ScotL wrote: ↑
Wed Feb 01, 2023 2:19 am
I must have misinterpreted your quote. You said “The main problem here is that it is only applied to males and never to females.” and I corrected you because this is not a factual statement. They are rarer, but some females are transvestites.
Please tell me how I twisted these these words without regard to your actual point.
The point has to do with the difference of what's written in the DSM ("the condition almost invariably occurs in men"), how that is applied practically in the profession with the "almost" effectively being dropped, and what the general usage is in the vernacular, which is what we get to deal with in the general population.
Thus, the DSM effectively
gives a pass to women and unfairly stigmatises men which is bad enough; the vernacular usage is even worse where the symptom effectively never
presents in women and men get excoriated (or worse) for having such thoughts. It's amazing that any
guy in the so-called "West" has the guts to shove on a skirt in the morning.
Of note is that the DSM is letting up on the matter somewhat and whilst the verbiage about Transvestic Fetishism still pertains "almost exclusively to men", the current guidance is that "unless the condition causes real suffering to the victim it's best left alone." and I seem to recall the word "victim" in there. Yes, I have read the relevant passages not just very recently. It may be "possible" that the sexist components have been dropped, but I rather doubt it.
Should we grant the writers of the DSM a pass in their use of language? I am inclined to say, "No" because they're supposed to know better. However, they're humans, too, and suffer from what's on offer in the vernacular. In particular, the "diagnosis" should not be allowed to propagate any further without removing the sexist aspects of it. Why should I get a "diagnosis" shoved onto me for wearing a skirt when a woman who wears only jeans gets a pass? Does the unfairness and arbitrariness present now?