Quick response to new APA draft on Transvestic Fetish

It's late and I've been busy and with bad symnptoms so this is brief though i've added comments on it at bilerico and Zoe's and at some crossdressing forums.

Here it is: http://www.dsm5.org/ProposedRevisions/Pages/proposedrevision.aspx?rid=189

That its there at all is problem number 1.

There's lots wrong with it.

It still only lists Males. I know female-bodied crossdressers exist cause I'm dating one!

The rationale section makes clear that even a well adjusted happy crossdresser is still labelled as having not-normative sexual behaviour even if not having the disorder so long as they ever have sex when dressed.

And then there's the bit where they explain no longer having heterosexuality a criteria for diagnosis (emphasis added by me): "[11] The word “heterosexual” was removed because some transvestites interact sexually with other males, especially when cross-dressed, and may subjectively perceive themselves as bisexual."

Not may be bisexual, not may be homosexual. But may subjectively perceive themselves as bisexual.
Are they wrong about being bisexual? Seems to me something they'd know. Are they suggesting Bisexuality doesn't exist?

I'll discuss this at more length later as there's plenty more but I'll mention this as it will also annoy the HBS crew who always demand that CDs have no conection to TSs and don't suffer gender dysporia: "Other transvestites, whom Blanchard (1989) has called autogynephiles, are most aroused by the thought or image of themselves as women. As a practical matter, the autogynephilic type seems to have a higher risk of developing gender dysphoria. This was confirmed in a secondary data analysis reported by Blanchard (2009c). The results of that analysis clearly suggested that the addition of the proposed specifiers to the diagnosis of Transvestic Disorder could provide clinically meaningful information as well as data useful for research."

When religion is used to demand Special Rights

"Special Rights"

Its one of the common ways to denigrate a valid claim to equality.

It's usually used when someone would use the same right in a different way.

The right to marriage being used to marry someone of the same sex is called a 'special right'. But its really just marrying the person you love.

Whereas to say that only straight people may marry is in fact to demand a real 'special right'. It becomes a special right only available to straight people.

Now in Victoria there are attempts to get 'special rights' for religious businesses and organisations to deny services and employment to people for a large swathe of reasons. http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/balancing-religion-and-rights-the-case-against-discrimination-20091003-gh9y.html

A religious persons right to worship whichever god/s they choose are not harmed by having to sell a product to every customer equally. A religious persons right to worship are not harmed by having to fulfill their duty of care and obligation of duty to serve every person in need equally. Its even theologically bankrupt for those christians supporting it, Jesus was more than fine hanging with gentiles and tax collectors etc, he outright targeted them.

Yet caving to these people is somehow considered a valid course of action by the government. And when 85% of Australians want anti-discrimination protection on sexuality and gender identity!

So its a minority demanding the special right to discriminate against other minorities!

Religious rights do not supercede others equal rights. thats how that word Equal works. But yet some people irrationally and unethically and unjustifiably are demanding a special right to treat others as not equals. A codified double-standard. They want injustice to be ptotected and legal.

Thats the real special right demanded here.
It's unethical, unequal, unjust, unpopular, undemocratic and unaustralian.

An abuse of universal human rights and basic equality.