Talk:Transsexual/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions about Transsexual. 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.

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

→

The definition of transsexualism according to the APA

Yes let us use the APA/WPATH definition. 8) This is the compleat specification as found in the DSM IV According to: Genderpsychology.org DSM IV and every place else I have seen it.

Differential Diagnosis Gender Identity disorder can be distinguished from simple noncomformity to stereo-typical sex role behavior by the extent and pervasiveness of the cross-gender wishes, interests, and activities. This disorder is not meant to describe a child’s nonconformity to stereotypic sex-role behavior as, for example, in “tomboyishness” in girls or “sissyish” behavior in boys. Rather, it represents a profound disturbance of the individual’s sense of identity with regard to maleness or femaleness. Behavior in children that merely does not fit the cultural stereotype of masculinity or femininity should not be given the diagnosis unless the full syndrome is present, including marked distress or impairment.

Tranvetic Fetishism occurs in heterosexual (or bisexual) men for whom the cross-dressing behavior is for the purpose of sexual excitement. Aside from cross-dressing, most individuals with Transvetic Fetishism do not have a history of childhood cross-gender behaviors. Males with presentation that meets full criteria for Gender Identity Disorder as well as Tranvestic Fetishism should be given both diagnoses. If gender dysphoria is present in an individual with Transvetic Fetishism but full criteria for Gender Identity Disorder are not met, the specifier With Gender Dysphoria can be used.

The category Gender Identity Disorder Not Otherwise specified can be used for individuals who have a gender identity problem with concurrent congenital intersex condition (e.g., androgen insensitivity syndrome or congenital adrenal hyperplasia).

In Schizophrenia, there may rarely be delusions of belonging to the other sex. Insistence by a person with Gender Identity Disorder that he or she is of the other sex is not considered a delusion, because what is invariably meant is that the person feels like a member of the other sex rather than truley believes that he or she is a member of the other sex. In very rare cases, however, Schizophrenia and severe Gender Identity Disorder may coexist.
(all emphasis in the original.

Forget my past positions for a minute and read this with a fresh mind. Consider the implications of the above.

To avoid POV problems we need to include ALL of that text INCLUDING the part about transvestetic fetishism. The interested community of wikipedians has decided through a long consensus to keep these ideas in separate spaces. To use the DSM defintino we must do that.

A much more neutral, general, definition I found in a book. I beg you to just consider this passage as it stands, alone as a good definition of a transsexual....

Terminology is an importnat source of confusion "transsexualism" has many connotations, including "sex change,""trapped in the wrong body,""femininity"(in genetic males) or "masculinity" (in genetic females), and "cross-dressing." All I mean by "transsexualism" is the desire to become a member of the opposite sex. An adult with transsexualism is a "transsexual." These definitions say nothing about the motivation, apperance, or subsequent actions of the transsexual. They do not imply that the transsexual feels trapped in the wrong body, or that the transsexual even ultimately seeks sex reassignment.

The first objection someone will give is something like... "It says 'transsexualism" is the desire to become a member of the opposite sex,' this confuses sex with gender." Well here is where the difference between being generally transgendered and being a transsexual comes in. That one sentence all about says all that need to be said. The use of the first person by this writer would not be appropriate but a definition in this spirit may be better than the DSM one. Consider this definition, and the DSM defintion of these which is really better (more neutral to the variations that there are in transsexualism, More general etc.)? --Hfarmer 03:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't even know where to begin with that paragraph. The terminology section already evident in this article is far better than anything proposed on this talk page, and I really don't see the need to open this particular can of worms. Rebecca 04:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about. This article is right now so bad that a transsexual from mexico (see above section was confused by it!--Hfarmer 15:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Who? Where? I don't see this confusion clearly marked? It may be worth it to break it out into its own section so that it's more clear to see? I don't really feel comfortable commenting or supporting or arguing an assertion that the article is confusing without being able to read that other person's comments. --Puellanivis 19:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC) *sigh* found it, nevermind. I don't really see that she finds it confusing, but rather that the legal aspects of transsexualism does not cover Mexican laws governing transsexuals. --Puellanivis 19:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Holly Black's comments:- Though the topic is controversial and consensus will likely never be reached, we could at least strive for factual accuracy. The subject section is entitled something like "The definition of Transsexualism according to the APA". That is highly problematic for several reasons. First the abbreviation APA is commonly understood to mean either the American Psychiatric Association or the American Psychological Association. Though these two fine organizations agree on many things there is one particular area in which they hold very different, one might say opposing views - and yes that area is transsexualism. Thus, to use the abbreviation APA in this context is confusing at best - in a subject area more beset by confusion than few others.

Secondly, neither APA defines it. Transsexualism is expressly defined by the WHO (World Health Organization http://www.who.int) in their various published manuals (plural) which each include the words "The International Classification of Diseases" in their title. I think few would disagree that the WHO outranks either APA, and even if it didn't, the United Nations Organization (http://un.int/ - of which the WHO is part) certainly does. Moreover the APA in its DSM does not even attempt to define transsexualism, but rather limits itself to GID which is related but not the same. APA-DSM-IV-TR GID (302.85) is, formally, an Axis I Mental Disorder, and expressly NOT an Axis II Personality Disorder. Contrariwise in the WHO-ICD-10 "Transsexualism" (and GID in Children), again formally, are "Disorder[s] of Adult Personality or Behaviour". Moreover, EVEN when present in children, ICD-GID is, formally, a disorder of [the child's] ADULT personality (emphasis added) and DSM-GID is NOT a Personality Disorder of ANY kind (emphasis added again). Thus, from the official (official) medical viewpoint GID and Transsexualism are in some sense opposites. I'm not proposing to resolve this disagreement, only to say it is a disservice to suggest that they are one and the same when the respected (respected rightly or more likely wrongly but respected nonetheless) authorities see it otherwise.

Since the professionals who write the definitions disagree among themselves it is not likely consensus will be found in Wikipedia. But hopefully it is not too much to ask for accurate reporting of the facts. It is especially important to be accurate when it is obvious at the outset that opinions will differ.

And while we are on the topic, it is plain wrong to suggest that Transsexualism and Transsexuality are the same thing. Rightly or, more likely, wrongly, Transsexualism is rigorously defined as a formally identified "Disease". In contrast Transsexuality is a colloquialism arguably pejorative. References: http://www.who.int/classifications/apps/icd/icd10online/ http://www.behavenet.com/capsules/disorders/prsnltydsrdr.htm -- written by Holly Black —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.226.228.239 (talk) 13:23, 26 March 2007

Perhaps we should rename this article "Gender Identity Disorder"?

Resolved

Thinking about how to define "transsexualism" has gotten me thinking...should we use that word at all. Other than as a reference to an old defunct term for gender identity disorder. The ADA/WPATH definition is not a definition of transsexualism....but one of "gender identity disorder". I know rebecca thinks this article as it is is a perfect candidate for a featured article. :roll:. And so to just save her the breath I know you think everything I say sucks. What say the rest of you who are interested? --Hfarmer 15:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

As before I propose that we redo this article based on the version found on the so called "Simple english wikipedia version of transexualism". I just saw this today. Note that it's last update is in june 2006. These other set of people thought basically as I did for this version of wikipedia. An article like that one but a little bit longer would be better. Breaking this information into easier to swallow bites. Perhaps adding a shortened paraphrasing of the DSM definiton of GID. --Hfarmer 15:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I really don't see that article as having very much content at all. And starting from the Simple English version, would basically set the article back more than anything that it would actually provide. If you feel that the article needs to be restructured, then things can be moved around and restructured without having to redo the whole page. The Simple English version is also quite broad, generic and does not note exceptions, and disputes at all. It does not recognize that some people object to transsexuals being classified under the umbrella of transgender, and it also presents a view that transsexuals must require/plan for surgery in order to be transsexual. It also says that transgendered individuals are those where their gender identity does not match with their physical sex. This is not accurate as crossdressers are transgendered, but their gender identity is reasonably in line with their body, they just feel a comfort in expressing different gender roles, but their gender identity is in no way in crisis.

I think you have some good ideas for improving the article, but a slash-and-burn tactic will not generate much support. --Puellanivis 19:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Genetic level sex change, a possibility?

Resolved

This discussion has been moved to my talk page - If there are any other comments, please put them there. This is because the discussion had little to do with the article, as pointed out by Jokestress and Wwagner. Thanks especially to Puellanivis for her contributions.

Redundant link

Resolved

I believe that the [http:/transsexual.org Transsexuality] page is linked twice: once as "transsexuality" and once as "what is transsexuality". Should we remove the latter? (Last of the external links list_ Lwollert 01:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Both a Notes and References section?

Resolved

Was wondering if these two sections should be merged into one? Is there a dominant, or preferred, style occuring in this article? ZueJay (talk) 03:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh hey, I'm keeping out of this one!! ;-) - Alison^☺ 03:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Ack! None of that! I was just mostly curious as to why there were the two sections? Usually there is only one or the other, isn't there? ZueJay (talk) 03:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

It shouldn't really matter - I've often seen both in an article and it usually follows this format. References relate directly to points in the text and 'Notes' or 'Further reading' gives general reference material to the topic at hand. Merge if you like - I don't really mind. If you use {{Reflist}} and {{Sourcesstart}} / {{Sourcesend}}, they can merge really nicely. - Alison^☺ 06:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, that makes more sense now. It looks like the current "References" section should be "Further reading" and the current "Notes" section should be "References." Does that make sense? My thought here is that the current "References" is not direclty cited in the text, but the "Notes" section is; my head goes "The ref tag is used, it should be under a heading of 'References' whereas no tag then it probably should be 'Notes' or 'Further reading.'" 'S-alright? ZueJay (talk) 07:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Sounds about right. Lwollert 20:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Changed the headers: Notes --> References, and References --> Bibliography. Bibliography is more formal and probably more reflective of how those sources were actually used for information contained within the article (but not directly cited). ZueJay (talk) 18:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Well done! Looks lots better - Alison^☺ 18:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't even do anything ;) ZueJay (talk) 19:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Merge into Sexual Reassignment Therapy

Resolved

The idea behind this article is primarily as a overview. If there are details in the SRT section that go maybe a bit too in depth, then certainly, we can make sure that they're in the SRT article, and then remove them here, but it would not support the current trend of this article to just move all the SRT information into that article, and then remove it from here.

From what I've seen in general from previous editors' opinions is that we would like to have this article stay fairly broad but somewhat deep, to give a good accurate overview of Transsexuals in all. This means no "Go read this other article" sections. If this means a duplication of information on this page as well as the main article page, then that's acceptable, as long as the information is quite important. I think rather than seeing a direct merge, I'd like to see the information of this article merged into the SRT article, and then appropriate edits made here secondarily. --Puellanivis 06:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

So, I made my original comments on the reason I proposed the merge, and how I would consider merging, on the template's linked discussion page at Talk:Sex reassignment therapy. My intent is much as you stated above:

I'm proposing this merger because these sections claim the same name, yet aren't discussing the same things even though it appears they should be. Through a quick overview, it seems most appropriate to merge the Transsexualism#Sex reassignment therapy section into this primary article; of course, leaving in place appropriate "quick" descriptions on the Transsexualism article. Let me know if I'm off my rocker. Thanks.

However, we should only discuss this in one place, so here or there? ZueJay (talk) 06:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh... chalk that up to me not reading... *laugh* Ok, I'm in agreement then. --Puellanivis 06:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the partial merge proposal; the current "SRT" section is long, uncited, has some POV issues and wanders a long way from SRT in some places. Certainly a link to Sex reassignment therapy and Transitioning (transgender) would be useful (although the latter needs a lot of editing/addition to be useful, and is subject to a merge proposal of it's own)

Cheers, Lwollert 09:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

;) I gotcha!
Certainly I have stumbled across a lot of not, or poorly, linked articles with lacks of cites, etc. in the T-category lately. I wonder if part of the problem stems from determining the appropriate name (naming convention) for some of the articles. Even in the LGBT cats at large, this is increasingly an issue; last night I proposed, essentially, a group merge for a bunch of GLAAD Media Awards.
Anyway, It seems like folks sound okay with this. I'll start sifting something through my sandbox to merge the section into the article. Thanks for the feedback - it doesn't always occur. ZueJay (talk) 16:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

PS - I'll still wait the min recommended five days before actually significantly showing the merge in the article in case there are more editors wanting to supply feedback. ZueJay (talk)

Merged what was sitting in my sandbox, the majority of which I reviewed. However, I have limited knowledge of these topics and how to correctly phrase certain things. Please, please, please review it carefully. Also, there is a lack of information in this newly merged article with regards to intersex individuals (right there I probably made a grammer gaff!); need to modify to better include.
We also now need to pare the SRT portion of this article down to eliminate the duplication of information. ZueJay (talk) 19:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Requesting Protection against Vandals

Resolved

I'd like to request at least semi-portection on this page. I just deleted 'a bunch of retarted faggets they all are' from 'Defining Transsexualism' and I feel like it would do good. Chicablog 19:33, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Post a request to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection stating your rationale and another admin will review it - Alison ☺ 21:33, 30 June 2007 (UTC) (can't do it myself as I've edited here)

kathoey

Resolved

With thousands of cultures through the world and time, it is silly to put the exception in the opening paragraph. The sentence "Transsexualism is considered a taboo subject in many parts of the world." naturally implies that in some parts of the world, transsexualism is not taboo. There has always been a fringe acceptance, depending on the wealth, freedom and tolerance allowed in the culture. I'm not sure if the history of transsexualism acceptance is covered adequately in this article or WP, but the opening paragraph is a misleading place for it.--Knulclunk 21:07, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't agree. There are exceptions (the kathoey being just one of many) as you even mention yourself. It's true that you'd think "in many parts of the world" would imply that there are others that function differently, but sometimes it is important to state all sides, no matter how obvious it may seem, so as not to appear biased. The opening paragraph leaves out an important piece of information, that transsexualism is not taboo everywhere. I personally feel that this is not the most neutral way to go; it is misleading to leave those few words out.

What about something like "...in many parts of the world, but has been accepted to varying degrees in certain cultures"? This would leave it open for that acceptance to take multiple forms, whether acceptance by the dominant culture of a certain locality, by particular subcultures, or by fringe culture. "Culture" is not synonymous with "Nation", a mistake far too many people seem to make. Is there some way we can come to a compromise on this? romarin [talk ] 15:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Romarin, I agree with your suggestion. This article needs a whole lot of work right now, but it is a very controversial article, so I will let there be more discussion before I make any changes to the article itself. Andrea Parton 22:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

As a language compromise, perhaps the word "tolerance" is more accurate that "acceptance"? I do hear where Romarin is coming from, but as an NPOV argument, we also need to be wary of undue weight. --Knulclunk 03:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

"varying levels of tolerance" sounds good. Even in Thailand, the Kathoey are not fully tolerated or treated the same as non-trans women, but it's a heck of a lot closer than it is here in the USA when someone is openly trans. --Puellanivis 03:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Mental Disorder

With many examples of identical twins with one getting a sex change and the other having no problem with their gender, it is odviously not genetic and a result or mental developing.

If someone went to a psy and said they where a giraffe born in a humans body, the psy would say your fu#kng nuts. There would not be any we should make him look like a giraffe! Just another example of political correctness gone too far.--203.192.92.73 11:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Considering that transsexuals most often have a typical masculine body, I don't think that there ever was any dispute that it's not genetic. If it were, then we'd know about it by now, and transsexuals would be intersexed, and wouldn't be denied medical coverage. I imagine that you think that "mental development" only happens when surrounded by culture, but if identical twins were raised in the same home, and one was a transsexual and the other isn't, then it's clearly not an environmental condition. It's fairly well expected that this divergence from typical development happens in the womb due to the unique situation of hormone levels, and more in the fetus's body.

As a point, hand shape, and hand creases are determined in the womb, from influences by hormones. If you look at your Digit ratio, if you're a male, you're more likely to have a longer ring finger than middle finger, while females are more likely to have a longer index finger than middle finger (or the same length) It is known and empirically proven that this is a condition of natural development in the womb under the effect of hormones. Also, males tend to be more likely to have a single crease running from between the thumb and forefinger, to past the pinky, while females are more likely to have the line going past their pinky terminate somewhere in the area of the fingers, and a separate line which goes from the forefinger/thumb division to terminate in the palm.

And you're wrong. If a person when to a psychologist saying that theay were a giraffe in a human body, the psychologist would begin to assertain just how strong this feeling is. If the person can be taught to overcome urges and stuff, best, if the person can be taught to act out appropriately at appropriate times, then better. Either way, the psychologist would attempt to resolve the mental stress that the person is feeling. In the same way, therapists actively discourage transsexuality in their patients coming to them. I had more resistence to myself as a transsexual, and more suggestions of alternatives to transsexualism from my therapist than anyone else I have ever met. In the end, any alternative was insufficient. Transsexualism is the only appropriate course of treatment for me. --Puellanivis 19:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

No you make WRONG assumptions there, just because two people are raised in the same home at the same time, does not mean they develop menatlly the same. So trying to claim its genetic is wrong. Two identical twins (Same DNA etc) one a transexual the other definatelyno incline towards transexualism, shows thats its not genetic, DNA or born that way.

So what next let pedos abuse kids, because that makes them happy?

Finger information is very fasinating and a sounds like a very acurrate way to sex a person. Oh we have a BETTER way, if the person has male gentials, developed as male in the womb, produces sperm, has testrone levels of a male, then they are male. Much more accurate then sexing people by their fingers.

So if the psy cant correct the prob they just go along with it. Give up basically.

If somone is XXY then thats different, thaey are not Male and they are not Female and as such should be allowed to do/have what ever at the expense of the government as thats the way they where born, a physical medical condition.--Polygamistx4 15:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

A couple of points; you're confusing the terms genetic and congenital. Neurological development can progress differently in utero for any number of reasons. As to the "pedos and kids" analog, c'mon. There are no parallels to be drawn there whatsoever. As for cures, some professionals have suggested that TSism can be cured, such as NARTH, but it's a largely unpopular prognosis. My counter to that would be that if a person is able to live with themselves post-transition; in other words, their quality of life becomes a lot greater and their mental anguish reduced, then why on earth not??? Given that there's no harm done to anyone else, it's results that count - Alison ☺ 15:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

*Blink blink* Did you miss this part of my post? "I don't think that there ever was any dispute that it's not genetic." Yet, again, you try and push back and say again, that it's not genetic. WE'RE NOT ARGUING THAT. Now, You say "If someone is XXY then thats different, thaey are not Male and they are not Female and as such should be allowed to do/have what ever at the expense of the government as thats the way they where born, a physical medical condition." I'm going to point out a couple of things... Klinefelter's Syndrome is far more common than transsexualism, to the point of 1 in 500 to 1,000 males. You're talking about giving at least a population of approximately 151,000 people in the USA full authorization to get a sex change, this is despite that the DSM prevalence estimates say there should be at most 20,000 individuals in the USA that require sex reassignment therapy. Clearly, you are mistaking intersex conditions for transsexual conditions.

Now, let me give you an example of a congenital development difference, rather than a genetic development difference. I have a friend who is Deaf. While his mother was pregnant with him, she caught the measles and this resulted in damaging his developing ears, and resulted in his deafness. He's clearly not genetically deaf, but to make any argument that he don't deserved treatment... that's clearly a stupendous error. Likewise, transsexualism, while we do not know the etiologies (how, and why the transsexual conditions occur) does not invalidate that we know how best to treat them. In the future someday, there may be a pill or a surgery to make a person's internalized gender match what their external genitalia is, however the ethical notions of making a person's brain match their biology are questionable. However, until such treatment arrives, we treat it as best as we can. For example, before we had penicillin we worked really hard to patch up people with bacterial infections. Just because the possibility of an antibiotic existed doesn't invalid the worth of giving what medical treatment is available at the time. --Puellanivis 21:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to address only a few points here, in the hopes that I can control my temper.

First off, I've been reading about more and more cases of twins with differing sexual orientations. It's very common. There's really nothing surprising about this to anyone who knows anything about twins or has a few gay friends.

So what next let pedos abuse kids, because that makes them happy?

A gem worthy of Rick Santorum if ever I saw one. This is like one of those analogy questions on the SAT, "which of these things is not like the other?" Answer: being transsexual doesn't hurt anyone. If you argue that it hurts the transsexual, then at least from your viewpoint you have to realize it doesn't hurt anyone outside themselves. And that really makes it very different from pedophilia in my book.

Oh we have a BETTER way, if the person has male gentials, developed as male in the womb, produces sperm, has testrone levels of a male, then they are male. Much more accurate then sexing people by their fingers.

I've got a little news flash for you: we all started out as girls, bucko. Do some research on embryonic development. And in any case, you're either making the error of confusing sexuality with gender identity, or else you're being deliberately disingenuous. The first can be cured by researching the meaning of the terms. I don't know how to prescribe a cure for the latter. This is not the place for mean-spirited jokes.

Oh - and that's genitals and testosterone. Your posts are atrociously spelled.

So if the psy cant correct the prob they just go along with it. Give up basically.

Research continues to show this is not a psychological problem. Your insistence that it is only demonstrates you still have much to learn before you can make constructive edits.

If somone is XXY then thats different, thaey are not Male and they are not Female and as such should be allowed to do/have what ever at the expense of the government as thats the way they where born, a physical medical condition.

Huh? I couldn't make out what you were trying to say at all. Are you talking about people with extra genes? Why is it that a difference written in the genetic code is OK in your book, but a difference established during prenatal development is suspect? Are either of these under the control of the individual? Did you decide to be heterosexual while you were still swimming upside-down in amniotic fluid? Kasreyn 13:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Renee Richards from Regrets section

I did so after googling her name and trying to find instances in the mainstream media of her statements of alleged regrets. I found none. The closes is that she regrets THE FAME that went along with it but not the life changing decision itself:

February 18, 2007 Reuters article at Yahoo.com

http://in.sports.yahoo.com/070218/137/6c848.html

If she had any regrets I would think she would had said so. At the very least she would had stopped living as a woman, to apply common sense. I will check the other name that supposedly regrets. The source cited in the article in the "Regrets" section maybe using deliberate disinformation to a hidden end. Hunter2005 15:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Just blocked out Danielle Bunten Berry as well for the same reasons. If anyone can find a more substantial source that can verify the regrets of both Berry and Richards of the SRS Then by all means present it. I left Jerry Leach because I found an alternate source to confirm that he is a former Transgender:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3827/is_199805/ai_n8788537

Last story called EXODUS'S SUCCESS Hunter2005 15:57, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I am going to rewrite this. It's too long has too many wiesle words....

As a matter of fact it is so long that the automated peer review java script hangs on it. The article for the BIBLE is only 7 kb's longer and the one for the Quran is 4KB's shorter. The article is full of uncited material, wiesel words and POV. It needs to be revamped but without losing any of the meat. For exmaple how much really needs to be said about transsexual terminology? Mostly what I will be aiming to do is make this article summary style. the subsections of this article which are already of article length will become their own articles and thus the bare basic article on transsexualism will become only the lead article in a complex of articles separate and apart from those on transgenderism.

I don't know when I will have time to do this. Currently I do not have a personal computer (my old laptop died and HP has yet to live up to the replacement warranty). Until then I will only have limited time on a public comptuer...and the very limited capabilities of my smart phone. Anyone who want's to help with this endeavour can of course. Just so long as they are on board with they idea that the current article sucks in general and needs to be gutted I can work with you. --Hfarmer 22:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I think your unique brand of help can be better utilized elsewhere. I wholly disagree that either the article "sucks" or is need of gutting. Benjiboi 21:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Gender reassignment surgery

Hello,

according to physicians gender cannot be reassigned, since it is hard-wired into our brain (or so does the theory says). The "gender reassignment surgery" thingie on Lili Elbe needs to be corrected. I'll do it.

ChloeD 12:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

That can't be. By definition, if it is rooted in biology, it is sex, if it is not, it is gender. 72.83.176.58 (talk) 01:37, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Despite the name being a misnomer, it is still used by a number of transsexuals, and should not be entirely removed from the article. Thus allowing someone to recognize what "GRS" means instead of "SRS". I personally prefer to think of it as "Corrective Surgery of the Genitalia". However, this is far too uncommon to be signficant for the article. However, I have often seen TSs refer to surgery as "GRS" perhaps as often as "SRS". --Puellanivis (talk) 21:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Transsexualism - category in abnormal psychology

Why does this keep getting removed from abnormal psychology? It has cited sources in the catagory that places it in it.--J2000ca 04:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Cited sources? I looked in Category:Abnormal psychology and in Abnormal psychology and I didn't find any cited sources to support the inclusion of non-psychological articles in psychological categories. Category:Sexual and gender identity disorders is a sub-category of Category:Abnormal psychology. Gender identity disorder, which is listed in DSM-IV Codes, is in Category:Sexual and gender identity disorders. Related subjects and articles such as Transsexualism are not directly psychological subjects defined in DSM-IV Codes and hence don't appear to belong in either of these categories. If they did, they would belong in Category:Sexual and gender identity disorders, not Category:Abnormal psychology. The fact that a suspected sockpuppet of a permanently banned user was inserting the parent category in an apparent effort to insult and demean transgendered people doesn't make it a valid category for the articles to be in. --AliceJMarkham 05:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, to point. A successfully transitioned, and post-op transsexual is still a transsexual, but no longer suffers from GID in so far as the APA would classify it. I actually went over the DSM criteria for GID with one therapist (who was totally new to this issue) and when we got to "The disturbance causes clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning." He responded "well, it certainly did, but I don't think this really qualifies for you anymore." I had to point out that the reason why was because I was finally treating myself. The point of all this is, since transsexualism is peripherally related to GID, transsexualism itself is not an abnormal psychology. It's a resolved medical condition at that point. Like cancer in remission, or a recovered heart attack or stroke. It's past tense, treated, and moving on. --Puellanivis 06:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Abnormal psychology is a topics category (it includes the American Psychopathological Association). However I do agree it better belongs in Category:Sexual and gender identity disorders. Regardless of whether it's resolved or not it's related.--J2000ca 19:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Appending my previous comment. Category:Sexual and gender identity disorders appears to be a list of disorders so I still think it appropriate to list this article in Category:Abnormal psychology--J2000ca 19:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Let me ensure I'm getting this correct. You're asserting that a gender identity condition should be categorized as an abnormal behavior? Benjiboi 19:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

No I'm asserting that gender identity condition is categorized in abnormal behavior by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association. Also please try to look at things without bias. Abnormal is not necessary a negative, in some cases it simple refers to statistical infrequency. For example abnormally smart, beautiful or rich (if your into those sort of things)--J2000ca 00:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Simply because it's in the DSM does not mean that it's abnormal. The DSM states that the conditions described are "disorders". (Certainly a sense of incongruency would be outside of "order".) According to http://allpsych.com/disorders/sexual/index.html GID need not present even with dysfunction. All of this to light, "abnormal" has strong negative connotations, and should typically be avoided. While "retarded", "idiot", and "moron" all have been medical terms, it still isn't nice to call someone by those terms in this day and age. Regardless, GID is classified in the DSM as a disorder, the DSM does not say anything about transsexuality being a disorder. --Puellanivis 00:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I was responding to Benjiboi. I never said transsexuality was a disorder or that it was listed in the DSM. Abnormal is the accepted term.--J2000ca 02:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

As noted in WP:SUBCAT if an article is already the element of a subcategory, then do not place it in the parent category. The only exception is where someone would be more likely to recognize or search for the person by the generic category than the specific one. For instance, hypothetically speaking Babe Ruth should be categorized in "Baseball Hall of Famers" but also in "Baseball Players". The only reason transsexuality/ism would qualify as "abnormal phsychology" is because it exists in the ICD 9 as such, however, GID, the article dealing specifically with the medically described conditions of transsexualism is the appropriate location for "abnormal psychology" and more specifically the "Sexual and gender identity disorders". This article deals more with cultural, and social factors of transsexuality, and not on the psychological factors of transsexuality. It can also be reasonably argued that transsexuality is not "abnormal" psychology, but is simply the unexpected condition where the psychology of the person is perfectly natural and normal in line with their "true" gender, yet incongruent with their body. It's left as a problem for the reader as to which of these (the mind or the body) can actually be more manipulated to ease the unease experienced by this incongruency. --Puellanivis 23:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this article is in a subcategory already. "It can also be reasonably argued that transsexuality is not "abnormal" psychology, ", find a citation and I'm all for adding it to the category and adding a little blurb to the article on why it's debatable that it's in there, however NOR.--J2000ca 00:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

In order for the DSM to consider a condition an abnormal psychology, then there cannot be an underlying medical condition. In fact, if such an underlying medical condition exists, then it is called a neuropathy not an abnormal psychological state. Given as evidence from the article's references that the bed nucleus of the stria terminalis (BSTc) is sexually dimorphic and that transsexuals have an incongruent sexual morphology from the development of their other anatomy, this would classify it as a "neuropathy", not a psychology. --Puellanivis 01:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying it's listed in the DSM just that's it's relevent to it.--J2000ca 02:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

So sounds like a "yes" to wanting to put an identity article into a behavior category. I wouldn't support it and I think this might mean that the categories need adjusting if they aren't working. I think the average reader would be more confused and even insulted by an "abnormal" categorization and we're suppose to encourage them to learn and interact not confuse, annoy or enrage. Benjiboi 00:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

NPOV - Morally offensive views. I think the article belong in Category:Abnormal psychology according to citations.--J2000ca 00:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Again, this article is not about psychology. Thus should not be in "abnormal psychology". --Puellanivis 00:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The article has a heading titled "Psychological treatment" and makes numerous references to psychology. At the very least I think we can agree that it is related?--J2000ca 01:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Read that section again. For transsexuals (not for transgendered people in general, but strictly transsexuals, which is the topic of this article) psychological treatment is typically ineffective at resolving any gender dysphoria. The single best treatment known for transsexuality is the International Standards of Care. These SoC do not stop at psychological care, they continue through to physical medical intervention. The psychological care of TSs focuses on the concommitent psychological disorders that are typical when dealing with TS: depression, social rejection, personal acceptance, self-esteem. The psychological care of transsexualism itself is only best done as reparative therapy, which is condemned by the APA (both of them). --Puellanivis 01:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

All I said was that they are related topics. I think if anything your point indicates that they are related.--J2000ca 02:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The point that I raised is that Transsexualism and GID themselves are not considered by the majority of experts in the field to be abnormal psychological condition, but rather as a natural deviation from typical human development, the same as men and women differ. That a person's psychological identity is in conflict with that person's body is not a psychological issue (as is shown by the repeated failure of other treatments besides reassignment), but rather a physiological one. GID is considered by the majority of experts in this field to be a neuropathy, not a abnormal pychological condition. --Puellanivis (talk) 21:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Youngkhusra.jpg

Resolved

Image:Youngkhusra.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Stealth - Leslie Feinberg

Resolved

Please do not add Leslie Feinberg back under stealth without high quality references. This falls under WP:BLP.--J2000ca (talk) 18:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

That section is sourced. (Feinberg 2) refers the reader to the Bibliography section where you see Feinberg wrote the book and 2 is the page number. Benjiboi 21:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)