When A Clothing Preference = Mental Disorder

Today on twitter via Queers United, I was made aware of something that I had no idea about - evidently, per Queers United blog:

...the APA considers individuals who crossdress to be suffering from "transvestic disorder".

That's right, kids! A preference in clothing = mental disorder.

You may say, "Now wait a darn minute, Pinko. We're not talking about just a preference in clothing! Stop purposefully misrepresenting the issue!"

The fact is, I'm not misrepresenting anything. I personally, like everyone else who is sane, wear clothes in which I feel comfortable. Technically, I would be considered a cross dresser given that I wear pants 99.99% of the time and I have a vagina. Joe blow misogynist might try to say that my desire to wear pants, even though I have said vagina, is indicative of some deep mental issue I have toward my own femininity. What he's really saying, however, is that he likes it when chicks wear skirts and because I'm a chick and I don't wear a skirt, there's something wrong with me. He is perpetuating his personal perception of normal as an objective measure of normality.

For men who prefer to wear woman's clothes, the issue and the judgment is far worse and honestly, nothing to laugh at.

It's people who think they are justified in assuming someone has a mental disorder if they don't conform to some imaginary, objective 'normal' standard who are misrepresenting the issue.
The APA often reflects the misinformed mainstream assumptions regarding behaviors and lifestyles as mental disorders, but luckily there are people who are actively vigilant about this and take steps to petition the APA for change. Here's a link to the petition to get this ridiculous classification for crossdressing removed from the APA. The listed arguments are irrefutable, in my opinion:

1. Crossdressing involves no inherent harm to the individual engaging in it, to other people, or to society. Its presence in a psychiatric manual (whether for reasons of diagnosis or for research) is anachronistic, trivializes the DSM, and diminishes the psychiatric profession;

2. By the 1980s, laws against crossdressing were abolished virtually everywhere in the U.S., Canada and Western Europe with almost no controversy as they were recognized to be anachronisms, unworthy of attention by law enforcement officials. The psychiatric diagnosis, however, remained in place;

3. In many other countries around the world, crossdressing is still a criminal offense, and the continued presence of this diagnosis in the DSM promotes the oppression of gender diverse persons by local authorities;

4. The mere grouping of crossdressing alongside criminal behaviors that can cause grave harm to non-consenting persons needlessly stigmatizes people who engage in harmless gender-diverse behavior;

5. The application of this diagnosis only to male persons is obvious evidence of sexism;

6. The arbitrariness of this diagnosis is compounded by its proposed extension to cover gay and bisexual men who were explicitly exempted in the past, and by the questionable reasoning given to justify the change;

7. The proposed "Transvestic Disorder" diagnosis would no longer be limited to crossdressers. It also now targets many transsexual women with the new specifier of "autogynephilia," a pejorative label implying that transsexual women transition for reasons other than harmony with their gender identity. This mischaracterization of transsexual women is already being exploited by political extremists to undermine their civil rights and human dignity.

8. The psychiatrist and former chairman of the DSM-4 Task Force, Allen Frances, M.D., recently wrote in the Psychiatric Times, "As psychiatrists, we have our hands full taking care of the suffering and distress caused by real mental disorders. There is no need for us to expand our purview to cover sexual thoughts and behaviors that are private and harmless."

9. In February 2010, the Norwegian Directorate of Health, following the earlier lead of Denmark (1995) and Sweden (2009), invalidated the diagnostic code for "Fetishistic Transvestism" in the standard Norwegian psychiatric manual. The Directorate of Health observed, "There have been no changes in these diagnoses for over 100 years... At best these diagnoses are completely superfluous. At worst they are stigmatizing minority groups in society."

So, in the spirit of labeling shit you don't like as a mental disorder and for those who think those who crossdress have a mental disorder, I feel there are other fashion choices which deserve this unflattering distinction FAR MORE than crossdressing. Feel free to add to the list as you see fit.

Wolf T-shirts. While often accompanied by rat tails and confederate flag stickers in the mid-west where the disorder is rampant, they can be found in rural areas outside the mid-west as well, usually being worn by a guy with a 'sweet' fantasy dagger collection.


Crocs. 'Nuff said.


Chicks who wear those sweatpants with a word written across the backside. Nothing says 'I'm clinically desperate for attention' like a wearing a pair of pants that force everyone around you to look at your ass.


ICP fans, aka "Juggalos". I feel this mental disorder is serious enough to warrant mandatory sterilization.

Ugly Christmas sweaters that additionally incorporate American patriotic zeal. Nothing says Christmas like a snowman with a flag. Wait, what?

The Folly Of Perception Equaling Reality

I used to work for a terrible shoe company that made terrible shoes. It was one of those trust fund companies that the current owner, a soft handed spoiled kid turned hapless old man, had inherited from his hard working father. He ran the company with the help of his useless hag of a wife who was more interested in looking up to date than doing any work and they tried to make their way by making knock off shoes which they failed to market as cutting edge and trendy. The theme of this horrible company was "perception is reality."

"Perception is reality" is a statement which attempts to assert that reality only exists in the perceptions of one's self and others. In the shoe making business this meant that we were to sell an inferior product that was a knock off of something else as if it were the best shoe ever made in the history of mankind, because if we could affect the perception of people regarding the shoe, the reality of the shoe would be altered.

The problem with this idea is that only the willfully stupid, truly stupid, or painfully stupid are actually impressed by this notion. I think some religious people fall into each category, but it's painfully stupid people that I feel are the most destructive. The painfully stupid are people who are vain to a fault. People who are easily manipulated into following something, buying something, or believing in something because they want the positive image that's associated with it. Painfully stupid people buy crappy knock off boots because Perez Hilton mentioned them in passing once. Painfully stupid people believe in religions because they want to be rich, powerful, and/or respected - it can be one or all three of those or something else, but the main motivation for painfully stupid people to be religious and especially overtly religious boils down to perception.

These people act in ways that hold true to their perception of how a good person should act instead of just...being a good person. That's the difference between reality and perception. 'He seemed like a good guy' is the positive perception of countless neighbors living next to rapists and murderers across the country, you read about that in the news all the time. Being a good person is different that being perceived as a good person because when you are good, that's reality. When you seem good, that's perception. If we allow reality to be confused with perception, bad things often happen. For instance, perception is reality has ruled the Catholic church for a very long time and now we have thousands of cases of molestation, abuse, and misconduct coming to light because people who were perceived as being pious and good were in actuality creepy old drunk uncle types.

Perception is not reality. In simplest terms - if perception were reality, then reality wouldn't be called reality, it would be referred to as perception. Perception is our own personal take on reality - it's what you get when you have to deal with reality plus human emotions plus complex cognitive ability. Just like I shake my head in pity when I see an over-tanned, under-fed party girl wearing knock off shoes like they're Hollywood itself, I feel terrible for people who are religious for the sake of perception.

Example of Religious Evil Or Just Plain Nuts?

Somewhat breaking news, a girl who was kidnapped at age 11 in 1991 has been found. Her captor was...a religious nut. Well, I should say captors since the guy had a wife, but she's staying sensibly silent while he is not.

Mr. Garrido gave a telephone interview from jail to station KCRA in Sacramento, saying, "In the end, this is going to be a powerful, heartwarming story."

"My life has been straightened out” in recent years, he said. “Wait till you hear the story of what took place at this house. You’re going to be absolutely impressed. It’s a disgusting thing that took place with me at the beginning, but I turned my life completely around."

Yeah, I'm sure it's totally a heartwarming story involving you impregnating a 14 year old child you abducted and forcing her and the children to live in tents in your backyard without outside contact or medical attention for almost two decades. He had two kids with the girl, an 11 year old and a 15 year old. Previous to the abduction he had been convicted on charges of rape and kidnapping of a minor and was an apparently legally compliant registered sex offender.

This man is obviously a bit crazy. Take a look at his blog and you can see how the guy is convinced he can control sound with his mind.

So the question has to be posed - is this an example of how strong religious belief is a farce or worse, an indication of mental illness or is this guy just a perverse psycho who happened to seek out religion as his most recent outlet?

I think the better question would be, why is it that crazies tend to seek out religion as often as they do and is that occurrence indicative of a sinister nature that religion easily supports and nurtures? I suppose anything is justified if you do it for a god or if you later believe in a god that admonishes you of all fault.

Gays And The Fundies Who "Love" Them (But Not Like That)

It seems like whenever any institution shows the smallest amount of positive or protective response toward gays, the religious kooks go into a tizzy. As far back as 1999, a decade ago, the APA had this to say regarding 'reparative', 'conversion' or 're-orientation' therapy:

“The potential risks of ‘reparative therapy’ are great, including depression, anxiety and self-destructive behavior, since therapist alignment with societal prejudices against homosexuality may reinforce self-hatred already experienced by the patient. Many patients... were inaccurately told that homosexuals are lonely, unhappy individuals who never achieve acceptance or satisfaction. The possibility that the person might achieve happiness and satisfying interpersonal relationships as a gay man or lesbian is not presented, nor are alternative approaches to dealing with the effects of societal stigmatization discussed... the APA opposes any treatment, such as ‘reparative’ or ‘conversion’ therapy which is based on the assumption that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder or based on a prior assumption that the patient should change his/her sexual orientation.”

Just last week the APA finally adopted a resolution in regard to this position:

The American Psychological Association (APA) adopted a resolution Wednesday urging mental health professionals to avoid telling clients that they can change their sexual orientation through therapy or other treatments. The decision rejects the hundred years' worth of research indicating the effectiveness and benefits of sexual reorientation therapy due to "serious design flaws."

The resolution also advises that parents, guardians, young people and their families avoid sexual orientation treatments that portray homosexuality as a mental illness and rather seek treatments "that provide accurate information on sexual orientation and sexuality, increase family and school support and reduce rejection of sexual minority youth."

The approval was made at the APA's annual convention with a 125-4 vote.

What exactly is the driving force behind the dissenting and consequently religious response to this? Religion wasn't taken into account as if it were a fact. Specifically religious doctrines which are mostly fundamental in nature which say that homosexuality is wrong and can be reversed or cured. Please keep in mind that the bible certainly says NOTHING about the nature of homosexuality - there is no book of butch which outlines if it's a choice or a characteristic or pre-determined in some way.

This is the issue for them:

The task force examined the 83 studies conducted in English between 1960 and 2007 regarding SOCE, but concluded that the vast majority of the studies were unacceptable because of poor methodology. "Unfortunately, much of the research in the area of sexual orientation change contains serious design flaws," task force chair Dr. Judith M. Glassgold said. "Few studies could be considered methodologically sound and none systematically evaluated potential harms."

A good chunk of those rejected 'studies' were conducted by religious institutions and constitutes psychological pseudoscience. One asshole who makes a living peddling this 'you just have to WANT to change' garbage is...the guy who is complaining about the APA's resolution of course!

Dr. Joseph Nicolosi, founder and director of the Thomas Aquinas Psychological Clinic - a biblical de-gaying office - disagrees with the APA, stating:

the organization did not give sufficient weight to the years of clinical research that shows that in some cases sexual orientation is changeable through therapy. "The APA is really failing to not only represent science, which is its primary responsibility," he said, "but it's also failing to inform people."

The APA isn't failing to inform anyone of anything. In fact, these people have something to be happy about given that the APA didn't vote the practice of re-orientation therapy to be specifically unethical, they just refuse back it which means Nicolosi can still torment confused homosexual or bisexual people all he wants without risking the loss of his liscense.

I feel like Nicolosi's greatest fear is one of my strongest hopes - that people will abandon these types of therapy and instead learn to love themselves for who they are, whether they're theists or otherwise.

George Sodini's Evolution of Faith

I just got done reading George Sodini's journal which has been posted publicly across the web after he shot and killed four women (one died on the way to the hospital after the initial reports were released) and injured 9 others. The guy seemed like a very lonely and unhappy man who felt himself a failure in many ways.

It's important to point out that this was in no way a religiously motivated killing. However, in his journal he does mention religion a few times and interestingly the passages that mention religion later in the journal (the day before the event) seem to be vastly different than the attitude he has earlier on in the journal. Here are the excerpts which interest me:

Now that I am on the topic of family and people I know, I might as well make a summary of sorts to show where things stand. This is New Years Eve I have time, no date tonight of course, so:

Honorable mention:

Tetelestai Church in Pittsburgh, PA - "Be Ye Holy, even as I have been Ye holy! Thus saith the lord thy God!", as pastor Rick Knapp would proclaim. Holy ----, religion is a waste. But this guy teaches (and convinced me) you can commit mass murder then still go to heaven. Ask him. Call him at [phone number]. If no answer there, he should still live at [address]. In any case, guilt and fear kept me there 13 long years until Nov 2006. I think his crap did the most damage. Their web site: http://www.tetelestai.org.

Andy Pulkowski - I have been in barrooms and church groups. The worst people by far are the religious types. Especially a right-wing, stiff-faced fundie like Andy. A condescending, demeaning, passive-aggresive person. Frigid, rigid, linear and totally inflexible. Being a very serious person, he cannot hide his frown-lined face. He better not try to smile; lest his face might crack. I knew children of parents who grew up in strict religious homes. Religion has a certain stink to it of guilt, shame, fear, and that moral standard that always contradicts the natural tendencies and desires of a person. Therin lies the conflict. Young person cannot experiment with things to decide on their own and establish their own parameters. So they tend to cut loose and really rebel much worse than the average young person. Ma and Pa never know what goes on. They easily BS their parents because they want to believe their little one is an angel. Andy has a young daughter Bethany Pulkowski away at college, High Point University. I saw her picture on his desk. She's your basic, attractive, young girl. Please reread my entry made on Nov 5th. That's only one thing she can do. You Andy types out there need to further strengthen your strict resolve and do more of the same thing! Because those girls were great when I recall my college years! She is someone's (or many guy's) little ---- now, I am sure.

Another point about andy. How can someone be cold, vicious, sarcastic and generally nasty ALL THE TIME and then make the claim about their church life and how good they are? Total hypocritical idiots.

That's all for now. That felt good.

Now, the entry from the day before he killed those people and then himself:

August 3, 2009:I took off today, Monday, and tomorrow to practice my routine and make sure it is well polished. I need to work out every detail, there is only one shot. Also I need to be completely immersed into something before I can be successful. I haven't had a drink since Friday at about 2:30. Total effort needed. Tomorrow is the big day.

Unfortunately I talked to my neighbor today, who is very positive and upbeat. I need to remain focused and absorbed COMPLETELY. Last time I tried this, in January, I chickened out. Lets see how this new approach works.

Maybe soon, I will see God and Jesus. At least that is what I was told. Eternal life does NOT depend on works. If it did, we will all be in hell. Christ paid for EVERY sin, so how can I or you be judged BY GOD for a sin when the penalty was ALREADY paid. People judge but that does not matter. I was reading the Bible and The Integrity of God beginning yesterday, because soon I will see them.

I will try not to add anymore entries because this computer clicking distracts me.

Also, any of the "Practice Papers" left on my coffee table I used or the notes in my gym bag can be published freely. I will not be embarased, because, well, I will be dead. Some people like to study that stuff. Maybe all this will shed insight on why some people just cannot make things happen in their life, which can potentially benefit others.

I'm leaving the posts in their entirety because I feel like context is pretty important with all this. It seems to me like the closer he got to the date of this horrible and obviously painstakingly premeditated act, the more he felt compelled to use religion as an excuse for his actions or at least to try to explain away the significance of what he wanted to do. He ends this journal talking about how this journal and other evidence of his planning the event and his documented mindset will 'potentially benefit' people in the future, yet in the same passage he talks about the unimportance of works in regard to god. It seems like he's almost trying to justify killing other people, as if to say that it's all been pre-forgivin anyway so who cares?

This man was disturbed, a mysogenist and a social outcast, but his views and the change of his position in regard to religion is interesting because it shows an extreme case of how someone can take the highly interpretable word of the bible and manipulate it in any way imaginable to adhere to the personal desires of the person looking for vindication or excuse in the holy book.

Swearing and Religion

According to the Researchers from the school of psychology at Britain's Keele University, cursing could possibly help people deal with pain. The study had volunteers immerse their hand in a tub of ice water for as long as they could stand while both refraining from swearing and while repeating the curse word of their choice. The results of the study found that when people cursed, they could handle the ice water for an average of 40 seconds longer. What, you may ask, does this have to do with religion?

Online and in person, I have repeatedly been told by religious people that my use of curse words is offensive to them because of their religion. What specifically does the bible have to say about cursing? This is what I could find:

Matthew 15:17-20: "Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught?
18 But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.
19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:
20 These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man."

I have heard a myriad of complaints from christians in particular regarding swearing, all of which amount to the position that swearing is a sign of an evil or impure soul.

According to this study, swearing is a means for people to withstand pain and is likely an instictual response.

This, to me, is a perfect example of one of the biggest issues I have with religion: the insistance that human nature and instinct - reactions and emotions which occur inherently and therefore are often impossible to control or produce negative results when controlled - is evil or impure. This seems like a way to make every person born an evil and impure entitiy regardless of their merit and accomplishments and then presents religion as a kind of cure all for these impurities when there is nothing impure about instinct!

Yes, there are some instincts that we no longer require as an evolutionary imperative because of how we have progressed as a society technologically and intellectually, and we have learned as a community to control these instincts for the sake of the community we belong to. I'm not saying screaming 'fuck' in front of a group of pre-schoolers when you stub your toe is acceptable or even uncontrollable. However, I do grow tired of being told as an adult by other adults that I should censor myself because their religion tells them what I'm saying is offensive. I respect people when they ask me to curb the swearing because they personally find it offensive, but that respect is immediately lost when that offense is righteously attributed to a religion - which transforms the request for respect into a demand for me to augment my behavior because they choose to follow a religion. All I have to say to that is: no fucking thanks.