Jump to content

Talk:Gender dysphoria/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Talk:Gender dysphoria

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 23:46, 31 January 2023 (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

2002/2003 discussions

Somehow this page seems to me problematic -- would you also put a page about homosexuality under the title of (and describing it as) "disorder of the sexual orientation"? --till we *) 17:09 Oct 23, 2002 (UTC)

To reply to this original point: we have gender identity disorder, and we also have transsexual - so I reckon we are addressing essentially the same phenomenon from different perspectives: the personal/political perspective and the psychiatric perspective. So I reckon we can keep this title without fear of breaking NPOV. -Martin
I think I see your point, but with around 1% to 2% of the Western world's self-identifying as homosexual, homosexuality is no longer considered a disorder. GID is much more rare, isn't it? --Ed Poor
I don't think the question about something being a disorder or not has to do something with it being rare or occuring often. It's a question of classification, and that classification doesn't enacts in a neutral room, but in a social setting full of micro-politics, interests, different points of view etc. What is a disease or disorder, and what is healthy normality, depends often on the cultural environment at the time (there is a nice book by Susan Star Leight, sp? which I don't have at hands at the moment, wherein she examines how the international disease catalogue was constructed). I agree than a mainstream view on GID could be a view that classifies it as disorder -- but this is in no way the neutral point of view (see your own user page ;-) ). So, I hope my changes are okay (and thanks for the copyediting). --till we *)
I agree with you that classifying GID as a "disorder" is not neutral -- it's definitely someone's point of view. Thanks for checking my user page; I try not to hide my own "lack of neutrality". By the way, my usual policy on editing "controversial" issues like homosexuality and so on is to limit myself to around one edit per day -- and never to engage in an edit war: I'd rather be harmonious than right (on this site, anyway). --Ed Poor

((I tried to push the article a bit more into what I would see as an neutral point of view. If it goes to far, you have to push it into the other direction. --till we *)))

Brandon Teena referred to himself as having a gender identity disorder (no, not just in the fiction film; it's on the tape of his conversation with the police officer). --KQ

I don't see your point. To come back to my homosexuality argument above, take a look at how "gay" started as an insult (and homosexuality as a disorder), coming to a positive seen self-name. It's not about the word "Gender identity disorder", but about the meaning. And I don't think Brandon Teena has seen himself as having a health problem, did he? BTW -- on GID Reform is a lot of material about Gender Idenity Disorder and why the catalogue of mental disorders should be reformed. --till we *)
That's because I wasn't responding to you; I was responding to montréalais above. --KQ
Actually, "gay" started in Victorian England as meaning "sexually loose", i.e., streetwalkers called "gay women" in My Secret Life. Homosexuality started as an immoral act or sin, graduating to a "disorder" only after the rise of psychology and psychiatry in the 20th century. Perhaps I should write more in another article about how homosexuality got declassified as a "disorder". --Ed Poor
It's a double edged sword for transsexuals. Freedom to live "as is" requires medical intervention, and in an increasingly paranoid world, opportunities to earn a livelihood are more likely for someone with a "clean" bill of mental health. Insurance coverage for services ain't gonna happen no matter what happens on the "investigational" front, so there's nothing to lose there. Fortunately, with an increasingly entrepreneurial medical community, "available at some price" doesn't imply "medically necessary". Getting declassified as a "disorder" would be worth something as a symbolic victory. I think most of the alleged discrimination and other hardship is more taboo-based than clinical-based.


I'm a bit confused about the article's use of the words 'sex' and 'gender'. Do sufferers of GID feel they have the wrong genitalia, or do they feel the gendder role society assigns them to be wrong? -- Tarquin

I'd say the "sufferers" feel they have the wrong genitalia ('sex') for the gender they think/feel they belong to, and therefore society assigns them the wrong gender roles. -- till we *)
I'd have to agree -- based on the little bit of reading I've done today. Sufferers of GID literally believe they are the opposite sex and feel that their body is the wrong sex. Hence, the two approaches to this problem: (A) change the body with surgery and drugs; or (B) re-orient sexual identity to the body. Despite my personal belief that B is always the correct choice, I intend to avoid impressing this POV onto the article, which for NPOV must only say that some advocates say A, while others say B. --Ed Poor
Genitalia is a bit simplistic. There's a lot of secondary sexual characteristics that transsexuals typically try and "fix" to be more in line with their internal self-image. There's also a lot of acquired sexual differences like flirting, hair length, certain choices of words, passive/active dichotomy, etc - Deirdre McCloskey wrote in her memoirs that she worked hard to relearn all the appropriate gestures to try and get "read" as a former man less often. -Martin
GID reminds me of SSAD, the view of the IHF and a few others that homosexuality is an inappropriate quest for love from one's own sex. The gay man is really longing for his father's parental love. --Uncle Ed
EEEEEeeeeeeeeeewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww. - Montréalais
Is SSAD what homosexuality was called back when it was in the DSM-II? If so, I've seen the comparison made before.
Curiously, the last transsexual I spoke to was happy to accept the term 'disorder' - he said it was a cruel trick of the universe to provide him with an incompatible brain and body. It was the fact it was classed as a psychiatric disorder that got him: he figured that his brain was fine, but his body was wrong, rather than the other way round. But I didn't put that into the article because I don't know how commonplace a view it is. -Martin
I gather "SSAD" may be a new coinage, perhaps even peculiar to Richard Cohen and his IHF. But I don't know for sure enough to add it to the article. For all I know, he's the only one promoting the view. Moreover, I'm not sure if it has any bearing on GID or not. Anyway, it plainly is grossing out Montréalais, so maybe I better shut up now. --Uncle Ed

Heavily edited this page, for various reasons: Gender identity disorder is not the same as transsexuality, but covers the complete transgender spektrum.

after further research, agreed: DSM-IV has this GIDNOS diagnosis (now in entry), and that's backed up by other sources. Sorry to incorrectly contradict you earlier. GID seems to still primarilly refer to TS, though. -Martin

Intersexuals are often diagnosed as suffering from gender identity disorder - after all, a lot of them will have problems with the gender assigned to them, because there is a 50% chance of missing.

Also, extremely dangerous stuff about "cure" deleted. Has been tried for 100 years. Has produced a lot of very disturbend and/or unhappy people, but only in very isolated cases, where the reason for the initial gender identiy problem came clearly from the outside, it has actually helped that person. It's about as effective and advisable as elector shocks to cure homosexuality.

I'm concerned that your changes to the treatment section are a worry in terms of a neutral point of view (NPOV). You may view such cures as extremely dangerous, but wikipedia itself can't take a position, only report the positions held by others. In this case, ideally we'd like to report the positions of reputable medical establishments, and so on. -Martin
I have merely stated what every reasonable scientific text will tell you - they don't work, but cause a lot of harm. If you are concerned about my statements, what about those that I deleted? To claim that some pseudo-christian snake-oil-selling "doctor" could "cure" gender variant children without even questioning who really needed some cure (not to mention (non-)effectiveness of this treatment) was not exactly a neutral point of view, either. And it's not neutral, either, to only report one side. Especially if it's definitely an outsider position that clearly comes from some religious point of view.

And I haven't even mentionend that in the previous version SRS was labeled a cure for transsexualism. Whoever wrote that didn't even know how to spell the word clue.

Be that as it may - if what I wrote need to be "neutralized", so be it. I know I get angry everytime I read dangerous stuff like that. (And I can back up my opinion - can they?) However - in that case it should also be remembered that the Wikipedia is also not indented to be an advertising space for religious quacks. AlexR 02:30 Dec 30, 2002 (UTC)

Every reasonable scientific text says that gender reassignment won't work? Has every scientific researcher spoken to every person who has undergone the treatment and found out that every peron who has undergone it wishes it hadn't happened? -- Zoe

Every text that deals with the matter, yes. Although having spoken with every person who ever has untergone such a treatment won't be neccessary for such a text. It would be impossible anyway. And the stories which pretend to be success stories don't talk about anything but their respective clients, either.
I have tried for years (and so have others) to find a single text or case - just one single one - where a psychological attempt to reconcile a person with their biological or assigned gender worked and where there is a follow-up that says it worked still a few years after the treatment ended. Oh yes, you can find a few (altough not very many) where such a treatment alledgedly worked - but they *all* lack a follow up.
On the other hand, many transgendered people and many intersexual people can tell you their stories of psychological or social attempts to reconcile them with their sex or assigned gender. It didn't work. And that despite the fact that most people who in the end change their gender wouldn't rather have been "cured" instead. There are easier parts in live, you know. Many have tried for every "cure" that was available to them. Didn't work. AlexR 08:53 Dec 30, 2002 (UTC)

My apologies, AlexR. I read your comments as saying that you were saying that those with GID shouldn't be operated on to change their sexes, but should be content with what they are. -- Zoe

Oops - yes, that was a rather capital misunderstanding. However, I have to admitt that I didn't exactly express myself very clearly, too. Therefore, for anybody stumbling over this in the future:

A cure for GID or transgender feelings would be able to reconcile a person with their sex or their assigned gender. Such a cure has never been found, all claims of such cases lack a follow-up. It was this claim of a cure in the article I edited I spoke out against so strongly. The moral issues of the neccessity and desirability of such a cure are pretty much the same as in the matter of curing homosexuality. Both definitely matters that do not belong into the Wikipeda.

The same version also called sexual reassignenment (surgery) another cure. It isn't. It's a way to enable people to live in the gender they feel they belong to, or their chosen gender.
It can be, however, a cure for societey, by reinforcing a binary gender system (see Heteronormativity) by leaving gender variant people exactly two choices. Again, though, this is a debate with a strong moral and/or ethnical component, and therefore should be carried out elsewhere, too. AlexR 10:15 Dec 31, 2002 (UTC)

Hmm. I reckon it's a question of perspective. If you look at GID and say "the body is correct, the mind is wrong", then SRS isn't a cure, and fixing the mind via psychotherapy would be a cure. If you look at GID and say "the mind is correct, the body is wrong", then SRS is a cure, and psychotherapy would not be. I guess because GID is a psychological term, it's the former that is the "correct" way of seeing things. -Martin
Sounds right, however, I know only very few transgendered people who see SRS as a cure. Most are also fully aware that no matter what medicine can give you, it is not a sex change. Maybe then it would more be seen as a cure. On the other hand, since an increasing number of transgendered people don't see being transgender as a disorder, well, there's no cure for it necessary. (Which doesn't mean medical treatment can't be neccessary!) That's probably the other main reason why it's hardly ever seen as a cure. In those cases, it is more seen like a wheelchair for a disabled person. Not a cure, but an often necessary instrument. Nothing more, nothing less. AlexR 19:58 Dec 31, 2002 (UTC)

The recently added external link to the article by Rekers seems to be highly biased. He seems to be a proponent of reparative therapy. Also, the articles he cites are all either very old (older than 1985), or (co-)authored by himself. It doesn't prove that he is wrong, just that he is one of very few people still clinging to outdated views on GID. IMHO, this is not a good article to link to here, at least not without an additional warning about its bias. -- Kimiko 08:18, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Hi Kimiko & Everyone, I completely agree that the link to Rekers is exceptionally biased, and very poor science. He's really just advancing a religious perspective using the language of research. But I feel it's worth keeping since people should be aware of what an argument from those who support the GID diagnosis could sound like. BTW, I did not put the Reker's link here. I think it was already put there by MyRedDice. You changed the Portrayals of Transgenderism in Psychopathology link to say it's about bias in research rather than about removal of GID. To me, these are actually the same thing, since GID is a psychopathological research category. I liked my language better since it parallels the entry for Reker's essay and uses the terminology of this entry (i.e., GID). But I won't change it back unless you or others feel it makes sense to. This raises a much bigger question I have: why is the entry for "Gender Dsyphoria" redirected to "Gender Identity Disorder?" There can be such a thing as discomfort with gender (gender dysphoria) without any implication that it's a pathology (GID). ~ Katie

I don't expect many proponents of this diagnosis to sound like Rekers though.
The genderpsychology.org link is about researchers being biased to see/describe GID in a negative light. Your description of removal of GID from the DSM does not cover the content of the essay at all. The author doesn't advocate that at all. Also, the article by Rekers is not about continued inclusion of GID in the DSM. It discusses GID of childhood from a Christian POV.
Gender dysphoria probably redirects to GID because this article comes closest to explaining what gender dysphoria is, in the absence of an actual article about that topic itself. Transgender or transsexual would also be good candidates. -- Kimiko 21:36, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)

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)

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)

Currently, the article has the follwing link:

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).

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)

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)

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)

"Assigned"

I made an edit hopefully justifying saying something other than "assigned" in the intro. I hadn't looked at the previous edits and was surprised that it was the subject of the previous three edits just hours before. Anyway, I'm not hard over on it. I do think "born with" (or some variant) is better communication though because "assigned" implies two other possible ideas, both of which are off topic:

1) The subject of ambiguity. (off topic)

2) The implication that sex roles are "assigned" by some other (valid or not valid) force such as the doctor, or "society", etc.. (controversial, i.e. "loaded", in addition to being off topic)

So, there's my argument for avoiding it. Take it or leave it.  :-)

Yours,

108.7.174.20 (talk) 20:58, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

The attending physician makes a determination at birth of the sex to be assigned to the infant...
This decision is not always correct. In its current formulation in the DSM-IV, "Gender Identity Disorder" does not apply to those diagnosed as "intersex".
However, in the forthcoming DSM-5, intersexed persons (now labeled as suffering from a "Disorder of Sexual Development", which is a terminology intersex folks generally loathe) may wind up included among those who can be diagnosed with "Gender Dysphoria", the category currently proposed to replace "Gender Identity Disorder" (with somewhat different criteria for diagnosis),
Some estimates of the prevalence of intersex conditions run as high as 2% of the population... in the majority of these cases, these infants are indeed "assigned" to a sex as a male or female based on a cursory inspection of their genitals, which inspection often fails to ascertain the presence of genetic variations (e.g., mild cases of Partial androgen insensitivity syndrome) or internal conditions that vary significantly from the usual assumption of an "obvious" male/female pure binary.
I've added an internal Wikilink to Sex assignment to the phrase assigned at birth to make it more evident why this is the standard terminology.
— thanks, - bonze blayk (talk) 05:00, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
The reason that I had the line worded as "discontent with their biological sex and/or the gender they were assigned at birth" is because sex and gender are often distinguished in the transgender community, with "sex" referring to their physical anatomy and "gender" referring to their gender identity, and also because some transgender people are fine with not going through with gender reassignment surgery (meaning they are not distressed by their physical anatomy)...as long as they "live as the gender" they identify as and are referred to as the gender they identify as.
But I understand Bonze blayk's reason for changing it to "discontent with the sex they were assigned at birth and/or the gender roles associated with that sex." However, we should ditch the "and/or" and just leave it as "and"...because, besides WP:ANDOR, it doesn't make sense to say that a person could be discontent with the sex they were assigned at birth while being content with the gender roles that are expected to go along with it. Unless, say, there are transgender people who are happy with the gender roles expected of them...but hate the fact that they are in the bodies associated with those roles. I'm also not sure that one can really be assigned gender roles, unless speaking in terms of all that comes along with being assigned a gender. Flyer22 (talk) 01:34, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
OK: First: If one does not distinguish between "sex" as the physical manifestation of biological differences relating directly to reproduction, and "gender" as a psychological state or identification which is typically associated with one's "sex" but is distinctly variable, the whole idea of a non-pathological "Gender Identity Disorder" distinct from a "Delusional Disorder" makes no sense at all. Since John Money developed the novel usage of gender to refer to psychological identification and roles, just about everyone in sexology and associated fields of psychology etc. respect this distinction - not just "the transgender community". The sadly-increasing use of the term "gender" in both popular and medical contexts in the sense of ... sex, leads to immense confusion here. (E.g., you say "all that comes along with being assigned a gender" ... do you properly mean sex? This confusion results in exasperating ambiguities in dialog on these topics!)
Second, I'd like to point out that "gender" is -not- assigned at birth... it's just assumed that the physical assessment which is invariably performed at birth is correct (with respect to the actual reproductive anatomy present), and that the person will fit comfortably into the gender roles associated with that sex... a person's gender and the "gender roles" with which they engage are not "assigned" in the same way... e.g., becoming a "tomboy" (which can be viewed as a variant "gender role", generally socially tolerated in girls in Western countries.)
Finally, with respect to the use of "and/or" here, following WP:ANDOR - "where it is important to mark an inclusive or, use x or y, or both " - would lead to the use of "discontent with the sex they were assigned at birth or the gender roles associated with that sex, or both", which seems a bit clumsy to me? (I have little patience with censorious grammarians - especially after sampling the livid condemnations of this usage served up in And/or: sorry!)
Why? As you say, Flyer22: "it doesn't make sense" ... ''Unless" - exactly right: some people who are included under the "transgender umbrella" as transsexuals are not really exactly "transgendered", but suffer from the absolutely horrible sensation that their genitalia are alien to their body... this is evidently linked to abnormalities in the development of the bodymap in the brain, so that their genitalia aren't felt as part of their body... Ramachandran has done research on this subject, and found that some 30% of post-op transsexual women do not experience the sensation of having a "phantom penis" (which you would expect to find in cases of amputation of normal appendages)... see the section in the article on Ramachandran discussing his hypothesis on the cause of apotemnophilia, which Anne Lawrence had previously likened with some types of transsexuality (see the mention which appears in the Transgender article). One might think this variant bodymap would always be associated with being severely transgendered, but... that's not necessarily the case (since the developmental stages in the fetal brain which appear to govern those things occur at different times).
Anyway: to note just a few of the problems we face in composing an accurate lede for this article, which is supposed to be about the DSM diagnosis: the criteria for GID in the DSM-IV are a bit mushy, and are under revision as well; the science is unsettled and understanding is correspondingly muddled - there are probably a range of types of GID, and Blanchard is almost certainly (to my mind) oversimplifying the matter by reducing transsexuals to only two fundamental types; it's a subject of great social and political controversy (most transsexuals loathe being required to get this diagnosis to obtain medical treatment); understanding and treatment of intersexed persons brings in a whole slew of issues with a different, yet related, slant, and yet more controversy (scientific and otherwise, and note here that many intersex persons are extremely unhappy that the DSM-V will probably allow inclusion of intersex persons among those diagnosed with "Gender Dysphoria"); normal people who are assessing "what it means" in terms of ordinary modern English usage of "gender" as "sex" become doubly befuddled by a terminological confusion on top of the difficulty cisgender persons often have in "getting it"; and yah well - no wonder it's kind of a challenge to "get it right"!
thanks! - bonze blayk (talk) 04:35, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean about my being confused about the distinction between sex and gender. My not being confused about them is why I added "sex and/or the gender." But, as you know, there are people who wouldn't state that they are being confused when used interchangeably, depending on the context. And don't forget that, on the Gender talk page, we've both argued that "gender" doesn't always mean only "social/psychological."
When I stated that I'm not "sure that one can really be assigned gender roles," I was thinking of the roles independent of someone being called a "boy" or "girl," which is why I stated "unless speaking in terms of all that comes along with being assigned a gender." And I stated that because you never see or hear "assigned gender roles." We do see and hear "assigned gender" or "assigned sex." It's described as "assigned gender" in enough scholarly contexts. Saying "assigned gender" is also often used in the transgender community because "boy" or "girl" are gender categories, while "male" or female" are sex categories. Many transgender individuals contend that they were "assigned a gender" because they were expected to "act like boys" or to "act like girls." That stated, I can of course see how "assigned sex" is accurate when describing intersex individuals, and, even in the case of some non-intersex transgender individuals, it's more accurate because they stress that chromosome makeup and/or genitals do not make them male or female, but rather what goes on in the brain does.
As for the and/or issue and my saying "Unless, say, there are transgender people who are happy with the gender roles expected of them...but hate the fact that they are in the bodies associated with those roles," thanks for explaining that to me. I suppose having an absolute "horrible sensation that their genitalia [is] alien to their body," without even being transgendered, could be described as hating "the bodies associated with those roles." I definitely have more reading to do on this subject. Do people with such a condition hate it when their bodies are acknowledged as male or female, or is it that they just hate their genitalia? If the former, how are they distinguished from a transgender person who hates it when their body is acknowledged as the sex they don't see themselves as? I reckon that it is both in some cases? Flyer22 (talk) 23:49, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Questioning the inclusion of Gender Identity Disorder within Category:Identity disorders

Since James Cantor reverted my deletion of the inclusion of "Gender Identity Disorder" within "Category:Identity disorders" with the statement that ""Gender identity disorder" is as clear an identity disorder as one gets. It's DID (formerly MPD) that fails to match the others in the cat.)", I would appreciate, James (if you don't mind the familiarity, let me know!) - first, an explanation why you have changed your attitudes towards this Wikipedia Category since you posted in Category talk:Identity disorders back in 2009:

I'm having trouble seeing "Identity disorders" as any kind of meaningful category. These three phenomena [? - it's almost impossible to backtrack here and figure out what they were - bonze blayk] are more accurately described as merely having the word "identity" in their names. (And many people who qualify for a formal diagnosis of GID would protest vehemently that they have a disorder at all.)
— James Cantor (talk) 03:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC

And secondly, I would appreciate some dialog on why a disorder related to "gender identity" would be construed as an "identity disorder", since, as I stated in my edit note: "deleting Category:Identity disorders from the list, since GID relates to "gender dysphoria" rather than being a "disorder of identity" as e.g. in the way that Dissociative Identity Disorder might be understood". I really don't see anything within the DSM-IV itself that would support this interpretation…

My understanding of the changes undertaken in the DSM-5 to change the label for GID to (first) "Gender Incongruence" and later "Gender Dysphoria" is that the change is motivated in part out of sensitivity to the issue of trans folk's objections to being diagnosed with a "Disorder", and in part because it's frequently the case that there is no disturbance of "self-identity" per se in terms of changes in self-image or an unstable self-image, especially when presenting from early childhood, and so the implication that an "Identity Disorder" is present has led to public misunderstandings of how the diagnosis should be interpreted - see Footnote #1 to the current "Rationale" section for "P 01 Gender Dysphoria in Adolescents or Adults" in the APA's DSM-5 development proposals.

Also, the edit history is relevant to my motivation for the edit removing this label: this category was added to the article by User:Stevertigo on February 1, 2009 as a "minor edit" at [4] without an edit note or discussion in Talk as to why it is appropriate. thanks, - bonze blayk (talk) 22:02, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

"James" is fine, thanks.
It isn't that I've changed my attitudes, it's that if one is going to have this category, then this certainly belongs. (Moreover, "species identity disorder" is now starting to be discussed, which has changed the context of "identity disorder" discussions.
Finally, I have nothing to do with the DSM-5, I don't know why you demand I justify anything you attach to it.
— James Cantor (talk) 22:17, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Gender Identity Disorder To Be Removed from DSM-5

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 (talk • contribs)

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

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)

"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)

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

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)

Muddled early paragraph

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]

References

  1. ^ Martin, C.L. & Ruble, D. 2004. Children's Search for Gender Cues: Cognitive Perspectives on Gender Development. Current Directions in Psychological Science. 13. pp67-70
  2. ^ Castle, Stephanie (June 4, 1994). "A coming out for those trapped in the wrong bodies". The Vancouver Sun. Retrieved 7 April 2013.
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)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gender_dysphoria/Archive_1&oldid=1136755401"