contact or a relationship with the party who is under inspection what you're under the way that i'd aggress that is this  sam's determination mean it's not reliable or it is something we do not need within this field because there are other relevant definitions that would cover it  it was submitted for inclusion into the d s m absolutely rejected now any catch all category the other why it's the other specified fairfield disorders in other words what's not specified right there in the text with disallowed reject a diagnosis and attach it to a catchall and you're good that makes absolutely no sense on any standard let alone the standard for a prime test of general acceptance but they've done it with other things in the area they have pervasive developmental disability slash not otherwise specified not otherwise specified is something that the they know there is in issue but it is not is clearly defined  here so there are researchers who believe that there are assuming for purposes of argument because i'm not sure that the evidence was presented in this case but there are sexual deviants who would do little babies if they could and all the labeling and obsession that will leads to that particular age group when it appears that the other obsessive diagnoses relate to different age groups which are apparently arbitrary i guess we're talking about a pediatrician and supposedly young children so i think what i'm asking you is why is this an improper diagnosis if it's nothing more then a is what relates to the mental disorder which is a product in s p p human and the need to be satisfied in order to find yeah there's no doubt that he should be considered as the pain so while it's as a defector it's ropes my daughter is near the eleven year old cut off i hate even thinking about the facts and legends record however that it factor criminality the fact and i caught a five nd makes crime does not mean that in the study and science of psychiatry and the standard here and it's a very important distinction as in fact exactly what frye tries to exclude doesn't want any expert to come in and be able to say i'm an expert here's a scientific idea let me attach my expert clout to this diagnosis that would be a set and i'll put it in course terms that would be like me coming before you rick and saying you know what please don't find this to be generally accepted for all these are state comes before you and says find this to be generally accepted wrong there you make a determination i hope it's not this you make a determination it's generally accepted ok that's that's what we're lying that's that's the measure of the stand if i go to my circles  of legal professionals and say i don't care about this decision over here it's nonetheless not generally accepted and use that as a legal standard that makes no sense the decisions are made i can't come over here and say actually i'm going to go and say something else doesn't fit because it's doesn't fit within the definition of not specified in my mind i'm having a problem with the idea of something when you see it's not specified supposedly it doesn't fit within it even though it's not specified so if i said to you go and get a screw from this frugal drawer and you brought me any screw in a series of drawers and i said no you does it also say that anything our definition of not specified is anything that would unquote we've never voted on put another way when it's not specified what does it mean does it relate to men there's really two women or as subjects who are victims what does it relate when it says it's not specified it sounds to me like it's an oxymoron so my point is if it is an oxymoron in it it can mean more than one thing why can't it mean other things that researchers do but supposedly for whatever reasons political or otherwise or philosophical don't vote to recognize it as a specific subset  within that however there is a cautionary note in the d s m for this exact situation not to your opposition to reason that it puts at risk that we would supplant the general acceptance of an idea that's been rejected from inclusion just because it you'll have a chance to confuse me some more later all right i think you're  own expert provided the relevant grew up in history and to be clear i think my understanding lisa is the only the only debate between the parties on what the relevant expert feel is returning to mystic said well there's three parts there's one part of the researchers that you want to research on this work and yeah they pretty much all agree that this is a valid diagnosis he said there's the forensic experts that's the expert like the experts test yes and that's why and what what is their subset what is the label that they stick to what they say that they don't agree with the gag notices who frequently will just say they don't think there's a fair  whole definitions and diagnosis and in just column one liners diagnosis well that's what they did in the international community recently i c d ten and i would take a moment to say i didn't this changeover from d s m four give some thought those who are most qualified most at least for miller with sex offenses and the paraphilia use around they said yes this is something that we rejected the the age or the disorder general my understanding and i think a point of contention between parties is just the fact that it wasn't specified out put out as its own category standard form that's all we know how we also know they didn't change this residual category other than to change the name that people were using to diagnose him really and that's why i don't think it's accurate to say that they  clearly constituted it would say other than defined and specifically excluding have a feeling i think you could have that in america or it could have some reference to it are going to say th say they meant to say this isn't a valid diagnosis without some actual activities stop what's happening in the diagnosis  you have to clear a picture of that now and we're also able to look to the international community and know that in the international community this is a controversial and i think it's important to pick up that there hasn't really been a good explanation of why we're going community nowadays is a global community and there just hasn't been a rationale for why we're not going to listen to the international scientists particularly when there's been so clearly delineation of why opinions may be differing and that's because there's this it excludes it correct does that mean that there is souls no problem no pathology with that particular age group or we just don't have a name for it i would say the both according would encourage you to do so and look at the i see your love and go see the language that is exclusive hate hate of you which is what the states possible diagnosis or inclusion of the international community strengthens their argument that's the recognized was a different label previously in the form number for value is no longer recognized as a pathology number five and that's because the powers that be