{"title":"重新进入性与性别少数个体边缘型人格障碍概念化的环境背景。","authors":"Craig Rodriguez-Seijas,Brooke G Rogers","doi":"10.1037/abn0001012","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Borderline personality disorder (BPD) prevalence is higher among sexual and gender minority (SGM) individuals compared with cisgender heterosexuals; SGM individuals are additionally diagnosed with BPD more frequently in clinical settings. There appears to be a small effect of clinician bias-particularly for gender minority individuals. However, it does not fully explain this observed psychiatric disparity. In the current article, we review the historical origins of the BPD diagnosis as well as the present-day conceptualization of the disorder. The theory, research, and treatment of BPD overwhelmingly reinforce an intraindividual deficit framing of the etiology and maintenance of the disorder. However, predominant conceptualizations of the disorder fail to adequately contend with the pernicious, inflexible, and stable impacts of minority stress processes that SGM individuals face, rooted in societal heterosexism and cisnormativity. The sources of oppression SGM individuals face are ostensibly different from the individual-level invalidation that is most typically discussed in relation to BPD. We review each of the nine BPD diagnostic criteria, demonstrating their close associations with SGM-relevant minority stress processes. We also briefly discuss dimensional models of BPD and how they too confound adaptations to minority stress processes with assumptions about intraindividual developmental deficits in the normal developmental process. We posit that societal heterosexism and cisnormativity create strong social forces and pressures, the adaptations to which engender behaviors that overlap with the BPD phenotype. We end by discussing the clinical implications of the limited utility of the BPD diagnosis when working with SGM individuals and directions for future research. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).","PeriodicalId":73914,"journal":{"name":"Journal of psychopathology and clinical science","volume":"23 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Recentering environmental context in the conceptualization of borderline personality disorder among sexual and gender minority individuals.\",\"authors\":\"Craig Rodriguez-Seijas,Brooke G Rogers\",\"doi\":\"10.1037/abn0001012\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Borderline personality disorder (BPD) prevalence is higher among sexual and gender minority (SGM) individuals compared with cisgender heterosexuals; SGM individuals are additionally diagnosed with BPD more frequently in clinical settings. There appears to be a small effect of clinician bias-particularly for gender minority individuals. However, it does not fully explain this observed psychiatric disparity. In the current article, we review the historical origins of the BPD diagnosis as well as the present-day conceptualization of the disorder. The theory, research, and treatment of BPD overwhelmingly reinforce an intraindividual deficit framing of the etiology and maintenance of the disorder. However, predominant conceptualizations of the disorder fail to adequately contend with the pernicious, inflexible, and stable impacts of minority stress processes that SGM individuals face, rooted in societal heterosexism and cisnormativity. The sources of oppression SGM individuals face are ostensibly different from the individual-level invalidation that is most typically discussed in relation to BPD. We review each of the nine BPD diagnostic criteria, demonstrating their close associations with SGM-relevant minority stress processes. We also briefly discuss dimensional models of BPD and how they too confound adaptations to minority stress processes with assumptions about intraindividual developmental deficits in the normal developmental process. We posit that societal heterosexism and cisnormativity create strong social forces and pressures, the adaptations to which engender behaviors that overlap with the BPD phenotype. We end by discussing the clinical implications of the limited utility of the BPD diagnosis when working with SGM individuals and directions for future research. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).\",\"PeriodicalId\":73914,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of psychopathology and clinical science\",\"volume\":\"23 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of psychopathology and clinical science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1037/abn0001012\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHIATRY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of psychopathology and clinical science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/abn0001012","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
边缘型人格障碍(BPD)在性少数和性别少数(SGM)人群中的患病率高于顺性异性恋者;在临床环境中,SGM个体更常被诊断为BPD。临床医生的偏见似乎有很小的影响,尤其是对少数性别个体。然而,这并不能完全解释这种观察到的精神差异。在当前的文章中,我们回顾了BPD诊断的历史起源以及当今对该疾病的概念化。BPD的理论、研究和治疗压倒性地强化了个体内在缺陷框架的病因和疾病的维持。然而,这种疾病的主流概念未能充分应对SGM个体所面临的有害的、不灵活的和稳定的少数民族压力过程的影响,这些压力过程根植于社会异性恋和顺规范。SGM个体所面临的压迫来源表面上与BPD中最典型讨论的个人层面的无效不同。我们回顾了九种BPD诊断标准,证明它们与sgm相关的少数民族应激过程密切相关。我们还简要讨论了BPD的维度模型,以及它们如何将对少数民族应激过程的适应与正常发育过程中关于个体内部发育缺陷的假设混淆起来。我们假设社会异性恋和顺规范产生了强大的社会力量和压力,这种适应产生了与BPD表型重叠的行为。最后,我们讨论了在与SGM个体一起工作时BPD诊断的有限效用的临床意义以及未来研究的方向。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA,版权所有)。
Recentering environmental context in the conceptualization of borderline personality disorder among sexual and gender minority individuals.
Borderline personality disorder (BPD) prevalence is higher among sexual and gender minority (SGM) individuals compared with cisgender heterosexuals; SGM individuals are additionally diagnosed with BPD more frequently in clinical settings. There appears to be a small effect of clinician bias-particularly for gender minority individuals. However, it does not fully explain this observed psychiatric disparity. In the current article, we review the historical origins of the BPD diagnosis as well as the present-day conceptualization of the disorder. The theory, research, and treatment of BPD overwhelmingly reinforce an intraindividual deficit framing of the etiology and maintenance of the disorder. However, predominant conceptualizations of the disorder fail to adequately contend with the pernicious, inflexible, and stable impacts of minority stress processes that SGM individuals face, rooted in societal heterosexism and cisnormativity. The sources of oppression SGM individuals face are ostensibly different from the individual-level invalidation that is most typically discussed in relation to BPD. We review each of the nine BPD diagnostic criteria, demonstrating their close associations with SGM-relevant minority stress processes. We also briefly discuss dimensional models of BPD and how they too confound adaptations to minority stress processes with assumptions about intraindividual developmental deficits in the normal developmental process. We posit that societal heterosexism and cisnormativity create strong social forces and pressures, the adaptations to which engender behaviors that overlap with the BPD phenotype. We end by discussing the clinical implications of the limited utility of the BPD diagnosis when working with SGM individuals and directions for future research. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).