bessibel:culturestress:bessibel:redbeardace:Asexuality is OFFICIALLY not a disorder, according to th
bessibel:culturestress:bessibel:redbeardace:Asexuality is OFFICIALLY not a disorder, according to the APA.The images above are from the DSM-5, which is the latest edition of the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. The DSM-5 is a really important book. It is used by doctors and mental health care providers around the world to diagnose mental disorders.The DSM-5 explicitly and clearly recognizes asexuality, and says that if a person is asexual, that they should not be diagnosed with Female Sexual Interest/Arousal Disorder or Male Hypoactive Sexual Desire Disorder.This book says that you are valid, your feelings are real, and that you do not have a disorder because you feel this way.Anyone who claims otherwise is wrong.They do not know what they are talking about. You can point them at this book as proof that they are wrong.Full Reference:On page 434, in the section on Female Sexual Interest/Arousal Disorder (302.72), at the end of the “Diagnostic Features”, it reads:If a lifelong lack of sexual desire is better explained by one’s self-identification as “asexual”, then a diagnosis of female sexual interest/arousal disorder would not be made.On page 443, in the section on Male Hypoactive Sexual Desire Disorder (302.71), at the end of the “Differential Diagnosis”, it reads:If the man’s low desire is explained by self-identification as an asexual, then a diagnosis of male hypoactive sexual desire disorder is not made.@lizzieraindrops thanks for pointing out the scare quotes in the female one, I didn’t notice thatalso ours says “better explained” while theirs just says “explained”and I feel like the “would not be” vs. “is not” is probably relevant somehow but I can’t articulate itI like how this made it through the editing process without anyone convincingly objecting to their using different language based on gender lol“Would not be made” implies wiggle room that “is not made” doesn’tyeah this and I think also somehow? the subjunctive language joins the scare quotes in suggesting that the idea of a woman credibly identifying as asexual is somehow less plausible than it is for a man?which is interesting, and should maybe give pause to anyone who suspects that ace men are especially at risk of invalidation because of the expectation that men are very sexualYeah, the scare quotes are a bit strange, especially given that I believe both sets were written by the same person or at least overseen by the same person (Dr. Brotto). I don’t believe there was some nefarious plan to use weaselly language in some back-handed attempt at invalidation. I think it was just sloppy editing. I seem to recall (Don’t quote me on this, because I can’t find sources) that the combination of FHSDD and FSAD happened fairly late in the process, so it could be that stuff got jammed together in a weird way and they didn’t go back to reconcile the language afterwards. The exclusion isn’t even in the same section for each. It’s in the Differential Diagnosis section for men and the main Diagnostic Features section for women.Anyone know if Dr. Brotto would be willing to comment on the discrepancy? -- source link