Jump to content

Talk:Gender dysphoria/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Updates required to reflect DSM-5

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

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

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

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

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

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

Etiology

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

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

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

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

A broad question on developing the article

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

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

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

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

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

Status as a disorder

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

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

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

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

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

Comparisons of Classification

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

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

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

Medical Sources

Classified as Gender Identity Disorder

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

Classified as Gender Dysphoria

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

Scholarly Works

Classified as GID

Classified as GD

Reference Books

Classified as GID

Classified as GD

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

Requested move 02 September 2013

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

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

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

Survey

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

Discussion

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

James Cantor

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

I think what you want to do is discuss here whichever material or sources you think should remain, especially since you agree that at least some of the sources didn't belong in the first place. Any material you think should be re-added can be, as soon as appropriate sources can be found. WP has no deadline, and WP:BRD and WP:AGF apply.— James Cantor (talk) 15:13, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Removing well-sourced content on the grounds that the sources can be evaluated later is not really a good approach. As you point out, WP has no deadline, and you can thus afford to work carefully and slowly and make sure the sourcing is actually unreliable. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:17, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
I contest that it was well-sourced content. Largely, these were comments by non-experts made on their various non-RS SPS's. To the extent that there was actual information removed, no one is saying what it was.— James Cantor (talk) 17:27, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
None of your changes jump out to me as objectionable. --April Arcus (talk) 15:44, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
I see that you removed Lynn Conway's article How Frequently Does Transsexualism Occur? under the rationale "(Non-RS blog)". I have restored this citation with reference to the author's substantially similar article published in the peer reviewed journal Tijdschrift voor Genderstudies, including a translated quotation of the article's findings and a pointer to the English version as the lay summary. --April Arcus (talk) 17:57, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
The 1:500 prevalence is larger than the Conway article can support. The article includes a 1:400 number specific to Thailand, with two citations to Sam Winter (Division of Learning, Development and Diversity, Faculty of Education, University of Hong Kong) [3], [4]:
The 2006 citation is a survey of 195 Thai trans women and makes no effort to estimate the overall prevalence of trans people in Thailand. The 2002 citation cites in turn a newspaper article "Roses of the North: The Katoey of Chiang Mai University" by Andrew Matzner (Bangkok Post, January 9, 1999). It apparently linkrotted around 27-28 November 2005, but the text is preserved on archive.org. Relevant quotes:
"Compared with most other Thai schools, Chiang Mai University provides a tolerant atmosphere for transgendered gay men [sic], called katoey in Thai. […] Rosepaper, formed over twenty years ago, is a "sorority" [sic] run by and for katoey. With more than one hundred members, Rosepaper is one of the largest clubs at CMU."
Matzner (1999) presents no information on the total size of CMU's student body in 1999. Winter (2002) claims the number to be 15000 without citation. Our article states the enrollment at 35,281 as of 22 Mar 2013.
Due to the age and inaccessibility of this information, I would deem the Thai numbers of Olyslager & Conway to be unreliable, and defer to their better-sourced work in the Netherlands and Belgium estimating the lower bound of prevalence to be 1:4000 (for trans men) and 1:2000 (for trans women), which I have quoted in the citation. As an alternate high-bound estimate, I'd like to cite this 2013 article from Grant High School's official magazine, which states the number of trans students to be 10, out of a total enrollment of of 1619, for a prevalence ratio of 1:162. Is this WP:OR or WP:SYN? --April Arcus (talk) 20:33, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Well done! I don't think a High School's magazine can readily be said to be an RS, however.— James Cantor (talk) 21:15, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Why not? Would a newspaper article citing the school magazine as its primary source be more reliable in some way? --April Arcus (talk) 21:27, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
The part that's hitting me as out of the ordinary is treating an individual school's self-reported rates as if it were a formal epidemiological or demographic study. I don't think the school magazine is an RS for that kind of a mainpage statement. — James Cantor (talk) 23:23, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
The wording I used is totally straightforward and does not imply a "formal epidemiological or demographic study". I have also added a citation from the American Journal of Public Health, estimating the trans population of Massachusetts to be to be 0.5% with bounds of 0.3%-0.6% at a confidence interval of 95%. --April Arcus (talk) 00:40, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
A new peer-reviewed study of New Zealand teens reports 1.2% trans, 2.5% unsure, n=8,166 --April Arcus (talk) 23:58, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Copied from Flyer22's User Talk Page

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

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

Signed,

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

Note: For the full discussion, see here. For the changes that The Mysterious El Willstro made in response to that, see here and here. And here is my tweak. I don't agree with the text that The Mysterious El Willstro added because I view it as WP:Synthesis/WP:Editorializing. He surely disagress with that, but I am done with this discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 00:59, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Signs and symptoms section needs some help

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

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

addition to diagnosis section

I wanted to add this to the diagnosis section, because I think it provides a little more information regarding what is necessary for diagnosis of the disorder.

The DSM-5 states that the at least 2 of the criteria for Gender Dysphoria must be experienced for at least 6 months duration in adolescents or adults for diagnosis. [1]

References

  1. ^ "Gender Dysphoria". DSM-5. American Psychiatric Association. Retrieved 20 April 2014.

Nvarde (talk) 03:58, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

GID and Chimerism

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

Cis gender

Cis gender is not an actual term that is widely used. I believe it should not be used in this entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.121.165.241 (talk • contribs)

The term cisgender (one word, just like transgender) is being used much more frequently as trans issues are being discussed more openly. Most people who are unfamiliar with the word cisgender are, in fact, cisgender. An encyclopedia is a place to learn and broaden one's intellectual horizons. For this reason exactly the word cisgender (as a single word) should certainly be continued to be used. More importantly, the word cisgender is important to counteract the stigmatization of transgender people as being 'other.' Instead of discussing transgender people as opposed to "normal" people, the word cisgender is important to describe people who, unlike transgender people, do not feel incongruence with the sex they were assigned at birth. The pathologization of transgender identities is perpetuated by the obscurity of the word cisgender, which would certainly not be helped by omitting it from an article of what it means to be transgender. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baeddel (talk • contribs) 06:48, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
I disagree. As you point out, Baeddel cisgenders largely are not using the word to describe or identify themselves, and as you also point out, are largely unfamiliar with the term 'cisgender'. Since the word was assigned to them by the trans community without broad range input or consent by the people it is used to describe, and 'cisgenders' do not apply the word to themselves, then it should not be used to describe that group in a broad-based article based on public consensus. Yes, it is a term used in the transgender community, but is not used by cisgenders themselves to any but a small degree. In that facet, it is not politically correct to call a group of people by a name that they had no input into, and may even reject. Since the word cisgender is not material to the article's information about GD, and in fact, is referring to people who do not have GD, it should not be included in this article unless the general public reaches a CONSENSUS of opinion to use it in describing themselves and it falls into COMMON USE. This is per Wikipedia guidelines. Awolnetdiva (talk) 07:45, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Awolnetdiva, since cisgender is a neologism, I do think that we should generally avoid that word on Wikipedia; this is per MOS:Neo and WP:Neo.
On a side note: I WP:Pinged you because you are not very active on Wikipedia and I want to make sure that you get my response. There is no need to WP:Ping me to this page, though, since this page is on my WP:Watchlist. Also, I WP:Indented Baeddel's post, and your post, in this section. Flyer22 (talk) 07:59, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
The word cisgender has been in use for over twenty years, and is now in common enough use that it's been added to the Oxford English Dictionary. Funcrunch (talk) 15:05, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
It's still a neologism, and the general public has never heard of it; when we can use clearer language, but without offending transgender people, we should. Flyer22 (talk) 22:22, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Cisgender IS the non-offensive term, adopted in part to avoid more widely used language that othered transgender people ("normal woman," "biological man", etc.). Not only is the term gaining more and more familiarity as more people use it, such that (as noted above) it is now in the OED; but it also has its own page on Wikipedia, which is linked upon first use to ensure people unfamiliar with the term have the meaning, and it is ALSO one of the category divisions used on both the side and the bottom of the page. It may be a neologism, but it's one coined out of necessity and it is quickly becoming the standard in the discussion of trans vs. non-trans identities. Ariamythe (talk) 15:37, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Ariamythe, I know why the term cisgender was adopted, but I still stand by my posts above regarding it. The average person doesn't know what it means, and, considering that I've used it in discussions when trying to educate people on transgender issues, only to have those people even more confused upon hearing it and many of them still not wanting to use it afterward, I definitely have experience with just how underused it is. As for its offensiveness, well, if you go by the current state of the Cisgender talk page, you will see some people calling the term cisgender offensive; some of them are likely WP:Trolling. And you can see from the Cisgender article, that use of the term is criticized in addition to being accepted. Flyer22 (talk) 15:49, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm not against ever using the term cisgender on Wikipedia; it's rather that I am more so for clearer language (layperson language) being used when it can be reasonably used. As someone who deals with anatomy Wikipedia articles, other medical and biological Wikipedia articles, WP:Technical, WP:Jargon and MOS:Neo are guidelines that I am often aware of. As another option, a person can also WP:Pipelink cisgender with clearer language. Flyer22 (talk) 16:06, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm openly against using the prefix cis- on this page. This is a psychological topic before it is a transexual topic, and should be handled with as objective view as possible rather than one that panders to feminism and those who hold to gender theory. I wouldn't call it a neologism so much as slang or a sort of argot. Not to mention just because it's been around a while doesn't mean it should be used in a descriptive article, especially if it can be considered polarizing and or caustic. I can cite at least a handful of people that i know who are sour about being suddenly forced to use gender/feminist theory approved terminology. Just because it is accepted by a few does not make it a standard, relevant, or appropriate. Dabrams13 (talk) 19:10, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
No, it's not merely slang or argot. Terms like "cisgender" have been used in formal psychology papers about transsexualism. Also, the Oxford English Dictionary accepts it even if you do not. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 14:44, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
The prefix cis- isn't specific to the transgender discussion or a new slang term. The prefix literally means staying the same as opposed to how 'trans-' means changing, and if we use the words transfats and cisfats or transgenesis and cisgenesis without bias, then it is only scientific to use the word cisgender to describe someone who is not transgender. Additionally, cisgender is just as appropriate and no more of a slur than the term transgender, which is widely used and understood. 9:57 AM 11 January 2017 — Preceding unsigned comment added by IGotThePower (talk • contribs) 14:57, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Gender dysphoria redirect

Hi, can someone explain why gender dysphoria redirects to gender identity disorder? They're very different topics.

Gender dysphoria refers to the distress and impairment caused by a conflict between gender identity and sex that (some) transgender people experience (APA .pdf of definitions for those unsure), while gender identity disorder is an outdated diagnosis that pathologised merely being a transgender person in the same way that being a homosexual person was previously. Gender identity disorder is no longer included in the DSM or used by the APA and many other groups.

See for example: Human rights campaign news article from December 2012

The APA's "Answers to your questions about transgender people, gender identity and gender expression": "Is being transgender a mental disorder?"

The NHS page for gender dysphoria

While the term gender identity disorder is still currently in use by some remaining groups, there is a very clear distinction between it and gender dysphoria. The term gender dysphoria has also seen extensive (and I would say growing) use over a long period of time. Surely it should be addressed separately?

If people are against a split there should definitely be changes to this article to highlight the controversy over the use of GID and shift the emphasis to gender dysphoria (probably including title), as the parts of GID not related to gender dysphoria or the history of GID specifically belong in/are already covered in Transsexualism (e.g. the section on legislation). Flower f5a9b8 (talk) 18:52, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Flower f5a9b8 (talk · contribs). The vast majority of WP:Reliable sources show that gender identity disorder and gender dysphoria are not very different topics; they are generally the same topic with different names, and, in the case of the DSM-5, a slightly different approach. Gender dysphoria is in the DSM-5, and it only differs from its previous listing of gender identity disorder by name and slightly different criteria. As you can see, we have included both titles (gender identity disorder and gender dysphoria) in the Gender identity disorder article and we address the controversy over gender identity disorder being considered a mental disorder...and the DSM-5's use of the term gender dysphoria instead of gender identity disorder because of the stigma associated with the gender identity disorder term. Refer to the #Updates required to reflect DSM-5, #The current title treats trans people's identities as a disorder and #Requested move 02 September 2013 discussions for why we treat both topics (gender identity disorder and gender dysphoria) under one title and use the gender identity disorder title for the article. Flyer22 (talk) 19:08, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. I don't agree that they are the same topic with a different name. Usage of GID implies that all transgender people have a mental disorder. You ask for reliable sources, the APA link I provided states that "identifying as transgender does not constitute a mental disorder". Since they frequently use the term gender dysphoria this is a clear example that the topic being referred to is different. To reiterate, my understanding is that gender dysphoria refers to the distress transgender individuals sometimes feel (dysphoria literally meaning the inverse of euphoria), while GID refers to being a transgender individual. I'd like to note that for this reason GID is controversial for more than just the wording of the name and also that there is very little on the topic of controversy in this article. I can only see one or two lines that barely go into any depth at all.
I'm afraid I don't see anything in the links you provide to past discussions that addresses my points. I don't believe this would fall under WP:POVFORK because proponents of GID have this same understanding of gender dysphoria. The POV split is on whether or not GID should also be used. For example during their Medical Necessity Statement WPATH refers to "the clinically significant distress and impairment known as gender dysphoria that is often associated with transsexualism". Flower f5a9b8 (talk) 20:48, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Hello again, Flower f5a9b8 (talk · contribs) (I'll cease pinging you via WP:Echo now since you'll likely check back here for replies without that). In the aforementioned discussions, others made similar comments to yours; read the The current title treats trans people's identities as a disorder discussion, if you haven't already. A similar usage of gender dysphoria is addressed there. Though the term gender dysphoria can be used without reference to any diagnosis, and sometimes to simply indicate gender variance, it is usually used in reference to a diagnosis. Not only was this term matter thoroughly discussed above, it was thoroughly discussed at WP:MED (which is noted in one or more of those linked discussions above). And the WP:Consensus that resulted from these discussions is that the terms gender identity disorder and gender dysphoria are usually used interchangeably, as shown on Google Books and on Google Scholar. The DSM-5 has taken a slightly different approach; see this source, for example. Gender dysphoria is diagnosable in the DSM-5 and is essentially the same thing as gender identity disorder, but with a different name and slightly different criteria -- by this, they do try to get across the point that gender identity disorder is not something accurately or automatically described as a mental disorder; this is clear from the Gender identity disorder article. Also see what an editor stated in the #Status as a disorder section above. We mention the APA in the Diagnosis section, and they, as in their DSM-5 text, do not state that gender dysphoria is different than, or completely different from, gender identity disorder. And for us to state that they are relaying that...it would be a violation of the WP:Synthesis policy. I reiterate that the APA are diagnosing the same condition, but in a slightly different way. In the History section, the text currently begins with: "The term gender identity disorder is an older term for the condition. Some groups, including the American Psychological Association (APA), use the term gender dysphoria."
You stated, "Usage of GID implies that all transgender people have a mental disorder." Not everyone, including not every transgender person, agrees with that. For example, some transgender people explain the matter as a disorder of the body rather than as a disorder of the mind when informing a person of GID; this argument resembles the GID as a birth defect section that is currently in the article. Yes, the term gender identity disorder is often stigmatizing, but various experts in the field of this topic do not consider it a mental disorder; like the WP:Lead (introduction) currently states: "Gender identity disorder is classified as a medical disorder by the ICD-10 CM and DSM-5 (called gender dysphoria). Many transgender people and researchers support declassification of GID because they say the diagnosis pathologizes gender variance, reinforces the binary model of gender, and can result in stigmatization of transgender individuals. The official classification of gender dysphoria as a disorder in the DSM-5 may help resolve some of these issues because gender dysphoria only pathologizes the discontent experienced as a result of gender identity issues."
Because the controversial nature of GID is addressed in the WP:Lead, the Diagnosis section, and in the Society and culture section, I don't understand your assertion "that there is very little on the topic of controversy in this article." Flyer22 (talk) 22:48, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
This whole article is transphobic. Trans people's identity isn't a disease. Just because I have a penis doesn't make me any less of a woman. 143.231.249.138 (talk) 12:40, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
It should be said that the user (143.231.249.138) is a member of congress (or their staff) who has made a number of religiously extreme comments elsewhere[1], likely saying things to make LGBT advocates seem extreme, simplistic, or out of touch with reality. There's a lot of merit behind the argument that what comprises 'woman,' 'man,' or anything in-between is not tied to primary or secondary sex characteristics, but please don't feed the congress trolls by doing it here or responding to a planted troll comment.

References

  1. ^ http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Congressional_computers_continue_to_be_used_to_vandalize_Wikipedia
--71.120.19.23 (talk) 22:08, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Is this really necessary? Perhaps I just don't have enough experience with commenting on wikipedia, but I'd hoped that people reading niche talk pages would be mostly people interested enough in self-education as to not find that kind of comment extreme, let alone out of touch with reality. Or at least to know that those beliefs are typical for an LGBT ally. I didn't interpret it as a troll at all, it's a perfectly valid comment. More than that, it's the kind of comment I'd expect to see another transgender person to make on this. --Flower f5a9b8 (talk) 02:38, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
You're not addressing my points or any of the examples I've cited. I don't have much time or energy to spare at the moment and I'm not familiar enough with the behind the scenes of wikipedia to navigate the bureaucracy, so I'm sorry if I come across as short.
>A similar usage of gender dysphoria is addressed there. Though the term gender dysphoria can be used without reference to any diagnosis, and sometimes to simply indicate gender variance, it is usually used in reference to a diagnosis.
This is completely wrong. Using dysphoria to refer to just non-conformity to gender roles would be deeply insulting. I've never seen it happen and the fact you'd suggest that definition makes me feel you don't really understand this topic much. To reiterate, gender dysphoria refers to the pain and suffering that trans individuals experience. Here's the examples I've linked before plus a few more.
"In a nod to progress, the next DSM will replace "gender identity disorder" with "gender dysphoria" as a diagnosis. The shift underscores that being transgender is not a disorder in itself: Treatment only is considered for transgender people who experience gender dysphoria — a feeling of intense distress that one's body is not consistent with the gender he or she feels they are, explains Walter Bockting, PhD, a clinical psychologist and co-director of the LGBT Health Initiative at Columbia University Medical Center."
"This mismatch between sex and gender identity can lead to distressing and uncomfortable feelings that are called gender dysphoria. Gender dysphoria is a recognised medical condition, for which treatment is sometimes appropriate. It is not a mental illness."
"Transgender identity is not a mental illness that can be cured with treatment. Rather, transgender people often experience a persistent and authentic disconnect between the sex assigned to them at birth and their internal sense of who they are. This disconnect is referred to by medical professionals as “gender dysphoria” because it can cause undue pain and distress in the lives of transgender people."
"Dysphoria, in this context, describes a variety of negative feelings that are related or connected to someone's gender or sex. Trans people who experience dysphoria may be profoundly uncomfortable with certain aspects of their bodies, particularly sex characteristics. They may also have a strong aversive reaction — perhaps sadness, or anger, or disgust — upon being called by the (inappropriate) pronouns of their birth-assigned genders, or the inappropriate-gender names that were used for them before they came out."
"Until now, the term “gender identity disorder” has been used to diagnose people who are transgender. For conservatives, this has provided rhetorical carte blanche to describe the entire trans committee as disordered, delusional, and mentally ill. In some cases, this diagnosis has even been used to discriminate against trans people, with claims that they are unfit parents or employees, as examples. The new manual will diagnose transgender people with “Gender Dysphoria,” which communicates the emotional distress that can result from “a marked incongruence between one’s experienced/expressed gender and assigned gender.” This will allow for affirmative treatment and transition care without the stigma of disorder."
Even WPATH, who still use the term GID, refer to "diagnosis and treatment to alleviate the clinically significant distress and impairment known as gender dysphoria that is often associated with transsexualism."
The book preview you linked omits pages 144 and 145, which are the first two that talk about the DSM-5. The half a page that is there mentions "a broad consensus that if the diagnosis remains in the DSM, there needs to be an overhaul of the name, criteria, and language". It seems it's for the wrong reasons (pressure to reduce stigma rather than a general agreement that pathologising transsexuality is wrong, spectacularly missing the point with "While reducing the stigmatization of mental disorders is important, arguing to remove a diagnostic category from the DSM or the mental disorders section of the ICD simply because mental disorders are stigmatized is neither compelling nor persuasive."), but it is at least movement in the right direction and consistent with what I've been saying. While searching for the missing pages I found this pdf by WPATH, which is again consistent with what I've been saying. To quote: "we recommend the term Gender Dysphoria instead, to reflect that the diagnosis should only be applicable to some transgender individuals at those times in their lives when they actually experience clinically significant distress related to incongruence."
>You stated, "Usage of GID implies that all transgender people have a mental disorder." Not everyone, including not every transgender person, agrees with that.
It strongly implies that the individual's gender identity is the thing that's disordered and mismatched, rather than their body. I don't know if you're cis or not, but if you are it would be hard to explain how damaging and insulting that could be. I'm reminded of a great line from the hitch-hiker's guide: when asked why a soldier is limping, an executive responds that "his feet are the wrong size for his shoes." The metaphor was about something else there, but it works well here (and it's amusing).
I'm not going to bother arguing about this article's bias and problems beyond talking about GID in general though, to be honest I don't really care about it. It'll fade into obscurity in time anyway once a separate gender dysphoria page is made (however long that takes) and when the remaining medical professionals who still use the term finally stop. --Flower f5a9b8 (talk) 21:34, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Flower f5a9b8, I'm somewhat at a loss about what else to state to you on this topic (except for proving that I am correct about one of the statements you made -- the one you called me "completely wrong" on -- and I'll get to that in the second paragraph); I have addressed your points, and I know that I am correct on all of what I've stated above. The move discussions, which involved discussion of the gender dysphoria redirect, closed the way that they did essentially because of what I (and others) stated above on the gender identity disorder/gender dysphoria matter. I do understand the topic of transgender and gender identity disorder issues a great deal, or else I personally would not be as involved with this article as heavily as I've been involved with it or comment on matters such as this one at the Transsexualism article, a discussion that shows transgender people can have significantly different views on transgender issues. At the Transgender and Transsexualism talk pages, we get transgender people commenting on and/or actively disagreeing with each other, about what being transgender is and what is insulting to transgender people. Your comments above are an extension of that.
I know that gender variance is commonly distinguished from gender dysphoria, and that gender variance may be categorized as normal among health professionals; if I felt that it was the same thing as gender dysphoria, I would not have indicated that they are different things (including by linking to the Gender variance article). But, as shown by this, this, this, this, this and this source, and various other sources, the term gender dysphoria is sometimes used to simply indicate gender variance, just like I stated before (and keep in mind that while I also stated that the term gender dysphoria can be used without reference to any diagnosis, I was clear to state that gender dysphoria "is usually used in reference to a diagnosis."); that first source, Gender Identity Research and Education Society, (call it reliable or unreliable), while indicating that the experience of gender variance is the same as experiencing gender dysphoria, echoes your sentiment that gender dysphoria indicates unhappiness; the second source criticizes use of the terms gender dysphoria or GID to simply refer to gender variant people. Such a reference (using the term gender dysphoria or gender identity disorder to simply refer to a gender variant person) has happened often, as is also indicated by the third source, which is why I'm surprised that you have never seen it happen that someone is referred to as gender dysphoric simply for being gender variant, and yet you assign such a thing as happening with the term gender identity disorder and a gender variant or transgender person; I suppose that has to do with your view of separating the terms gender identity disorder and gender dysphoria.
This source, Encyclopedia of Gender and Society, Volume 1 (page 355), states, "Gender dysphoria is discomfort or dissatisfaction with one's gender.", and also states that it "is an umbrella term used to refer both transvestites and transgendered persons." It gives a definition that is consistent with defining gender dysphoria in the same way that gender identity disorder is defined, and it extends the definition to transvestites and other transgender people, while also stating that a woman dressing in men's clothing is not socially constructed as gender dysphoric, but rather as gender variant. (Note that I stated "other transgender people" with regard to transvestites because transvestites, as the Transgender article also addresses, are included in the definition of transgender; gender variant people in general are often included in the definition of transgender). And, of course, gender variance usually simply means being atypical regarding gender. This source, The Transgender Studies Reader source (page 272), states that "Gender dysphoria is a technical term for individuals who are dissatisfied with the gender to which they were assigned (usually at birth) on the basis of their anatomical sex." That definition also matches the diagnosis of gender identity disorder. The author goes on to state: "Within the psychological and medical communities, gender dysphoria is considered a disorder, as were lesbianism and male homosexuality before the American Psychiatric Association removed them from its official list of mental diseases in 1973. I am not using gender dysphoria in the clinical sense, with its connotations of neurosis or psychological impairment. I am using it as a purely descriptive term for persons who have gender feelings and identities that are at odds with their assigned gender status or their physical bodies." Going to the third source (page 469), following "Gender Identity Research and Education Society" as the first source, it states: "The term gender dysphoria, replacing the former term GID, was selected with deliberate consideration of the stigma attached to the word disorder. Nevertheless, the diagnosis of gender dysphoria is controversial among clinicians and transgender advocates."
Flower f5a9b8, you continue to reach conclusions that the sources do not state, which is a form of WP:Synthesis. So again, I'm somewhat at a loss about what to state to you on this matter. I stated above that the terms gender identity disorder and gender dysphoria are usually used interchangeably, and I pointed to WP:Reliable sources that show this to be the case; you have not proven that this is not the case. If it were not the case, both of these terms -- gender identity disorder and gender dysphoria -- would not be regulated to this Gender identity disorder article as far as article titles go, after much discussion about that matter. Unless a need is shown to have a Gender dysphoria article as separate from the Gender identity disorder article, the terms will continue to only have one page devoted to them. Furthermore, if we don't have gender dysphoria redirect to the Gender identity disorder article, what would be the better place to redirect it to? I don't see a better place. Flyer22 (talk) 04:22, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
>matters such as this one at the Transsexualism article, a discussion that shows transgender people can have significantly different views on transgender issues
It's generally accepted that non-op transgender people exist and aren't any "less transgender" because of it. The distinction pre/post/non-op is common. Maybe not in the medical community yet, but in the transgender community it is. It's true that there are radicals in the community who claim things like non-binary identities aren't valid, or exclude non-op people and/or people with less severe dysphoria, or deny/misunderstand the existence/significance of gender identity altogether. There's also another end of the spectrum which includes current unfortunate tumblr trends, such as people claiming to be transgender because they "identify" (I don't think they know what that means) as a gender by choice. These views generally fall apart under criticism though and aren't accepted except, from what I've seen, in small sub-communities.
Where previously you said that "the term gender dysphoria can be used without reference to any diagnosis, and sometimes to simply indicate gender variance", you now say "if I felt that [gender variance] was the same thing as gender dysphoria, I would not have indicated that they are different things". Bit confusing.
>that first source, Gender Identity Research and Education Society, (call it reliable or unreliable), while indicating that the experience of gender variance is the same as experiencing gender dysphoria, echoes your sentiment that gender dysphoria indicates unhappiness
I'd certainly call it reliable, I think it's a really good paper. However it's using a different definition of gender variance to the one commonly used outside the medical community (see for example the wikipedia article on gender variance you linked). As you say they use the definition for gender dysphoria I've been talking about which defines it as, basically, a negative experience. It should be obvious they're using a different definition for gender variant because of all the people who are gender variant - in the sense of not conforming to societal gender roles - who do not experience this. Plenty of cis people have interests, aspects of self-expression etc. that don't conform to current cultural gender norms. Probably most do in some way. I mean, even post-transition trans people have things like that too, that don't conform to norms about their gender identity. The article even says in the first line that "gender variance is an atypical development in the relationship between the gender identity and the visible sex of an individual", so it's clearly not referring to the definition either of us was talking about. I hadn't heard of this usage before, which is why I was confused when you stated dysphoria could refer to gender variance. However, I don't understand why you linked the wiki page on gender variance when you did, considering it's about the definition that refers to "behaviour or gender expression that does not match gender norms" (to quote the first line). I also don't understand why you didn't clear up my confusion when I stated that "using dysphoria to refer to just non-conformity to gender roles would be deeply insulting", if you knew it was a different definition. Why not just agree and explain the definition, if you understood it?
I also disagree with your interpretation that it "[indicates] that the experience of gender variance is the same as experiencing gender dysphoria". To quote, "there is a small subgroup of individuals who experience gender variance. The personal experience of this state is sometimes known as gender dysphoria (dysphoria means ‘unhappiness’)". So rather they say that there are people who experience "an atypical development in the relationship between the gender identity and the visible sex of an individual", and that the personal experience of that state is sometimes known gender dysphoria. It's a minor thing but it clarifies that my definition of gender dysphoria does match theirs.
Also as a small side note, I wanted to thank you for linking this article because of this passage: "Gender variance, whilst it may be associated with a great deal of stress, is not caused by psychopathology or mental illness, rather, the stress may be understood to be a normal response to the internal biological conflict. The condition cannot be overcome by psychological or psychiatric treatments alone" and this passage: "Some trans people say that, until the process of transition is complete, they cannot tell what their future sexual preference will be... During the process of transition, the issue of sexual orientation may be of little interest to the individual concerned, since the issue of gender identity is uppermost in his or her mind.". A normal response is what I have personally come to consider it, and I have the same experiences with my sexual orientation. I hadn't seen those things put in exactly those terms so clearly in a medical paper before though, so thanks. I will probably be sharing this webpage :)
The second source states that "In the discussion concerning the pros and the cons of retaining the GID in DSM-5, the workgroup decided to retain the diagnosis, but to replace the name of the diagnosis by Gender Dysphoria, which implies that the identity is no longer considered disordered, but that a diagnosis is needed for those transgender individuals who, at some point in their lives experience clinically significant distress associated with their gender". This again reinforces what I've been saying, gender dysphoria is very different to GID. Gender dysphoria doesn't pathologise "merely being a transgender person", only "the distress and impairment caused by a conflict between gender identity and sex", to quote from my original first paragraph. These quotes mirror very closely the wording in the section above from your source: "the identity is no longer considered disordered" and (referring to needing a diagnosis for people who experience) "clinically significant distress associated with their gender".
I can't view your third source so I'll take your word for it that it's an example of "using the term gender dysphoria or gender identity disorder to simply refer to a gender variant person". If in this context gender variance is "an atypical development in the relationship between the gender identity and the visible sex of an individual", yeah, that makes sense. They'll have some degree of dysphoria and would probably be classified as suffering from GID (if the psychiatrist got it right). The terms having overlap in this case doesn't make them the same though.
For four, I think you meant this link, yours is broken. It does group together gender dysphoria, gender variant and gender identity disorder, but also transsexual and even transvestite, as part of just an overview of "medicalized understanding of gender variance". I really hope you wouldn't equate transvestism to transsexuality. Gender dysphoria is also referred to later as "persistent discomfort with gender role or identity", which is a very crude way of putting it, but still clearly distinct from the other items in the list.
Your fifth source is another that supports my argument? "Gender dysphoria is defined as discomfort with one's anatomical body, particularly one's genitalia and secondary sex characteristics". I don't even see what bit you linked it for to support your argument, unless it's just that gender dysphoria and gender variance are in the same list of potential reasons to seek treatment? That doesn't mean they're the same any more than it means they're the same as the third reason, "family related issues", i.e. not at all.
Sixth one is weird. I think it's too old to be relevant now, it talks about things like "deeper consideration of the relationship between gender variance and homosexuality", when it's understood these days that there is no relationship between sexual orientation and gender identity. The studies it references are older still, the specific reference to gender dysphoria is in a quote from a 1992 study. I think in a field that has changed so rapidly and that has historically been so badly misunderstood, this source doesn't really count for much.
>I'm surprised that you have never seen it happen that someone is referred to as gender dysphoric simply for being gender variant, and yet you assign such a thing as happening with the term gender identity disorder and a gender variant or transgender person; I suppose that has to do with your view of separating the terms gender identity disorder and gender dysphoria.
I'm not certain what this means. I say people are referred to by GID simply for being gender variant and transgender? Well yeah... Transgender and gender variant as in the sense of having a mismatched assigned gender and gender identity; AKA transsexuality (although not exactly the same). GID pathologises this, and not just because of the name. Transsexualism has even been the name of the diagnosis; the history behind the word transsexual is part of the reason why some people don't use it. Maybe I've just misunderstood you, or do you really disagree with some of this?
>This source, Encyclopedia of Gender and Society, Volume 1 (page 355), states, "Gender dysphoria is discomfort or dissatisfaction with one's gender.", and also states that it "is an umbrella term used to refer both transvestites and transgendered persons."
Are these two different definitions? I can't see this book, but the quote wouldn't make sense otherwise. Obviously, by definition, transvestites do not experience discomfort and neither do crossdressers (assuming it's using your broad definition of transgender). The two quoted sections are incompatible unless there's something important in the middle you've omitted. Mind you it is an encyclopedia not directly about transsexuality, from the description it looks like it's mostly interested in gender as a social/cultural thing and not gender identity, so I wouldn't be terribly surprised if it just misunderstood a widely misunderstood field.
>Note that I stated "other transgender people" with regard to transvestites because transvestites, as the Transgender article also addresses, are included in the definition of transgender; gender variant people in general are often included in the definition of transgender
This is highly contentious. There is no consensus on wikipedia, for example the gender variance article states "The word transgender is sometimes used interchangeably with gender-variant, but usually has a narrower meaning and somewhat different connotations, including a non-identification with the gender assigned at birth.". Personally I agree with this quoted passage and think it's absurd to include cisgender people in "transgender" (surely they should be antonyms, or I'll have to start referring to myself as "non-cisgender", which really would be amusing. I'm not serious about using it, but it's funny how much sense it would make because uninformed people often complain that cisgender should just be "non-transgender"). This definition of transgender is widely used. However, again, this isn't something I'm really interested in discussing and I'd rather not get sidetracked so I won't state my full reasoning. It's not like a consensus could be reached on wikipedia anyway. Also you should note that transvestite is an outdated term when referring to "a woman dressing in men's clothing" and is generally considered pejorative now, consider "cross-dresser" instead. Unless of course you're referring to someone who is personally ok with that label, as is the case with "tranny" or "faggot" for example. Transvestite should generally refer only to someone who experiences sexual arousal from cross-dressing, which is obviously very different to and important to distinguish from someone cross-dressing for fun or a transgender person wearing clothes that match their gender identity rather than their assigned gender.
Your final source is really very odd... It's a kind of take on the history of feminism as it relates to gender variant people - as in the non-clinical definition: behaviour or gender expression that does not match gender norms - using your broad definition of transgender people? It doesn't seem to be about people who don't identify as their assigned gender or have much understanding of them. There's sections with names like "Are lesbians women" (yes? This borders on TERF thinking, gender identity =/= sociocultural gender norms). But well, whatever, I don't think it's much of a source but even if it is I feel it's a bit irrelevant at this stage.
My conclusion is that gender dysphoria is defined in a certain way (a variety of negative feelings, a disconnect, emotional distress, all resulting from a mismatch), and I count eleven links that support this definition (four of which were yours): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11. I don't understand why any of them wouldn't support this definition and after reading it I don't see how this falls under WP:Synthesis for any of them. In addition, to quote "What SYNTH is not": The policy does not forbid inferences on talk pages that would be SYNTH if made in an article. Drawing non-trivial inferences is the heart of argument, and on talk pages, you're supposed to present arguments. I believe this means I can infer that since the above definition of gender dysphoria would not be applicable to GID, gender dysphoria is something separate. Which is honestly not exactly a huge logical jump anyway.
>if we don't have gender dysphoria redirect to the Gender identity disorder article, what would be the better place to redirect it to? I don't see a better place.
I never suggested redirecting it to somewhere else. I've said from the start that it should have its own page or this page should be changed.
Sorry about the length, apparently I do have the time. --Flower f5a9b8 (talk) 02:19, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Regarding your post about the transgender community, clearly pre-op transgender people are transgender. As you likely know, many transgender people don't even go through with any type of medical operation. I'm going to take a lot of what you stated about the transgender community as your personal opinion, since I know how much opinions on transgender topics in the transgender community can vary.
I don't see how my stating "the term gender dysphoria can be used without reference to any diagnosis, and sometimes to simply indicate gender variance" and then stating "if I felt that [gender variance] was the same thing as gender dysphoria, I would not have indicated that they are different things" is a "[b]it confusing"; I believe that I explained myself well on those matters above. Stating that gender dysphoria is "sometimes [used] to simply indicate gender variance" is not the same thing as stating that I believe that gender dysphoria and gender variance are the same thing. You stated, "However [the Gender Identity Research and Education Society source is] using a different definition of gender variance to the one commonly used outside the medical community." You mean that you think that the medical community doesn't usually mix up the terms gender dysphoria and gender variance? If so, perhaps not usually, but I've seen the mixup (interchangeability matter) enough among scholarly sources, which is why I pointed to examples. You stated "It should be obvious [that the Gender Identity Research and Education Society is] using a different definition for gender variant" and "so it's clearly not referring to the definition either of us was talking about." You also stated, "I hadn't heard of this usage before, which is why I was confused when you stated dysphoria could refer to gender variance. However, I don't understand why you linked the wiki page on gender variance when you did, considering it's about the definition that refers to 'behaviour or gender expression that does not match gender norms' (to quote the first line). I also don't understand why you didn't clear up my confusion when I stated that 'using dysphoria to refer to just non-conformity to gender roles would be deeply insulting', if you knew it was a different definition. Why not just agree and explain the definition, if you understood it?" .... But what makes you think that I was talking about gender dysphoria in a purely medical context, especially since I stated, "Though the term gender dysphoria can be used without reference to any diagnosis, and sometimes to simply indicate gender variance, it is usually used in reference to a diagnosis."? I'm also thinking that you didn't assess the Gender variance article much past the lead, since it's about more than just "behaviour or gender expression that does not match gender norms of male and female." It goes into noting the fact that the word transgender is sometimes used interchangeably with gender-variant, and it notes various other topics, including GID. I'm confused by your confusion of my supposed confusion. I did take into account the same interpretation you got from the Gender Identity Research and Education Society's comment on the gender variance/gender dysphoria passage I cited (meaning I considered that interpretation as well), but I went with what seemed (to me) just as likely an interpretation; like you stated, "It's a minor thing."
You stated, "I really hope you wouldn't equate transvestism to transsexuality. By "transsexuality," I take it you mean "transsexualism," which is where transsexuality redirects to, and not "transgender"? I ask because, as shown at the Transgender article, transvestism is considered an aspect of transgender; and that matter has been debated by editors at the Transgender talk page.
You stated, "Sixth one is weird. I think it's too old to be relevant now, it talks about things like 'deeper consideration of the relationship between gender variance and homosexuality', when it's understood these days that there is no relationship between sexual orientation and gender identity." Like the Gender variance and Childhood gender nonconformity articles relay, "In some studies, a majority of those who identify as gay or lesbian self-report being gender non-conforming as children. However, the accuracy of these studies has been questioned from within the academic community." Research on this particular matter is not yet settled. Indeed, and as indicated by psychologist/sexologist James Cantor, it seems that gender nonconformity is far more prevalent among people who later turn out to be gay or lesbian or bisexual-identified than those who turn out to be heterosexual. So I take it that this is what the source means by "relationship between gender variance and homosexuality." Either way, you are correct that the source is pointing to outdated data, and so I am willing disregard it.
Above, I used the sources that I did to support two matters: The first of those matters is that gender identity disorder and gender dysphoria usually mean the same thing and that the DSM-5 listing of gender dysphoria is the same as a diagnosis for gender identity disorder, except for a different name and slightly different criteria. The second of those matters was to show that the term gender dysphoria is sometimes used to simply indicate gender variance. The sources, though clearly not all of them in both cases, support me on those things. I'm not sure why there are two or a few sources you can't see (except for my broken link), but as for the Encyclopedia of Gender and Society, Volume 1 (page 355) source, where it states "Gender dysphoria is discomfort or dissatisfaction with one's gender." and also states that it "is an umbrella term used to refer both transvestites and transgendered persons," yes, it gives two different definitions and then that bit about a woman dressing in men's clothing not being socially constructed as gender dysphoric, but rather as gender variant.
You stated that my line of "because transvestites, as the Transgender article also addresses, are included in the definition of transgender; gender variant people in general are often included in the definition of transgender" is highly contentious. Were you only referring to the sometimes inclusion of gender variant people in the transgender category? Or do you also object to transvestites being included in the definition of transgender? Whatever the case, as noted above by referring to transvestism and the Transgender talk page, I'm clearly aware that it's contentious among the transgender community to include transvestism as transgender. Yes, I'm also aware that "transvestite" can be considered a pejorative, but it's a term used in the some of the sources above, and in sources at the Transgender article, and I wanted to be clear about what I am referring to with regard to that topic/those sources for anyone reading this discussion. Also, we have a Transvestism and a Cross-dressing Wikipedia article. Wikipedia can come to WP:Consensus, just like it did regarding the move matter of the Gender identity disorder article; just not always.
Like I relayed above, "I'm somewhat at a loss about what to state to you on this matter. I stated above that the terms gender identity disorder and gender dysphoria are usually used interchangeably, and I pointed to WP:Reliable sources that show this to be the case; you have not proven that this is not the case. If it were not the case, both of these terms -- gender identity disorder and gender dysphoria -- would not be regulated to this Gender identity disorder article as far as article titles go, after much discussion about that matter. Unless a need is shown to have a Gender dysphoria article as separate from the Gender identity disorder article, the terms will continue to only have one page devoted to them."
That (the latest seventh paragraph of mine) is how I still feel. You are asking for "Gender identity disorder" and "Gender dysphoria" to be two separate Wikipedia articles when the terms are generally (note: generally, not always) defined as the same thing in the literature; I've pointed to sources above showing that definitional matter to be the case. The lead currently states, "Gender identity disorder (GID) or gender dysphoria is the formal diagnosis used by psychologists and physicians to describe people who experience significant dysphoria (discontent) with the sex they were assigned at birth and/or the gender roles associated with that sex." That is true of both terms, as various WP:Reliable sources show. You keep stating that "gender dysphoria is very different to GID. Gender dysphoria doesn't pathologise 'merely being a transgender person', only 'the distress and impairment caused by a conflict between gender identity and sex'." That is what I mean by WP:Synthesis -- you asserting that the terms are very different and presenting matters as though the terms are usually referring to different things in the literature. I am well aware that the WP:Synthesis policy, like it states in its lead, does not apply to Wikipedia talk pages (I've recently pointed that out elsewhere). But it would be WP:Synthesis to state in the Gender identity disorder article or elsewhere on Wikipedia that "gender dysphoria is very different to GID." You state that "gender dysphoria is very different to GID," but WP:Reliable sources don't show that or distinguish the terms in those ways. They either define gender identity disorder or gender dysphoria the same, similarly or simply state that gender dysphoria is the same thing as gender identity disorder in the DSM-5 but with a different name and slightly different criteria. The DSM-5 is not the only medical source that uses the term gender dysphoria. And, for years, and as still shown by various WP:Reliable sources, gender identity disorder and gender dysphoria are used interchangeably. You find a lot of my interpretations on these matters odd; I find a lot of your interpretations on these matters odd; so we are at a stalemate. I don't have the patience to work out all of or the majority of our differences on this topic, especially with huge posts, and considering they likely will not be worked out and this section will remain only a very long section of debates. So since you think that "[Gender dysphoria] should have its own [Wikipedia] page or [that the Gender identity disorder page] should be changed [to the Gender dysphoria title]" or in some way that I find at odds with what many sources state on this mater," then I suggest you take the matter to the WP:MED talk page (like I did a year ago when seeking opinions on such matters) or propose yet another official WP:Requested move discussion. But if you go the move discussion route, I suggest you re-read over why WP:Consensus was against this article being moved to Gender dysphoria. Flyer22 (talk) 05:42, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

It's very important when we're editing to make sure that we reflect reliable sources accurately, and avoid imparting our own feelings about how something should be into the article. I reviewed some of the reliable sources, such as the APA, Medline and the DSM and it appears the subject of this article is indicated by a term in transition. According to the sourcing, "Gender identity disorder" in scholarly texts is being replaced by "Gender dysphoria" but the sources are clear to indicate they are referring to the same phonomenon, and so per the sourcing I do not see a case for splitting this article into two. Also, I saw some very poor-quality sources provided; they do no factor in this discussion. Zad68 17:04, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Zad68, by "poor sources," you mean some sources that Flower f5a9b8 provided, some sources on both of our sides (such as the gires.org.uk/Gender Identity Research and Education Society source that I provided above as an example) and/or sources you came across on your own? Flyer22 (talk) 18:24, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Flyer I wasn't really paying close attention as to "whose" sources, but transwhat.org appears to be a self-published source, and yes gires.org appears to be the website of an advocacy group, so I would not weight those sources too highly. Certainly the case can be made to avoid splitting this article by using only high-quality, authoritative sources (as mentioned) so there shouldn't be a need to look to websites like those. Zad68 19:55, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Zad68, yes, when citing the gires.org.uk source above (my "04:22, 19 July 2014 (UTC)" post), I stated "(call it reliable or unreliable)"; it certainly looks unreliable as far as WP:Reliable sources go. But I cited it to counter an assertion made by Flower f5a9b8, and made sure to provide better sources to counter the assertion. Anyway, we're in agreement on this splitting and sourcing matter. Flyer22 (talk) 20:13, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes indeed and thanks for pointing that out. Zad68 20:25, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi Zad, thanks for contributing. As Flyer just mentioned the page we're discussing has as its first sentence: "Gender dysphoria or gender identity disorder (GID) is the former diagnosis used by psychologists and physicians to describe people who experience significant dysphoria (discontent) with the sex they were assigned at birth and/or the gender roles associated with that sex". The dysphoria being refered to is surely gender dysphoria, which means it's including one of the terms it's defining in its definition. To be accurate I argue it would read "gender identity disorder (GID) is the former diagnosis used by psychologists and physicians to describe people who experience significant gender dysphoria".
I don't believe the terms are in transition, they refer to things that are really very different (albeit perhaps subtlely). In contrast to the definition of GID above (which I think typically extends to include anyone who does not identify as their assigned gender), gender dysphoria refers to the distress and impairment those people experience at some point in their lives. This definition has been backed up by reputable sources I've provided such as the APA both here and here (see under treatment issues), the UK NHS and the World Professional Association for Transgender Health both here, where they refer to gender dysphoria seperately to GID in passing (see "clinically significant distress and impairment known as gender dysphoria that is often associated with transsexualism"), and their response of the change of diagnosis in the DSM 5 here (.pdf). I'm sorry if the non-scientific sources I previously included aren't relevant, I wanted to show that the term gender dysphoria is also used in the transgender community with the same meaning.
I looked up medline and while it does define gender dysphoria in the way you have both been describing, in the same way as GID, there is a great deal on the page that is questionable or straight up wrong. The opening states "The person is very uncomfortable with the gender they were born as" showing a fundamental lack of understanding about the difference between gender and sex (something of vital importance when discussing transgender issues). The page also states that the "condition" may affect the individual's choice of partners, which is incorrect. In fact the whole idea that the dysphoria/GID affects any of the things they mention is misunderstood. Being transgender in itself doesn't change a person's self-identity. Gender identity is a fundamental part of everyone's self-identity from a young age, why would it affect transgender people any more than it affects cisgender people? In fact logically you'd expect it to affect trans people's behaviour and development less if they're in denial about it, can't come out or aren't aware of it yet. The icing on the cake is "The feeling of being in the body of the "wrong" gender must last for at least 2 years for this diagnosis to be made", which is frankly just complete bullshit. It shows very clearly how little whoever wrote that understands about transgender people.
Flyer, for the record you misunderstood my comment about the transgender community; I wasn't excluding non-op trans people, quite the opposite. To reiterate I think they're generally accepted and not considered any "less trans" within the community (from what I've seen). I was only using distinction in the sense of catergorising, separating. Also, like I've said before I really don't like the idea of including cis people in the term transgender. That's especially the case with transvestites since transgender people are widely misunderstood as just people dressing up for sexual reasons. It makes me feel like there aren't any good terms for people like me. So if you could just humour me for this conversation and let me use the term transgender to refer to people whose gender identity doesn't match their assigned gender, I'd really appreciate that. I used "transsexuality" in the case you quoted very reluctantly and for want of a better term, but you still didn't understand me. --Flower f5a9b8 (talk) 07:51, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Flower f5a9b8, I just now saw this post by you. We're at an impasse, a generally "agree to disagree" stage. The next step is WP:Redirects for discussion, as stated below. Flyer22 (talk) 04:13, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that does seem like a good idea. I don't think we're at an impasse though, reading the new thread clears things up on my end. On reflection I agree as suggested by April that it would be better to focus on gender dysphoria as the community understands it, because it seems there is division in the medical community over the definition of gender dysphoria. While some such as the APA, the UK NHS and WPATH apparently (from my examples) use it as it's understood in the community to refer to an experience of distress and impairment, others are sticking to the definition of GID and using gender dysphoria as a replacement in name only. Doc James linked a source in the new thread that is consistent with the Medline source provided earlier here; it uses a similar definition to GID. So, I do see where you were coming from and agree with you on the general point now: as medical diagnoses, gender dysphoria and GID cannot be distinguished reliably. Maybe, as Zad suggested, the term is in transition. --Flower f5a9b8 (talk) 22:53, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Flower f5a9b8, and especially for being reasonable and generally pleasant throughout this discussion and for not, like an editor in the aforementioned WP:Redirect for discussion, throwing unfounded insinuations my way about my supposed transphobia. If I have a bias on this matter, it's a Wikipedia policy or guideline bias or a medical bias. I know that I can sometimes give especial weight to a medical topic, meaning more weight to that than to the social, non-medical aspect of that topic. I agree that how the transgender community defines gender dysphoria is very important; I just couldn't reconcile that with having both a Gender identity disorder and Gender dysphoria article. But I noted in the WP:Redirect for discussion that if a Gender dysphoria article is well done, and seems distinct enough from the Gender identity disorder article, I could support its creation. Flyer22 (talk) 23:11, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Drawing on the conversation we had surrounding last year's move request, I have created a disambiguation page at Gender dysphoria articulating the difference between the medical diagnosis and the subjective experience. I strongly encourage any editor who wants to write a full article on the subjective experience of gender dysphoria (as distinct from this medically oriented article) to do so. --April Arcus (talk) 03:33, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

And I reverted, per the discussion above. Except for WP:Primary topic, this is not WP:Disambiguation material. The WP:Primary topic for this term is the Gender identity disorder article. WP:Consensus has been clear on this matter. And WP:Consensus is policy. Going around that WP:Consensus by creating a WP:Disambiguation page in a case it does not apply to is not productive. The way to settle the matter is taking it to WP:Redirects for discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 03:50, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Done --April Arcus (talk) 04:09, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
I'll alert WP:Med to the discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 04:13, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Terrific. I'll mention it to WP:LGBT. --April Arcus (talk) 04:27, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Section break

I think it's pertinent to revisit this issue, given some of the discussion at the transsexualism talk page, relating to changing transsexualism to transsexual, for wp:commonname and [wp:povtitle]] reasons. Similarly the APA has changed the GID diagnosis to gender dysphoria, and there is no ICD diagnosis of GID. They're still running with transsexualism, but are likely to go straight to dysphoria or other non-stigmatising language with the upcoming ICD-11.

After all, if we organised homosexuality to redirect to sexual inversion, we'd be strung up.Chocolate vittles (talk) 10:27, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Chocolate vittles, I added a "Section break" heading above your post because this discussion is very long and has been stale since (or rather ended in) August 2014. As for your commentary, if WP:Common name applies in this case, then gender identity disorder is the WP:Common name, as has been discussed to death at this talk page; it is also still the most common medical name for the diagnosis, so Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#Article titles also applies. And stating that this is a WP:POVTITLE case can be argued either way, since arguing that we should move the article to Gender dysphoria because the term gender dysphoria is less stigmatizing than gender identity disorder is POV. And like WP:POVTITLE states, "When the subject of an article is referred to mainly by a single common name, as evidenced through usage in a significant majority of English-language reliable sources, Wikipedia generally follows the sources and uses that name as its article title (subject to the other naming criteria)." The Homosexuality article is not titled Sexual inversion for various valid reasons that you are surely aware of. But we do have a Sexual inversion (sexology) article.
Going by Wikipedia's logic, having this article titled Gender identity disorder is not an invalid matter. See what is stated on Flower f5a9b8's talk page about this. Flower f5a9b8 acknowledged that the terms gender identity disorder and gender dysphoria are not well distinguished in medical sources, and is planning on making a Gender dysphoria article that goes beyond the diagnosis. Flower f5a9b8's plan sounds like it would end up involving two articles significantly addressing the same topic, however, and that the gender identity disorder content would, as a result, be merged into the Gender dysphoria article. The merge seems like something that would bypass the WP:Consensus to have this article titled Gender identity disorder. If such a merge were to happen, then it would be best to simply move the Gender identity disorder article to the Gender dysphoria title, to preserve this article's edit history. Either that, or a WP:Histmerge should be requested after the merge to preserve this article's edit history. If the ICD-11 uses the terminology gender dysphoria instead of gender identity disorder, then there will be a stronger case for moving the title of this article to Gender dysphoria. Right now, there is not, as is made clear at Talk:Gender identity disorder/Archive 2#Requested move 02 September 2013, Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 August 31#Gender dysphoria, and above. Flyer22 (talk) 18:28, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the section break - it helps a lot. Regardless of what you, I, or Flower f5a9b8 think on the matter, Gender Identity Disorder is deprecated, and has been replaced as a diagnosis as of 2013 by Gender Dysphoria. The article's content relates specifically to a formal psychiatric diagnosis, which is no longer valid. If you don't like that, it's best to take that up with the APA.
It's not Wikipedia's role to be activists, either for or against. It's wikipedia's role to reflect accurately current reality. And current reality, after many long meetings of the DSM-V GD taskforce is that there is no longer a GID diagnosis, and we now have the diagnosis of Gender Dysphoria.[1] That was back in 2013. We're now in 2015. Time for wikipedia to change with the times. By all means create a separate GID page referring to the historical DSM-IV diagnosis, but bear in mind that it's historical.
While we're at it, I see the article doesn't even link to DSM-IV. Instead it performs linguistic somersaults in order to infer that the DSM-V diagnosis is actually GID, but that they're referring to GID as GD. This is particularly disingenuous. The diagnosis changed for a whole lot of very good reasons, mostly around not pathologising healthy people, and you'd do well to read some of the taskforce thoughts.
So I ask, again, why do we insist on sticking with the outdated terminology?Chocolate vittles (talk) 04:10, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Again, this has been thoroughly discussed at this talk page; you are arguing things that I and others have already been over extensively. Do read those discussions if you have not read them. As was stated in the 2013 WP:MED DSM-5 discussion, Wikipedia does not bend over backwards for the DSM terminology (no matter what version) when it comes to medical topics. The DSM-5, which is a United States diagnostic tool, as opposed to an automatic international diagnostic tool like the ICD-10 (though both are used internationally, with the DSM to a lesser extent), does not get to decide what is outdated for the general medical community. Neither does the ICD-10 nor the ICD-11, for that matter. Do read that WP:MED discussion which specifically addresses the DSM-5 terminology. The gender identity disorder terminology is still widely used; this was made explicitly clear in the 2013 and 2014 discussions I linked to above, and with my discussion with Flower f5a9b8 above. Like Flower f5a9b8, who made arguments similar to yours, stated above, the "22:53, 31 August 2014 (UTC)" post, "...I don't think we're at an impasse though, reading the new thread clears things up on my end. On reflection I agree as suggested by April that it would be better to focus on gender dysphoria as the community understands it, because it seems there is division in the medical community over the definition of gender dysphoria. While some such as the APA, the UK NHS and WPATH apparently (from my examples) use it as it's understood in the community to refer to an experience of distress and impairment, others are sticking to the definition of GID and using gender dysphoria as a replacement in name only. Doc James linked a source in the new thread that is consistent with the Medline source provided earlier here; it uses a similar definition to GID. So, I do see where you were coming from and agree with you on the general point now: as medical diagnoses, gender dysphoria and GID cannot be distinguished reliably. Maybe, as Zad suggested, the term is in transition."
Flower f5a9b8 also stated on the Flower f5a9b8 talk page, "b) 'Gender dysphoria/GID/transsexuality, as a pathology/mental illness [...] The current focus of the gender dysphoria/GID article. [...] In this context it is currently not productive to try to distinguish between gender dysphoria (as a diagnosis) and gender identity dysphoria, as I conceded to Flyer in the post they quoted."
Do not make this about what I don't like by stating, "If you don't like that, it's best to take that up with the APA." And do not presume what I know and do not know with statements like "and you'd do well to read some of the taskforce thoughts." This is not about what I don't like. And I am well-versed in LGBT topics; yes, that includes the T. I have been explicitly clear with you (as seen here and here) that I do not tolerate WP:Advocacy. My user page is explicitly clear that I do not tolerate it. I do not edit Wikipedia with a WP:IDON'TLIKEIT rationale or with a WP:ILIKEIT rationale. My involvement with the naming of this article, and the aforementioned redirect matter, has been consistently about following Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. As is clearly seen at Talk:Gender identity disorder/Archive 2#Requested move 02 September 2013, I did not even vote in the move discussion, and, near the end of that discussion, I noted, "'In the survey section, editors cite WP:MEDMOS for support of the move; because of that, I feel the need to remind editors that the reason that this article was moved back to Gender identity disorder the first time is because of WP:MOSMED. This is what the Wikipedia:MEDMOS#Naming conventions guideline states, 'The article title should be the scientific or recognised medical name that is most commonly used in recent, high-quality, English-language medical sources.' The keywords there are 'most commonly.' I see no evidence that 'gender dysphoria' is the name that is most commonly used in recent, high-quality, English-language medical sources. But again, I don't care much which title is used on Wikipedia. However, the Gender dysphoria title is less offensive/less stigmatizing to/for transgender people." So, Chocolate vittles, if you want to go ahead and start another WP:Requested move discussion on this topic, which you clearly do, then go for it. I will also refrain from voting in that discussion, but I will point to past discussions about this, alert WP:MED to the discussion, and specifically counter the notion that the DSM-5 terminology rules. Flyer22 (talk) 05:40, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Let's go ahead and change the title to Gender dysphoria via a WP:Requested move; yes, I've clearly changed my mind. The Bruce Jenner matter and the option to validly reduce stigma via changing the article's title have made me suddenly not have such a rigid view of keeping the article's current title based on the WP:Common name policy or any other Wikipedia policy or guideline. The term gender dysphoria has gained significant traction for the diagnosis, and it won't hurt anything to move the article to that title. That stated, the article should still mention gender identity disorder in the lead, per WP:Alternative title, and not in the past tense...since a number of medical texts simply use the terms gender identity disorder and gender dysphoria interchangeably. Flyer22 (talk) 07:58, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: And it's not just the Jenner matter, which has brought greater visibility to transgender people, that has me thinking this way, but it's also the Aydian Dowling matter (seen here and here) and this recent soap opera casting matter. Transgender people are getting a lot more attention these days, and that has urged me toward letting go of the current title as the article's title. Flyer22 (talk) 08:33, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

In other words, with so many more people reading about this topic, we should take more care with it. Flyer22 (talk) 08:39, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi again Flyer22 (talk · contribs), sorry to kind of abandon you here. I sadly didn't have the time recently I would've liked to spend on this. Hearing that you think we'll likely keep the one article simplifies things a bit and saves me having to work out how to structure a whole article when I'm pretty clueless about standard wikipedia styles, formats, layouts, etc. I've got plenty of sources and changes to suggest, but to start with I made some changes to the "signs and symptoms" section to add some extra sources, improve the existing ones and remove some statements which weren't sourced (as far as I could see). If you could give it a look over and suggest any pointers or explain any mistakes I made I'd really appreciate that. I seem to have broken a doi value (whatever that is), but I think I've fixed it now. I'll read up on that and how references work in general when I'm not rushing. — Flower f5a9b8 00:58, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://www.dsm5.org/ProposedRevision/Pages/proposedrevision.aspx?rid=482
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gender_dysphoria/Archive_2&oldid=1090559213"