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 16:00, 8 July 2008 editJokestress (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers50,851 edits →Assigned sex vs. natal sex: new section← Previous edit Latest revision as of 07:49, 19 November 2024 edit undoCrboyer (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users48,248 edits Reverting edit(s) by 82.168.236.78 (talk) to rev. 1256782326 by SreySros: Vandalism (RW 16.1)Tags: RW Undo 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{notforum}} {{Talk header}}
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|topic=gg}}
{{talkheader}}
{{Not a forum}}
{{FAOL|Japanese|ja:性同一性障害}}
{{afd-merged-from|Gender euphoria|Gender euphoria|12 May 2021}}
{{LGBTProject | class=B}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|1=
{| class="messagebox {{#ifeq:{{{small|}}}|yes|small|standard}}-talk"
{{WikiProject Psychology|importance=high}}
|-
{{WikiProject Gender studies|importance=high}}
|]
{{WikiProject Sexology and sexuality|importance=high}}
|An entry from '''{{PAGENAME}}''' appeared on Misplaced Pages's ] in the ''']''' column on ], ].
{{WikiProject Medicine|importance=mid|psychiatry=yes|psychiatry-imp=high}}
|{{#ifeq:{{{small|}}}|yes||]}}
{{WikiProject LGBT studies}}
|}
{{Wiki Loves Pride talk|2015}}
}}
{{Reliable sources for medical articles|synonym1=Gender+dysphoria}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{tan}}
|maxarchivesize = 100K
|counter = 10
|minthreadsleft = 2
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(90d)
|archive = Talk:Gender dysphoria/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{annual readership|scale=log}}
{{Refideas
| {{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}}
}}


== Guillamon et.al (source 23) ==
Old talk:
* ] moved to ]
* ] says GID/] 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 ], including debates on how appropriate the label ''gender identity disorder'' is and what constitues a ''cure'' for it. -- ] 14:56, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
----


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)
==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. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 20:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


== Is this correct? ==
==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? ~ ] (Sept 20, 2004)


About this paragraph in the introduction, does this correctly describe the stances of the referenced sources?
===The Rekers link===
{{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>}}
Currently, the article has the follwing link:
* '''' - ] 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 ] 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. -- ] 14:56, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)


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.
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? ~ ] (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. -- ] 16:47, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)


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)
== Inducing gender dysphoria ==


: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.
There's a discussion going on in ], which some people watching this article may be interested in. --] 13:35, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
:* 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.}}
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.
:Hope this helps. –] (] • ]) 17:24, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
And I don't care what you guys say, its very informative, even if you arn't a christian. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) {{{Time|22:50, 5 July 2006}}}</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP -->
::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.
: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? -- ] 15:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
::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)
== Gender dysphoria vs. gender identity disorder ==
:::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)
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. ] 07:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
:::Which is not addressed in that paragraph..
: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. -- ] 12:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
:::{{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)
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.
--] 03:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

:In the ], 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 ] 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 ] / Gender Identity disorder, articularly in the case of late-onset type transsexualism. It is largely discredity, in part due to the prsence of ]s and ] or ] ]. It is also confusing because transsexualism arose as a medical diagnosis from the study of ] and ]s 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)

== 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. <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (]) 23:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->
: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 ], and our knowledge of how ] affect ] and ]s
**Some mental illness is believed to be completely "psychiatric", that is, due to influences on the developing mind. I call for example here the ]s 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 ]s). 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)

== 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. <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (]) 18:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->

* According to the ], 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 - ]<sup><font color="green">]</font></sup> 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 ]ed people (which is perhaps more accurate than ]). Transsexualism is the term introduced by ] in regards to people who wish to change their bodies in order to be/represent/pass as (depending on your point of view re ]) 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 ]ed, and are impaired in your functioning in your assigned gender, you pretty much qualify under the ]. 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. - ]<sup><font color="re">]</font></sup> 01:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

== GID and Chimerism ==

The discussion from here has been ] 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? ] 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," ] 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 ] ideology (i.e., ] 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? ] (]) 16:00, 8 July 2008 (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: