Disorder of Sexual Management (DSM)

By Sophia Siedlberg

30 December 2008

It is interesting how a lot of people now seem to be questioning the current revision of the DSM (DSM-V) due to be published in 2012. A recent article in the Los Angeles Times highlights the issue of secrecy surrounding the DSM-V, with questions about conflict of interest and inventing new mental health issues which can be "treated" by various new (expensive) drugs. It is fair to say that the DSM-V has evidently become a shop window for pharmaceutical companies wanting to sell their wares.

To extend this analogy, there is also the "top shelf and behind the counter" side of all this which is deeply disturbing quite frankly. When the DSM-V finally appears, it will most probably involve mental health "experts" projecting their sexual problems onto the entire population and then recommending very expensive treatment and more psychiatric involvement (meaning more lucrative work for the psychiatric profession).

Transsexualism, which for some time now has been considered to be biological in origin, but needing further research, is one situation (called "Gender Identity Disorder" by the "experts") and it is here we find the relevant patient groups actually resisting this move towards pathology for profit. Transsexualism in this story also raises some very interesting questions about the DSM-V. Paul McHugh is perhaps the best person to mention at this point, someone who I have often seen complaining about "invented conditions" and he sites transsexualism as the symbol of such "made up conditions". However, at the same time he can be found fully supporting those on the relevant committee discussing this very subject. And that committee defines transsexualism as a "Gender Identity Disorder."

Suffice to say that when transsexual folks were objecting to some members on that particular committee (Dr Kenneth Zucker, for example) a large petition appeared opposing Zucker's appointment. How does Paul Mc Hugh reconcile all this? Well, he does not because he cannot.

You see, Paul McHugh clearly does not want the committee to remove the diagnosis of "Gender Identity Disorder" from the DSM-V but at the same time he is known for closing down the Gender Identity Clinic at the John's Hopkins stating that he regards GID as a "made up disorder". I think Paul McHugh represents the real conflict of interest, because I think that when you scratch beneath the surface, the apparent contradiction makes a lot of sense in a grim sort of way.

What would be the optimum situation regarding transsexualism for the psychiatric profession? A situation where transsexual folks are denied surgery and tormented into the hands of the psychiatric profession on a longer term basis. That way they can peddle the latest and most expensive drugs and keep patients on them long term. As these transsexual folks who require surgery are driven to ever deeper levels of despair, there are those experts who are willing to pile on the torment, literally profiting from their abject misery.

A similar situation exists regarding another patient group, intersex folks. And here it really is vicious. The DSD (Disorder of Sex Development) Guidelines dreamed up by Alice Dreger and given backing by a clique of "experts" formulating a "Consensus" really went in for the arbitrary assignment of sex to given conditions. When you read "5 alpha makes male" etc., you start to realize that they are deliberately seeking to assign intersex children to the sex they are least likely to accept, and then putting them through torment, to fill the pockets and bank accounts of the "experts" and the drug companies.

You can say I am being very cynical when saying that, but you cannot see it any other way when you look at it logically. These are people who simply want to cause as much harm as possible so they can milk their victims for cash.

It is also worth noting that often these "experts" are accused of being part of various masochistic fringe religious sects (mainly Opus Dei). That would make sense when you think about is, as sadism and mind control are held up as a virtue by such belief systems. What would be wrong with using such "virtues" and imposing a masochistic self hatred on patients for the sake of profit? Surely the self hatred would be a virtue to such beliefs.

Whether or not they are members of such fringe sects remains to be seen, but it goes to show that even the most deluded conspiracy theorist could easily present a rational argument about the DSM-V etc. So a mere cynic like me has little or no difficulty in pointing out what is obvious. What else can be said? Perhaps we can add another condition to the list, a Disorder of Sexual Management, where the individual diagnosed with a DSM displays symptoms of abusing patients for profit, playing on the fact that certain patient groups are stigmatized and as such easily milked for cash.

Can the DSM-V committee answer to that charge? Well let's see, shall we?

For a list of articles by Sophia Siedlberg: Click here