If only it was merely an advancement for further empirical research! lol.
1.) Studies are done all the time with non-DSM subjects. A particular area of interest is going remain an area of interest and receive significant funding regardless of its inclusion/exclusion. The idea that something needs to be shown as a disorder and something to be cured in order to receive funding is false.
2.) Regardless or whether or not some individuals feel it's insulting, it still remains unlikely that a sexual preference leads to a disorder. The example given in the video testifies to the fact that the problems associated with these specific sexual preferences have more to do with the process of socialization, such as knowing how to get along with people and being accepted by them: something the DSM contradicts and, psychiatrists such as Splitzer, who say social factors play no part in determining the distress of an individual. Even the DSM-IV TR, which says a sexual preference isn't considered a disorder until the individual forces this sex act onto another individual, proves to be misled. The example given was "do we say a rapist who happens to be heterosexual has a heterosexual disorder?" No, we don't. We don't assume that sexual preference has any connection to the act of rape. A rapist is simply a rapist and not a rapist with a heterosexual disorder, homosexual disorder, paraphilia, etc.
3.) Robert Splitzer (the psychiatrist mentioned earlier) publicly admitted that the main reason these were included into the DSM as disorders was purely politically driven. In response to an actual possibility of their removal, he said, "it would be a public relations disaster for psychiatry". The idea that we should keep telling psychologists/psychiatrists/counselors that a certain form of sexual activity is what causes an individual distress, because a few social conservatives would have a hissy fit, is irresponsible to science and patients.
