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 17:24, 27 October 2024 editRoxySaunders (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, IP block exemptions3,006 edits →Is this correct?: ReplyTag: Reply← Previous edit Latest revision as of 19:03, 1 January 2025 edit undoDreamRimmer Alt (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers2,580 editsm Added {{DSM copyright}} templateTag: paws [2.2] 
(14 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown)
Line 11: Line 11:
{{Wiki Loves Pride talk|2015}} {{Wiki Loves Pride talk|2015}}
}} }}
{{DSM copyright}}
{{Reliable sources for medical articles|synonym1=Gender+dysphoria}} {{Reliable sources for medical articles|synonym1=Gender+dysphoria}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
Line 25: Line 26:
| {{cite book |last1=Becker |first1=Judith V. |last2=Perkins |first2=Andrew |editor1-last=Hales |editor1-first=Robert E. |editor2-last=Yudofsky |editor2-first=Stuart C. |editor3-last=Roberts |editor3-first=Laura Weiss |title=The American Psychiatric Publishing Textbook of Psychiatry |date=2014 |publisher=American Psychiatric Publishing |location=Washington, D.C. |isbn=978-1-5856-2444-7 |pages=679–702 |edition=6th |chapter=Gender Dysphoria}} | {{cite book |last1=Becker |first1=Judith V. |last2=Perkins |first2=Andrew |editor1-last=Hales |editor1-first=Robert E. |editor2-last=Yudofsky |editor2-first=Stuart C. |editor3-last=Roberts |editor3-first=Laura Weiss |title=The American Psychiatric Publishing Textbook of Psychiatry |date=2014 |publisher=American Psychiatric Publishing |location=Washington, D.C. |isbn=978-1-5856-2444-7 |pages=679–702 |edition=6th |chapter=Gender Dysphoria}}
}} }}

== Bachmann et al. ==

(Bachmann et al. 2024) has been to support the following claim:
<blockquote>A recent study in Germany found that more than half of young people aged 5-24 across every age subgroup diagnosed with "gender identity disorder" no longer had the diagnosis after five years. Specifically, the persistence rate was 27.3% in 15- to 19-year-old females and 49.7% in 20- to 24-year-old males.</blockquote>

The source is a "Kurzmitteilung" (a short summary as opposed to a full research article) of a study on insurance data from the German ], published only a few days ago.

The relevant parts of the source are, from the ''Ergebnisse'' section:
<blockquote>In der Längsschnittkohorte (n = 7 885, 47,1 % 20- bis 24-jährig, 37,7 % männlich) wiesen nach fünf Jahren insgesamt nur noch 36,4 % eine gesicherte F64-Diagnose auf, eine Diagnosepersistenz < 50 % zeigte sich in allen Altersgruppen (27,3 % bis 49,7 % ).</blockquote>
and from the ''Diskussion'' section:
<blockquote>Die diagnostische Persistenz von unter 50 % in allen Altersgruppen im 5-Jahres-Follow-up entspricht der Literatur und spiegelt vermutlich die Fluidität des Konzepts „Geschlechtsidentität“ im Kindes- und Jugendalter wider (5), kann aber auch als Hinweis auf die Notwendigkeit eines umfassenden, standardisierten diagnostischen Vorgehens interpretiert werden (www.cass.independent-review.uk/publications/final-report).</blockquote>

The authors stress the fact that they have not (for obvious reasons) investigated whether the diagnoses were "valid", and their conclusion is that more work needs to be done to investigate whether the reaults from their initial study hold true, and what the reasons may be for the low persistence of diagnoses. They also conclude that offering various treatment options for gender identity disorder is crucial.

I strongly believe that the source can't be used for the sweeping claim it was used to support, and I am curious why that particular bit of the study was used, and not the bit where the authors show that there is a robust increasing trend in gender dysphoria diagnoses, or the conclusion that it is important to offer a range of gender affirming treatments. But above all, I don't think a primary source consisting of a short summary of research on which insurance codes are used in German health care data is useful as a source. --'']'' <small>] ]</small> 09:35, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

:Just FYI, it’s very likely the data in this paper isnt particularly meaningful. It is about diagnostic persistence in the German medical system which requires associated billing events over time. I.e. somebody who is diagnosed with GD but parents don’t let them transition (and as such, there is no ongoing billing events occurring) are counted as desistors in this paper. As are people who delay their transition. Insurance billing events are not a good way of measuring persistence of GD or transgender identity. ] (]) 01:37, 16 June 2024 (UTC)


== Guillamon et.al (source 23) == == Guillamon et.al (source 23) ==
Line 59: Line 42:
: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. :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 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.}} –] (] • ]) 17:24, 27 October 2024 (UTC) :* 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 19:03, 1 January 2025

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
All editions of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders are copyrighted. Do not post a copy of the official DSM diagnostic criteria in any Misplaced Pages article. Simply reproducing the entire list in the DSM is not fair use and is a violation of the Misplaced Pages:Non-free content criteria legal policy. Instead, describe the criteria in your own words.
See Misplaced Pages:Copyright violations#Parts of article violate copyright for instructions if the criteria have been copied into the article.
Editors may quote a small part of the DSM criteria for a given condition, especially if that quotation is used to discuss the DSM's choice of terminology in that quotation.
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: