1. If you say on one hand it doesn't matter if something is classified as such (i.e a mental disorder) then why isn't reducing stigma a valid reason to remove it, if removing the classification doesn't affect the treatment/intervention offered? For example, the US DSM-5 folded my Aspergers into an autism spectrum disorder and created a new diagnosis of social communication disorder not on the spectrum, but something entirely new. It hasn't affected the net treatment per se, but has for some, negatively impacted perception of people with Aspergers. So not only does it work both ways, it highlights how reducing stigma is valid when it impacts upon society and socialisation.
The category matters insofar as it represents a valid scientific classification. Political and social considerations should be left aside when scientific research is being conducted, and the politicization of scientific inquiry is wrong. It is painfully obvious that the reclassification of gender dysphoria represents a concession (however mild) to activists.
For example, there is a stigma attached to the word "disabled," because it implies that the person with the disability is less physically capable than others. Should people with spinal cord injuries protest this classification? Should they pressure doctors and scientists to reclassify their disability, so as to remove the stigma surrounding the word "disabled?" Of course not. Firstly, there is no reason why we should single out this one particular affliction, removing the "stigma" attached to it while simultaneously ignoring the "stigma" attached to other disabilities. And secondly, science should not have to cave to the demands of the activist class. Scientific terminology ought to be above political considerations.
This is not to say that gender dysphoria must be classified as a "disorder." I do not care either way. What I do care about is that the reason for its classification is based solely on scientific calculations rather than political ones. Because the disorder was reclassified "to remove stigma" and for no other reason, I have to conclude that scientific considerations were not the driving force behind this reclassification, and I oppose it for that reason and that reason alone.
It's also been removed from the UN classification in ICD-11. Given that the decision was made by those versed in health, it can hardly be considered 'political.' It was clearly a scientific concensus.
[Citation needed] Just because they should be making such decisions apolitically doesn't mean they definitely aren't being affected by politics. Humans are inherently political animals.
