Talk:Gender dysphoria

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)