Jump to content

Talk:Gender dysphoria

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 24.36.89.104 (talk) at 20:47, 5 July 2006 (→Inducing gender dysphoria). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:FAOL

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)

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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gender_dysphoria&oldid=62248672"