“APA believes that no psychological disorder should be stigmatized or used as the basis for discrimination. People who are concerned about issues having to do with their gender identity should have access to appropriate and non-discriminatory treatment. Mental health providers need to educate themselves about how to provide such care.”

In other words, we may find your sexuality or gender identity to be disordered (which carries social and legal consequences), but we won’t discriminate on that basis?

I would certainly not have entrusted my former partner to his care. The idea of this guy determining the standards that will guide diagnosis and treatment of transgender & genderqueer patients turns my stomach.

I talked with a clinician who usually uses the diagnosis code for PTSD for her gender-variant patients — because usually their work consists of unpacking all the damage from a lifetime of being mocked and abused for being gender-variant and moving forward into the fullness of self-expression. I wonder if the APA would consider such a reclassification for DSM-V.

Interesting that you would state it that way, because I didn’t actually give an opinion. I was just pointing out that the APA is lying about Zucker’s opinion.

As for my opinion, I don’t think it’s been proven that one should necessarily think of transsexuality as an “outcome” in the first place. There is no empirical research whatsoever demonstrating that Zucker’s brand of reparative therapy, or anyone else’s performed on transkids, actually changes any outcomes. The only results we know for sure of Zucker’s methods is that he makes children cry and have anxiety attacks.

Besides, this is assuming that these children aren’t just brainwashed into thinking their gender identity isn’t trans. So far the jury’s out. If your identity is trans, it’s far better to know and accept it than repressing it. And if it can be chosen, I think kids should have the right to choose.

Regarding the idea that transsexuality is a bad outcome, why do you disagree?

Zucker thinks that an important goal of treatment is to help the children accept their birth sex and to avoid becoming transsexual. His experience has convinced him that if a boy with GID becomes an adolescent with GID, the chances that he will become an adult with GID and seek a sex change are much higher. And he thinks that the kind of therapy he practices helps reduce this risk.

Failure to intervene increases the chances of transsexualism in adulthood, which Zucker considers a bad outcome.

So, to treat Bradley, Zucker explained to Carol that she and her husband would have to radically change their parenting. Bradley would no longer be allowed to spend time with girls. He would no longer be allowed to play with girlish toys or pretend that he was a female character. Zucker said that all of these activities were dangerous to a kid with gender identity disorder.

Some similarities:

Zucker and ex-gay groups have a base assumption that gender and orientation are very fluid whereas the bulk of research suggests barely fluid.

Both focus on changing gender roles and gender expressions to change the root identity.

Neither has a peer reviewed model for gender identity/orientation or how they can change.

Both are overly concerned with how others, especially parents, peers, and partners react. Namely, both believe parents may choose the gender identity/orientation of their child.

Both outcomes have a huge failure rate and even “successes” have significant same-sex attractions.

Both don’t want to call a duck a duck. Ex-gays groups call their clients “same sex attracted” instead of gay and Zucker refuses to call any child transgender unless they fail therapy.

Both blame depressed mothers and distant fathers.

Both seem pre-occupied with born males over born females.

Both ignore the many healthy, productive queer people in favor of the depressed, rejected queers.

Ex-gays love Zucker and while Zucker has said little vice versa, it’s all been positive or neutral.