Talk:Gender dysphoria/Archive1

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an archive page, last updated 24 April 2023. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

Topic[edit] ? Keepgoats 07:06, 28 July 2007 (CDT)

Yes, interesting. I am reading the "reference" now, by the way. It is not very well written, so I am going to to see if I can find the "real" DSM source to cite. humanbe in 12:27, 28 July 2007 (CDT)

There are lots of places to find the DSM-IV online, I think the only ones you have to buy these days are the R and TR editions, which aren't remarkably different.
The figures are a bit outdated, too. It's generally believed now that the "source" genders are more or less equivalent in incidence. As to the 1:30,000 number, that's contested these days as well. --Kels 12:35, 28 July 2007 (CDT)

I wonder if a link to the Harry Benjamin Standards of Care, which describes the normal course of treatment for those diagnosed with GID, wouldn't be amiss? Here's one you can use. --Kels 12:55, 28 July 2007 (CDT)

Only social?[edit]

This here appears in the article as it stands:

It is a disorder only in that those that suffer from it struggle with cultural expectations of how they should act and "who they should be" relative to their genital appurtenances. As such, it is a "disorder" only in proportion to how much coercion and difficulty they experience as they try to "be themselves".

The problem is, it isn't actually true. The concept behind Gender Identity Disorder is Gender Dysphoria, which is to say that the person's internal gender identity does not match up with the external genetalia. It isn't a matter of social mores at all, save that social pressures often increase pressure not to do anything to deal with the problem. Cultural expectations aggravate matters, but they are secondary to the disorder itself, which often involves a great deal of body hatred. I'd like to hear some thoughts about how to re-word this to replace the above in the article. --Kels 18:05, 5 September 2007 (CDT)

So even in the total absence of societal expectations, GID would still occur, being a clash between the organs delivered and the non-matching mind? IE, no matter, even, "how cool people tell me it is, I still can't do with my doohickeys what I feel like they should do?" IE, I'd rather be a square peg than a round hole?
If I got your drift even half right, I'd recommend just cutting out what you quoted and putting in what you said here. Or, merging the two ideas if possible. Start with "Even in a idealized society where there were no gender behavior expectations, GDI would still occur due to..."? humanbe in 19:23, 5 September 2007 (CDT)
That's pretty much what I'm getting at, yes. The bucking of societal expectations fits more into the idea of transgender, although obviously there's overlap between the concepts. Some people don't go to the extent of surgery, finding that simply being able to live and function as the desired gender manages to cover enough of the discomfort arising from the dysphoria, but the majority have serious body issues that go beyond simple gender roles. It's pretty complicated stuff, and you have to be prepared to alter some basic assumptions in order to properly get it, but it's worth the effort. --Kels 19:40, 5 September 2007 (CDT)


Honestly, I'm asking myself exactly what purpose an article on RW on GID really has. There's not a lot we're refuting with it, and the WP article on the subject is actually quite good. Hell, the current article on CP of all places isn't entirely out to lunch (I know, give it time), so why waste our time with it? Any thoughts? --Kels 14:53, 7 September 2007 (CDT)

I don't think it needs to go; however, I agree with your sentiment that it does not "advance our mission", unless it at least debunks common misconceptions. But since those might not be bad science, say, well, you have a point. I'd still say "leave it", we have a nice clutch of articles on human sexuality, that at the very least shows we are open and intelligent about it rather than repressed or nervous. Not sure I actually said anything there... humanbe in 14:58, 7 September 2007 (CDT)
Oh, I get what you mean, and I agree. Just having reasonable articles on the topic says a lot about us having a decently unfettered worldview, and that's important. Also, it's a good placeholder for when the CP article goes seriously south, which is pretty much inevitable once RobS got interested in it. --Kels 15:01, 7 September 2007 (CDT)
It has a purpose in the sense that people, especially conservatives, are often quick to dismiss GID and transsexuality as a "delusion", usually based on religious or "common sense" justifications that it's "wrong and unnatural". The article needs expansion by an expert on the subject, but I agree its presence here is warranted. - LucidFox (talk) 03:37, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Bradley Manning[edit]

Kinda shocked there isn't an article about him (just WikiLeaks)...but apparently he's using gender identity confusion as part of his defense in his trial....interesting? relevent? Discuss. -- Seth Peck (talk) 23:19, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

That whole thing is a great bloody mess. I don't know where to begin. Blue (pester) 22:15, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Natalie Reed on whether it's a disorder[edit]

Freethought Blogs' Natalie Reed: Is Gender Identity Disorder a Disorder? Summary: the dysphoria is, and it shouldn't be conflated with "being transgender".--ZooGuard (talk) 17:44, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

It's a great article that really brings up a reality of gender identity, dysporhia, or "whatever". it is an "illness" in the sense that for many (not all) people, they want some way to try to normalize **for themselves** not society. and, society needs to recognize that it is not just hatred (as with gays) though hatred goes along with TransG in all its forms, but it is an actual medical condition that a patient and her doctor will address in the way that is best for her, from "nothing" to "everything".--Green mowse.pngGodotWhen I graduated, Cognative Science of Religion didn't even exist! now it's everywhere 17:57, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
It's the placement of GID among the mental disorders that causes anguish. It's not a mental disorder. It is a medical condition with psychological side effects, and as such, those afflicted usually require medical treatment. In a perfect world, psychiatrists would be free to diagnose transsexualism or some such term as a medical condition, not as a DSM disorder. The DSM-V came close to actually implementing this, but got scared off by insurance companies who would jeopardize confirmational treatment. Blue (is useful) 19:12, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
also a good point! — Unsigned, by: WaitingforGodot / talk / contribs 19:15, 07 June 2012 (UTC)