands before the quarter is over.
Does the URL you gave as the citation have the full article? I read it, but couldn't find any place in which the age 16 followup made references to "Carl" identifying as gay, or using any such terms. They identify him as "gender appropriate" but make no reference that I can see to his sexual identity at all. I agree with your fundamental statement that the kid most likely didn't have a gender disorder in the first place, and that he probably was gay and they probably just created a "straight acting" gay guy, but I'm wondering if there's something I missed?
You raise some interesting observations. I think that the DSM is a way for many (not all) psychologists to justify their "need" in this field. Honestly, if people were healthy, they would be out of a job. Your professor should acknowledge that creation of disorders and syndromes is an important aspect to insurance reimbursement and research funding... My bias is that I am firmly a "suck it up" kind of person, which is the way I solve my own life challenges, this is also a family value in our house. So, I was probably one of the lesser compassionate in my own abnormal psych class about syndromes and symptoms (not to be confused with genuine mental illness). That said, I understand and accept that people don't always have the mental/emotional resources to pull themselves up and deal with challenges. So, at the end of the day, if it makes the patient feel good then it's ok. If you look at diagnostic criteria for nearly every "mental illness", you'll find cultural and societal bias. I think international research is the great neutralizer of some ambitious Americans.
I must have mis-read, as they actually say that their typical patient self-identifies as gay ("queer") as an adult -- but don't mention Carl's sexual orientation when they followed-up. Chip: I'm not sure if that's the entire article, but the text is what I am referencing. The idea seems to be that being feminine indicates that the boys want to be female -- which isn't the case. Most males that are feminine aren't trans and trans women don't self-identify as gay men. I kept feeling like I was missing something, but I'm thinking that it's just that he didn't really make his point with me. But yeah, he's possibly gay, and all they really did was make him stand out less. cookderosa: It's true to an extent, not to mention the ICD-9/10 codes. Everyone's insurance company has a list of what they will and won't pay for, and they are all different. If someone notates Dyspareunia (painful sex) after an episiotomy as F52.6, the patient would not be able to get any medical treatment for it covered. If it was correctly notated as N94.1, the patient would be covered. I'm kind of a "suck it up" type as well, which sometimes doesn't go over so well But I just focus on what is best for the person, and not their family/spouse/neighbor. Kizmet: Or worse, Schizoid!
