Talk:Gender identity disorder

Untitled

Old talk:

• Brandon Teena moved to famous transgendered people
• UC says GID/TS due to possession: don't mention: not a scientific theory
• need evidence on what proportion of doctors recommend sex change - >50%?
• All debates up to 2003 moved to /Archive 2003, including debates on how appropriate the label gender identity disorder is and what constitues a cure for it. -- AlexR 14:56, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

Seriously?

this page needs a huge cleanup, it just rambles. look at how well this source conveys all the same data. http://www.merck.com/mmpe/sec15/ch203/ch203b.html the aim should be to be more like this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.92.184.75 (talk) 20:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Links

I removed several external links, primarily because they were redundant or on a broader topic than GID. In particular, I removed the following links because there is already a link to a page with the complete text about GID in the list. The one's removed are less complete and more cluttered (e.g., ads). (1) http://www.behavenet.com/capsules/disorders/genderiddis.htm (2) http://www.mental-health-matters.com/disorders/dis_details.php?disID=46 I removed the following links because they're about broader topics (e.g., the axes of diagnosis in DSM). Even though one was labeled as about GID in the ICD, it wasn't. It was just a list of disorders including GID. Instead I highlighted how the HB-SOC includes the ICD criteria in the text for that link. (1) http://www.behavenet.com/capsules/diagnostic/axis1.htm (2) http://www.who.int/msa/mnh/ems/icd10/f60-f69.htm (3) http://www.who.int/whr2001/2001/main/en/boxes/box2.1.htm I also removed the new link to a discussion forum. It seems kind of unfair to include a single forum link when the forum it is almost completely inactive and there are many other forums with professionals and transgendered persons that should probably be listed first. Finally, I wonder if maybe we should remove the last link too (i.e., Lord Chancellor's ...). It seems to be more about politics instead of psychology. Perhaps we could put it in another article instead? ~ Katie (Sept 20, 2004)

The Rekers link

Currently, the article has the follwing link:

• Gender Identity Disorder - Christian psychiatrist, George A. Rekers, defends the continued inclusion of Gender Identity Disorder in the DSM.

First of all, the article does not deal with the inclusion of GID in the DSM, but mostly with a) the story of yet another "cured" child, and b) lots of highly questionable premises and "findings".

• The article does not distinguish between homosexuality and trans*.
• Trans* can be either transsexual or transvestite, with no indication of the vast number of transpeople who are neither.
• That goes with a lot of the literature cited being from the 1970s. That is akin to citing lots of literature from the '40s and '50s in an article about homosexuality. Even if it had been the only literaure available at the time (it wasn't), today articles based on this state of research ought to be used with great caution.
• Some of the "findings" have not been replicated, namely the statement that in all children with severe GID, the father was absent. Anybody remember the very same statement about homosexuals? So, obviously, did the author. Same with the mental health problems allegedly so common in parents with GID children.
• Some statements are extremely stereotypical, such as In pathological cases, however, children deviate from the normal pattern of exploring masculine and feminine behaviors and develop an inflexible, compulsive, persistent and rigidly stereotyped pattern. Those "inflexible, compulsive, persistent and rigid stereotypical patterns" have been used in tons of older literature about transpeople, but in most cases, they reflected only two things: The extreme frustration of doctors with patients who just couldn't and wouldn't be cured, and the doctor's expectations: If transpeople did not behave in such a way, they were often labeled as "not really transsexual" and medical treatment was withheld from them.

To summ it up: This article does not deal with the matter that are advertised in the link; I suspect that the Christian has more to do with the inclusion than content. However, if such a view needs to be included at all (in which case it should be labeled appropriately, since not exactly all Christians and Christian denominations hold similar views), I am sure there are better ones out there. Better in the sense that they at least deal with matters related to the general diagnosis of GID. It is also, seen with today's knowlege, faulty, and again, certainly there are far better articles that could be linked. The link therefore should be removed. -- AlexR 14:56, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Alex, I see your points and agree with you about the poor scholarship behind the article. I have read a great deal of the work on GID that is published in peer-reviewed academic journals. Rekers work is no worse that what I typically read. Ironically, it might even be better because he is honest about his particular value-laden version of Christianity. Most researchers who study GID seem to believe they are being objective scientists. I know we're supposed to try and be neutral at Wikipedia, which is why I have not removed this link. At the same time, even having an article about "gender identity disorder" (and re-directing "gender dysphoria" to it) legitimates the idea that there is such an illness. So maybe avoiding such a pro-GID external link would help provide a balance. If you feel it's best to remove this link, I would not object. You might wait a few more days and see if anybody else feels strongly enough about the issue to contribute to this thread? ~ Katie (Nov. 18, 2004)

I indeed did not want to remove the link without feedback, and a few days probably don't hurt. There are people out there who might care about it, and at least they can't complain if the removal was announces here. I also very much agree on your view of the article when compared to other articles; however, there are lots of better ones out there, too. However, I see no use to link to such articles, especially with an byline that announces something different. I'll remove it in a few days, therefore, unless there is a debate about it by then.

As for articles on GID etc, well, the medical diagnosis exists, whether we like it or not, and therefore merrits an article. And since the articles discusses the controvercy, too, I think it is better to have such an article and mention the controvercy than not having it, having people read other trans-articles, find out that GID exists later, and think all the other articles are wrong or at least incomplete or biased or whatever because GID isn't covered properly. -- AlexR 16:47, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Inducing gender dysphoria

There's a discussion going on in Talk:Transsexual#Another_cause_of_transexualism, which some people watching this article may be interested in. --Rebroad 13:35, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

alright people. You guys, get everything on wikipedia. Everything. It is pro-evolution, pro-gay, pro-abortion, and if anyone tries to differ from your ideas, then you erase it! The link, at least, this little link, is staying. And I don't care what you guys say, its very informative, even if you arn't a christian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.89.104 (talk) 22:50, 5 July 2006

And I don't care what you say, but kindly sign your entires, and am I right in assuming that you choose the wrong heading for your comment? -- John Smythe 15:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, Wikipedia is pro-knowledge, not pro-doctrine ZellDenver (talk) 01:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Gender dysphoria vs. gender identity disorder

My understanding was that gender identity disorder has nothing to do with gender dysphoria. Gender identity disorder is what psychologists used to call effeminacy in homosexual men. Gender dysphoria is the term more correctly linked to transgenderedness. Felicity4711 07:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Where did you get that idea from? Check for example [1], [2] or [3] (results of a quick google search). "Gender dysphoria" seems to be used interchangeably. I am not aware that there is another technical term for "effiminacy in homosexual men" besides that. Do you have a source for that claim? Besides, what would "gender identity disorder" have to do with effiminacy? That is not a gender identity. -- AlexR 12:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I say the quotes should be removed from the word normal because it implies subjectivity and a pro-transgender bias. The American Heritage Dictionary defines normal as: "Conforming with, adhering to, or constituting a norm, standard, pattern, level, or type; typical: normal room temperature; one's normal weight; normal diplomatic relations."

Consequently, for a male or female for that matter to exhibit behavior consistent with the opposite sex is not normal because it does not conform with the "standard" or "typical" behavior. Anything else is a semantic game. [User:Pravknight]--Pravknight 03:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

In the DSM-II, homosexuality did have a diagnostic category - is that what you are reffering to? The main symptom of Gender identity disorder is Gender Dysphoria - the feeling of being uncomfortable with one's own assigned gender, and/or of belonging to the opposite gender.

Gender identity disorder used to have a sub-category, "Transsexual type" in the DSM-III however it is now "Gender identity disorder in adolescents and adults".

As to the effiminity in homosexual men, that is one of the proposals for the eitiology for transsexualism / Gender Identity disorder, articularly in the case of late-onset type transsexualism. It is largely discredity, in part due to the prsence of FTMs and Lesbian or Bisexual Transsexuals. It is also confusing because transsexualism arose as a medical diagnosis from the study of transvestism and homosexuals in the 19th and early 20th centuries. For some, homosexuality is considered contrary to normal gender stereotypes, and lumped in the same basket as GID.

Cheers, Lwollert 10:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

If gender identity disorder isn't a feminine personality and other traits (in the case of males), then what is it? If you're suggesting it's clothing preference and obsession with genitals or other sexual charactersitics, then that fits the definition of a paraphilia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.90.201 (talk) 21:55, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Your comment above appears to address only male-to-female GID. Restricting my own comment to that: Multiple RS's claim that extreme overt femininity and extreme erotic interest in feminity are both capable of motivating males to live life as female. Although erotic interest in being feminine is a paraphilia (at least, according to multiple RS's) one can have that erotic interest but still not have GID. Similarly, one can have GID, but not be extremely feminine overtly.

Regarding the erotic-interest subtype of GID (autogynephilia), it is an error to describe it as a clothing preference or an obsession. (It is also innaccurate to describe paraphilias in those terms.) Moreover, the research suggests that the great majority of medically qualified transsexuals are well-adjusted after their transitions, regardless of which type they are.
— James Cantor (talk) 15:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

What is the difference between the etiology of a non-feminine (not visibly 'gay' as a child) transsexual and a furry? The transevstite transsexual saw images of women as a young child and identified with that, the furry saw images of anthropomorphic characters and identified with that. But in neither case does this have anything to do with their actual gender. There's such a thing a being masculine or feminine, there can't be a completely separate "gender identity" in addition to this. A transvestite doesn't have a female identity because they liked/wanted to be female images as a child anymore than a furry has an animal identity because they liked/wanted to be animal images as a child.

I just object to this because in my experience the more vocal kind of transsexual (who invariably are comming from being heterosexual transvestites) contribute to the marginalisation of those who are comming from being very feminine boys and are often very vulnerable well into adult life (if they make it that far).

Doesn't it strike you as bit wrong when you read or hear "transsexuals" denigrating (and that is there attitude) those who just are feminine people as being "gay" and that's "something totally seperate" to "gender identity" (whatever that's supposed to be if it's totally divorced from personality)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.91.137 (talk) 16:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

If you look at the self-reported experiences of furries and transvestite etioloy transsexuals, they are exactly the same. If you only substitute a few words, you cannot tell them apart. Both had a deep sense of feeling they ought to be the thing they identified with as a young child. The later transsexual went to bed and prayed they'd wake up a girl, the furry prayed they'd wake up as an anthropomorphic character. Then through adolescence this intensified and became sexualised to the point where the later transsexual cross-dressed and the furry would aquire their "fur suit". And then as small number of transvestites come to believe they really should have been born or they really are internally women, and a small number of furries come to believe the same about the object of their desire. The only difference is that the transsexual is better placed in some cases to make their fantasy come true.

I suggest you do some reading about the furry community, it exactly parallels the transvestite community. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.91.137 (talk) 16:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I recognize that it is difficult for new or infrequent wikipedia editors to appreciate the distinction, but the purpose of these talk pages is specifically for the improvement of their associated mainpages. These are not message boards for the discussion of the topics themselves. Whatever you (or I) believe about the topic is not relevant here. The task of wikipedia editors is to summarize the content of reliable sources for wikipedia readers.

There do exist articles published in notable journals that discuss ideas related to the ones you provide above. (I am not sure what I might have said that would suggest to you that I am not already aware of the theoretical parallels among various paraphilic interests, including the furries/plushophiles/furverts/etc.) If you have a specific suggestion for material appearing in reliable sources that would be appropriate on the mainpage here, feel free to present here for discussion. The text you have added thus far, however, does not belong, in my opinion.

— James Cantor (talk) 04:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Mental Illness

The article makes a lot of confusing comments regarding mental illness that don't really make rational sense. The article mentions that GID might not be a mental illness because it could have physical causes, but all mental illnesses have physical causes... the brain is a physical organ. This kind of talk seems to be more of a defense mechanism on the part of transgendered people, who don't want it to be said that they have a mental disease because that implies that there is something wrong with Them rather than their bodies. This is, in fact, quite offensive to people with mental illness. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.51.219.91 (talk) 23:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC).

To rebutt:

• • Much mental illness has no known organic basis - in fact, all "mental illnesses" specifically excludes an organic cause for the presentation as part of the criteria - except, of course, those classified as "XXX due to an organic cause" (such as mood disorders post-stroke, for example).
  • It is true, however we have hypothesis for organic causes in some mental ilnesses, such as the dopamine hypothesis of schizophrenia, and our knowledge of how selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors affect clinical depression and anxiety disorders
  • Some mental illness is believed to be completely "psychiatric", that is, due to influences on the developing mind. I call for example here the personality disorders which present as impaired functioning, and are often considered due to improper personality and coping technique development as children

GID is a classification used mostly to talk about transsexual people, and may include some other transgender people. The argument is not so much that there is not something wrong with them (ne us) but that a psychiatric classification unnecessarily pathologises a condition that is exacerbated mostly through social structures (i.e. "But you're a WOMAN" for FTMs). It is a pity that gender dimorphisim is seen by some people with a mental illness as a mental illness, and that when we seek to define it otherwise, we offend them. But then, they (we) offend many people by our sheer insistence that we exist, so it probably can't be helped.

Cheers, Lwollert 10:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

But the research indicates transgendered people do have specific brain functioning/anatomy in line with the sex they see themselves as. Theoretically, if we were able to reassign the brain functioning (through stem cells perhaps) rather than reassigning the male/female anatomy, the person would no longer feel he/she is in the wrong body. Furthermore, there should be no stigma on classifications of mental illness, just as there is none for heart disorders, diabetes, anemia, etc. 207.237.197.103 (talk) 18:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

At least questionable

I only have second hand knowledge by a psychatrist in my family, but as far as I know, Gender Identety Disorder is a state in wich a people is mentally suffering because of his gender identity. Not the Gender Identety is the disorder, but the persons strugle with it. These people are suffering from a disorder that needs treatment. Non-heteronormative people, who don't feel their gender identity is a (psychological) problem for them are by that definition not affected by GID and therefore in no need of treatment. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 91.64.122.11 (talk) 18:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC).

• According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Gender Identity Disorder *is* a recognised psychiatric disorder. A diagnosis requires "clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational or other important areas of functioning", in other words, it's a disorder which causes significant distress - Alison^<talk> 19:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

This is running into the problem of "what is transsexualism", "what is Gender Identity Disorder" and "What is Gender Dysphoria".

Gender dysphoria is the Symptom of unhappiness with one's assigned gender. This is rarely encountered by Cisgendered people (which is perhaps more accurate than heteronormative). Transsexualism is the term introduced by Harry Benjamin in regards to people who wish to change their bodies in order to be/represent/pass as (depending on your point of view re Sex Reassignment Surgery) the opposite sex as their biological one. Gender Identity Disorder is a psychiatric classification introduced in the 1970s to include children, adolescents and adults who are not cisgendered, that is show gender behavior different to their assigned gender, or display the wish to be recognised as the opposite gender, or in the case of GIDNOS, something even vaguer relating to a "Disorder" of gender.

Even though someone may think they don't have a disorder, the classification still remains. You can not have a problem with being transsexual, but as long as you have feelings of belonging to the opposite sex, which are more or less continuous over 2 years, are not intersexed, and are impaired in your functioning in your assigned gender, you pretty much qualify under the DSM-IV. Acceptance of the state does not make it comfortable. The point of the DSM is, of course, more for having a set of criteria for equivalent research rather than just for diagnosis, so the idea is that is is independently assessed by the psychiatrist, not the patient.

Cheers, Lwollert 01:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Correct! Very well put indeed. GID (302.85) is a psychiatric classification and doesn't imply much more than that. - Alison^☺ 01:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, original post is correct. Someone has GID only if their gender identity is causing them serious distress. The final DSM-IV criterion for diagnosis is "The disturbance causes clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning." Not performing your assigned gender role would only count in the most conservative and close-minded interpretation of this; the intention is obviously to avoid diagnosing functioning, happy people with GID. So if someone is happy identifying with a gender other than their biological one, they should not be diagnosed with GID under the DSM-IV criteria. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.107.217.13 (talk) 21:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

GID and Chimerism

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

NPOV and OR?

Anyone want to discuss what they think is NPOV or OR? Phyesalis 03:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Assigned sex vs. natal sex

In reverting from an edit reflecting the ICD-10 definition of GID as "a persistent and intense distress about assigned sex," User:MarionTheLibrarian notes: "the doctors didn't >assign< the kid to have a penis, like assignment to a control group." While presence or absence of a penis is the organizing principle in CAMH ideology (i.e., Ray Blanchard saying a postoperative trans woman is "a man without a penis"), the reason "assigned sex" is more accurate scientifically is because presence or absence of a penis is not always enough information to make a sex assignment. Further, the term "sex reassignment" indicates that there was an original assignment. I propose we use the ICD-10 definition as it is more accurate and value-neutral. Thoughts? Jokestress (talk) 16:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The comment above is a confused weaving of half-truths:

• First, the ICD definition of Transsexualism pertains to anatomic sex, not assigned sex. Perhaps Jokestress is confusing ICD's definition of Transsexualism with its definition of GID of childhood.
• Second, in the CAMH GIC, sex reassignment is not used, gender reassignment is. It is gender that is assigned by society, whereas sex is assigned by nature. (Moreover, because Jokestress has never stepped foot in CAMH, there is no way for her to know what the CAMH organizing principles are anyway.)
• Next, not only is the presence or absence of a penis is precisely what is used for ascertaining the sex of a kid; having mixed sex characteristics (genital sex not matching chromosomal sex, etc.) rules out any diagnosis of GID or transsexualism.
• The ICD definition is neither more accurate nor more neutral (nor even used consistently inside itself). It is used much more rarely than is the DSM. It comes up here, however, because a portion of it (and not the rest of it) matches Jokestress point-of-view. Her suggestion pertains only to the portion that agrees with her and ignores all else. That's the very meaning of POV.

—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 16:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

We have articles on Sex reassignment surgery and Sex reassignment therapy as well as sex assignment, so it stands to reason that we should discuss this in terms of the assignment. Biologic or natal or anatomic sex are value judgments and POV terms in this case. Further, the presence of a vagina is usually used to assign a sex to girls, not an absence of a penis. That reflects the sort of clinical bias that permeates a lot of the sexology literature about this topic. Jokestress (talk) 14:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Gender identity disorder vs. transsexualism

An informal suggestion for merging this article with transsexualism has been proposed. In my opinion, this article should be about the formal diagnosis created in 1980. The article transsexualism should be be about the development of that concept as described by Hirschfeld (Die Transvestiten, 1910 and/or Die intersexuelle Konstitution, 1923) and Cauldwell (Psychopathia Transsexualis, 1949) and developed from there in the 20th century. We have precedent here for dividing demographic groups from medicalized conceptualizations, such as gay and homosexuality. The Harry Benjamin quotation which appears in the opening of both the GID and TS articles is not appropriate here, because it is not specifically about gender identity disorder, which was not a formalized diagnosis until about 15 years after he published the quoted book. Thoughts? Jokestress (talk) 14:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

New report on transsexuality from American Psychological Association

The American Psychological Association has just released the final report from it's task force on trans issues. The report is lengthy (126 pages), so adding relevant content should probably be accomplished by multiple editors. For those interested, the report is available at http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/transgender/2008TaskForceReport.pdf. Also relevant is APA's recent passage of an anti-discrimination policy regarding trans issues, the text of which is available at http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/policy/transgender.pdf.
— James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 14:45, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

A number of reports about the staggering clinical bias in this APA report are also being prepared. One key issue is their falsification of prevalence data discussed here (also available as a PDF). Jokestress (talk) 17:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

It is quite a serious charge to claim that someone (never mind a committee) has falsified data. What is the evidence that anyone willfully changed anything?
— James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 22:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Confusing and weasel-wordy sentence

"This perspective often notes that other cultures, particularly historical ones, valued gender roles that would presently suggest homosexuality or transsexuality as normal behavior." What does 'particularly historical ones' mean in this case? That most of those cultures no longer exist? That cultures that used to do so no longer do? Also, a sweeping statement like this needs some mentions of specific cultures, because some (especially a bunch of Native American ones) get this claim a lot, but inaccurately. Vultur (talk) 19:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Copyright problems with diagnostic criteria

The American Psychiatric Association has not released its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders into public domain, but claims copyright. The Wikimedia Foundation has received a letter of complaint (Ticket:2010030910040817, for those with access) about the use of their diagnostic criteria in this and a number of other articles. Currently, this content is blanked pending investigation, which will last approximately one week. Please feel free to provide input at the copyright problems board listing during that time. Individuals with access to the books would be particularly welcome in helping to conduct the investigation. Assistance developing a plan to prevent misuse of the APA's material on Wikipedia projects would also be welcome. Thank you. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Terminological quibbling re: "transgender(ed)"

I just wanted to post some kind of response to this reversion of my reversion of an edit which changed a few instances of "transgendered" to "transgender", where Joe Random IP Address stated:

"Edit directly contrary to the main authoritative style guides from GLAAD and NGLJA, editor may not like those orgs, but they have more authority than a random blog post"

I have no idea why someone would imagine that GLAAD's and NGLJA's recommendations for terminology to be used by journalists who wish to display due sensitivity in their articles would be dispositive in an article on "Gender Identity Disorder", where the language employed in the DSM-IV speaks solely of "cross-gender" identification etc.; that notwithstanding, part of my objection to changing this article to impose uniform use of "transgender" is that it may create more confusion regarding the topic, where "transgender" may be interpreted as applying to a person held to belong under the "transgender umbrella", including (for example) many drag queens and cross-dressers who do not suffer from gender dysphoria or "Gender Identity Disorder".

And to boot, there is a linguistic morass here: see the discussion on the Language Log blog in response to a post on "Transgender(ed)" made by a Professor of Linguistics on precisely this question of usage, in which he defends the use of "transgendered" from the claim that it is "grammatically incorrect" (which - Believe It Or Not! - is the basis of GLAAD's objection to it).

IMO: "Betty is transgender" just sounds wrong to me, especially when applied to someone diagnosed with GID… (though some transsexual folks strongly prefer it!). Even those expert in grammar disagree on which term is proper .-) YMWV.

It really has nothing to do with what I think of GLAAD or NGLJA. Right?

And ultimately? I feel I must cite a source noted in that dialog on "Transgender(ed)" "Why Should I Care What Color the Bikeshed Is?". -- bonze blayk (talk) 05:26, 23 January 2012 (UTC)