Talk:Gender identity disorder/Archive 2003

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Somehow this page seems to me problematic -- would you also put a page about homosexuality under the title of (and describing it as) "disorder of the sexual orientation"? --till we *) 17:09 Oct 23, 2002 (UTC)

To reply to this original point: we have gender identity disorder, and we also have transsexual - so I reckon we are addressing essentially the same phenomenon from different perspectives: the personal/political perspective and the psychiatric perspective. So I reckon we can keep this title without fear of breaking NPOV. -Martin

I think I see your point, but with around 1% to 2% of the Western world's self-identifying as homosexual, homosexuality is no longer considered a disorder. GID is much more rare, isn't it? --Ed Poor

I don't think the question about something being a disorder or not has to do something with it being rare or occuring often. It's a question of classification, and that classification doesn't enacts in a neutral room, but in a social setting full of micro-politics, interests, different points of view etc. What is a disease or disorder, and what is healthy normality, depends often on the cultural environment at the time (there is a nice book by Susan Star Leight, sp? which I don't have at hands at the moment, wherein she examines how the international disease catalogue was constructed). I agree than a mainstream view on GID could be a view that classifies it as disorder -- but this is in no way the neutral point of view (see your own user page ;-) ). So, I hope my changes are okay (and thanks for the copyediting). --till we *)

I agree with you that classifying GID as a "disorder" is not neutral -- it's definitely someone's point of view. Thanks for checking my user page; I try not to hide my own "lack of neutrality". By the way, my usual policy on editing "controversial" issues like homosexuality and so on is to limit myself to around one edit per day -- and never to engage in an edit war: I'd rather be harmonious than right (on this site, anyway). --Ed Poor

((I tried to push the article a bit more into what I would see as an neutral point of view. If it goes to far, you have to push it into the other direction. --till we *)))

Brandon Teena referred to himself as having a gender identity disorder (no, not just in the fiction film; it's on the tape of his conversation with the police officer). --KQ

I don't see your point. To come back to my homosexuality argument above, take a look at how "gay" started as an insult (and homosexuality as a disorder), coming to a positive seen self-name. It's not about the word "Gender identity disorder", but about the meaning. And I don't think Brandon Teena has seen himself as having a health problem, did he? BTW -- on GID Reform is a lot of material about Gender Idenity Disorder and why the catalogue of mental disorders should be reformed. --till we *)

That's because I wasn't responding to you; I was responding to montréalais above. --KQ

Actually, "gay" started in Victorian England as meaning "sexually loose", i.e., streetwalkers called "gay women" in My Secret Life. Homosexuality started as an immoral act or sin, graduating to a "disorder" only after the rise of psychology and psychiatry in the 20th century. Perhaps I should write more in another article about how homosexuality got declassified as a "disorder". --Ed Poor

It's a double edged sword for transsexuals. Freedom to live "as is" requires medical intervention, and in an increasingly paranoid world, opportunities to earn a livelihood are more likely for someone with a "clean" bill of mental health. Insurance coverage for services ain't gonna happen no matter what happens on the "investigational" front, so there's nothing to lose there. Fortunately, with an increasingly entrepreneurial medical community, "available at some price" doesn't imply "medically necessary". Getting declassified as a "disorder" would be worth something as a symbolic victory. I think most of the alleged discrimination and other hardship is more taboo-based than clinical-based.

---

I'm a bit confused about the article's use of the words 'sex' and 'gender'. Do sufferers of GID feel they have the wrong genitalia, or do they feel the gendder role society assigns them to be wrong? -- Tarquin

I'd say the "sufferers" feel they have the wrong genitalia ('sex') for the gender they think/feel they belong to, and therefore society assigns them the wrong gender roles. -- till we *)

I'd have to agree -- based on the little bit of reading I've done today. Sufferers of GID literally believe they are the opposite sex and feel that their body is the wrong sex. Hence, the two approaches to this problem: (A) change the body with surgery and drugs; or (B) re-orient sexual identity to the body. Despite my personal belief that B is always the correct choice, I intend to avoid impressing this POV onto the article, which for NPOV must only say that some advocates say A, while others say B. --Ed Poor

Genitalia is a bit simplistic. There's a lot of secondary sexual characteristics that transsexuals typically try and "fix" to be more in line with their internal self-image. There's also a lot of acquired sexual differences like flirting, hair length, certain choices of words, passive/active dichotomy, etc - Deirdre McCloskey wrote in her memoirs that she worked hard to relearn all the appropriate gestures to try and get "read" as a former man less often. -Martin

GID reminds me of SSAD, the view of the IHF and a few others that homosexuality is an inappropriate quest for love from one's own sex. The gay man is really longing for his father's parental love. --Uncle Ed

EEEEEeeeeeeeeeewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww. - Montréalais

Is SSAD what homosexuality was called back when it was in the DSM-II? If so, I've seen the comparison made before.

Curiously, the last transsexual I spoke to was happy to accept the term 'disorder' - he said it was a cruel trick of the universe to provide him with an incompatible brain and body. It was the fact it was classed as a psychiatric disorder that got him: he figured that his brain was fine, but his body was wrong, rather than the other way round. But I didn't put that into the article because I don't know how commonplace a view it is. -Martin

I gather "SSAD" may be a new coinage, perhaps even peculiar to Richard Cohen and his IHF. But I don't know for sure enough to add it to the article. For all I know, he's the only one promoting the view. Moreover, I'm not sure if it has any bearing on GID or not. Anyway, it plainly is grossing out Montréalais, so maybe I better shut up now. --Uncle Ed

---

Heavily edited this page, for various reasons: Gender identity disorder is not the same as transsexuality, but covers the complete transgender spektrum.

after further research, agreed: DSM-IV has this GIDNOS diagnosis (now in entry), and that's backed up by other sources. Sorry to incorrectly contradict you earlier. GID seems to still primarilly refer to TS, though. -Martin

Intersexuals are often diagnosed as suffering from gender identity disorder - after all, a lot of them will have problems with the gender assigned to them, because there is a 50% chance of missing.

Also, extremely dangerous stuff about "cure" deleted. Has been tried for 100 years. Has produced a lot of very disturbend and/or unhappy people, but only in very isolated cases, where the reason for the initial gender identiy problem came clearly from the outside, it has actually helped that person. It's about as effective and advisable as elector shocks to cure homosexuality.

I'm concerned that your changes to the treatment section are a worry in terms of a neutral point of view (NPOV). You may view such cures as extremely dangerous, but wikipedia itself can't take a position, only report the positions held by others. In this case, ideally we'd like to report the positions of reputable medical establishments, and so on. -Martin

I have merely stated what every reasonable scientific text will tell you - they don't work, but cause a lot of harm. If you are concerned about my statements, what about those that I deleted? To claim that some pseudo-christian snake-oil-selling "doctor" could "cure" gender variant children without even questioning who really needed some cure (not to mention (non-)effectiveness of this treatment) was not exactly a neutral point of view, either. And it's not neutral, either, to only report one side. Especially if it's definitely an outsider position that clearly comes from some religious point of view.

And I haven't even mentionend that in the previous version SRS was labeled a cure for transsexualism. Whoever wrote that didn't even know how to spell the word clue.

Be that as it may - if what I wrote need to be "neutralized", so be it. I know I get angry everytime I read dangerous stuff like that. (And I can back up my opinion - can they?) However - in that case it should also be remembered that the Wikipedia is also not indented to be an advertising space for religious quacks. AlexR 02:30 Dec 30, 2002 (UTC)

Every reasonable scientific text says that gender reassignment won't work? Has every scientific researcher spoken to every person who has undergone the treatment and found out that every peron who has undergone it wishes it hadn't happened? -- Zoe

Every text that deals with the matter, yes. Although having spoken with every person who ever has untergone such a treatment won't be neccessary for such a text. It would be impossible anyway. And the stories which pretend to be success stories don't talk about anything but their respective clients, either.
I have tried for years (and so have others) to find a single text or case - just one single one - where a psychological attempt to reconcile a person with their biological or assigned gender worked and where there is a follow-up that says it worked still a few years after the treatment ended. Oh yes, you can find a few (altough not very many) where such a treatment alledgedly worked - but they *all* lack a follow up.
On the other hand, many transgendered people and many intersexual people can tell you their stories of psychological or social attempts to reconcile them with their sex or assigned gender. It didn't work. And that despite the fact that most people who in the end change their gender wouldn't rather have been "cured" instead. There are easier parts in live, you know. Many have tried for every "cure" that was available to them. Didn't work. AlexR 08:53 Dec 30, 2002 (UTC)

My apologies, AlexR. I read your comments as saying that you were saying that those with GID shouldn't be operated on to change their sexes, but should be content with what they are. -- Zoe

Oops - yes, that was a rather capital misunderstanding. However, I have to admitt that I didn't exactly express myself very clearly, too. Therefore, for anybody stumbling over this in the future:

A cure for GID or transgender feelings would be able to reconcile a person with their sex or their assigned gender. Such a cure has never been found, all claims of such cases lack a follow-up. It was this claim of a cure in the article I edited I spoke out against so strongly. The moral issues of the neccessity and desirability of such a cure are pretty much the same as in the matter of curing homosexuality. Both definitely matters that do not belong into the Wikipeda.

The same version also called sexual reassignenment (surgery) another cure. It isn't. It's a way to enable people to live in the gender they feel they belong to, or their chosen gender.
It can be, however, a cure for societey, by reinforcing a binary gender system (see Heteronormativity) by leaving gender variant people exactly two choices. Again, though, this is a debate with a strong moral and/or ethnical component, and therefore should be carried out elsewhere, too. AlexR 10:15 Dec 31, 2002 (UTC)

Hmm. I reckon it's a question of perspective. If you look at GID and say "the body is correct, the mind is wrong", then SRS isn't a cure, and fixing the mind via psychotherapy would be a cure. If you look at GID and say "the mind is correct, the body is wrong", then SRS is a cure, and psychotherapy would not be. I guess because GID is a psychological term, it's the former that is the "correct" way of seeing things. -Martin

Sounds right, however, I know only very few transgendered people who see SRS as a cure. Most are also fully aware that no matter what medicine can give you, it is not a sex change. Maybe then it would more be seen as a cure. On the other hand, since an increasing number of transgendered people don't see being transgender as a disorder, well, there's no cure for it necessary. (Which doesn't mean medical treatment can't be neccessary!) That's probably the other main reason why it's hardly ever seen as a cure. In those cases, it is more seen like a wheelchair for a disabled person. Not a cure, but an often necessary instrument. Nothing more, nothing less. AlexR 19:58 Dec 31, 2002 (UTC)

---

The recently added external link to the article by Rekers seems to be highly biased. He seems to be a proponent of reparative therapy. Also, the articles he cites are all either very old (older than 1985), or (co-)authored by himself. It doesn't prove that he is wrong, just that he is one of very few people still clinging to outdated views on GID. IMHO, this is not a good article to link to here, at least not without an additional warning about its bias. -- Kimiko 08:18, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Hi Kimiko & Everyone, I completely agree that the link to Rekers is exceptionally biased, and very poor science. He's really just advancing a religious perspective using the language of research. But I feel it's worth keeping since people should be aware of what an argument from those who support the GID diagnosis could sound like. BTW, I did not put the Reker's link here. I think it was already put there by MyRedDice. You changed the Portrayals of Transgenderism in Psychopathology link to say it's about bias in research rather than about removal of GID. To me, these are actually the same thing, since GID is a psychopathological research category. I liked my language better since it parallels the entry for Reker's essay and uses the terminology of this entry (i.e., GID). But I won't change it back unless you or others feel it makes sense to. This raises a much bigger question I have: why is the entry for "Gender Dsyphoria" redirected to "Gender Identity Disorder?" There can be such a thing as discomfort with gender (gender dysphoria) without any implication that it's a pathology (GID). ~ Katie

I don't expect many proponents of this diagnosis to sound like Rekers though.
The genderpsychology.org link is about researchers being biased to see/describe GID in a negative light. Your description of removal of GID from the DSM does not cover the content of the essay at all. The author doesn't advocate that at all. Also, the article by Rekers is not about continued inclusion of GID in the DSM. It discusses GID of childhood from a Christian POV.
Gender dysphoria probably redirects to GID because this article comes closest to explaining what gender dysphoria is, in the absence of an actual article about that topic itself. Transgender or transsexual would also be good candidates. -- Kimiko 21:36, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)