Talk:Gender identity disorder

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Psychology (Rated NA-class)
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 NA  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This page has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject LGBT studies (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject Sexuality (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

GID and Chimerism[edit]

The discussion from here has been moved as i posted before; interesting, but not discussing the article itself.

Gender Identity Disorder To Be Removed from DSM-5[edit]

Hello all! On December 1, 2012, the American Psychiatric Association voted to remove Gender Identity Disorder from the upcoming Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders V, which is to be released in May of next year. A somewhat similar diagnosis to the old GID will also be added to the DSM, to be called "Gender Dysphoria." It's not just a change in terminology, though, and the two diagnosis are likely to have significantly different framing and criteria. I believe that this article on GID should be updated to reflect this impending change, which has been in the pipeline for a while, but as of December 1st is now a certainty. I am a newer editor, however, and I would appreciate any help/suggestions that others could provide on approaching this rewrite. If no one gets back to me after a week or two, I will just do my best to make the re-write on my own. Thanks! Rebecca 14:19, 12 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Picture of a Sunny Day (talkcontribs)

Hi Rebecca! I would suggest you write one line about this in the lead, and a few more in the section Diagnostic criteria. Make sure that you have a good source to the lines you write in the section. Otherwise, please be bold! and write your text. Lova Falk talk 15:20, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
I think it'd be worth covering the expansion of Transvestic Disorder and the criticism of Ray Blanchard and Kenneth Zucker that many of trans activists and allies have criticised (see: Paris Lees, ThinkProgress); we don't want to make this a APA whitewash. Sceptre (talk) 23:40, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

This is a huge problem. The introduction says "Gender dysphoria, formerly known as gender identity disorder (GID)" but they are totally different things. As written above, expert James Cantor wrote the statement that "Gender identity disorder is as clear an identity disorder as one gets". An Identity Disorder is an entirely different psychological phenomenon from a Dysphoria (which in unsophisticated language is an anxiety with a melancholy). Gender Identity Disorder should never have been moved (really renamed) to Gender Dysphoria. Doing so is a purely American perspective. GID may be obsoleted in the DSM but it is still current in the ICD (International Diseases) wherein Gender Dysphoria does not exist. See ICD-10 F64.2 and F64.8. The ICD is backed by the United Nations Organisation but the DSM is backed only by a regional professional association and so is much less authoritative than the UN. Where the two clash the ICD is a more authoritative source than the DSM. Is Wikipedia to become a purely American thing?! or can this issue be sorted out? There needs to be two separate pages, one for Gender Identity Disorder and a totally separate one for Gender Dysphoria with mention that is is only an American thing. The fact that the patient population for the two overlap substantially is not a reason to describe two totally different concepts in psychology as if they were one and the same. I'm not a Wikipedia expert and don't have the experise to fix this without making a mistake - but someone needs to get on this, this should never have happened in the first place. GID and GD need to be separate in Wikipedia. 71.3.97.37 (talk) 22:23, 9 July 2013‎ (UTC)

IP, you may already know this or it's a coincidence that you brought up this matter today, but the retitling of this article to Gender dysphoria, and describing the diagnosis as "formerly known as gender identity disorder (GID)," was discussed earlier today at WP:MED. Feel free to join in on that discussion, of course. Also, remember to sign your username at the end of the comments you make on Wikipedia talk pages. All you have to do to sign your username is simply type four tildes (~), like this: ~~~~. I signed your username for you above. Flyer22 (talk) 22:52, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
See the #Updates required to reflect DSM-5 discussion below for further information on this matter. Flyer22 (talk) 19:47, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

David Reimer[edit]

The text about sociocultural causes is extremely suspect at best. David Reimer was treated using an abusive program of therapy (eg being forced to simulate sex acts with another young boy while the therapist observed) and a coercive assignment to a gender other than his own already-established one; claiming the traumatic childhood developed into gender dysphoria is true but misleading, and using Reimer as a general case as this paragraph does is extremely dishonest. All Reimer's case proves about "traumatic child-rearing" is that actually changing the sex of your child against their will and then abusing them for a decade to try and make them conform does not lead to a gender identity change. Reimer's case cannot be generalised to other cases of GID - it merely makes a trivially true claim that dysphoria can be caused by a body not matching one's internal gender identity. The text appears (the appearance is why I am not making this edit myself, it is possible I misunderstand) to use this to explain that traumatic child-rearing can cause GID; the only claim supported by the source is "changing your child's gender can cause GID", which is considerably more specific. 94.195.48.203 (talk) 00:16, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the information about David Reimer in this article isn't very well-written and is confusing. I do think Reimer's example does provide one instance of how GID is socially constructed, however. If Reimer had been to live out his life as a male and hadn't been forced to live as a female, he never would have developed GID. He would have been just another boy (albeit one without a penis). Most transsexuals feel similarly. . .if they had been able to live out their lives as their actual gender as opposed to their forcibly assigned gender than they would never have developed gender identity disorder. They simply would have been just another boy or just another girl. Some of them may still have required medical intervention to alter their bodies at a later point in time. . .but without the practice of forcibly assigning infants to a (potentially erroneous and unwanted) gender, these medical interventions would hardly would be considered "disordered." Rebecca (talk) 03:54, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Put another way, GID is defined in the article as "discontent with the sex they [transsexuals] were assigned at birth." Obviously, if the cultural practice of assigning infants a sex at birth did not exist, and no one HAD a sex assigned at birth, it would be impossible to be discontented with such a (nonexistent) assignment. In other words, GID wouldn't exist without the cultural practice of assigning infants a sex at birth. Rebecca (talk) 03:59, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes. I think the Reimer text needs to come out because it's not actually an example of GID, if GID is correctly defined in the article as discontent with the sex assigned at birth. Reimer was assigned male at birth, which he was comfortable with, and was later assigned female post-accident, with which he was initially felt to be comfortable but later discovered not to have been. His unhappiness was about his assigned gender, true, but not his assigned gender *at birth,* which is what the article says defines GID. So I'm going to take it out. But if there's something I'm missing here please, anyone, feel free to revert me. Thanks Sue Gardner (talk) 07:13, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Reverted. You are interpreting gender identity disorder too strictly, and the text you removed was not only about Reimer. Flyer22 (talk) 07:32, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi Flyer22. I don't mind you reverting me, but I didn't make the edit because I disagreed with the viewpoint. I made it because i) the Reimer example isn't GID, according to the article's definition, and ii) the Ray Blanchard stuff is disputed (he is controversial) but didn't say that. Like I said, I don't mind being reverted, but I think this section could definitely use some work. (In fact, the whole article could.) I might get to it tomorrow -- but somebody else should feel free to revise and refine if they have time before I do. Thanks Sue Gardner (talk) 08:45, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Updates required to reflect DSM-5[edit]

This article will require significant updating to reflect the changes in the new DSM-5 (the most obvious being the rename from GID to gender dysphoria). So far, I've renamed the article and started to update the lede. --Fran Rogers (talk) 23:36, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: Like I stated in this edit summary, I moved the article back to Gender identity disorder, and tweaked the lead after that, because of the Wikipedia:MEDMOS#Naming conventions guideline and the WP:MED DSM-5 discussion. I'm aware of the stigma that calling this diagnosis a disorder can bring with it, and so I invited a few of our transgender editors, including Picture of a Sunny Day/Rebecca, to that discussion to make it more balanced; two of those editors did not participate in that discussion (though one of them briefly commented in it), while Rebecca did and essentially agreed that the article should be moved back to Gender identity disorder. But I see now that I should have also contacted Fran Rogers to weigh in on the matter; therefore, I am contacting Fran Rogers now by linking that username (the link will notify Fran of this post via WP:Echo if Fran does not have that aspect of WP:Echo turned off). Flyer22 (talk) 19:47, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Abductive, this move is not per WP:MEDMOS. As shown above, there was agreement at WP:MED to move the article back to the Gender identity disorder title. And I see that you were reverted on it by CaseyPenk with regard to the talk page. Not sure why the article wasn't also moved back; maybe there is a technical problem with moving it back and it's going to take a WP:Administrator to do so. I will now ask WP:MED to weigh in on these matters specifically. Flyer22 (talk) 20:34, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Okay, now I see that the article was moved back. Flyer22 (talk) 20:37, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi Flyer, I did indeed move the talk page -- I had meant to move the article+talk page all in one swoop but accidentally moved the talk page only. Another editor moved the article back to where it was.
This is grounds for a requested move and I would be more than happy to participate in a discussion of a requested move. CaseyPenk (talk) 20:40, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, plz just open up an RM and notify the relevant boards and we can have a full discussion. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:41, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
I would prefer if someone else opened up the RM, if only because I'm not sure what the article should be titled. Someone who has a persuasive case for why it should be titled "gender dysphoria" would probably have more to say and could lay out starkly the argument in favor of the move. If no one wants to take on the RM I can, but I imagine someone else who has studied this topic extensively will post sooner rather than later. CaseyPenk (talk) 20:47, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I was referring to @Abductive: - if they want to move it, they should open an RM. They have asked at ANI for an admin to revert my move, though I'm not sure why - what's the rush? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:52, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
I see that this latest move incident is a result of this discussion at the Chelsea Manning talk page. Coincidentally, I'd just looked at that article today due to this post (the one by Sumanah) on AndyTheGrump's talk page (though I have looked at that article before). Flyer22 (talk) 20:58, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
In addition to alerting WP:MED of these matters, I also alerted WP:LGBT to it. Flyer22 (talk) 22:20, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Move. The DSM-V represents the most current professional consensus. Furthermore, it should not be up for a vote — speaking as a transgender wikipedian, the rest of you should not have to hear pro-hom arguments from trans wikipedians to figure out the right thing to do! --April Arcus (talk) 02:15, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi April Arcus. Thanks for the input. I would note that a requested move need not be a vote; the goal is gain consensus. I do recommend going the route of a formal move request since this is a controversial move to some people and people may wish to share their perspectives. You are certainly within your rights to question why other people would find the move controversial; I would recommend expressing your concern with this issue, and your perspective on what should be done, during the requested move discussion. CaseyPenk (talk) 06:33, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Not everything needs updating to the DSM 5. It is just one classification system. Many are not happy with the new edition and organizations like the NIMH are not planning on switching over from the DSM 4TR. We should contain info on the DSM5 but it does not negate everything else. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:59, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Move Considering that gender dysphoria was already an alternate terminology for gender identity disorder and now the main name in DSM-5 has been changed to gender dysphoria, it makes perfect sense to move it. This isn't an issue of DSM-5 making up a new name like it did for other things. Gender dysphoria was an already recognized and utilized name in the medical and psychological fields anyways. And since it has less negative and offensive connotations, that only reinforces that it is better to use gender dysphoria as a title, rather than GID. SilverserenC 05:25, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment The World Health Organization still uses the term gender identity disorder in ICD-10 CM. [1] --PiMaster3 talk 15:53, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I would say it shouldn't be a matter of precedence. "Gender Identity Disorder" and "Gender Dysphoria" are both accepted terms for what amounts to the same thing. The key (only?) difference is that "Gender Dysphoria" cannot be diagnosed after a successful transition. This reflects a consensus that both accommodates transsexuality as a medical condition requiring treatment (therapy, hormones, surgery, etc.) while also acknowledging transgender identities as basically within the realm of normal human variation and not intrinsically pathological. OTOH, "Gender Identity Disorder" stigmatizes all trans people for life regardless of what steps they may have taken to resolve their issues. All things being equal, shouldn't we pick the less offensive of two commonly used terms? --April Arcus (talk) 19:39, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't think I have really hard and fast opinions on this topic, but I'll say what I'm thinking right now. Should Wikipedia really be involved in whitewashing the medical establishment's views of trans people? The ICD-10 influences treatment worldwide to a greater extent than the DSM-5. As far as I'm aware, most folks are still diagnosed with "Gender Identity Disorder," not "Gender Dysphoria." Isn't this a reality we want reflected in an article about this diagnosis? Trans people ARE stigmatized for life, both by the medical establishment and by the rest of cis society. This is a horrific injustice. Why should we whitewash this reality? Rebecca Weaver (talk) 20:14, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  • By the same token, why contribute to this reality? Nothing of importance swings on the title of this article other than the dignity of those who suffer from the condition it describes. Is Wikipedia so utterly bereft of social responsibility that we can't consider such issues as a tie-breaker? --April Arcus (talk) 21:58, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Politics should not set the precedent of what to use in a medical related article. According to the naming conventions for medicine-related articles, "where there is a dispute over a name, editors should cite recognised authorities and organisations". In this case there's a dispute because there are differences among major organizations. Right now two major organizations in the field (WHO and NIMH) use the term 'gender identity disorder', while one (APA) uses the term 'gender dysphoria'. So right now gender identity disorder is still the dominant term (unless there is some other major medical organization that deals with mental health that uses a different term). --PiMaster3 talk 20:30, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
It's not just about what a major organization or two calls the diagnosis. Per the WP:MED DSM-5 discussion linked near the beginning of this section, it's about what is the most common name. Per the Wikipedia:MEDMOS#Naming conventions guideline, "The article title should be the scientific or recognised medical name that is most commonly used in recent, high-quality, English-language medical sources." As discussed at WP:MED, that is still the name "gender identity disorder." However, I don't care much which title is used (here at Wikipedia, I mean; off-Wikipedia, I would not use the name/title "gender identity disorder," unless to clarify, because it is offensive to so many transgender people). This Manning matter is taking place in so many areas across Wikipedia, with so much drama, like I mentioned at WP:LGBT, that I'll mostly be sitting this discussion out and generally or completely staying out of those aforementioned discussions. Flyer22 (talk) 20:45, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
A search of the NIMH website finds no results for "gender dysphoria" or for "gender identity disorder". I believe the DSM should be given more weight in this case, because it is more recent. Additionally, although the draft of ICD-11 does not yet include either term, there was some discussion of renaming the diagnosis "gender incongruence". The same term was used in earlier drafts of the DSM before the term "gender dysphoria" was selected; I would expect the ICD to make the same decision. That the ICD takes years to update does not mean that Wikipedia is similarly limited. MaxHarmony (talk) 11:25, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
I see no evidence that most psychiatrists will be using that term. But I've already stated just about all I have to state on this article title topic. Flyer22 (talk) 05:03, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
I should have said English speaking psychiatrists. In my experience most follow the latest DSM, however I have no easy way of proving this. Also, I agree with what Silver seren said. I don't think there is a risk of confusion for the readers since it's already an established term (although GID might be the most common/well known at the moment). Space simian (talk) 06:04, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Move Classifying Gender Identity Disorder as mental illness in the DSM is just as mistaken as their past error when the DSM classified homosexuality as a mental illness. Just as the APA righted the wrong of classifying homosexuality as a mental illness, they have now righted the wrong of classifying Gender Identity Disorder as a mental illness with the new DSM-5, and now use the term Gender Dysphoria for people who are depressed about being labeled by society with a gender identity which they disagree with. Just because the WHO still includes this as a diagnosis in the ICD-10 doesn't make it correct. I should note that global societal norms regarding homosexuality and gender identity have not kept pace with societal norms in the United States, where the APA is based. The WHO represents countries such as Uganda, with its notorious "Kill the gays" bill, and Russia, which recently passed legislation making public advocacy of gay rights illegal, just 2 examples of nations that have widespread homophobic and transphobic views that elected politicians have put into law. The vast majority of non-Western developing nations do not have good human rights records when it comes to treatment of homosexuals and transsexuals. Global organizations such as the UN and WHO allow non-Western developing nations to have a lot of input and influence in decision-making processes, which, while generally a good thing, can occasionally have negative consequences, such as in treatment of homosexuals and transsexuals by the international community. I would therefore argue that the APA's classification scheme in DSM-5 should take precedence over the WHO's in this particular case, because it represents the latest scientific thinking, untainted by homophobic or transphobic bias, due to the way the APA has reformed itself to be less biased over the past few decades, and how the APA currently tries to have a Neutral Point of View similar to Wikipedia (although admittedly they don't call it that). The WHO also doesn't keep pace with the latest science; for instance, they continue to have Asperger's Syndrome listed separately from Autism rather than combining into a single Autism Spectrum Disorder diagnosis as the APA has done in DSM-5, even though High-Functioning Autism, Asperger's Syndrome, and PDD-NOS are virtually indistinguishable and are all essentially the same thing. This is evidence for the WHO's ICD-10 classification scheme not keeping up with the latest science, as the APA's DSM-5 has done. --Yetisyny (talk) 18:10, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
"because it represents the latest scientific thinking, untainted by homophobic or transphobic bias [...] The WHO also doesn't keep pace with the latest science" You very well might be correct, but do you have any reliable sources that indicate as such? In other words, can you provide citations indicating that one source of diagnostic information is more reliable / less biased than another? When in doubt about the potential biases of a source, another reliable source could help. CaseyPenk (talk) 17:26, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Question Weak support for move Since the DSM-5 change is still very recent, shouldn't we look at what reliable sources are actually using? If we can show that the new name is actually widely used, that'd be one thing, just because it changed in one official reference does not automatically mean we should change it here. If the world has not caught up to the latest science, Wikipedia sticks by the world. We're not here to make things better, we're just here to report reality as it stands. Firing up google scholar, I see 24 hits for GID in title in 2013 and 23 hits for gender dysphoria in title in 2013. I'm having trouble getting exact dates, but I'm still seeing at least one article post-May with GID. At any rate, recent usage of the term is split pretty evenly, but if someone knows how to tease out post-May articles that might be more convincing one way or another. 71.231.186.92 (talk) 02:20, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Being decisive here - since the two appear to be used similar amounts, I'm going to take sides. I see no reason to use the potentially problematic name as the title if there isn't a specific reason it's necessary. Recognizability and novelty don't appear to be problems, this isn't a new term, here's an example of a 1987 paper using the "new" terminology. I don't think this article should hide the term GID or claim that it's wrong, however, because it's still a commonly accepted clinical term for the situation. Ultimately, it's just an article title and I don't care a whole lot either way. 71.231.186.92 (talk) 03:12, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Note: This is not a formal move request, and I don't think RM or other places have been notified. If people want to move this, please open up a formal move request and notify the relevant projects, rather than the quasi-!vote which is starting to happen above.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:21, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I have created the RM, as it appears that it's a discussion worth having. 71.231.186.92 (talk) 05:41, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

The current title treats trans people's identities as a disorder[edit]

I've marked it as non-neutral. It goes against trans folks' points of view, and implies that trans folks' points of view aren't valid. Gender dysphoria is a much less problematic term. 173.66.211.53 (talk) 20:33, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello, IP. As you may have noticed, there is already a discussion about this matter immediately above this one. Flyer22 (talk) 20:45, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't think having an article called "gender identity disorder" is inherently non-neutral, anymore than having articles called things such as scientific racism or demonic possession are inherently non-neutral. Wikipedia articles aren't just about describing things that are good or true or actually scientific. There also need to be articles that describe bogus and oppressive pseudoscience--hence the need for an article on Gender Identity Disorder. The real problem with this article, in my opinion, is that it's written as if the medical establishment's BS conceptions of trans people are actually the reality of trans people. Just changing the article's name won't fix that problem; it will only whitewash it. To be truly NPOV, the article needs a major overhaul to include things like the medical establishment's history of abuse and violence against trans people, a more comprehensive summary of the truly radical critiques and rejections of the concept of GID, and so on. Rebecca Weaver (talk) 21:20, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
This is a great point. Would you support a culturally relativized article on Gender Dysphoria in parallel with Gender Identity Disorder, Blanchard's transsexualism typology, Transvestic fetishism, Hijra (South Asia), Gender Identities in Thailand, Fa'afafine, Two-Spirit, Albanian sworn virgins and other takes? --April Arcus (talk) 22:05, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
April, there is a reason that we shouldn't have a Gender identity disorder article and a Gender dysphoria article. This is what I stated in the WP:MED DSM-5 discussion (linked near the beginning of the section immediately above this one): Gender dysphoria is gender identity disorder; the only differences between them with regard to the DSM-IV-TR and the DSM-5 is that the DSM-5 calls the diagnosis "gender dysphoria" and has somewhat altered the criteria. The name was changed for the DSM-5 because, as the Gender identity article notes, the term gender identity disorder is considered stigmatizing because it has the word disorder in it. Creating a separate article for gender dysphoria would be creating a WP:POVFORK. They should be covered in the same article because they are the same topic, with slight differentiations with regard to the DSM-5. However, I also stated in that discussion that researchers, not just American researchers, have been using the names gender identity disorder and gender dysphoria interchangeably for years. Googling the two names together (whether regular Google, Google Books or Google Scholar) shows that. It is often the same diagnosis in the literature (not just American literature), with the DSM-5 now having somewhat different criteria for it, though sources occasionally distinguish between them; see, for example, this source (page 1127) that distinguishes. I understand that gender identity disorder can be considered an aspect of the broader application of the term gender dysphoria. However, if you read WP:POVFORK, it is clear that separate articles should not be created in this case. Flyer22 (talk) 22:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  • "Gender dysphoria is gender identity disorder" — It is factually correct that the DSM-5's entry on "Gender Dysphoria" is an update of the DSM-IV-TR's entry on "Gender Identity Disorder", not a sui generis diagnosis. As used colloquially within the trans* community, the two terms do have different meanings - GID is a diagnosis, Gender Dysphoria is "gender-related bad feelings". Compare Major depressive disorder and Depression (mood). --April Arcus (talk) 22:59, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  • "Creating a separate article for gender dysphoria would be creating a WP:POVFORK." — perhaps so, but what alternatives exist? WP:NPOV mandates that we cover the topic of American transsexuality not only from the perspective of the American medical establishment, but from the perspective of American transsexuals, the legal profession, Christian fundamentalists, queer Christians, etc. Is it reasonable to expect those viewpoints coexist in a single article with a single title? The non-neutrality of this article must be addressed either internally or by offering alternative perspectives. --April Arcus (talk) 22:59, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I would support that April. In response to Flyer22, I think you are really missing the boat. Dysphoria just means a state of extreme mental and emotional discomfort. People have dysphoria for all sorts of reasons, and dysphoria can be caused by anything (or be innate). Some people have dysphoria around their sex/gender and society's relationship to it. Some of these folks have come to call ourselves transgender or transsexual. We started using the term "gender dysphoria" long before it became co-opted by a cissexist medical community to provide a kinder, gentler name for the "disease" we supposedly suffer from. An article on gender dysphoria could talk about the actual sadness that people have felt in relation to their gender in a variety of cultures and throughout history, with brief mention of the current medical use of the word. An article on gender identity disorder could describe what this diagnosis is, summarize what its proponents say about it, and describe how it has been forced on transgender people against our will in an effort to exclude and eradicate us from society (using reliable sources, of course). Rebecca Weaver (talk) 22:51, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm down. Want to start making a bibliography? --April Arcus (talk) 23:25, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
I can't personally invest a ton of time in this right now, but if you want to create a new article called "Gender Dysphoria" that explores the phenomenon without centering a contemporary Western medical model, I would certainly support that, and I would make edits and add information as I had the free time. Rebecca Weaver (talk)
April, the WP:Due weight aspect (including the Giving "equal validity" portion) of WP:Neutrality is just as important as the general neutrality aspect of it, perhaps even more so. Rebecca, with the exception of stating that I am "missing the boat," I very much understand your points on that. But I'm still certain that creating a Gender dysphoria article as separate from the Gender identity disorder article fits the definition of WP:POVFORK for the reasons I stated above in this section about that. If you can manage having those articles exist without them eventually being merged, then I don't much mind. Flyer22 (talk) 23:26, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't see why they would have to be merged. In the past there has been a Gender Dysphoria article on Wikipedia as well as a Gender Identity Disorder article, and they weren't merged. I believe they coexisted for years until the Gender Dysphoria article was simply erased and the Gender Identity Disorder article was renamed "Gender Dysphoria" after the DSM 5 came out. Some progress we are making toward de-stigmatizing transness right? Rebecca Weaver (talk) 00:34, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure that there has been a Wikipedia Gender dysphoria article that coexisted with the Wikipedia Gender identity disorder article. I've been at Wikipedia going on seven years, and I've seen Gender dysphoria redirect here before this year. I'd have to ask an administrator to take a look at the edit history that Gender dysphoria may have had before its current edit history. Flyer22 (talk) 00:50, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Well, if you want to do that, I'd really appreciate it. I don't want to be making inaccurate claims. . .but I could have sworn that there WAS a separate gender dysphoria article prior to the DSM 5 coming out. . .although I'm not sure for how many months or years it existed because I only started editing Wikipedia last fall. It's certainly possible I am misremembering though. Rebecca Weaver (talk) 01:15, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
I think this article has been moved a few times. However, in looking at edit histories of all redirects, there aren't any other articles that I found, so you are probably misremembering.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:44, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Based on what I've seen in sources in the article and linked above, creating a separate article would be a POV fork. We are not obliged to provide different articles to cover all views - rather we should strive within a single article to cover multiple views. Another example is female genital mutilation, which some activists, who are fighting against this practice I note, would still like to rename - however the article is for now at FGM because that is what high quality sources call it. Rather than continue theoretical discussions here, I suggest one of you open up a formal move request to GD, and then advertise widely and have a community discussion on the issue of the article title. Remember, an article title is the title that best represents a topic, but the topic can be broader and more inclusive than some narrow interpretations of the title itself. Ultimately the title is an aid in navigation, and I'm sure regArdless of the title improvements to bring in other povs - if documented in RS around the negative impacts of this diagnosis on TG people for example, could be added. We must remember our role is to document RS, not be ahead of them, and not push a particular agenda, which we're seeing in spades unfortunately from both sides of the manning debate.-Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:12, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

>I suggest one of you open up a formal move request to GD
It seems as though we're reaching a different consensus, actually. I'm completely fine with DSM-5-flavor GD staying here if we can have an article at Gender Dysphoria that talks about GD-the-mental-state, not GD-the-diagnosis. Does that proposal strike you as a POV fork? --April Arcus (talk) 23:25, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, why can't we have an article called Gender Dysphoria distinct from the article on Gender Identity Disorder? There formerly was an article on Gender Dysphoria that did not analyze the phenomenon from a specifically (or even predominantly) medical perspective. This article was erased when someone decided to move the existing text of the Gender Identity Disorder article to the Gender Dysphoria name after the DSM 5 came out. Now that text has been moved back to being "Gender Identity Disorder," but there is no Gender Dysphoria article. So the upshot is that Wikipedia has erased any thorough discussion of what gender dysphoria actually is as transgender people (the people who actually experience it) see it. Wikipedia has made gender dysphoria all about a cissexist medical establishment that doesn't have any respect for trans people and our lives, and this is pretty wrong if you ask me. Rebecca Weaver (talk) 00:29, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
If the text is still in the edit history can we do a prompt undelete? If I understand you correctly we'd essentially be restoring the pre-DSM-5 status quo ante. --April Arcus (talk) 01:31, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
It's not in the edit history anymore, and I don't know how to find it unfortunately. Rebecca Weaver (talk) 13:29, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd support a fork if I can see several reliable sources describe the mental state as gender dysphoria. CaseyPenk (talk) 23:29, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

  • I oppose a fork unless there are reliable secondary sources that analyze the difference(s) between gender identity disorder and gender dysphoria as conditions diagnoses or whatever, not as terms. Abductive (reasoning) 00:11, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Gender identity disorder is not a condition. It is a diagnosis, and it's a diagnosis that many people (rightly) consider to be unscientific and transphobic. To call it a condition is begging the question as to whether the diagnosis is legitimate. Rebecca Weaver (talk) 00:19, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I've stubbed out a bibliography of early/notable American & European trans narratives at User:April_Arcus/Gender_Dysphoria. My next question is, if we collect a bunch of quotations regarding trans people's experiences of dysphoria in one article, is that WP:OR? WP:SYN? Does it matter if they call it dysphoria (a 1970s coinage) if it clearly is? Do the rules of Wikipedia require a secondary source whenever we talk about inferences over group experience? --April Arcus (talk) 00:41, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
  • That would be OR by prevailing standards, yes, though secondary sources that establish the history of the concept and talk about the existence of it prior to there being a name for it might be usable to bridge the gap. What you'd need, ultimately, is a source that gives a good account of trans history across various changes to how it's been pathologized by the medical community. Once you have that and have used it to create a historical spine for the article you would be on better footing fleshing out any given moment of history. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:59, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Horrendous OR. Don't do it. Abductive (reasoning) 17:11, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

How do folks feel about putting a dab page at Gender dysphoria pointing to both this article and Transgender? I think that would address the concern that "gender dysphoria" is an experience, not just a diagnosis. --April Arcus (talk) 22:16, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Symptoms related to transsexualism[edit]

"It describes the symptoms related to transsexualism, as well as less extreme manifestations." I think this sentence in the lede is awkward and imprecise. Transsexualism is a state or condition that doesn't necessarily imply disorder or unhappiness: a person, at least in theory, could identify with a gender other than the one they were assigned at birth, without necessarily experiencing that as problematic. (See Transsexualism, which says "A medical diagnosis can be made if a person experiences discomfort as a result of a desire to be a member of the opposite gender,[1] or if a person experiences impaired functioning or distress as a result of that gender identification.[2]" Emphasis added by me.) Further, I don't think it's accurate to describe transsexualism as inherently "extreme," and I am not sure what a "less extreme manifestation" of transsexualism is actually referring to. Wouldn't it be more accurate to simply say something like "It describes the symptoms experienced by many transsexuals and other transgendered people."? Thanks Sue Gardner (talk) 08:59, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the conception of transsexualism as "extreme" is flawed (nonsensical, really). I also don't think the characterization of it as "extreme" is something that's found in the source material that this sentence is supposedly a paraphrase of. I think there's an easy solution that will also make the whole lead flow smoother and be less verbose. . .just get rid of that sentence entirely while slightly modifying the next sentence. The next sentence could be re-written as "Affected individuals are commonly referred to as transsexual or transgender," with both the words "transsexual" and "transgender" being wikilinked. Actually, this is such an obviously necessary change in my opinion that I'm going to go ahead and Wikipedia:be bold and make it. Rebecca Weaver (talk) 13:49, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Thank you Rebecca -- perfect :-) Sue Gardner (talk) 20:45, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

James Cantor[edit]

James, STOP removing sourced, relevant material from this article by claiming the sources are not reliable. I will admit that some of the sources you removed are, in fact, not reliable sources, so I thank you for catching them. But you are also removing lots of information that is well-sourced. Wikipedia is very clear that not all information in medical Wikipedia articles has to come from medical journals. Much of the criticism of GID is social in nature. This is notable and important for the reader of Wikipedia to understand. So stop removing well-sourced material for this article. I would revert some of your changes but you are making too many too fast all at once. Can anyone else help me handle this? Rebecca Weaver (talk) 15:06, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I think what you want to do is discuss here whichever material or sources you think should remain, especially since you agree that at least some of the sources didn't belong in the first place. Any material you think should be re-added can be, as soon as appropriate sources can be found. WP has no deadline, and WP:BRD and WP:AGF apply.— James Cantor (talk) 15:13, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Removing well-sourced content on the grounds that the sources can be evaluated later is not really a good approach. As you point out, WP has no deadline, and you can thus afford to work carefully and slowly and make sure the sourcing is actually unreliable. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:17, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
I contest that it was well-sourced content. Largely, these were comments by non-experts made on their various non-RS SPS's. To the extent that there was actual information removed, no one is saying what it was.— James Cantor (talk) 17:27, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
None of your changes jump out to me as objectionable. --April Arcus (talk) 15:44, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
I see that you removed Lynn Conway's article How Frequently Does Transsexualism Occur? under the rationale "(Non-RS blog)". I have restored this citation with reference to the author's substantially similar article published in the peer reviewed journal Tijdschrift voor Genderstudies, including a translated quotation of the article's findings and a pointer to the English version as the lay summary. --April Arcus (talk) 17:57, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
The 1:500 prevalence is larger than the Conway article can support. The article includes a 1:400 number specific to Thailand, with two citations to Sam Winter (Division of Learning, Development and Diversity, Faculty of Education, University of Hong Kong) [2], [3]:
The 2006 citation is a survey of 195 Thai trans women and makes no effort to estimate the overall prevalence of trans people in Thailand. The 2002 citation cites in turn a newspaper article "Roses of the North: The Katoey of Chiang Mai University" by Andrew Matzner (Bangkok Post, January 9, 1999). It apparently linkrotted around 27-28 November 2005, but the text is preserved on archive.org. Relevant quotes:
"Compared with most other Thai schools, Chiang Mai University provides a tolerant atmosphere for transgendered gay men [sic], called katoey in Thai. […] Rosepaper, formed over twenty years ago, is a "sorority" [sic] run by and for katoey. With more than one hundred members, Rosepaper is one of the largest clubs at CMU."
Matzner (1999) presents no information on the total size of CMU's student body in 1999. Winter (2002) claims the number to be 15000 without citation. Our article states the enrollment at 35,281 as of 22 Mar 2013.
Due to the age and inaccessibility of this information, I would deem the Thai numbers of Olyslager & Conway to be unreliable, and defer to their better-sourced work in the Netherlands and Belgium estimating the lower bound of prevalence to be 1:4000 (for trans men) and 1:2000 (for trans women), which I have quoted in the citation. As an alternate high-bound estimate, I'd like to cite this 2013 article from Grant High School's official magazine, which states the number of trans students to be 10, out of a total enrollment of of 1619, for a prevalence ratio of 1:162. Is this WP:OR or WP:SYN? --April Arcus (talk) 20:33, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Well done! I don't think a High School's magazine can readily be said to be an RS, however.— James Cantor (talk) 21:15, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Why not? Would a newspaper article citing the school magazine as its primary source be more reliable in some way? --April Arcus (talk) 21:27, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
The part that's hitting me as out of the ordinary is treating an individual school's self-reported rates as if it were a formal epidemiological or demographic study. I don't think the school magazine is an RS for that kind of a mainpage statement. — James Cantor (talk) 23:23, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
The wording I used is totally straightforward and does not imply a "formal epidemiological or demographic study". I have also added a citation from the American Journal of Public Health, estimating the trans population of Massachusetts to be to be 0.5% with bounds of 0.3%-0.6% at a confidence interval of 95%. --April Arcus (talk) 00:40, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
A new peer-reviewed study of New Zealand teens reports 1.2% trans, 2.5% unsure, n=8,166 --April Arcus (talk) 23:58, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


Muddled early paragraph[edit]

Gender identity disorder in children is considered clinically distinct from gender dysphoria that appears in adolescence or adulthood. As gender identity develops in children, so do gender role stereotypes: the beliefs, characteristics and behaviors that are deemed culturally normal and appropriate for males and females. These "norms" are influenced by a person's family and friends, media, community and other socializing agents.[3] Since many cultures have strict expectations about gender, varying from the norm can lead to significant distress for the individual and the people around them. Some transgender individuals also report discomfort stemming from feeling "trapped in the wrong body".[4]

This paragraph from the lede section seems wonky to me. It seems to be conflating/confusing a couple of things -- i) GID in children being considered distinct from GID in adults, and why, ii) the fact that GID can be the result of, or a partial result of societal stigmatization (which is unrelated or only very weakly related to the age issue: people of all ages would experience social stigmatization), and iii) the fact that GID unhappiness is also attributed to intrinsic rather than extrinsic origins. Feels to me like we should possibly rewrite along these lines:

Gender identity disorder in children is considered clinically distinct from gender dysphoria that appears in adolescence or adulthood. Plus an explanation of why, plus sourcing.

And then I think perhaps we should move the material about origins into the later sections on biological causes versus sociocultural causes. (In saying that I'm assuming, but am not sure, that feeling trapped in the wrong body would suggest biological causes. We, or at least I, would need to read the sources to be sure about that.)

Does this make sense? Thanks Sue Gardner (talk) 21:11, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, very much. I had the same thought about that section.— James Cantor (talk) 22:20, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks James. I've removed the last four sentences of that paragraph, and pasted them here in case someone wants to integrate them or their sources into the rest of the article. I may eventually do it myself, but anyone else should feel free to do it, if they like. The material isn't bad IMO -- it was just misplaced :-) Sue Gardner (talk) 04:29, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

As gender identity develops in children, so do gender roles: the beliefs, characteristics and behaviors that are deemed normal and appropriate for males and females. These norms are influenced by a person's family and friends, media, community and other socializing agents.[1] Since many cultures have strict expectations about gender, varying from the norm can lead to significant distress for the individual and the people around them. Some transgender individuals also report discomfort stemming from feeling "trapped in the wrong body".[2]

Sue, why did you paste that twice here? Either way, a lot of that information should be in the lead because those matters are significant components to this topic. They help flesh out important aspects of gender dysphoria. And now we are left with an unsourced, one-sentence paragraph that is not hard to source in the least (for example, all one needs to do is look to the Gender identity disorder in children article). Flyer22 (talk) 04:37, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

A broad question on developing the article[edit]

Would it be useful to follow the template for another psychiatric condition, e.g. Major depressive disorder (FA-class) for improving this article? As it is, it comes across mainly as a debate about classification and doesn't do a very good job of describing signs/symptoms, diagnostic criteria, and all the other things you would expect for something someone sees a doctor about. If we don't want to follow that template, what would be a good article to use as a guide for suggested content and format? 71.231.186.92 (talk) 02:31, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

This seems totally reasonable. —April Arcus (talk) 23:14, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Following that pattern, I'm proposing a basic outline of:
  1. Symptoms and signs (is there a strong preference for the "Experiences" section title?)
  2. Causes
  3. Diagnosis
  4. "Prevention" is a heading in MDD, but it seems sort of weird to discuss in this context so it's probably best to just leave it out.
  5. Management (Prognosis is a separate heading in MDD, but presumably prognosis is different depending on group treated and it might be better to have the sub-headings cover both the approaches and the expected outcomes)
  6. Epidemiology ("Prevalence" might be a better term?)
  7. History (we'd likely discuss the naming fluffernutter in this section, if nothing else)
  8. Society and culture (useful for this article? Would the controversy section in the current article fit here?)
  9. Research (not in MDD, but a common heading for disease articles)
I'm going to be bold and reorganize the article under this structure. Feel very free to revert. 71.231.186.92 (talk) 02:02, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
"Symptoms and signs" and "Diagnosis" could be conflated under "Diagnostic criteria". "Causes" should probably be de-emphasized, as I mentioned elsewhere, and grouped with "Research". "Prevention"/"Management" -> Treatment? Not sure what you mean by "depending on group treated" - even the most conservative gender therapists advocate gender transition as the only effective therapy for affected adults. Among practicing specialists only Kenneth Zucker still practices reparative therapy, and only in children under his bespoke diagnosis gender identity disorder in children. —April Arcus (talk) 07:35, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Prognosis is not really "how to treat?" but "will it work?" and it's listed separately in a lot of our articles from how the condition is managed. I'm assuming (could be wrong) that earlier treatment leads to better outcomes. If outcomes are similar regardless of the age of treatment then a separate prognosis section will work. The aim of treatment is to make the patient better, and explaining prognosis is a reality check as to whether the treatment is a real hope of improvement (e.g. phobias can be resolved completely, major depressive disorder improves with care, etc...). It's entirely possible that no one has done good research on outcomes, but a quality-of-life type of study would be easy enough to conduct and I'd be surprised, given the irreversible nature of gender reassignment surgery, if no one has asked the question. Also, for what it's worth, I'm not sure what you mean by de-emphasizing causes. We have another article and a paraphrase of the lead of the other article should work just fine, no need to go into great detail here. My intended approach to this article is a bit dry and clinical, covering first and foremost what psychiatry says to psychiatry with a focus on accessible language. Transgender really covers the whole scope of humanity, this is just clinical terminology and there's no need to provide the entire context here (though it should be referenced with easily found links). 71.231.186.92 (talk) 14:48, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 02 September 2013[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was No consensus yet, at least. MOS:MED is subordinate to WP:AT and there's not consensus here that Gender dysphoria is the new common name. Red Slash 03:01, 13 September 2013 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

Gender identity disorderGender dysphoria – Change in name in a major psychology reference tool, the DSM-5 71.231.186.92 (talk) 05:36, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Survey[edit]

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
  • Oppose – We need a better reason to move an article than that an outside authority has changed what they call it. Probably we need to more time before a commonname argument can be made; perhaps before long this will be a good move, but I'm not convinced it's time yet. Convince me and I may change my !vote. Dicklyon (talk) 06:04, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose – I retract and apologize for my intemperate comments upthread. I have put my Wikipedian hat back on and dispassionately rethought this issue.
  1. Per Sceptre and PiMaster3, use of the term "gender dysphoria" in place of "gender identity disorder" is currently an Americanism.
  2. Per Rebecca Weaver, "gender dysphoria" is ambiguous between the colloquial usage meaning "a feeling of anxiety experienced by transgender people" and the DSM-5 diagnosis of that anxiety. Consider the difference between Depression (mood) (the feeling) and Major Depressive Disorder (the diagnosis).
Since this article is written about the diagnosis, and the current title "gender identity disorder" is unambiguously diagnostic in nature, I think the article should remain here. Instead of moving this article to gender dysphoria over the redirect, we should convert gender dysphoria to a disambiguation page between this article and transgender. When more RS content becomes available to discuss gender dysphoria per se as an experience outside the realm of medical diagnosis, the dab page can be converted to a stub. —April Arcus (talk) 20:45, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose – The World Health Organization is still using the term 'gender identity disorder'. Even within the United States, despite the recent change by the APA, there is still controversy over DSM 5 between APA and NIMH. [4] --PiMaster3 talk 19:41, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - the latest version of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders — or DSM-V, for short — earlier this year renamed Gender Identity Disorder to Gender Dysphoria — changed the emphasis from the issue of identity to the distress about an incongruence between the assigned sex and the identification. The perspective change is similar to a decision made in 1973, when the American Psychiatric Association eliminated homosexuality from its disorders' list. Why was the article called GID in the first place? Likely because that was what the standard name was in the DSM. And now it's been updated to reflect a new understanding. It will take many institutions years to make this change but Wikipedia can make the change instantly. The name causes distress to people living with dysphoria, possibly we can keep that in mind on this issue? Sportfan5000 (talk) 18:35, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Support I was going to oppose base in COMMONNAME, but the link to MOS:MED convinced me otherwise. JOJ Hutton 16:51, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per MOS:MED. I think we should follow APA and DSM-V. WP:COMMONNAME says that "When there are multiple names for a subject, all of them fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others." In this case I think GID has problems since it can be considered pejorative. --Space simian (talk) 10:06, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

I don't have an opinion on wording. Per April, the "feeling" and the "diagnoses" distinction makes sense to me. Since there are transpersons that wish to receive medical intervention to transform their bodies, a diagnoses is ultimately necessary to understand what treatment is appropriate. On the other hand, persons that choose not to seek treatment shouldn't be labeled as having an "untreated disorder." As labels go, and because I don't really see the range of treatment options/desire for treatment ever disappearing for persons with gender dysphoria, whatever term is chosen will eventually be stygmatized. --DHeyward (talk) 08:09, 3 September 2013 (UTC)


  • The following statement in the lede of article appears problematic to me from both a sourcing and understanding POV:

Controversy exists as to whether GID is a mental disorder.[7] Gender identity disorder is classified as a medical disorder by the ICD-10 CM[8] and DSM-5 (called Gender Dysphoria).[7] Many transgender people and researchers support declassification of GID because they say the diagnosis pathologizes gender variance, reinforces the binary model of gender,[9] and can also result in stigmatization of transgender individuals.[7] Treatment for gender identity disorder is also controversial, as changes made are typically irreversible.[10] The current approach to treatment for people diagnosed with gender identity disorder is to support them in physically modifying their bodies so that they better match their gender identities

First, I think since the article doesn't break out gender dysphoria from GID, and reading the source for the controversy, it is not controversial that a mental disorder clinically exists in some people. Rather, the source changes the emphasis of the diagnoses criteria to those persons that have gender dysphoria and that is a classifiable/diagnosable disorder. Regardless of which manual is used, I would think the vast majority that seek help have gender dysphoria at some level that may or may not be a disorder. The lede seems to take issue with the term "mental disorder" which is not what the source takes issue with. The source takes issue with classifying a persons "identity" verses a persons "dysphoria" as a mental disorder. Source 7 doesn't support the controversy statement as long as the article conflates GID with GD. Source 9 seems to support a sociological variance of "identity" but not "dysphoria." Both are written in a way that should be changed (passive voice, use of "Many X support Y").

I would propose the following to replace the above as a first re-write to accurately reflect sources and change passive/active voice and weasel word choices:

The latest diagnostic manuals (DSM-5) support using the term "gender dysphoria" to emphasize the distress of the patient rather than "gender identity" when making a diagnosis as gender identity is not what presents as a disorder. Labeling the gender identity as the disorder can be stigmatizing and counterproductive to treatment. In general, a mental disorder is present when a behavioral pattern results in a "significant adaptive disadvantage to the person or cause personal mental suffering." (note7,10) Furthermore, gender variance acceptance differs among cultures and individuals. Pathology may not be present in all individuals that would meet the clinical threshold for Gender Identity Disorder when comparing "biological sex" versus "gender identity" using a Western binary model of gender (note-9) as they do not have the behavioral pattern or dysphoria that meets the threshold of a mental disorder. Treatment and care varies for those with gender dysphoria and can be controversial as well as irreversible.(note-10) Currently, there are a range of treatment options from psychotherapy through hormonal treatment and surgery. Treatment is tailored to the individual needs of the patient with the goal of a "lasting personal comfort with the gendered self in order to maximize overall psychological well-being and self-fulfillment."(note-10)

--DHeyward (talk) 06:19, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

  • In the survey section, editors cite WP:MEDMOS for support of the move; because of that, I feel the need to remind editors that the reason that this article was moved back to Gender identity disorder the first time is because of WP:MOSMED. This is what the Wikipedia:MEDMOS#Naming conventions guideline states, "The article title should be the scientific or recognised medical name that is most commonly used in recent, high-quality, English-language medical sources." The keywords there are "most commonly." I see no evidence that "gender dysphoria" is the name that is most commonly used in recent, high-quality, English-language medical sources. But again, I don't care much which title is used on Wikipedia. However, the Gender dysphoria title is less offensive/less stigmatizing to/for transgender people. Flyer22 (talk) 17:09, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Etiology[edit]

There is currently an undue emphasis on the etiology of GID in this article. The lede contains this sentence:

"Evidence suggests that people who identify with a gender different from the one they were assigned at birth may do so not just due to psychological or behavioural causes, but also biological ones related to their genetics, the makeup of their brains, or prenatal exposure to hormones."

At best, this is a tautology ("psychological causes or biological causes" disjunctively covers every possibility). The high placement of the "Causes" section in the article body is also problematic, considering how vague its assertions are. —April Arcus (talk) 00:04, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

My reading of it was to set out physical reasons versus purely psychological, behavioral or social reasons. For example, an incorrect sex assignment at birth of an intersexual infant leading to surgical intervention that is irreversible. I think there are better ways to word it however but just leaving at as a DSM classification or removing etiology completely seems to take away physical mechanisms, both direct and indirect, that may have played a role in defining a persons sexuality and potential dysphoria. Since the identity of a transperson is ultimately their own perception, how do we attribute physical influences that may have affected that perception? I find it difficult to separate the two causes you mentioned without the biological influence sounding presumptively curable which I believe would be perceived as insulting. --DHeyward (talk) 07:39, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Signs and symptoms section needs some help[edit]

Currently the signs and symptoms section contains several sections: i) a few sentences describing GID and saying that researchers disagree about its origins, ii) a sentence on symptoms in children, iii) a section on symptoms in adults, iv) a section describing the nature of the distress experienced by people with GID, and v) a section about the prognosis for the primary relationships of transgender people after they begin expressing their internal gender identity externally. I think all this material is good and shouldn't be deleted. But, I think the first section should perhaps live elsewhere in the article, and I think the fifth section should perhaps be moved into a new section called something like Prognosis. Does this make sense? I'm not experienced with how we normally structure articles on medical issues, so I would appreciate if somebody else helped decide this. Thanks Sue Gardner (talk) 23:28, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

The signs and symptoms section might have been revised since the above comment, but the last part about relationships still seems out-of-place to me. An even greater concern to my eyes is that it only talks about two of the many possible kinds of relationships trans people can have: FTM people partnered with lesbians, and MTF people partnered with heterosexual males. Why were only these two models chosen as examples? What about for example, FTM people partnered with cis het males, or MTF people partnered with cis gay males? If the referenced study only covered the cited examples, that should be explained. Funcrunch (talk) 01:39, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Hey, Funcrunch, I see you made it here after this. As for your query here, I'm not quite sure. But this IP removed a lot from the article, part of which relayed, "Sociologist Sally Hines, however, states that while most specialists presume that transition results in a heterosexual orientation for female-to-male people with GID, this is often not the case. Many trans men are gay or otherwise attracted to other men." The IP should have been reverted on most of the removal because, for example, what was there holds true for a lot of trans men today and so is not highly contested or outdated. I didn't revert the IP because all kinds of contentious things were going on at this article at that time, as you can see from the current state of the talk page, and I did not want to get into a WP:Edit war or stressing debate. I also figured someone else would revert the IP. Flyer22 (talk) 02:02, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. The first book I read by a trans author was written by a gay trans man (Matt Kailey), and I'm essentially one myself (though my exact gender identity and sexual orientation are too complicated and off-topic to go into here), so I'm sensitive to assumptions that all or most FTMs are ex-lesbians. When I have more time I'll see if I can find more sources to help improve the article. Funcrunch (talk) 02:11, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Funcrunch, well, if you were to ask trans men such as Chaz Bono, he would now state that he was never a lesbian. But I understand what you mean. For example, not only has Bono had to deal with having an anatomical female body, he identified as a lesbian because of that anatomical female body and because his sexual orientation is fixed on sexual attraction to women. Other trans men, while never having identified as lesbian, were seen as lesbian because of their bodies being anatomically female and because of their sexual attraction to women. As for adding sources, just make sure that they are WP:MEDRS-compliant. Flyer22 (talk) 02:20, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Also, above I'm sure that you meant "MTF people partnered with heterosexual females" instead of "MTF people partnered with heterosexual males" when speaking of the section in question. Flyer22 (talk) 02:47, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that's what I meant, thank you. Typo but further illustration of my point that there are many possible combinations :-) Funcrunch (talk) 04:07, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect textual attribution associated with citations 38 and 39 under "History" section.[edit]

The second and third sentences of the "History" section incorrectly attribute the American Psychological Association to references listed for citations 38 and 39. The correct attribution should be the American Psychiatric Association, which also uses the acronym "APA."

Swessels66 (talk) 18:36, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Status as a disorder[edit]

I would think that gender dysphoria is a disorder, being listed as an independent condition in the 5th edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders. There seems to be a view that not having the word "disorder" in the name as listed in the DSM means it's not a disorder. That's not true at all, as there are a few other conditions listed in the DSM that do not use the word "disorder" in their name but are clearly disorders, such as schizophrenia. This comment at the bottom of this article mentions it:

"The Sex and Gender Identity Disorders workgroup of the DSM-5 considered whether or not the diagnosis should be deleted from the DSM and concluded that it should be retained because it meets the defining criteria for a psychiatric disorder that have been in place since DSM-III."

http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/gender-disorders/gender-identity-disorder-prison-depending-diagnosis-soon-disappear

Of course, gender dysphoria narrows down the conception of what is disordered, to the distress experienced by the person regarding denial of gender role or distress at the person's body, whereas gender identity disorder implies that the gender identity itself is disordered.

Was there a source that the authors of the DSM-5 were not going to consider gender dysphoria a disorder anymore, beyond dropping the word "disorder" from the name? --Beneficii (talk) 10:05, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Comparisons of Classification[edit]

I am advocating not to move from Gender Identity Disorder based on what "will happen" or is "likely to happen" with the classification from the APA. 1) Only the APA voted for the change, (a regional group of psychiatrists) but the major world health organizations like the UN's ICD will not be changing the name of the syndrome as yet, and worldwide, health organizations still will currently classify it GID. 2)The DSM5 will not be released until May 2014, so has not even been published with the new name, so the old name is still active in the current published version. 3) As far as I am aware, recent diagnoses from medical professionals are still made as GID, and insurance companies are still carrying it as GID, so the common usage for professionals is GID. 4)Common usage for lay people searching on the syndrome is GID. 5) worldwide general layperson usage is GID.

In summation, neither an article title, nor an article, should be changed based on what is going to happen, or what will or might happen- changes should be made according to only what is currently relevant by consensus and usage both by medical professionals and laypeople. While some trans people have a sincere interest in the APA's declassification in the APA's own manual, it is natural that trans persons would not hold a neutral point of view on the topic. I advocate changing the name only after the name change has been published in the DSM5, as well as only after it subsequently grows into general recognition, by declassification in other, more widespread manuals of diagnosis. That it will be changed in one manual of diagnosis may not affect any other health organizations or manuals worldwide or general worldwide usage for quite some time or at all...widespread consensus of use has yet to be seen, but we may be able to track its growth into general use.

So we can see how widespread the usage of GID versus GD becomes, and watch as it perhaps moves into common usage both professionally and among the general public, feel free to edit this following list which I have begun. Please add only current or new sources.

Medical Sources

Classified as Gender Identity Disorder

  • World Health Organization's ICD
  • US National Library of Medicine
  • A.D.A.M Medical Encyclopedia

Classified as Gender Dysphoria

  • APA's DSM5 (to be published May 2014)

Scholarly Works

Classified as GID

Classified as GD

Reference Books

Classified as GID

Classified as GD

Awolnetdiva (talk) 09:09, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Copied from Flyer22's User Talk Page[edit]

Part of paraphrasing is the use of words differing slightly from those in the source documents. Terms such as "usually," "typically," or even "in 85% of cases surveyed" (or whatever percentage it happens to be) can be substituted in Article paraphrase as "most" or "most often." This is the difference between paraphrasing OR/Synth. The latter is adding actual information not in sources, while the former is simply simplifying words. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 21:27, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello, The Mysterious El Willstro. While I understand that you are trying to help, I don't need a lesson in the "principles of paraphrasing." I have no problem with using the terms you used if those terms are clearly supported by the sources; I use those terms on Wikipedia often enough, though I also keep the WP:Weasel words guideline in mind. But, yes, the wording "the vast majority," for example, would clearly be supported for a single study where it's the case that 85% of people in that study stated something compared to the leftover percent. However, if "most" is not supported with regard to this edit you made to the Gender identity disorder article, meaning that those studies did not show "most" to be case...but rather "all" or "some" to be the case...then it is a bad edit. Let's also keep in mind that "most" can be as simple as meaning "a small majority." 86% compared to 85% is "most," after all. Either way, your edit is best discussed at the Gender identity disorder article talk page if you want it implemented.
On a side note: I altered the heading of this section with "Gender identity disorder article" so that it is clearer as to what this section is about; it will also help identifying the section once it is archived. Flyer22 (talk) 21:42, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Sure, I can copy this discussion to that Talk Page. The most relevant source document is Zhou et al. (1995), and it speaks of an ongoing interaction between brain structure and sex hormones. So hormones matter too. The fact that brain structure isn't the only factor implies that not every male with a normally-female brain structure will be trans. However, the source does not specify in the abstract what percentage of cases bear out the typical pattern concerning brain structure and transgenderism. If someone could archive the full article for Wikipedia citations, and not just the abstract, that would be helpful. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 03:17, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Signed,

The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 03:19, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Note: For the full discussion, see here. For the changes that The Mysterious El Willstro made in response to that, see here and here. And here is my tweak. I don't agree with the text that The Mysterious El Willstro added because I view it as WP:Synthesis/WP:Editorializing. He surely disagress with that, but I am done with this discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 00:59, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist}} template (see the help page).