Misplaced Pages

Talk:Gender dysphoria: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 21:08, 26 September 2023 editWikiLinuz (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, IP block exemptions10,237 edits Reverted 1 edit by Federico R. Figueredo (talk) to last revision by Lowercase sigmabot IIITags: Twinkle Undo← Previous edit Latest revision as of 07:49, 19 November 2024 edit undoCrboyer (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users48,186 edits Reverting edit(s) by 82.168.236.78 (talk) to rev. 1256782326 by SreySros: Vandalism (RW 16.1)Tags: RW Undo 
(41 intermediate revisions by 19 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header|archive_age=90|archive_bot=lowercase sigmabot III}} {{Talk header}}
{{Ds/talk notice|topic=gg}} {{Contentious topics/talk notice|topic=gg}}
{{Not a forum}} {{Not a forum}}
{{afd-merged-from|Gender euphoria|Gender euphoria|12 May 2021}} {{afd-merged-from|Gender euphoria|Gender euphoria|12 May 2021}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|1=
{{DYK talk|2 March|2007}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|1= {{WikiProject Psychology|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Psychology|class=C|importance=high}} {{WikiProject Gender studies|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Gender studies| class=C}} {{WikiProject Sexology and sexuality|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Sexuality|class=C|importance=high}} {{WikiProject Medicine|importance=mid|psychiatry=yes|psychiatry-imp=high}}
{{WikiProject LGBT studies}}
{{WikiProject Medicine|class=C|importance=mid|psychiatry=yes|psychiatry-imp=high}}
{{WikiProject LGBT studies| class=C}}
{{Wiki Loves Pride talk|2015}} {{Wiki Loves Pride talk|2015}}
}} }}
Line 16: Line 15:
|archiveheader = {{tan}} |archiveheader = {{tan}}
|maxarchivesize = 100K |maxarchivesize = 100K
|counter = 9 |counter = 10
|minthreadsleft = 2 |minthreadsleft = 2
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |minthreadstoarchive = 1
Line 27: Line 26:
}} }}


== Guillamon et.al (source 23) ==
==Article published March 2023==
It's been one month since print publication, should it not be included in this article:
* {{cite journal|last1=Block |first1=Jennifer |title=Gender dysphoria in young people is rising—and so is professional disagreement |journal=] |date=11 March 2023 |volume=380 |issue=8374 |page=382 |url=https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/380/bmj.p382.full.pdf |doi=10.1136/bmj.p382 |issn=0959-8138}} <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 23:50, 5 April 2023 (UTC)</small>


The information under “symptoms” for this source comes from the intro/abstract of this paper and references Blanchard’s typology, which has been discredited. The information also contradicts the previous paragraph which states sexual orientation does not impact GD. ] (]) 18:27, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
:Doesn't meet ]. ] (]) 06:11, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
:: (post-ec comment): Can you elaborate? Why doesn't it? ] (]) 06:15, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
:::It's a journalistic article written by a journalist - I don't think being published in BMJ changes that. I don't see why we would use it for any actual medical content rather than citing the relevant medical bodies directly. Maybe for some society stuff/commentary on the state of evidence so far. ] (]) 06:34, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
::::Actually not even "commentary on the state of evidence so far" I'd say since we'd want a systematic review for that (and can cite the systematic reviews she mentions directly if needed). ] (]) 06:57, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
:The thing that immediately strikes me is that the article evokes ]. Perhaps I'm being overly cynical, but it helps to remember that there is a whole demographic of transphobic idealogues who will happily point to "professional disagreement" in order to further their agenda - when said disagreement is irrelevant to the material facts (as with Evolution). ] (]) 18:43, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
::100% agree with this. Block is manipulating the statistics of detransitioning and other contentious trans-related issues to make it seem much more common place than it actually is. There is clearly an agenda in mind here. I would be concerned if this was going to be used as a source for what's supposed to be a neutral article. ] (]) 12:35, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
BMJ is certainly highly reliable, and it seems okay to me; my only concern, is how do we treat it? It's not a study, so not a primary source, so that's a good start. But it doesn't look quite like a literature survey to me, at least not the ones I'm used to seeing, although it does have similarities. Author "Block" is listed as "investigations reporter". So, how do we characterize this? ], if you're not too busy, any thoughts about how to characterize it? Should we just copy their lead, and say, "in an investigation by BMJ, blah blah..", or just cite it, without further qualification? {{ec}} ] (]) 06:14, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
: Regarding "investigations reporter": . ] ]. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:black">Ol' homo.</span> 10:26, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
:I haven't been overly impressed by some-such coming out of the BMJ lately, but I can't recall the specific examples. That said, if the BMJ is now engaging in "investigative journalism", my inclination is to treat it exactly as we would another high-quality source (think ''New York Times'') doing an investigative piece in medicine. It's a good source for making statements, for example, about society and culture, but not necessarily or the best for statements about biomedical fact. Attribution seems safe ... According to the BMJ Investigations Unit ... or some such. {{pb}} By the way, some of what is in Society and culture now looks like it might be better placed in a History section. ] (]) 14:01, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
::Using it somewhere with attribution, at least, sounds good. <span style="font-family:Palatino">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 18:52, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
:::What are we even debating? I don't see any article content proposed, just a reference. What is the reference supposed to support? ] (]) 21:07, 8 April 2023 (UTC)


== Is this correct? ==
==Wiki Education assignment: Gender and Technoculture 320-01==
{{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment | course = Misplaced Pages:Wiki_Ed/California_State_University_Fullerton/Gender_and_Technoculture_320-01_(Fall_2023) | assignments = ] | start_date = 2023-08-21 | end_date = 2023-12-08 }}


About this paragraph in the introduction, does this correctly describe the stances of the referenced sources?
<span class="wikied-assignment" style="font-size:85%;">— Assignment last updated by ] (]) 12:44, 10 September 2023 (UTC)</span>
{{blockquote|Some researchers and transgender people argue for the <b>declassification of the condition</b> because they say the diagnosis <b>pathologizes gender variance and reinforces the binary model of gender</b>.<ref name="Karl Bryant">{{cite encyclopedia |title=Gender Dysphoria |encyclopedia=] |url=https://www.britannica.com/science/gender-dysphoria |access-date=August 16, 2018 |date=2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200418213857/https://www.britannica.com/science/gender-dysphoria |archive-date=April 18, 2020 |vauthors=Bryant K |url-status=live}}</ref> However, this declassification could carry implications for healthcare accessibility, as HRT and gender-affirming surgery could be deemed cosmetic by insurance providers, as opposed to medically necessary treatment, thereby affecting coverage.<ref name="Zack Ford">{{cite web |title=APA Revises Manual: Being Transgender is No Longer a Mental Disorder |url=http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/12/03/1271431/apa-revises-manual-being-transgender-is-no-longer-a-mental-disorder/?mobile=nc |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130202082602/http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/12/03/1271431/apa-revises-manual-being-transgender-is-no-longer-a-mental-disorder/?mobile=nc |archive-date=February 2, 2013 |access-date=April 7, 2013 |website=] |vauthors=Ford Z}}</ref>}}

Are they really calling for the declassification of <b>gender dysphoria</b> or the declassification of free self identification? As gender dysphoria has lots of severe ] right? So it is unclear to me how anyone can argue that symptoms should be declassified? Is enough context given here? Are they maybe arguing this out of questioning whether the symptoms are caused by the dysphoria or by environmental factors (discrimination)? I can only really think of possible arguments to declassify gender dysphoria that would indeed lead to "implications" stated in the second sentence, that it would deemed cosmetic.

So to wrap up a bit, it is not clear to me what exactly the first sentence here means with "declassification", is it an emotional argument out of activism, or is there some solid logic here? If there is solid logic, I don't see it. ] (]) 15:55, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

:This looks like a fair summary of the existing sources, although one is old and the other is ] so I imagine more nuanced coverage of both stances probably exists.
:* From Britannica: {{tqb|Critics have argued that GD diagnoses continue a long-standing history of pathologizing oppressed peoples. Some argue that the diagnosis stigmatizes groups that are simply expressing variation, not pathology. Critics suggest that the diagnosis individualizes a broad cultural and social phenomenon and reinforces a binary mode of gender.}}
:* From ThinkProgress: {{tqb|On the other hand, insurance companies have been more willing to cover the expenses associated with transition under this language, because treatment for a disorder is considered medically necessary, rather than cosmetic.}}
:Hope this helps. –] (] • ]) 17:24, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
::I can't speak for others, but if it helps you conceptualize the "anti-" argument, I offer the following clumsy analogy: I was born with a rare birth mark that spells out "Kick Me". I'm depressed because everyone keeps kicking me. I go to the doctor to get it removed. He says I have kick-me sad-brain disorder. He gives me antidepressants and says not to let it bother me as much when people kick me. I turn to leave. He kicks me. –] (] • ]) 17:34, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
::The first quote doesn't seem to establish declassification.
::It only the seems to claim that the formulation and/or application of the current diagnosis allegedly leads to reductionisticly or even entirely wrongly labelling people with a variation-question with a pathological label (second sentence from first quote), and seems to claim that before mentioned of the current diagnosis seems to lack neutrality/objectivity, specifically failing to detect (binary) gender stereotypes.
::So is it then correct that declassification is argued for? ] (]) 18:09, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
:::With "before mentioned" I meant "the formulation and/or application" again, not sure if there is a more compact/clear way to write that without repeating that entirely. ] (]) 18:11, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
::@] Also, there is another implication of declassification. The sentence "People with gender dysphoria commonly identify as transgender" says "commonly", thus declassifying would also unavoidably impact people who have gender dysphoria but aren't transgender. ] (]) 20:04, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
:::Which is not addressed in that paragraph..
:::{{blockquote|However, this declassification could carry implications for healthcare accessibility, as HRT and gender-affirming surgery could be deemed cosmetic by insurance providers, as opposed to medically necessary treatment, thereby affecting coverage.}}
:::It doesn't even mention what the impact of declassification would be on people with gender dysphoria who aren't transgender. I know from very close experience that is seems to exist, as this page also seems to suggest/confirm. ] (]) 20:06, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 07:49, 19 November 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Gender dysphoria article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10Auto-archiving period: 3 months 
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Gender dysphoria. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Gender dysphoria at the Reference desk.
Gender euphoria was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 12 May 2021 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Gender dysphoria. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.
This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconPsychology High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconGender studies High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is part of WikiProject Gender studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Gender studiesWikipedia:WikiProject Gender studiesTemplate:WikiProject Gender studiesGender studies
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
To-do list:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
WikiProject iconSexology and sexuality High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconMedicine: Psychiatry Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Psychiatry task force (assessed as High-importance).
WikiProject iconLGBTQ+ studies
WikiProject iconThis article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Misplaced Pages. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies
WikiProject iconWiki Loves Pride
WikiProject iconThis article was created or improved during Wiki Loves Pride, 2015.Wiki Loves PrideWikipedia:Wiki Loves PrideTemplate:Wiki Loves Pride talkWiki Loves Pride
Ideal sources for Misplaced Pages's health content are defined in the guideline Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Gender dysphoria.

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
  • Becker, Judith V.; Perkins, Andrew (2014). "Gender Dysphoria". In Hales, Robert E.; Yudofsky, Stuart C.; Roberts, Laura Weiss (eds.). The American Psychiatric Publishing Textbook of Psychiatry (6th ed.). Washington, D.C.: American Psychiatric Publishing. pp. 679–702. ISBN 978-1-5856-2444-7.

Guillamon et.al (source 23)

The information under “symptoms” for this source comes from the intro/abstract of this paper and references Blanchard’s typology, which has been discredited. The information also contradicts the previous paragraph which states sexual orientation does not impact GD. Wren Armstrong (talk) 18:27, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Is this correct?

About this paragraph in the introduction, does this correctly describe the stances of the referenced sources?

Some researchers and transgender people argue for the declassification of the condition because they say the diagnosis pathologizes gender variance and reinforces the binary model of gender. However, this declassification could carry implications for healthcare accessibility, as HRT and gender-affirming surgery could be deemed cosmetic by insurance providers, as opposed to medically necessary treatment, thereby affecting coverage.

Are they really calling for the declassification of gender dysphoria or the declassification of free self identification? As gender dysphoria has lots of severe symptoms right? So it is unclear to me how anyone can argue that symptoms should be declassified? Is enough context given here? Are they maybe arguing this out of questioning whether the symptoms are caused by the dysphoria or by environmental factors (discrimination)? I can only really think of possible arguments to declassify gender dysphoria that would indeed lead to "implications" stated in the second sentence, that it would deemed cosmetic.

So to wrap up a bit, it is not clear to me what exactly the first sentence here means with "declassification", is it an emotional argument out of activism, or is there some solid logic here? If there is solid logic, I don't see it. Wallby (talk) 15:55, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

This looks like a fair summary of the existing sources, although one is old and the other is tertiary so I imagine more nuanced coverage of both stances probably exists.
  • From Britannica:

    Critics have argued that GD diagnoses continue a long-standing history of pathologizing oppressed peoples. Some argue that the diagnosis stigmatizes groups that are simply expressing variation, not pathology. Critics suggest that the diagnosis individualizes a broad cultural and social phenomenon and reinforces a binary mode of gender.

  • From ThinkProgress:

    On the other hand, insurance companies have been more willing to cover the expenses associated with transition under this language, because treatment for a disorder is considered medically necessary, rather than cosmetic.

Hope this helps. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk • stalk) 17:24, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
I can't speak for others, but if it helps you conceptualize the "anti-" argument, I offer the following clumsy analogy: I was born with a rare birth mark that spells out "Kick Me". I'm depressed because everyone keeps kicking me. I go to the doctor to get it removed. He says I have kick-me sad-brain disorder. He gives me antidepressants and says not to let it bother me as much when people kick me. I turn to leave. He kicks me. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk • stalk) 17:34, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
The first quote doesn't seem to establish declassification.
It only the seems to claim that the formulation and/or application of the current diagnosis allegedly leads to reductionisticly or even entirely wrongly labelling people with a variation-question with a pathological label (second sentence from first quote), and seems to claim that before mentioned of the current diagnosis seems to lack neutrality/objectivity, specifically failing to detect (binary) gender stereotypes.
So is it then correct that declassification is argued for? Wallby (talk) 18:09, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
With "before mentioned" I meant "the formulation and/or application" again, not sure if there is a more compact/clear way to write that without repeating that entirely. Wallby (talk) 18:11, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
@RoxySaunders Also, there is another implication of declassification. The sentence "People with gender dysphoria commonly identify as transgender" says "commonly", thus declassifying would also unavoidably impact people who have gender dysphoria but aren't transgender. Wallby (talk) 20:04, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
Which is not addressed in that paragraph..

However, this declassification could carry implications for healthcare accessibility, as HRT and gender-affirming surgery could be deemed cosmetic by insurance providers, as opposed to medically necessary treatment, thereby affecting coverage.

It doesn't even mention what the impact of declassification would be on people with gender dysphoria who aren't transgender. I know from very close experience that is seems to exist, as this page also seems to suggest/confirm. Wallby (talk) 20:06, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
  1. Bryant K (2018). "Gender Dysphoria". Encyclopædia Britannica Online. Archived from the original on April 18, 2020. Retrieved August 16, 2018.
  2. Ford Z. "APA Revises Manual: Being Transgender is No Longer a Mental Disorder". ThinkProgress. Archived from the original on February 2, 2013. Retrieved April 7, 2013.
Categories: