Short Paper: Gender Dysphoria
Short Paper: Gender Dysphoria
Based on the articles on gender dysphoria, write a short paper about the influence of acceptance, parenting styles, and how these can directly steer a child’s gender identity.
Moreover, think about society today and acceptance of varied gender roles compared to the 1950s. What is different today in parenting styles compared to the 1950s? Additionally, think about the criteria and changes made in the DSM in the most recent version (DSM-5) compared to earlier, outdated versions.
Also, consider and explore society’s influence on gender dysphoria in your argument. Is there a direct correlation to gender identity and society or not?
Paper should be 3-5 full pages and 3 resources formatted in APA.
Resources:
1. Library Article: Gender Dysphoria: Two Steps Forward, One Step Back
This article examines the newly revised diagnostic criteria for gender dysphoria and illustrates the substantial step forward in understanding the population it encompasses.
The article discusses there is much improvement in the definition, there still leaves room for growth in labeling such population. This article is required for all of this module’s tasks.
Lev, A. I. (2013). Gender dysphoria: Two steps forward, one step back. Clinical Social Work Journal, 41(3), 288-296. doi:http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.snhu.edu/10.1007/s10615-013- 0447-0
2. PDF: Gender Dysphoria This article provides an overview of the newly established guidelines for gender dysphoria adopted by the DSM-5.
The article reviews the criteria for a gender dysphoria diagnosis and areas in which there still remains a struggle for those with this diagnosis. This article is required for all of this module’s tasks.
https://web.archive.org/web/20150829003822/http://www.dsm5.org/documents/gender%20dysphoria%20fact%20sheet.pdf
3. Library Article: Gender Stereotypes in the Family Context: Mothers, Fathers, and Siblings
This article explores gender stereotyping of children by their parents. The study examines parental expectations and stereotypes and how these differ compared to siblings of different genders. This article is required for all of this module’s tasks.
Endendijk, J. J., Groeneveld, M. G., van Berkel, S.,R., Hallers-haalboom, E., Mesman, J., & Bakermans-kranenburg, M. (2013). Gender stereotypes in the family context: Mothers, fathers, and siblings. Sex Roles, 68(9-10), 577-590. doi:http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.snhu.edu/10.1007/s11199-013-0265-4
4. Library Article: The Early Development of Gender Differences
The study examines the inception of gender differences and influence of developmental roles. This article is required for all of this module’s tasks.
McIntyre, M., & Edwards, C. (2009). The Early Development of Gender Differences. Annual Review of Anthropology, 38, 83-97. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.snhu.edu/stable/20622642
CLINICAL SOCIAL WORK FORUM
Gender Dysphoria: Two Steps Forward, One Step Back
Arlene Istar Lev
Published online: 18 July 2013
� Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013
Abstract The long-awaited DSM-5 has finally been
published, generating controversy in many areas, including
the revised diagnostic category of Gender Dysphoria. This
commentary contextualizes the history and reform of the
pathologization of diverse gender identities and expres-
sions, within a larger perspective of examining psycho-
logical viewpoints on sexual minority persons, and the
problems with continuing to label gender identities and
expressions as pathological or disordered.
Keywords Transgender � Gender � Diagnosis � GID � Gender dysphoria � Gender identity � LGBT � Trans � LGBTQ
Sexualities keep marching out of the Diagnostic and
Statistical Manual and on to the pages of social
history.
Gayle Rubin 1984, p. 287.
Clinical Social Work has just celebrated its 40th anni-
versary, and this volume marks the first special issue devoted
to lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) mental
health and psychotherapy. The lives of LGBT people, people
who are now reclaiming the word queer as a proud self-
descriptor to encompass the term LGBTQ (Tilsen 2013),
have changed dramatically in this same period of time.
LGBTQ people were leading clandestine, marginalized
lives, ostracized by family and friends, unable to have chil-
dren (or retain custody of them), living with a constant threat
of unemployment, creating false narratives about their social
lives to appease others and protect their private lives. Now
LGBTQ people have the potentiality of full lives—out,
proud, married, with families, serving in the military,
working for the government—with strong communities and
federal laws that protect us against bias-related violence.
Forty years ago, I was a 15-year-old Jewish working-class
adolescent, growing up in the tail end of 1960s counter-cul-
ture, and deeply in love with my best girlfriend. My journals
were full of endless, painful monologues about her, about
society, and about where I would fit into the grownup world I
would soon be entering. I wasn’t exactly closeted—I called
myself bisexual—but I was filled with angst and confusion
and drowning in myriad social messages of what it meant to be
a lesbian (which in my journals I spelled ‘‘lesibean’’ because
even simple access to seeing words that reflected my experi-
ences in print was non-existent). I did not know how to talk
with my mother, my friends, my boyfriend, my girlfriend
about my emerging queer identity. What could be the future
for a young dyke? Where could I find a home, a job, a lover, a
life? And if I found my way to therapy, what would the psy-
chotherapist say to me that would affirm my identity? What
education did she have, what trainings had he attended, what
journal articles could she/he have read to help her or him help
me to grow to be a healthy secure and very queer adult?
In entering into this discourse with you, the reader, I must
start with a moment of silence, for all that has not been said
within the therapy professions, within social work and family
therapy—the professional communities I call home—these
past 40 years. The LGBTQ communities have been hard at
work informing politics, changing policy, opening minds,
indeed transforming the world in many ways—and our clin-
ical communities have followed along, taking a mostly pro-
gressive, supportive stance on issues as they have arisen,
incorporating a ‘‘gay-affirmative’’ approach into our clinical
A. I. Lev (&) School of Social Welfare, State University New York at Albany,
Albany, NY, USA
e-mail: arlene.lev@gmail.com
123
Clin Soc Work J (2013) 41:288–296
DOI 10.1007/s10615-013-0447-0
practices (Levy and Koff 2001), but as a social work com-
munity, I wonder if we have done enough (Levy and Koff
2001). Have we been at the vanguard of advocacy and pro-
gressive change, or have we merely followed the evolving
trends (Hegarty 2009)? I hope that this inaugural issue heralds
a change not just in direction, but in conceptualization, so that
LGBTQ issues become not a ‘‘special issue,’’ but are incor-
porated into the framework and organization of the journal. I
was taught many years ago to always ask the questions ‘‘Who
is not present at the table? Whose voice is not being heard?’’
The challenge of fully incorporating LGBTQ clinical
knowledge into the mainstream of clinical social work is to
deconstruct heteronormative thinking, to queer the discourse. I
will try in the words that follow to move this discussion past
‘‘gay-affirmative’’ therapy, and to imagine a more queer psy-
chotherapy, one that truly challenges the pathologizing of
LGBTQ lives, and heteronormativity of non-queer ones. I want
to look at the role that diagnoses play in the development of
identity, communities, and the therapeutic gaze. The context of
this discussion is the change from Gender Identity Disorder to
Gender Dysphoria in the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and
Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5; American
Psychiatric Association (APA) 2013), but it is by necessity a
wider discourse about both sexual orientation and gender
identity, the social and political context of the holding envi-
ronment we call therapy, as well as an emerging queer sensi-
bility that challenges the hegemony of pathological labeling.
The shift in diagnostic nomenclature initiates a potential shift in
clinical conceptualization from gender nonconformity as
‘‘other,’’ ‘‘mentally ill,’’ or ‘‘disordered’’ to understanding that
gender, as a biological fact and as a social construct, can be
variable, diverse, and changeable, and existing without the
specter of pathology. De-centering the cisgender assumption
that normal people remain in the natal sex (cis) and that dis-
ordered people change (trans) is at the root of debate regarding
gender diagnoses in the DSM and the battle for their reform.
I became a social worker 25 years ago to work with what
we then called the gay community. I fought and lost the battle
as the Chair of the ‘‘Gay Issues Committee’’ of the New York
State Chapter of the National Association of Social Workers
(NASW) to change the name to the ‘‘Lesbian and Gay Issues
Committee’’; the word lesbian was still foreboden. Although
this was over a decade after homosexuality had been removed
from the DSM, ‘‘gay’’ issues were poorly integrated in my
social work education. The only time I heard the word trans-
sexual as a student (the word transgender had not yet been
coined) was when a teacher said, ‘‘You know that some people
want to change sex?! Really!’’ She leaned into the class and
repeated in a loud incredulous whisper for emphasis,
‘‘Really!’’ When I became an adjunct professor (in the same
Social Work program in the late 1980s) and I asked my col-
leagues how they addressed issues of sexual orientation in the
curricula, I was met with blank stares. Was there really
nothing to say about homosexuality now that it was no longer a
diagnosis in the DSM? Really?!
However, despite the silence within training institutions,
there have been many positive changes for LGB people
socially and politically. In the past few decades lesbian and
gay people have secured many civil rights. It is worth
pondering whether these social changes would have hap-
pened if homosexuality had remained in the DSM. Do you
think we would be seeing these massive social changes,
like marriage equality? Throwing off the yoke and stigma
of ‘‘pathology’’ allowed not only for the coming out of gay,
lesbian, and bisexual people, but also allowed for legal,
political, and clinical transformations that could never have
been granted a ‘‘mentally ill’’ population. How would your
psychotherapy practice look different than it currently
does, if homosexuality was still a mental disorder? These
questions are an important prelude to the discussion of
Gender Dysphoria in the DSM.
The acronym LGBT has become a moniker, a catch-all
expression meant to include a group of people who may not
have all that much in common. It has become a practice of
mine, whenever I receive new classroom textbooks, to look
in the index for the phrase LGBT, and then see what the
content reveals. Most of the time what is revealed is gen-
eral information on lesbian and gay people. The B and T
are too often silent. Although I mentioned above that I feel
relatively secure that lesbians and gay men are receiving
competent care when seeking therapy, I do not pretend to
feel that trusting about the clinical treatment received when
we toss in the unique issues bisexual people face in either
heterosexual or same-sex partnerships (see Scherrer, this
issue for an in-depth discussion regarding bisexual indi-
viduals). And what about the complex issues transgender,
transsexual, and gender non-conforming people experience
within the confines of the consulting room?