Reports written by the members of the Sexual and Gender Identity Disorders Workgroup for DSM-V are currently in the process of being published (though they were written a while back.)
These reports are currently in the process of being published. So far, the introduction to these has been published online, and so have the reports for Pedophilia and Transvestic Fetishism.
Most of the reports will be published in a special issue of Archives of Sexual Behavior. Zucker, the head of the workgroup (and editor of that journal), states that in that issue:
[There are] a total of 16 reviews written by our Work Group. Reviews by Taylor Segraves on the male sexual dysfunctions will be published in the Journal of Sexual Medicine. Most of the reviews focus on a critical appraisal of the relevant diagnoses that appeared in the DSM-IV (or earlier), with proposed suggestions for reformand revision.There is also one review that considers the addition of a new diagnosis (Hypersexuality) and two reviews on gender identity disorder consider conceptual and sociopolitical/historical parameters. Each review was subject to internal feedback by the Work Group and, in some cases, from feedback by advisors. It should be made clear that the recommendations and options embedded in these reviews are just that.I'm not really sure why the male sexual dysfunctions will be published elsewhere.
UIUC doesn't subscribe to the Journal of Sexual Medicine. I can still get articles for free, but I have to make some librarian somewhere scan things so I can get emailed a copy, so it's a lot more cumbersome (because it takes longer and I know I'm creating extra work for someone somewhere.) And those aren't searchable. (Technology has made me spoiled!) WorldCat tells me of 24 libraries worldwide have copies of this publication, compared to 620 that have Archives of Sexual Behavior.
These reports were written a while ago (some this year, most last year), so they do not necessarily represent the most up-to-date thinking of the DSM people. But these do represent an important part in making public information regarding the workgroup's thoughts and proposals, and they are an important contribution to the historical record.
As more of these are published, I may have more to say on the topic, depending on what I think would be of interest to readers. The publication of these doesn't completely contradict my earlier claim that there is a lack of public information about the Workgroup's current thinking: these reports generally indicate people's thinking 6 months to a year ago, in some cases, a fair portion of the various workgroups' discussion of these issues. But there is no question that this is a definite step in the right direction in terms of adding transparence to the DSM-V process.