Why Kenneth J. Zucker Should Resign as Sexual and Gender Identity Disorders Chair |
|
Dr. Shelley Janiczek Woodson notes:
Why Kenneth J. Zucker Should Resign as Sexual and Gender Identity Disorders Chair
By Shelley Janiczek Woodson, Ph.D.
The American Psychiatric Association (APA) recently announced the names of members of work groups who will review information to be used in the development of the fifth edition of the APA’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-V). Kenneth J. Zucker, Ph.D. was appointed Sexual and Gender Identity Disorders Chair. Dr. Zucker is best known for his work in “treating” hundreds of gender-variant children with “reparative therapy,” a “curative” approach to Gender Identity Disorder that is variously considered to be treatment of choice, ill advised or tantamount to child abuse by professionals in the mental health and human service fields.How was Dr. Zucker chosen for this position? According to APA President Carolyn B. Robinowitz, M.D., “The work group members were chosen for their expertise in research and clinical care.” By these criteria, Dr. Zucker is a good choice. While I strongly disagree with a number of conclusions Dr. Zucker draws from his research data, and I contend that the phrases “reparative therapy” and “clinical care” do not belong in the same sentence, I think it illogical to conclude that Dr. Zucker is not an expert in the field of disorders of gender identity. He is an expert insomuch as he possesses special skills and knowledge in the area, acquired from training and experience.
It is notable that ethical qualities and expertise are separate issues. Recall that in 1946, twenty-three German physicians were prosecuted for participating in war crimes and crimes against humanity. These doctors used their expertise to conduct experiments on prisoners without their consent, and to design and execute a “Euthanasia” Program, systematically killing people they believed to be “unworthy of life.” At the time, these physicians were considered to be leaders in their field, experts.
My position regarding the appointment of Dr. Zucker is that, even though he is a well-known expert in the field of disorders of gender identity, he should recuse himself from participating as a work group or task force member. To put it simply, he should recuse himself because he has a dog in the fight.
The APA reports having made a significant effort to avoid conflicts of interest in the development of DSM-V. For example, all work group and task force members were required to disclose any relationships they may have with people or organizations that have an interest in psychiatric diagnoses and treatments. “We have made every effort to ensure that DSM-V will be based on the best and latest scientific research, and to eliminate conflicts of interest in its development,” explained Dr. Robinowitz.In fairness, it could be argued that any mental health professional working with and/or studying transgender people has some inherent level of conflict of interest in the revision or elimination of the controversial diagnosis of Gender Identity Disorder. I, for example, am a bisexual psychologist who specializes in transgender issues; I am married to a transgender person. The difference between a psychologist like myself and Dr. Zucker is that I do not have a vested professional and financial interest in recommending the continued pathologizing of transgender people through the DSM system, nor do I have a vested interest in de-pathologizing transgender people for that matter. My professional identity and my financial livelihood do not depend upon the continuation of this diagnosis. For Dr. Zucker, there is a clear conflict of interest, exactly the sort of conflict of interest that the APA claims to have so diligently worked to avoid.
Dr. Zucker has a dog in the fight. And what a fight it is, with some psychologists and psychiatrists viewing gender identity disorders as serious mental illnesses and a growing number asserting that there is no disorder here at all, rather there is dis-ease with people who do not fit into an artificial binary gender system. Add the voices of a large transgender community, and a fight for human rights waged against a very powerful organization might actually become a fair one.
For his part, Dr. Zucker contends that “transexuality” is a “bad outcome.” He further warns parents of gender-variant children of the “relation between GID and a later homosexual sexual orientation.” For Dr. Zucker, homosexuality is yet another “bad outcome.” I assert that, if one is in the business of “curing” transgender people, and business is booming, then the removal of Gender Identity Disorder from the DSM is most certainly, for them, a very “bad outcome.” Dr. Zucker advises parents of gender-variant boys: “The Barbies have to go.” My advice to the APA: “Dr. Zucker has to go.”
