Talk:Gender dysphoria

Proposed change

In my opinion, the first two sentences are formulated in an unnecessarily imprecise and awkward, and possibly slightly misleading, way. To start (as all sources on the topic will tell you), the distress is not directly the result of a person's assigned sex, but specifically of a mismatch, namely between the externally assigned gender and the experienced gender identity. So why not simply write that? Then, unlike what the current text suggests, the problematic sex assignment is not necessarily identical with that assigned at birth. See, for example, the famous example of "John/Joan" (see also the article on Gender identity, section Nature vs. nurture). Finally, the second sentence talks about "these cases", which lacks a clearly identified antecedent in the first sentence. Below are the current text and a proposed replacement. 50.255.8.233 (talk) 20:03, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

---

Current text:
Gender dysphoria or gender identity disorder (GID) is the dysphoria (distress) a person experiences as a result of the sex and gender they were assigned at birth. In these cases, the assigned sex and gender do not match the person's gender identity, and the person is transgender.

---

Proposed text:
Gender dysphoria or gender identity disorder (GID) is the dysphoria (distress) a person experiences as a result of a mismatch between their gender identity as personally experienced and the gender as assigned to them by their environment (family, friends, teachers, ...), usually stemming from sex assignment at birth. A person whose gender identity does not match this assigned gender is transgender.

---

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 15:09, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

How does one go about to establish a consensus? Is there something like a "Call for Consensus"? 50.255.8.233 (talk) 17:34, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

I think you made a reasonable argument. I don't think it's necessary to create a new section just to establish consensus unless that breaks some Wikipedia rule or other; we can discuss it here. As to your proposed text, I would suggest tweaking and trimming it somewhat, as follows:

---

Revised proposed text:

Gender dysphoria or gender identity disorder (GID) is the dysphoria (distress) a person experiences as a result of a mismatch between their gender identity and the gender attributed to them by others, usually stemming from sex assignment at birth. A person whose gender identity does not match this assigned gender is transgender.

---

Funcrunch (talk) 17:47, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate your effort to simplify the wording but have two minor issues with your revision. The first is that "by others" is vague—the distress arises when the transgender person experiences social pressure to conform to the attributed gender, which happens only when the "others" are an important part of their immediate environment. So I think "by their environment" is better than "by others". The second issue is that if you use "attributed" in the first sentence—which I think is better here than "assigned"—this should be echoed in the second sentence, "does not match this attributed gender".

The Great Leader of our country has decided, in His Unfathomable Wisdom, that it is better for his subjects if they cannot access Wikipedia. The method I use now to edit is only occasionally available to me; the next time I will be able to edit here may be days or even weeks from now. 50.255.8.233 (talk) 18:24, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the current wording, the reason I have stuck by "sex and gender" is because, as I stated here and here at Talk:Sex assignment, along with the assigned sex, comes the assigned gender. As we know, a person who is assigned male will usually be raised as a boy, and a person assigned female will usually be raised as a girl. Those with gender dysphoria not only express discontent with assigned sex, but also assigned gender. This is why "or" instead of "and" seemed too much like an exception to me. But then again, a transgender person might not have distress about their body; there are transgender people who state that, in terms of the sex and gender distinction, they are fine with their assigned sex because it's the assigned gender that bothers them rather their body and what others view as a male or female body. The aforementioned David Reimer case is a unique case since his original assigned sex/assigned gender was not the issue; it was the sex assignment that came afterward. And since Wikipedia currently defines sex assignment as an "at birth" matter (and so do most other sources), instead of as also being "a later" matter, I'm not sure that we should be challenging the "discontent with both the assigned sex and gender" aspect based on the Reimer case.

I think your proposed wording is too wordy. So I prefer Funcrunch's wording to yours. Stating "by environment" without "family, friends, teachers" is vaguer (more vague?) than stating "by others." And stating "family, friends, teachers" to clarify what "by environment" means is too wordy. But we also don't want people thinking that "assignment" means that anyone (such as a friend, acquaintance, etc.) can assign a sex/gender to a person (such as by simply calling the person a male or female, or a boy or a girl)...when what we are talking about is assignment at birth. So I propose dropping "as assigned to them by their environment" and "attributed to them by others." I don't think that either is needed. The following works fine: "Gender dysphoria or gender identity disorder (GID) is the dysphoria (distress) a person experiences as a result of a mismatch between their gender identity and assigned sex or gender. A person whose gender identity does not match their assigned sex or gender is transgender." This wording incorporates "or" so that "sex" and "gender" are either interpreted as synonyms or as distinct, and this covers the aforementioned exceptions. The only issue with this wording may be that it removes "at birth," but readers can click on the Sex assignment article to see "at birth," and sources don't typically support the "usually" wording. The "at birth" portion is simply part of the definition without the "usually" qualifier. This 2017 "Terminological Approaches in the European Context" source, from Cambridge Scholars Publishing, however, reports that the DSM-5 states "usually"; it says, "Individuals with gender dysphoria have a marked incongruence between the gender they have been assigned to (usually at birth, referred to as natal gender) and their experienced/expressed gender." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:13, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

If we use the terminology of "assigned gender" (as does the DSM-5 and is increasingly common), your objection of "at birth" being part of the definition (which is only true for the current version of the Sex assignment article in Wikipedia, not in general) disappears. And what better source for "usually" than the DSM-5 itself? For another source, if that should be necessary, the 2016 edition of the book Teaching for Diversity and Social Justice defines gender assignment by: "Gender assignment is the assignment of gender that typically occurs simultaneously with the assignment of sex at birth, ...". [My emphasis by underlining.] 50.255.8.233 (talk) 04:39, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

"At birth" is usually included in the definition, and this is what I stated. The aforementioned report on what the DSM-5 states also includes "at birth." The DSM-5 using the word usually does not trump the fact that the literature typically does not include the "usually" qualifier or similar. Furthermore, as been discussed times before at WP:Med, the DSM-5 does not trump what the overwhelming literature reports; it is still subject to the WP:Due weight policy, which is clear that we give most of our weight to what most of the literature states. The term assigned sex sex assignment is more prevalent in the literature than assigned gender gender assignment. So per this and what I stated above, I object to omitting it. In this case, it also makes more sense to use the name of the Wikipedia article instead of its WP:Alternative name. I stand by the proposed wording I made above, but I am willing to change it so that it includes "usually." So I now propose: "Gender dysphoria or gender identity disorder (GID) is the dysphoria (distress) a person experiences as a result of a mismatch between their gender identity and assigned sex or gender, the latter of which are usually assigned at birth." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:41, 6 August 2017 (UTC) Edit: Regarding the prevalence of terminology, regular Google and Google Books show sex assignment as more prevalent, but Google Scholar and Google Ngram are reporting differently. This is why we have WP:GOOGLEHITS and why Google Ngram (as noted in its Wikipedia article) has been criticized. Either way, I still think that "assigned sex or gender" should be retained. Google Trends shows "sex assignment" as more popular. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:31, 6 August 2017‎ (UTC)

Or: "Gender dysphoria or gender identity disorder (GID) is the dysphoria (distress) a person experiences as a result of a mismatch between their gender identity and assigned sex or gender. The assignment is usually made at birth."

But I think that my proposed wordings flow better without the "at birth" part, and it resolves your issue with the current lead giving the impression that gender dysphoria is solely an "at birth" matter. I understand that you want "assigned sex" removed as well, but I've noted why I don't agree with removing it and am suggesting compromises. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:53, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

If you compare (using Google Trends) "Assigned sex" versus "Assigned gender" you see a completely different picture. But I'm not sure how reliable this is; the flatlining looks suspicious.

My original proposal mentioned "sex assignment". The sole reason for my suggestion to remove this was to resolve the objection to the inclusion of the word "usually". At the moment, any remaining disagreement seems to be on stylistic issues. I still prefer my original proposal; although more wordy, I feel it reads more smoothly than your (Flyer22 Reborn's) alternative proposals. Actually, I think that also User:Funcrunch's revised proposed text is preferable to yours. The issues I had with it were truly minor. 50.255.8.233 (talk) 14:59, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it seems to be a stylistic issue. I still prefer my proposals. If you look at my first proposal, I only made slight alterations to Funcrunch's proposal; this includes changing "and the gender attributed to them by others" to "and assigned sex or gender" and changing "this assigned gender is transgender" to "their assigned sex or gender is transgender." And I was clear why I prefer my suggested wording. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:10, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I also cut out "usually stemming from sex assignment at birth." But as we can see, I reconsidered adding "usually" and mentioning "at birth." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:14, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

For the record, I am very much against the attempts to water down the parenthetical descriptor of dysphoria with words like "dissatisfaction" or "discomfort". TheValeyard (talk) 21:08, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

For the record I am against your use of personal attacks in your edit summaries. There is a HUGE difference between trying to water something down and using the actual, literal definition of dysphoria. We can either a) use the actual definition of dysphoria; or b) remove the parenthetical altogether. I'm removing it because apparently there is an issue with using definitions here. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 00:02, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

• Further, look at our article on dysphoria which is linked in the text, if you don't agree with dictionary and medical dictionary definitions. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 00:05, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

• A Wikipedia article is not a reliable source, el cid, but don't worry, that's a rookie mistake. We can look at actual medical sites and see how they describe it, such as WebMD which uses phrasing of "feel strongly" and "severe distress, anxiety, and depression". Or Psychology Today, which says it is "defined by strong, persistent feelings". Look at those words... "strong", "severe". Your edit chooses a watered down...one could go as far as saying milquetoast... characterization of the term that does not meet the accepted medical description. TheValeyard (talk) 00:35, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

• You're confusing the definitions of dysphoria and gender dysphoria. The issue at question was how to define dysphoria in the parenthetical, not gender dysphoria. As such, I removed 'dysphoria' altogether, it seems to be defining the concept by using its own word. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 00:41, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes agree totally. That first sentence is ridiculous. Saying that the distress comes from being "assigned" a gender at birth is insane. In the real world, people are not assigned genders at birth. They exhibit very obvious sexual characteristics (such as a penis or vagina) that correlate to their biological gender. And people recognize that. This incredibly biased language in the article makes it sound like doctors are flipping a coin, and the language also suggests that recognizing a person's gender is what's doing the harm here... which is also insane. There are SO many people who grow up crazy places like San Francisco, in an environment where they are not "gendered," and as adults they are incredibly unhappy and confused. The kids who had to go through this are just now starting to reach adulthood and I know many of them. Failing to recognize a person's gender does far more harm than recognizing it. Much better and more accurate language would be: "Gender dysphoria" is the distress a person experiences as a result of feeling that their gender does not match their biological sex. (replacing comments from User:223.206.167.52 Trackinfo (talk) 08:50, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Words in the definition of the original proposal were altered by an IP at 17:36, 9 August 2017 in this edit, completely changing the sense of the proposal. This was reverted at 00:51, 10 August 2017‎. Consider double-checking any comments you made between those two times, especially if they were a reaction to words in the original proposal, to ensure that they convey the meaning that you intended. Mathglot (talk) 02:33, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Off by two orders of magnitude?

This statement in the lead seems off by a factor of 100:

It is estimated that about 0.005% to 0.014% of people assigned male at birth and 0.002% to 0.003% of people assigned female at birth would be diagnosed with gender dysphoria, based on 2013 diagnostic criteria, though this is considered a modest underestimate.

Anyone have a copy of DSM-5 handy so they can check this? Mathglot (talk) 00:40, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

So, DSM-5 (2013) does indeed make this claim on p. 454, or one similar, in the section on "prevalence". I might quibble with the choice of words "would be diagnosed" as I don't believe the prevalence numbers are limited to those that seek treatment that might result in a diagnosis (it would be useful to settle that question) but the prevalence numbers in the lead do agree with the sentence in the article, which says, "For natal adult males, prevalence ranges from 0.005% to 0.014%, and for natal females, from 0.002% to 0.003%".

An interesting consequence of these figures, taken in conjunction with the recent Williams Institute figures on the prevalence of transgender Americans (0.6%), is that only about 1 to 3% of Americans who identify as transgender have dysphoria, or flipping it around, 97–99% do not. It is of course WP:SYNTH to combine the separate figures and thus not admissible, and we'd need an independent source that makes this claim, if we wanted to add it to the article. Mathglot (talk) 08:08, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

That would indeed be WP:SYNTH, and that figure (1 to 3%) sounds ridiculously low to me. While not all trans people experience dysphoria, dysphoria is one defining characteristic of being trans. Funcrunch (talk) 14:30, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

@Funcrunch: Well, it's a consequence of the math. Either something is off somewhere, i.e., either the DSM-5 "0.002% dysphoric" is wrong, or the Williams Institute "0.6% tg" is wrong, or we're wrong that 1 to 3% of tg's dysphoric is too low. They can't all be right. I assumed it was DSM-5, but now I really don't know. Or maybe my math is off, but I don't see it. Mathglot (talk) 09:16, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Feedback requested from WT:WPMATH and WT:WPSTAT. Mathglot (talk) 11:43, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

I too have checked the DSM figures. I haven't checked the Williams Institute figures.

As I interpret them, the DSM figures are getting at the probability P(D) of a randomly chosen person having gender dysphoria, while the Williams Institute figures are getting at the probability P(T) of a randomly chosen person being transgendered. The two are not identical. However, they can be related by Bayes theorem:

$P(T)={\frac {P(T|D)}{P(D|T)}}P(D).$

It has been claimed above that "dysphoria is one defining characteristic of being trans". This is some statement about P(T|D) and/or P(D|T). There is enough slop in the statement that I (as an ignoramus) wouldn't be surprised if two orders of magnitude could creep in. Nailing it down would require some precise clinical definitions and then data?

But since all of this is unallowable synthesis anyway, is it just idle chatter? Mgnbar (talk) 16:14, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

If indeed less than 0.02% have gender dysphoria, but more than 0.5% are transgenders, then necessarily (and without Bayes theorem or anything like that) less than 1 out of 25 transgenders have gender dysphoria; in other words, more than 96% of transgenders have no gender dysphoria. This is arithmetics, not probability. If all dysphoria are transgenders, then we just divide and get less than 1 out of 25. Otherwise, still less. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 19:55, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it is arithmetically possible for both sets of numbers to be correct. The discussion here is asking a more subtle question: How can they be so different, if it's true that "dysphoria is one defining characteristic of being trans"?

In my notation, you are effectively computing the ratio P(T|D) / P(D|T) and finding it to be 25 (say). I am dissecting this ratio into its numerator and denominator, in case that helps other editors resolve their cognitive dissonance. (In epidemiology and medical diagnosis, paradoxes often arises from confusion of conditional probabilities.)

For example, suppose that "dysphoria is one defining characteristic of being trans" means that every dysphoric person is transgendered. Then P(T|D) = 1. But suppose that P(D|T) = 0.01, because most transgendered people are not dysphoric, because there are other reasons to be transgendered. Then the ratio is 1 / 0.01 = 100 and you have your two orders of magnitude. (N.B. This is a hypothetical example, not informed by any topical knowledge of gender.)

Of course, the other explanation to consider is that the studies used different methodology, happened at different times, got different answers due to random variation, etc. In other words, maybe one or both of them is simply wrong. Mgnbar (talk) 20:38, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Mgnbar, Boris, thanks so much for your feedback. It's definitely not idle chatter, even if it would be unallowable synthesis in the article. My underlying question was essentially your "How can they be so different" point above. I'm still struggling between the possibilities of a) one of them just being wrong, vs. b) different methodologies, definitions, variation, etc. One doesn't like to assume that highly reputable organizations make an error of that, uh, magnitude, but it does happen. If one of them is wrong, it's DSM. (Note: the DSM figure wasn't 0.02% but 0.002%, but I don't know if that materially changes your argument.)

It does sometimes happen that two reliable sources sometimes disagree on matters of fact, and the tag {{Disputed inline}} exists to document such cases. Maybe this is the time to place that tag, if and until we can get some resolution of this seeming impasse. Mathglot (talk) 23:12, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Here's a "methodology/definitions" issue I hadn't considered: transition accompanied by HRT and SRS where appropriate, effectively "cures" dysphoria, which is to say, the distress goes away after such treatement in the vast majority of cases. So, in my view, it depends when you measure dysphoria, pre- or post-treatment. Perhaps the apparent contradiction in numbers lies there somewhere?

There is, of course, another possibility, namely that my assumption (and that of Funcrunch) that only a tiny percentage of trans individuals have (or had) dysphoria is wrong, but since it's part of the definition, that seems impossible. Mathglot (talk) 23:46, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

DSM doesn't seem to cite any sources. Is there an expanded DSM with sources? Boris and I have told you everything that pure math/stats can, I think. Good luck. Mgnbar (talk) 01:17, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

It is not surprising to me that the number of transgender people has suddenly and radically increased, since it is now considered acceptable or even fashionable whereas recently it was considered to be a mental illness or sexual perversion. JRSpriggs (talk) 04:46, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Mgnbar, agreed, thanks for your input, and Boris's.

One other possibility that should be kept in mind when investigating of the issue, is possible confusion of incidence vs. prevalence. In this case, I don't think it applies, because such a misunderstanding might have skewed the interpretation in the other direction; but it's nevertheless something to keep in mind when looking at this. Mathglot (talk) 05:18, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

JRSpriggs: The article Talk page is for discussions about how to improve the article and not a forum for expounding your personal opinions. Further thoughts about your tone deaf comment are in the domain of user behavior, and not germane here; you can find them at your talk page. Cordially, Mathglot (talk) 06:10, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

IP edits to lead etc.

2600:1:C577:C224:7032:F1D3:1F38:E91A, you have made significant revisions to the article and, as warned on your talk page and in edit summaries, you are currently engaged in an edit war. Please discuss your proposed changes here to get consensus from other editors before continuing. Funcrunch (talk) 05:33, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

User decided to ignore this invite, so I've reported to AN3. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:46, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

It's disruption, pure and simple. Something like this needs no discussion. I requested page protection. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:17, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

For clarification, that edit was from a different IP than the one who was edit-warring earlier. Funcrunch (talk) 19:24, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm sure it's the same editor. The person is an IP hopper. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:00, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

If they are two different people, the timing and IP ranges are suspicious. In cases like these, an IP will get so frustrated after being repeatedly reverted that they will make an edit like this one. But the IP is free to defend his/her/their name here on this talk page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:21, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Too encompassing, overlap

I think the introduction is overlapping a bit too much with transgenderism and additionally is asserting things it can't support. Correct me if i'm wrong but dysphoria is still not well understood and, as with many new disorders, the literature is constantly changing. And like many mental disorders, it is defined by its symptoms and not by its cause.

However the intro not only folds in a cause but one without proof; "as a result of the sex and gender they were assigned at birth." Confusingly, the next sentence says "these cases" as if the previous sentence is not discussing gender dysphoria in general but a subclass of gender dysphoria (considering that the sentence ends with "and the person is transgender", it sounds as if the writer is not describing gender dysphoria but transgenderism, which is discussed in the second paragraph as well).

Honestly, i think the first two paragraphs need to be entirely rewritten. I think a good replacement should contain something similar to the following:

"Gender dysphoria (formerly known as Gender Identity Disorder, or GID) is a mental disorder characterized by prolonged distress with a person's gender."

Optionally you could include a sentence like

"This may include discomfort and/or deattachment with primary and/or secondary sexual characteristics and/or discomfort with gendered perceptions of the affected person."

although its been a while since ive looked at the DSM. If anyone has a link to an online version let me know, otherwise illl probably try to rent a copy. Either way, to my knowledge a big difference between gender dysphoria and GID is the lack of an identification requirement, otherwise non-transgender sufferers would be left out.

I do think transgenderism is related enough to warrant mention on this article but im not sure where. I also think a section of theoretical causes of gender dysphoria is warranted. But to my knowledge gender dysphoria isnt a subset of transgenderism, nor visa versa, and the intro should avoid overexplaining.

Thoughts? Cgottsch (talk) 23:02, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm not completely following your line of thinking. Are you suggesting that people with gender dysphoria are not transgender? Maybe part of the misunderstanding (me not completely following what you are stating) is due to the fact that the term transgender is not always defined the same way? Its meaning can be strict (as it often is in common discourse) or it can be broad. See the Transgender article. Also see the Transsexual article. Gender dysphoria is an aspect of those topics, and those with gender dysphoria are labeled transgender. Going by some definitions/concepts of transgender, however, not all transgender people have gender dysphoria. We refrain from adding "is a mental disorder" because the DSM-5 has made an effort to de-stigmatize gender dysphoria, which is mentioned in the lead and lower in the article. I do not think your proposed wordings would be improvements, especially the second, longer one. And either way, we should be sticking to what the sources state. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:31, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

We've also refrained from using the "formerly known as gender identity disorder" wording because the term gender identity disorder is still used, although a lot less these days, and because the criteria is a bit different for gender dysphoria. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:36, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

With this edit, I changed "In these cases" to "In this case." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:46, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

I reverted an IP, per what I stated above in this section. If Cgottsch is the IP, then Cgottsch needs to sign in and make their case with WP:Reliable sources. Scholarly ones. Anyone else wanting to retain this removal, even though the transgender mention is crucial for explaining what gender dysphoria is, needs to make their case with reliable academic sources as well. No WP:Original research. Proposed alternative wording supported by one or more academic sources would also be welcomed since what significance being transgender has to gender dysphoria should be in the lead. Otherwise, the other transgender mentions in the lead are without good context. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:09, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

And if we are speaking in terms of gender dysphoria in children, it's true that the vast majority of the children cease to have gender dysphoria before adulthood and instead later identify as lesbian, gay or bisexual, but, during evaluation of the children and reports on the research, they very likely fell under under the "transgender children" category. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:29, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Gender dysphoria. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140924061804/http://admin.associationsonline.com/uploaded_files/140/files/Standards%20of%20Care%2C%20V7%20Full%20Book.pdf to http://admin.associationsonline.com/uploaded_files/140/files/Standards%20of%20Care%2C%20V7%20Full%20Book.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060604060835/http://www.transgendercare.com/guidance/resources/ictlep_soc.htm to http://www.transgendercare.com/guidance/resources/ictlep_soc.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20030812130936/http://www.lcd.gov.uk/constitution/transsex/policy.htm to http://www.lcd.gov.uk/constitution/transsex/policy.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:06, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Using Wikipedia to further political causes

It is a common tactic in political discussions to label gender dysphoria as a disease. The American Psychiatric Association clearly says otherwise in the DSM-5 when they included the emphatic statement "gender nonconformity is not in itself a mental disorder".

The APA tells us that gender dysphoria is not a disease. Saying otherwise violates the policy of No Original Research by substituting the decision of the APA with the authors research. It violates the policy of Neutral Point of View by taking up the point of view of those who want to denigrate transgender people. It violates the policy of Verifiability by stating false information.

The APA changed its diagnosis of gender dysphoria in 2013, making gender dysphoira a different diagnosis from gender identity disorder. They are not synonyms according to the APA and wikipedia is not the place to push personal views that are unsupported by the community of psychiatrists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.53.33.199 (talk) 06:24, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

User:73.53.33.199 please read the very, very long discussion at Talk:Gender_dysphoria/Archive_3#Changing_.22GID.22_to_.22gender_dysphoria.22_throughout_the_article. Jytdog (talk) 06:30, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Jytdog Please do not ever enter into an edit war with anyone who is stating their reasons with a pathetic response of "Nope", ignore the stated reasons following Wikipedia polices and threaten that person with the edit war warning. Then follow that up with pointing to a discussion that only agrees on moving the article to "Gender Dysphoria". Your response is completely unacceptable behavior. If you do not wish to discuss this subject in perpetuity then I suggest that you stop editing Wikipedia and stop watching this page specifically.

Let me know if and when you ever wish to address the valid points of wikipedia editors. I no longer expect that of you, but there is always hope. Until then, go ahead and request protection for this page. The only one who is abusing the wikipedia system here is you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.53.33.199 (talk) 07:29, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Please let us all know when you have reviewed the very long discussion linked above. Your claims of how the content came to say what it says, are incorrect. Jytdog (talk) 23:39, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

IP, if I or other editors were trying to present gender dysphoria as a disease or hammer home the idea that it is a disorder, do you think I would have made this edit which removed text that framed the condition as a psychiatric disorder? That stated, the condition is still is in a manual called the "Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders." And, yes, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) states that "gender nonconformity is not in itself a mental disorder," but it also states that "the critical element of gender dysphoria is the presence of clinically significant distress associated with the condition." The key element to a disorder (well, the main and usual key element anyway) is distress, and gender dysphoria is defined by distress. The DSM-5 renamed "gender identity disorder" to "gender dysphoria" to reduce the stigma associated with the word disorder and transgender issues. So the condition got a rename; it also got a slight change in criteria. Gender identity disorder and gender dysphoria are the same exact thing, but they are considered synonymous for the most part. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:29, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 December 2017

Sex is determined by doctors, not assigned. Every instance of "were assigned at birth" should be replaced by "have". Every instance of "assigned sex" should be replaced by "sex". Every instance of "people assigned female at birth" should be replaced by "females". Every instance of "people assigned male at birth" should be replaced by "male". Every instance of "male assigned at birth" should be replaced with "male". I hope you do understand that an article about a mental disorder is a place of science, not political correctness. I am not actively trying to be politically incorrect. Dieknon (talk) 14:08, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Sex assignment at birth is a widely used phrase throughout the literature, including medical literature. EvergreenFir (talk) 15:53, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Management section should include this

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8839957/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.104.70.92 (talk) 08:29, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Is the patient actually happy with the treatment? Or is the drug merely bludgeoning him/her into submission? JRSpriggs (talk) 09:20, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

It was published in 1996, not 1956. It is safe to assume they weren't strapped down and forced to take the drugs. They wouldn't take the drugs unless they were happy with the treatment. The article ought to include this; it might help somebody. It's also mighty interesting. 97.104.70.92 (talk) 06:48, 27 January 2018 (UTC)