I’m planning on becoming a school social worker and currently we’re reading the DSM-5. I’ve noticed the change in labeling the disorder into a more “non-stigmatized” label. It’s now called gender dysphoria; in the past it was called gender identity disorder (GID). Authors of my assessment text have implied that the change of language is about lessening stigma of certain disorders, mostly in order to get society to not think of people with X disorder as not fully human than anything political.
Given the current social momentum of “gay is okay” to various news articles defending the integration of transgenders in Boy Scouts of America (NYT saying it is rational to recognize transgender boys for what they truly are: boys) and the reaction to NC & Indiana bathroom bill it’s only a matter of time, say under a decade, that transgenderism will be deemed fully normal. Not because of any rigorous debate, but because of indoctrination (high schools inviting speakers to talk about it’s supposed normality) and it’s what modernity seeks to accomplish.
It’s all about infiltrating. It’s all about setting and establishing the “new norm.”
It’s called psychological conditioning. It works on a simple principle: say it’s true over and over again until people accept or stop caring. “Modernity” is international groups of formerly LGBT, now LGBTQI groups getting powerful individuals to believe them. By reprogramming kids to believe. It’s not complicated.
Like the term “Gender Fluid.” I want a woman one day, a man the next, and a trans person the next?
Find out why the change was made in the DSM-5. It occurred primarily because of years of lobbying by LGBT activists.
I’ve watched the West slowly poisoned by anything but normal sexual activists for decades. Don’t be poisoned.
Ed
In my view, what’s behind this is a statement I read: “I no longer want to feel guilty or ashamed or sinful ever again.” Or I am accountable to no higher power. I create me - no one else.
The Church recognized the root cause and defined it.
"I. THE QUESTION
"2. Recent years have seen new approaches to women’s issues. A first tendency is to emphasize strongly conditions of subordination in order to give rise to antagonism: women, in order to be themselves, must make themselves the adversaries of men. Faced with the abuse of power, the answer for women is to seek power. This process leads to opposition between men and women, in which the identity and role of one are emphasized to the disadvantage of the other, leading to harmful confusion regarding the human person, which has its most immediate and lethal effects in the structure of the family.
"A second tendency emerges in the wake of the first. In order to avoid the domination of one sex or the other, their differences tend to be denied, viewed as mere effects of historical and cultural conditioning. In this perspective, physical difference, termed sex, is minimized, while the purely cultural element, termed gender, is emphasized to the maximum and held to be primary. The obscuring of the difference or duality of the sexes has enormous consequences on a variety of levels. This theory of the human person, intended to promote prospects for equality of women through liberation from biological determinism, has in reality inspired ideologies which, for example, call into question the family, in its natural two-parent structure of mother and father, and make homosexuality and heterosexuality virtually equivalent, in a new model of polymorphous sexuality.
"3. While the immediate roots of this second tendency are found in the context of reflection on women’s roles, its deeper motivation must be sought in the human attempt to be freed from one’s biological conditioning.2 According to this perspective, human nature in itself does not possess characteristics in an absolute manner: all persons can and ought to constitute themselves as they like, since they are free from every predetermination linked to their essential constitution.
"This perspective has many consequences. Above all it strengthens the idea that the liberation of women entails criticism of Sacred Scripture, which would be seen as handing on a patriarchal conception of God nourished by an essentially male-dominated culture. Second, this tendency would consider as lacking in importance and relevance the fact that the Son of God assumed human nature in its male form.
“4. In the face of these currents of thought, the Church, enlightened by faith in Jesus Christ, speaks instead of active collaboration between the sexes precisely in the recognition of the difference between man and woman.”
Full document:
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20040731_collaboration_en.html
) - but what is it imagined that medical practitioners should or could do about it?