Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:03, 22 August 2013

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. PubMed provides review articles from the past five years (limit to free review articles) The TRIP database provides clinical publications about evidence-based medicine. Other potential sources include: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and CDC

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Psychology Psychology portal This 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 ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. LGBTQ+ studies This 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 Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Sexology and sexuality High‑importance This 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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

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.

A fact from Gender dysphoria appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the Did you know column on 2 March 2007. A record of the entry may be seen at Misplaced Pages:Recent additions/2007/March.

Untitled

Old talk:

• Brandon Teena moved to famous transgendered people
• UC says GID/TS due to possession: don't mention: not a scientific theory
• need evidence on what proportion of doctors recommend sex change - >50%?
• All debates up to 2003 moved to /Archive 2003, including debates on how appropriate the label gender identity disorder is and what constitues a cure for it. -- AlexR 14:56, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Seriously?

this page needs a huge cleanup, it just rambles. look at how well this source conveys all the same data. http://www.merck.com/mmpe/sec15/ch203/ch203b.html the aim should be to be more like this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.92.184.75 (talk) 20:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Links

I removed several external links, primarily because they were redundant or on a broader topic than GID. In particular, I removed the following links because there is already a link to a page with the complete text about GID in the list. The one's removed are less complete and more cluttered (e.g., ads). (1) http://www.behavenet.com/capsules/disorders/genderiddis.htm (2) http://www.mental-health-matters.com/disorders/dis_details.php?disID=46 I removed the following links because they're about broader topics (e.g., the axes of diagnosis in DSM). Even though one was labeled as about GID in the ICD, it wasn't. It was just a list of disorders including GID. Instead I highlighted how the HB-SOC includes the ICD criteria in the text for that link. (1) http://www.behavenet.com/capsules/diagnostic/axis1.htm (2) http://www.who.int/msa/mnh/ems/icd10/f60-f69.htm (3) http://www.who.int/whr2001/2001/main/en/boxes/box2.1.htm I also removed the new link to a discussion forum. It seems kind of unfair to include a single forum link when the forum it is almost completely inactive and there are many other forums with professionals and transgendered persons that should probably be listed first. Finally, I wonder if maybe we should remove the last link too (i.e., Lord Chancellor's ...). It seems to be more about politics instead of psychology. Perhaps we could put it in another article instead? ~ Katie (Sept 20, 2004)

The Rekers link

Currently, the article has the follwing link:

• Gender Identity Disorder - Christian psychiatrist, George A. Rekers, defends the continued inclusion of Gender Identity Disorder in the DSM.

First of all, the article does not deal with the inclusion of GID in the DSM, but mostly with a) the story of yet another "cured" child, and b) lots of highly questionable premises and "findings".

• The article does not distinguish between homosexuality and trans*.
• Trans* can be either transsexual or transvestite, with no indication of the vast number of transpeople who are neither.
• That goes with a lot of the literature cited being from the 1970s. That is akin to citing lots of literature from the '40s and '50s in an article about homosexuality. Even if it had been the only literaure available at the time (it wasn't), today articles based on this state of research ought to be used with great caution.
• Some of the "findings" have not been replicated, namely the statement that in all children with severe GID, the father was absent. Anybody remember the very same statement about homosexuals? So, obviously, did the author. Same with the mental health problems allegedly so common in parents with GID children.
• Some statements are extremely stereotypical, such as In pathological cases, however, children deviate from the normal pattern of exploring masculine and feminine behaviors and develop an inflexible, compulsive, persistent and rigidly stereotyped pattern. Those "inflexible, compulsive, persistent and rigid stereotypical patterns" have been used in tons of older literature about transpeople, but in most cases, they reflected only two things: The extreme frustration of doctors with patients who just couldn't and wouldn't be cured, and the doctor's expectations: If transpeople did not behave in such a way, they were often labeled as "not really transsexual" and medical treatment was withheld from them.

To summ it up: This article does not deal with the matter that are advertised in the link; I suspect that the Christian has more to do with the inclusion than content. However, if such a view needs to be included at all (in which case it should be labeled appropriately, since not exactly all Christians and Christian denominations hold similar views), I am sure there are better ones out there. Better in the sense that they at least deal with matters related to the general diagnosis of GID. It is also, seen with today's knowlege, faulty, and again, certainly there are far better articles that could be linked. The link therefore should be removed. -- AlexR 14:56, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Alex, I see your points and agree with you about the poor scholarship behind the article. I have read a great deal of the work on GID that is published in peer-reviewed academic journals. Rekers work is no worse that what I typically read. Ironically, it might even be better because he is honest about his particular value-laden version of Christianity. Most researchers who study GID seem to believe they are being objective scientists. I know we're supposed to try and be neutral at Misplaced Pages, which is why I have not removed this link. At the same time, even having an article about "gender identity disorder" (and re-directing "gender dysphoria" to it) legitimates the idea that there is such an illness. So maybe avoiding such a pro-GID external link would help provide a balance. If you feel it's best to remove this link, I would not object. You might wait a few more days and see if anybody else feels strongly enough about the issue to contribute to this thread? ~ Katie (Nov. 18, 2004)

I indeed did not want to remove the link without feedback, and a few days probably don't hurt. There are people out there who might care about it, and at least they can't complain if the removal was announces here. I also very much agree on your view of the article when compared to other articles; however, there are lots of better ones out there, too. However, I see no use to link to such articles, especially with an byline that announces something different. I'll remove it in a few days, therefore, unless there is a debate about it by then.

As for articles on GID etc, well, the medical diagnosis exists, whether we like it or not, and therefore merrits an article. And since the articles discusses the controvercy, too, I think it is better to have such an article and mention the controvercy than not having it, having people read other trans-articles, find out that GID exists later, and think all the other articles are wrong or at least incomplete or biased or whatever because GID isn't covered properly. -- AlexR 16:47, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Inducing gender dysphoria

There's a discussion going on in Talk:Transsexual#Another_cause_of_transexualism, which some people watching this article may be interested in. --Rebroad 13:35, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

alright people. You guys, get everything on wikipedia. Everything. It is pro-evolution, pro-gay, pro-abortion, and if anyone tries to differ from your ideas, then you erase it! The link, at least, this little link, is staying. And I don't care what you guys say, its very informative, even if you arn't a christian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.89.104 (talk) 22:50, 5 July 2006

And I don't care what you say, but kindly sign your entires, and am I right in assuming that you choose the wrong heading for your comment? -- John Smythe 15:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, Misplaced Pages is pro-knowledge, not pro-doctrine ZellDenver (talk) 01:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Gender dysphoria vs. gender identity disorder

My understanding was that gender identity disorder has nothing to do with gender dysphoria. Gender identity disorder is what psychologists used to call effeminacy in homosexual men. Gender dysphoria is the term more correctly linked to transgenderedness. Felicity4711 07:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Where did you get that idea from? Check for example , or (results of a quick google search). "Gender dysphoria" seems to be used interchangeably. I am not aware that there is another technical term for "effiminacy in homosexual men" besides that. Do you have a source for that claim? Besides, what would "gender identity disorder" have to do with effiminacy? That is not a gender identity. -- AlexR 12:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I say the quotes should be removed from the word normal because it implies subjectivity and a pro-transgender bias. The American Heritage Dictionary defines normal as: "Conforming with, adhering to, or constituting a norm, standard, pattern, level, or type; typical: normal room temperature; one's normal weight; normal diplomatic relations."

Consequently, for a male or female for that matter to exhibit behavior consistent with the opposite sex is not normal because it does not conform with the "standard" or "typical" behavior. Anything else is a semantic game. --Pravknight 03:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

In the DSM-II, homosexuality did have a diagnostic category - is that what you are reffering to? The main symptom of Gender identity disorder is Gender Dysphoria - the feeling of being uncomfortable with one's own assigned gender, and/or of belonging to the opposite gender.

Gender identity disorder used to have a sub-category, "Transsexual type" in the DSM-III however it is now "Gender identity disorder in adolescents and adults".

As to the effiminity in homosexual men, that is one of the proposals for the eitiology for transsexualism / Gender Identity disorder, articularly in the case of late-onset type transsexualism. It is largely discredity, in part due to the prsence of FTMs and Lesbian or Bisexual Transsexuals. It is also confusing because transsexualism arose as a medical diagnosis from the study of transvestism and homosexuals in the 19th and early 20th centuries. For some, homosexuality is considered contrary to normal gender stereotypes, and lumped in the same basket as GID.

Cheers, Lwollert 10:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

If gender identity disorder isn't a feminine personality and other traits (in the case of males), then what is it? If you're suggesting it's clothing preference and obsession with genitals or other sexual charactersitics, then that fits the definition of a paraphilia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.90.201 (talk) 21:55, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Your comment above appears to address only male-to-female GID. Restricting my own comment to that: Multiple RS's claim that extreme overt femininity and extreme erotic interest in feminity are both capable of motivating males to live life as female. Although erotic interest in being feminine is a paraphilia (at least, according to multiple RS's) one can have that erotic interest but still not have GID. Similarly, one can have GID, but not be extremely feminine overtly.

Regarding the erotic-interest subtype of GID (autogynephilia), it is an error to describe it as a clothing preference or an obsession. (It is also innaccurate to describe paraphilias in those terms.) Moreover, the research suggests that the great majority of medically qualified transsexuals are well-adjusted after their transitions, regardless of which type they are.
— James Cantor (talk) 15:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

What is the difference between the etiology of a non-feminine (not visibly 'gay' as a child) transsexual and a furry? The transevstite transsexual saw images of women as a young child and identified with that, the furry saw images of anthropomorphic characters and identified with that. But in neither case does this have anything to do with their actual gender. There's such a thing a being masculine or feminine, there can't be a completely separate "gender identity" in addition to this. A transvestite doesn't have a female identity because they liked/wanted to be female images as a child anymore than a furry has an animal identity because they liked/wanted to be animal images as a child.

I just object to this because in my experience the more vocal kind of transsexual (who invariably are comming from being heterosexual transvestites) contribute to the marginalisation of those who are comming from being very feminine boys and are often very vulnerable well into adult life (if they make it that far).

Doesn't it strike you as bit wrong when you read or hear "transsexuals" denigrating (and that is there attitude) those who just are feminine people as being "gay" and that's "something totally seperate" to "gender identity" (whatever that's supposed to be if it's totally divorced from personality)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.91.137 (talk) 16:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

If you look at the self-reported experiences of furries and transvestite etioloy transsexuals, they are exactly the same. If you only substitute a few words, you cannot tell them apart. Both had a deep sense of feeling they ought to be the thing they identified with as a young child. The later transsexual went to bed and prayed they'd wake up a girl, the furry prayed they'd wake up as an anthropomorphic character. Then through adolescence this intensified and became sexualised to the point where the later transsexual cross-dressed and the furry would aquire their "fur suit". And then as small number of transvestites come to believe they really should have been born or they really are internally women, and a small number of furries come to believe the same about the object of their desire. The only difference is that the transsexual is better placed in some cases to make their fantasy come true.

I suggest you do some reading about the furry community, it exactly parallels the transvestite community. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.91.137 (talk) 16:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I recognize that it is difficult for new or infrequent wikipedia editors to appreciate the distinction, but the purpose of these talk pages is specifically for the improvement of their associated mainpages. These are not message boards for the discussion of the topics themselves. Whatever you (or I) believe about the topic is not relevant here. The task of wikipedia editors is to summarize the content of reliable sources for wikipedia readers.

There do exist articles published in notable journals that discuss ideas related to the ones you provide above. (I am not sure what I might have said that would suggest to you that I am not already aware of the theoretical parallels among various paraphilic interests, including the furries/plushophiles/furverts/etc.) If you have a specific suggestion for material appearing in reliable sources that would be appropriate on the mainpage here, feel free to present here for discussion. The text you have added thus far, however, does not belong, in my opinion.

— James Cantor (talk) 04:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Mental Illness

The article makes a lot of confusing comments regarding mental illness that don't really make rational sense. The article mentions that GID might not be a mental illness because it could have physical causes, but all mental illnesses have physical causes... the brain is a physical organ. This kind of talk seems to be more of a defense mechanism on the part of transgendered people, who don't want it to be said that they have a mental disease because that implies that there is something wrong with Them rather than their bodies. This is, in fact, quite offensive to people with mental illness. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.51.219.91 (talk) 23:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC).

To rebutt:

• • Much mental illness has no known organic basis - in fact, all "mental illnesses" specifically excludes an organic cause for the presentation as part of the criteria - except, of course, those classified as "XXX due to an organic cause" (such as mood disorders post-stroke, for example).
  • It is true, however we have hypothesis for organic causes in some mental ilnesses, such as the dopamine hypothesis of schizophrenia, and our knowledge of how selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors affect clinical depression and anxiety disorders
  • Some mental illness is believed to be completely "psychiatric", that is, due to influences on the developing mind. I call for example here the personality disorders which present as impaired functioning, and are often considered due to improper personality and coping technique development as children

GID is a classification used mostly to talk about transsexual people, and may include some other transgender people. The argument is not so much that there is not something wrong with them (ne us) but that a psychiatric classification unnecessarily pathologises a condition that is exacerbated mostly through social structures (i.e. "But you're a WOMAN" for FTMs). It is a pity that gender dimorphisim is seen by some people with a mental illness as a mental illness, and that when we seek to define it otherwise, we offend them. But then, they (we) offend many people by our sheer insistence that we exist, so it probably can't be helped.

Cheers, Lwollert 10:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

But the research indicates transgendered people do have specific brain functioning/anatomy in line with the sex they see themselves as. Theoretically, if we were able to reassign the brain functioning (through stem cells perhaps) rather than reassigning the male/female anatomy, the person would no longer feel he/she is in the wrong body. Furthermore, there should be no stigma on classifications of mental illness, just as there is none for heart disorders, diabetes, anemia, etc. 207.237.197.103 (talk) 18:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

At least questionable

I only have second hand knowledge by a psychatrist in my family, but as far as I know, Gender Identety Disorder is a state in wich a people is mentally suffering because of his gender identity. Not the Gender Identety is the disorder, but the persons strugle with it. These people are suffering from a disorder that needs treatment. Non-heteronormative people, who don't feel their gender identity is a (psychological) problem for them are by that definition not affected by GID and therefore in no need of treatment. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 91.64.122.11 (talk) 18:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC).

• According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Gender Identity Disorder *is* a recognised psychiatric disorder. A diagnosis requires "clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational or other important areas of functioning", in other words, it's a disorder which causes significant distress - Alison 19:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

This is running into the problem of "what is transsexualism", "what is Gender Identity Disorder" and "What is Gender Dysphoria".

Gender dysphoria is the Symptom of unhappiness with one's assigned gender. This is rarely encountered by Cisgendered people (which is perhaps more accurate than heteronormative). Transsexualism is the term introduced by Harry Benjamin in regards to people who wish to change their bodies in order to be/represent/pass as (depending on your point of view re Sex Reassignment Surgery) the opposite sex as their biological one. Gender Identity Disorder is a psychiatric classification introduced in the 1970s to include children, adolescents and adults who are not cisgendered, that is show gender behavior different to their assigned gender, or display the wish to be recognised as the opposite gender, or in the case of GIDNOS, something even vaguer relating to a "Disorder" of gender.

Even though someone may think they don't have a disorder, the classification still remains. You can not have a problem with being transsexual, but as long as you have feelings of belonging to the opposite sex, which are more or less continuous over 2 years, are not intersexed, and are impaired in your functioning in your assigned gender, you pretty much qualify under the DSM-IV. Acceptance of the state does not make it comfortable. The point of the DSM is, of course, more for having a set of criteria for equivalent research rather than just for diagnosis, so the idea is that is is independently assessed by the psychiatrist, not the patient.

Cheers, Lwollert 01:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Correct! Very well put indeed. GID (302.85) is a psychiatric classification and doesn't imply much more than that. - Alison 01:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, original post is correct. Someone has GID only if their gender identity is causing them serious distress. The final DSM-IV criterion for diagnosis is "The disturbance causes clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning." Not performing your assigned gender role would only count in the most conservative and close-minded interpretation of this; the intention is obviously to avoid diagnosing functioning, happy people with GID. So if someone is happy identifying with a gender other than their biological one, they should not be diagnosed with GID under the DSM-IV criteria. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.107.217.13 (talk) 21:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

GID and Chimerism

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

NPOV and OR?

Anyone want to discuss what they think is NPOV or OR? Phyesalis 03:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Assigned sex vs. natal sex

In reverting from an edit reflecting the ICD-10 definition of GID as "a persistent and intense distress about assigned sex," User:MarionTheLibrarian notes: "the doctors didn't >assign< the kid to have a penis, like assignment to a control group." While presence or absence of a penis is the organizing principle in CAMH ideology (i.e., Ray Blanchard saying a postoperative trans woman is "a man without a penis"), the reason "assigned sex" is more accurate scientifically is because presence or absence of a penis is not always enough information to make a sex assignment. Further, the term "sex reassignment" indicates that there was an original assignment. I propose we use the ICD-10 definition as it is more accurate and value-neutral. Thoughts? Jokestress (talk) 16:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The comment above is a confused weaving of half-truths:

• First, the ICD definition of Transsexualism pertains to anatomic sex, not assigned sex. Perhaps Jokestress is confusing ICD's definition of Transsexualism with its definition of GID of childhood.
• Second, in the CAMH GIC, sex reassignment is not used, gender reassignment is. It is gender that is assigned by society, whereas sex is assigned by nature. (Moreover, because Jokestress has never stepped foot in CAMH, there is no way for her to know what the CAMH organizing principles are anyway.)
• Next, not only is the presence or absence of a penis is precisely what is used for ascertaining the sex of a kid; having mixed sex characteristics (genital sex not matching chromosomal sex, etc.) rules out any diagnosis of GID or transsexualism.
• The ICD definition is neither more accurate nor more neutral (nor even used consistently inside itself). It is used much more rarely than is the DSM. It comes up here, however, because a portion of it (and not the rest of it) matches Jokestress point-of-view. Her suggestion pertains only to the portion that agrees with her and ignores all else. That's the very meaning of POV.

—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 16:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

We have articles on Sex reassignment surgery and Sex reassignment therapy as well as sex assignment, so it stands to reason that we should discuss this in terms of the assignment. Biologic or natal or anatomic sex are value judgments and POV terms in this case. Further, the presence of a vagina is usually used to assign a sex to girls, not an absence of a penis. That reflects the sort of clinical bias that permeates a lot of the sexology literature about this topic. Jokestress (talk) 14:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Gender identity disorder vs. transsexualism

An informal suggestion for merging this article with transsexualism has been proposed. In my opinion, this article should be about the formal diagnosis created in 1980. The article transsexualism should be be about the development of that concept as described by Hirschfeld (Die Transvestiten, 1910 and/or Die intersexuelle Konstitution, 1923) and Cauldwell (Psychopathia Transsexualis, 1949) and developed from there in the 20th century. We have precedent here for dividing demographic groups from medicalized conceptualizations, such as gay and homosexuality. The Harry Benjamin quotation which appears in the opening of both the GID and TS articles is not appropriate here, because it is not specifically about gender identity disorder, which was not a formalized diagnosis until about 15 years after he published the quoted book. Thoughts? Jokestress (talk) 14:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

New report on transsexuality from American Psychological Association

The American Psychological Association has just released the final report from it's task force on trans issues. The report is lengthy (126 pages), so adding relevant content should probably be accomplished by multiple editors. For those interested, the report is available at http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/transgender/2008TaskForceReport.pdf. Also relevant is APA's recent passage of an anti-discrimination policy regarding trans issues, the text of which is available at http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/policy/transgender.pdf.
— James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 14:45, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

A number of reports about the staggering clinical bias in this APA report are also being prepared. One key issue is their falsification of prevalence data discussed here (also available as a PDF). Jokestress (talk) 17:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

It is quite a serious charge to claim that someone (never mind a committee) has falsified data. What is the evidence that anyone willfully changed anything?
— James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 22:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Confusing and weasel-wordy sentence

"This perspective often notes that other cultures, particularly historical ones, valued gender roles that would presently suggest homosexuality or transsexuality as normal behavior." What does 'particularly historical ones' mean in this case? That most of those cultures no longer exist? That cultures that used to do so no longer do? Also, a sweeping statement like this needs some mentions of specific cultures, because some (especially a bunch of Native American ones) get this claim a lot, but inaccurately. Vultur (talk) 19:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Copyright problems with diagnostic criteria

The American Psychiatric Association has not released its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders into public domain, but claims copyright. The Wikimedia Foundation has received a letter of complaint (Ticket:2010030910040817, for those with access) about the use of their diagnostic criteria in this and a number of other articles. Currently, this content is blanked pending investigation, which will last approximately one week. Please feel free to provide input at the copyright problems board listing during that time. Individuals with access to the books would be particularly welcome in helping to conduct the investigation. Assistance developing a plan to prevent misuse of the APA's material on Misplaced Pages projects would also be welcome. Thank you. Moonriddengirl 14:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Terminological quibbling re: "transgender(ed)"

I just wanted to post some kind of response to this reversion of my reversion of an edit which changed a few instances of "transgendered" to "transgender", where Joe Random IP Address stated:

"Edit directly contrary to the main authoritative style guides from GLAAD and NGLJA, editor may not like those orgs, but they have more authority than a random blog post"

I have no idea why someone would imagine that GLAAD's and NGLJA's recommendations for terminology to be used by journalists who wish to display due sensitivity in their articles would be dispositive in an article on "Gender Identity Disorder", where the language employed in the DSM-IV speaks solely of "cross-gender" identification etc.; that notwithstanding, part of my objection to changing this article to impose uniform use of "transgender" is that it may create more confusion regarding the topic, where "transgender" may be interpreted as applying to a person held to belong under the "transgender umbrella", including (for example) many drag queens and cross-dressers who do not suffer from gender dysphoria or "Gender Identity Disorder".

And to boot, there is a linguistic morass here: see the discussion on the Language Log blog in response to a post on "Transgender(ed)" made by a Professor of Linguistics on precisely this question of usage, in which he defends the use of "transgendered" from the claim that it is "grammatically incorrect" (which - Believe It Or Not! - is the basis of GLAAD's objection to it).

IMO: "Betty is transgender" just sounds wrong to me, especially when applied to someone diagnosed with GID… (though some transsexual folks strongly prefer it!). Even those expert in grammar disagree on which term is proper .-) YMWV.

It really has nothing to do with what I think of GLAAD or NGLJA. Right?

And ultimately? I feel I must cite a source noted in that dialog on "Transgender(ed)" "Why Should I Care What Color the Bikeshed Is?". -- bonze blayk (talk) 05:26, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

"Assigned"

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

1) The subject of ambiguity. (off topic)

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

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

Yours,

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

The attending physician makes a determination at birth of the sex to be assigned to the infant...

This decision is not always correct. In its current formulation in the DSM-IV, "Gender Identity Disorder" does not apply to those diagnosed as "intersex".

However, in the forthcoming DSM-5, intersexed persons (now labeled as suffering from a "Disorder of Sexual Development", which is a terminology intersex folks generally loathe) may wind up included among those who can be diagnosed with "Gender Dysphoria", the category currently proposed to replace "Gender Identity Disorder" (with somewhat different criteria for diagnosis),

Some estimates of the prevalence of intersex conditions run as high as 2% of the population... in the majority of these cases, these infants are indeed "assigned" to a sex as a male or female based on a cursory inspection of their genitals, which inspection often fails to ascertain the presence of genetic variations (e.g., mild cases of Partial androgen insensitivity syndrome) or internal conditions that vary significantly from the usual assumption of an "obvious" male/female pure binary.

I've added an internal Wikilink to Sex assignment to the phrase assigned at birth to make it more evident why this is the standard terminology.

— thanks, - bonze blayk (talk) 05:00, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

The reason that I had the line worded as "discontent with their biological sex and/or the gender they were assigned at birth" is because sex and gender are often distinguished in the transgender community, with "sex" referring to their physical anatomy and "gender" referring to their gender identity, and also because some transgender people are fine with not going through with gender reassignment surgery (meaning they are not distressed by their physical anatomy)...as long as they "live as the gender" they identify as and are referred to as the gender they identify as.

But I understand Bonze blayk's reason for changing it to "discontent with the sex they were assigned at birth and/or the gender roles associated with that sex." However, we should ditch the "and/or" and just leave it as "and"...because, besides WP:ANDOR, it doesn't make sense to say that a person could be discontent with the sex they were assigned at birth while being content with the gender roles that are expected to go along with it. Unless, say, there are transgender people who are happy with the gender roles expected of them...but hate the fact that they are in the bodies associated with those roles. I'm also not sure that one can really be assigned gender roles, unless speaking in terms of all that comes along with being assigned a gender. Flyer22 (talk) 01:34, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

OK: First: If one does not distinguish between "sex" as the physical manifestation of biological differences relating directly to reproduction, and "gender" as a psychological state or identification which is typically associated with one's "sex" but is distinctly variable, the whole idea of a non-pathological "Gender Identity Disorder" distinct from a "Delusional Disorder" makes no sense at all. Since John Money developed the novel usage of gender to refer to psychological identification and roles, just about everyone in sexology and associated fields of psychology etc. respect this distinction - not just "the transgender community". The sadly-increasing use of the term "gender" in both popular and medical contexts in the sense of ... sex, leads to immense confusion here. (E.g., you say "all that comes along with being assigned a gender" ... do you properly mean sex? This confusion results in exasperating ambiguities in dialog on these topics!)

Second, I'd like to point out that "gender" is -not- assigned at birth... it's just assumed that the physical assessment which is invariably performed at birth is correct (with respect to the actual reproductive anatomy present), and that the person will fit comfortably into the gender roles associated with that sex... a person's gender and the "gender roles" with which they engage are not "assigned" in the same way... e.g., becoming a "tomboy" (which can be viewed as a variant "gender role", generally socially tolerated in girls in Western countries.)

Finally, with respect to the use of "and/or" here, following WP:ANDOR - "where it is important to mark an inclusive or, use x or y, or both " - would lead to the use of "discontent with the sex they were assigned at birth or the gender roles associated with that sex, or both", which seems a bit clumsy to me? (I have little patience with censorious grammarians - especially after sampling the livid condemnations of this usage served up in And/or: sorry!)

Why? As you say, Flyer22: "it doesn't make sense" ... ''Unless" - exactly right: some people who are included under the "transgender umbrella" as transsexuals are not really exactly "transgendered", but suffer from the absolutely horrible sensation that their genitalia are alien to their body... this is evidently linked to abnormalities in the development of the bodymap in the brain, so that their genitalia aren't felt as part of their body... Ramachandran has done research on this subject, and found that some 30% of post-op transsexual women do not experience the sensation of having a "phantom penis" (which you would expect to find in cases of amputation of normal appendages)... see the section in the article on Ramachandran discussing his hypothesis on the cause of apotemnophilia, which Anne Lawrence had previously likened with some types of transsexuality (see the mention which appears in the Transgender article). One might think this variant bodymap would always be associated with being severely transgendered, but... that's not necessarily the case (since the developmental stages in the fetal brain which appear to govern those things occur at different times).

Anyway: to note just a few of the problems we face in composing an accurate lede for this article, which is supposed to be about the DSM diagnosis: the criteria for GID in the DSM-IV are a bit mushy, and are under revision as well; the science is unsettled and understanding is correspondingly muddled - there are probably a range of types of GID, and Blanchard is almost certainly (to my mind) oversimplifying the matter by reducing transsexuals to only two fundamental types; it's a subject of great social and political controversy (most transsexuals loathe being required to get this diagnosis to obtain medical treatment); understanding and treatment of intersexed persons brings in a whole slew of issues with a different, yet related, slant, and yet more controversy (scientific and otherwise, and note here that many intersex persons are extremely unhappy that the DSM-V will probably allow inclusion of intersex persons among those diagnosed with "Gender Dysphoria"); normal people who are assessing "what it means" in terms of ordinary modern English usage of "gender" as "sex" become doubly befuddled by a terminological confusion on top of the difficulty cisgender persons often have in "getting it"; and yah well - no wonder it's kind of a challenge to "get it right"!

thanks! - bonze blayk (talk) 04:35, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean about my being confused about the distinction between sex and gender. My not being confused about them is why I added "sex and/or the gender." But, as you know, there are people who wouldn't state that they are being confused when used interchangeably, depending on the context. And don't forget that, on the Gender talk page, we've both argued that "gender" doesn't always mean only "social/psychological."

When I stated that I'm not "sure that one can really be assigned gender roles," I was thinking of the roles independent of someone being called a "boy" or "girl," which is why I stated "unless speaking in terms of all that comes along with being assigned a gender." And I stated that because you never see or hear "assigned gender roles." We do see and hear "assigned gender" or "assigned sex." It's described as "assigned gender" in enough scholarly contexts. Saying "assigned gender" is also often used in the transgender community because "boy" or "girl" are gender categories, while "male" or female" are sex categories. Many transgender individuals contend that they were "assigned a gender" because they were expected to "act like boys" or to "act like girls." That stated, I can of course see how "assigned sex" is accurate when describing intersex individuals, and, even in the case of some non-intersex transgender individuals, it's more accurate because they stress that chromosome makeup and/or genitals do not make them male or female, but rather what goes on in the brain does.

As for the and/or issue and my saying "Unless, say, there are transgender people who are happy with the gender roles expected of them...but hate the fact that they are in the bodies associated with those roles," thanks for explaining that to me. I suppose having an absolute "horrible sensation that their genitalia alien to their body," without even being transgendered, could be described as hating "the bodies associated with those roles." I definitely have more reading to do on this subject. Do people with such a condition hate it when their bodies are acknowledged as male or female, or is it that they just hate their genitalia? If the former, how are they distinguished from a transgender person who hates it when their body is acknowledged as the sex they don't see themselves as? I reckon that it is both in some cases? Flyer22 (talk) 23:49, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

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

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

I'm having trouble seeing "Identity disorders" as any kind of meaningful category. These three phenomena are more accurately described as merely having the word "identity" in their names. (And many people who qualify for a formal diagnosis of GID would protest vehemently that they have a disorder at all.)

— James Cantor (talk) 03:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC

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

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

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

"James" is fine, thanks.

It isn't that I've changed my attitudes, it's that if one is going to have this category, then this certainly belongs. (Moreover, "species identity disorder" is now starting to be discussed, which has changed the context of "identity disorder" discussions.

Finally, I have nothing to do with the DSM-5, I don't know why you demand I justify anything you attach to it.

— James Cantor (talk) 22:17, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Gender Identity Disorder To Be Removed from DSM-5

Hello all! On December 1, 2012, the American Psychiatric Association voted to remove Gender Identity Disorder from the upcoming Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders V, which is to be released in May of next year. A somewhat similar diagnosis to the old GID will also be added to the DSM, to be called "Gender Dysphoria." It's not just a change in terminology, though, and the two diagnosis are likely to have significantly different framing and criteria. I believe that this article on GID should be updated to reflect this impending change, which has been in the pipeline for a while, but as of December 1st is now a certainty. I am a newer editor, however, and I would appreciate any help/suggestions that others could provide on approaching this rewrite. If no one gets back to me after a week or two, I will just do my best to make the re-write on my own. Thanks! Rebecca 14:19, 12 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Picture of a Sunny Day (talk • contribs)

Hi Rebecca! I would suggest you write one line about this in the lead, and a few more in the section Diagnostic criteria. Make sure that you have a good source to the lines you write in the section. Otherwise, please be bold! and write your text. Lova Falk talk 15:20, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I think it'd be worth covering the expansion of Transvestic Disorder and the criticism of Ray Blanchard and Kenneth Zucker that many of trans activists and allies have criticised (see: Paris Lees, ThinkProgress); we don't want to make this a APA whitewash. Sceptre 23:40, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

This is a huge problem. The introduction says "Gender dysphoria, formerly known as gender identity disorder (GID)" but they are totally different things. As written above, expert James Cantor wrote the statement that "Gender identity disorder is as clear an identity disorder as one gets". An Identity Disorder is an entirely different psychological phenomenon from a Dysphoria (which in unsophisticated language is an anxiety with a melancholy). Gender Identity Disorder should never have been moved (really renamed) to Gender Dysphoria. Doing so is a purely American perspective. GID may be obsoleted in the DSM but it is still current in the ICD (International Diseases) wherein Gender Dysphoria does not exist. See ICD-10 F64.2 and F64.8. The ICD is backed by the United Nations Organisation but the DSM is backed only by a regional professional association and so is much less authoritative than the UN. Where the two clash the ICD is a more authoritative source than the DSM. Is Misplaced Pages to become a purely American thing?! or can this issue be sorted out? There needs to be two separate pages, one for Gender Identity Disorder and a totally separate one for Gender Dysphoria with mention that is is only an American thing. The fact that the patient population for the two overlap substantially is not a reason to describe two totally different concepts in psychology as if they were one and the same. I'm not a Misplaced Pages expert and don't have the experise to fix this without making a mistake - but someone needs to get on this, this should never have happened in the first place. GID and GD need to be separate in Misplaced Pages. 71.3.97.37 (talk) 22:23, 9 July 2013‎ (UTC)

IP, you may already know this or it's a coincidence that you brought up this matter today, but the retitling of this article to Gender dysphoria, and describing the diagnosis as "formerly known as gender identity disorder (GID)," was discussed earlier today at WP:MED. Feel free to join in on that discussion, of course. Also, remember to sign your username at the end of the comments you make on Misplaced Pages talk pages. All you have to do to sign your username is simply type four tildes (~), like this: ~~~~. I signed your username for you above. Flyer22 (talk) 22:52, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

See the #Updates required to reflect DSM-5 discussion below for further information on this matter. Flyer22 (talk) 19:47, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

David Reimer

The text about sociocultural causes is extremely suspect at best. David Reimer was treated using an abusive program of therapy (eg being forced to simulate sex acts with another young boy while the therapist observed) and a coercive assignment to a gender other than his own already-established one; claiming the traumatic childhood developed into gender dysphoria is true but misleading, and using Reimer as a general case as this paragraph does is extremely dishonest. All Reimer's case proves about "traumatic child-rearing" is that actually changing the sex of your child against their will and then abusing them for a decade to try and make them conform does not lead to a gender identity change. Reimer's case cannot be generalised to other cases of GID - it merely makes a trivially true claim that dysphoria can be caused by a body not matching one's internal gender identity. The text appears (the appearance is why I am not making this edit myself, it is possible I misunderstand) to use this to explain that traumatic child-rearing can cause GID; the only claim supported by the source is "changing your child's gender can cause GID", which is considerably more specific. 94.195.48.203 (talk) 00:16, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the information about David Reimer in this article isn't very well-written and is confusing. I do think Reimer's example does provide one instance of how GID is socially constructed, however. If Reimer had been to live out his life as a male and hadn't been forced to live as a female, he never would have developed GID. He would have been just another boy (albeit one without a penis). Most transsexuals feel similarly. . .if they had been able to live out their lives as their actual gender as opposed to their forcibly assigned gender than they would never have developed gender identity disorder. They simply would have been just another boy or just another girl. Some of them may still have required medical intervention to alter their bodies at a later point in time. . .but without the practice of forcibly assigning infants to a (potentially erroneous and unwanted) gender, these medical interventions would hardly would be considered "disordered." Rebecca (talk) 03:54, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Put another way, GID is defined in the article as "discontent with the sex they were assigned at birth." Obviously, if the cultural practice of assigning infants a sex at birth did not exist, and no one HAD a sex assigned at birth, it would be impossible to be discontented with such a (nonexistent) assignment. In other words, GID wouldn't exist without the cultural practice of assigning infants a sex at birth. Rebecca (talk) 03:59, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages: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)

• For reference, the ANI posting is located at Misplaced Pages:ANI#Chelsea Manning/Bradley Manning. CaseyPenk (talk) 21:03, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• Unassessed psychology articles
• Unknown-importance psychology articles
• WikiProject Psychology articles
• C-Class LGBTQ+ studies articles
• WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies articles
• C-Class Sexology and sexuality articles
• High-importance Sexology and sexuality articles
• WikiProject Sexology and sexuality articles
• Misplaced Pages Did you know articles