Talk:Causes of gender incongruence/Archive 2

Making this page more useful to the vulnerable people likely to read it
While I appreciate that the current version of this page is basically listing the history of transgender theory as slowly worked out by cissexuals, in roughly chronological order with the evidence knocking down each theory before moving on to the next, better one, this may be a slightly dangerous way of presenting the information, logical though it is. Some young, naïve, vulnerable transsexuals may skim read this article, check the gist of the first few paragraphs, and think the "secretly gay or autogynephilic" nonsense actually has merit, and entirely miss the part about the neurological evidence supporting transsexualism being real and caused prenatally. Is there any way to tidy the article up to mostly focus on what's true, rather than presenting all the false theories first? As has been pointed out above, this is kind of like the evolution versus creationism "debate" in terms of how much scientific validity each side has. It seems silly to treat them as equal, when the evidence (and common sense) say otherwise. Zoeb (talk) 10:19, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * If you think the current article doesn't accurately present knowledge known and historical developments about the subject, then absolutely change what needs to be changed. At first glance, it appears you may have strong opinions on the subject, so I'd suggest potentially looking at that and being careful about edits that may conflict with your beliefs but which also have referenced peer-reviewed source-material. After all, it's an encyclopedia. --50.136.244.254 (talk) 11:07, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Drugs as causal agents
{Moved from another article where no response. Guess I could put it on my do list :-) } I was surprised not to see a section on drugs as possible casual agents for some individuals' transgenderism. Living with a transgender person for 17 years, I've seen a lot of the information about Diethylstilbestrol. And today I just read an online article about Monsanto and Atrazine that mentioned such possible effects and low and behold there is some related information in that article. There maybe other chemicals with an even stronger known connection affecting younger generations today. (The really serious affect, of course, is low sperm count which could extinct the human race.) Anyway, I'm sure there are people of all ages coming to this article and wondering about that topic but finding nothing. I don't have time to beef it up, but do encourage regular editors to think about it. ''CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie &#x1f5fd; 14:05, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Unsourced fringe assertions regarding the cause of transexualism, and conspiracy theories about Monsanto's role in "extinct [sic] the human race" have no place in this article. Steeletrap (talk) 02:51, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I see 16 refs in the Diethylstilbestrol section and Atrazine causing transexualism in frogs is covered in that article. Future research to discover effects on human is inevitable and to be watched for. Obviously if transgenderism in humans is related to environmental effects (per here and the below discussion) it's a way of proving that transgenders aren't "crazy", as this Mother Jones article puts it. Having lived for 17 years with an individual who has multiple issues from his mother using DES during pregnancy, I know that reading all the literature on DES effects has made his life easier - and makes it easier for him to enjoy wearing heels, earrings and lots of pink, even to work. So it would be beneficial to add that information to the article, anyway. User:Carolmooredc  04:49, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You completely misunderstand the sources you cite (if you read them at all). Steeletrap (talk) 04:56, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Expanding this article?
Somehow, this article needs further expansion because I don't see this current version as complete. What about environment-based theories? Or rebuttals to theories? --George Ho (talk) 12:56, 24 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Good point. All the female hormones/estrogen going into the water supply, all the agricultural and manufacturing and household chemicals that mimic and/or effect hormonal and other physical states and organs, etc. doubtless have increased the number of individuals who subjectively feel they are not the gender their sexual organs might suggest. So many articles, so little time to research and edit! User:Carolmooredc  15:11, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

this is about phenomenon，not about cause
if talking about cause，probably should list factors as growth warmth，or hormone pollution in food/environment, after all, record of village with only girls being born already exists — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.139.28.254 (talk) 04:15, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Revert
, would you please explain in detail on why you want to change 'penis', 'vagina', and 'labia' to 'neopenis', 'neovagina', and 'neolabia.'. I'm not seeing any significant reason to do so. Tutelary (talk) 13:53, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * i never changed anything to neopenis? neo is a term added in front of a constructed vaginal canal, labia, clitoris etc in order to distinguish them as they are significantly different to non-constructed ones. I said this when i changed it.
 * Please cite a reliable source for this change. Tutelary (talk) 20:38, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * it was literally on another wiki page. i think it was vaginoplasy. A complete new construction of a neovagina is called neovaginoplasty or something along those lines. -

genetic/neurological studies
It needs to be clear whether any of these studies show differences only in people with specifically with gender dysphoria or if all of these variations are common to other people with gender nonconforming behavior (such as homosexuals) without dysphoria. Being more feminine than normal for a male neurologically does not automatically necessitate the desire to transform into a female.

Twin Study - misleading conclusion wording?
If the incidence of identical twins both being transgender are between 22-33%, how exactly is this evidence being transgender "is primarily determined by ones genetics rather than the environment that one is raised in"? Shouldn't it need to be the case that >50% of the twins be both transgender? It seems instead that a more accurate way to phrase the last sentence in this section is to have it say that being transgender "is significantly influenced by genetics." Thoughts on this? A.Aboumrad (talk) 18:11, 17 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree with you regarding the issue. The primary influence could be something besides genetics or rearing. In the cited study the conclusion in the abstract is "The responses of our twins relative to their rearing, along with our findings regarding some of their experiences during childhood and adolescence show their identity was much more influenced by their genetics than their rearing." So the conclusion concerns a relation between the two rather then the significance of genetics as an overall cause of transsexualism. So as a final phrase I would write "supports the argument that genetics are significantly more influential on one's transsexual identity rather than the environmental cause." Or something like that. Rybkovich (talk) 19:51, 17 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the input. I'm hesitant to make the equivalence between "rearing" and "environmental" contributors, but that is much better way to put it. I'll try to do one better - what do you think of this? "supports the argument that genetics are significantly more influential on one's transsexual identity than any specific environmental factor." I'm implying environmental factors in the plural because there may be multiple (rearing, epigenetics, etc.) Perhaps this is splitting hairs, though. At the end of the day, I think any rewording to eliminate the pop-science understanding of 'genetic determinism' is a step in the right direction. A.Aboumrad (talk) 20:11, 17 October 2015 (UTC)


 * You are right re rearing being the correct term. Re your second version: How do we know that genetics are significantly more influential than any specific environmental factor? Maybe, unlike rearing, there is a specific environmental factor that is more influential than genetics (am I right?). And maybe you even put it better the first time. We do not have to be as specific as the narrow conclusion in the study. And 30% would be significant in relation to all other causes. Rybkovich (talk) 20:48, 17 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Good call, it's best not to speculate on the weight of specific environmental factors. A.Aboumrad (talk) 22:15, 17 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Ok, so you have my thumbs up to make that editRybkovich (talk) 00:30, 18 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Note: I had a similar discussion with Rybkovich at my talk page about that addition earlier this year: User talk:Flyer22/Archive 19. And for followup edits after that matter, see here, here and here. Flyer22 (talk) 03:54, 18 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the background, Flyer22. Then do you think that the most recent rewording is appropriate? (I see in the older discussions that a false dichotomy may have been presented which pits nature vs. nurture, as if they are mutually exclusive determinants of someone being transgender. A.Aboumrad (talk) 04:40, 18 October 2015 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. Your edit is an improvement, yes. Flyer22 (talk) 05:04, 18 October 2015 (UTC)


 * As for nature and nurture/biology and environment, I've made it clear to Wikipedia editors that they go hand in hand for a lot of things; for example, I've stated that scientists these days generally believe that biology and environment both play a role in sexual orientation, that there's a combination, no matter how many people want to frame sexual orientation as one or the other with no in between. So on that note, I don't see why we should think that being transgender is simply a matter of biology. Furthermore, there are people who identify as genderqueer (an aspect of transgender) for reasons they feel have nothing to do with biology. Flyer22 (talk) 05:15, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Content spread over three articles, not in sync
Information on causes and scientific studies of trans identity is currently spread over three articles, some of which are more up-to-date than others. There is: I am in the process of ensuring that all up-to-date content in the Transsexual article's summary subsection is also present in this main article. (In some cases the information is present in both articles but the presentation is different, e.g. that article attributes a lot of stuff in-text to Swaab which this article attributes to different people.) Once all the information is in sync, my hope is that some sections can simply be transcluded from this article into the other articles so that the content only has to be kept up-to-date in one place going forward. -sche (talk) 21:13, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Causes of transsexualism, which is nominally the main article;
 * Transsexual § Causes, studies and theories, which seems to have been updated more frequently and to contain more information (sic); and
 * Transgender § Scientific studies of transsexuality, which summarizes Transsexual § Causes, studies and theories (sic, rather than summarizing this main article).


 * There's also information in Gender identity. -sche (talk) 00:46, 27 May 2016 (UTC)


 * The downside of the transcluding is that we can't edit the individual sections here at this article. For example, I can edit the material in the Biological factors section, but there is no edit option for its subsections. We have to edit from the "Biological factors" heading. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:28, 1 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Kaldari, regarding this, this and this, I take it that you have an issue with the transclusion? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:24, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The content needed references, and that was the only way I could figure out how to add them without adding references to the lead section of Causes of transsexualism. (I prefer to not have references in lead sections unless absolutely necessary.) Also, I think transcluding the content is going to discourage people from editing it, as it is not at all obvious how to do that (if you're not an experienced editor). Personally I do not favor transcluding, and actually think it's a good thing to have the content evolve separately on separate articles. Kaldari (talk) 19:32, 4 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, I noted above an issue with transcluding, and also feel that it will discourage people (especially WP:Newbies) from editing the article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:47, 4 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Having references in the lead is much preferable to copying and pasting several thousand bytes into multiple places so they can fall out of sync and go back to contradicting each other. At the time that I switched to transclusion, the other article's "summary" of this article was more up to date than this main article, contained several things not present in this article here that it was ostensibly summarizing, and in some places contained different enough information that it seemed to contradict this article; I expect that that was / is more considerably more confusing (indeed, misleading) for readers than the need to spend a moment learning about transclusion is. That a newcomer might resort to asking other editors for help before boldly making changes to complex scientific information about a controversial topic seems like the opposite of a problem. -sche (talk) 01:02, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Information that needs clarification
I would add the following paragraphs from Transsexual to this article (see previous section), but they need clarification first: when each says "no difference" or "no effect" was observed, does this mean that trans men and women respectively were not observed to be different from cis men and women respectively, or that trans men were not observed to be different from cis women, or something else? Also, what does "homosexually attracted by males" mean in this context — that the study subjects were men attracted to men? The "by" is confusing. -sche (talk) 21:22, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

In 1991, a University of Texas team compared the corpora callosa of 10 MtF transsexuals, 10 FtM transsexuals, 20 control cisgender males, and 20 control cisgender females. Normally, it is larger and differently shaped in men than in women. No significant differences were found by the study.

A 2003 study by Haraldsen and colleagues compared the performance of 52 persons with Gender Identity Disorder (33 from Norway and 19 from the US) with that of 29 control subjects on a series of tests that tap into the functioning of different parts of the brain and on which men and women perform differently. The people in the GID sample "were either homosexually attracted by males or females (n=38), by both (n=3) or by neither (n=9)." No effects of transsexual status were detected.

Johns Hopkins researchers in 2005 reported on another test of brain functioning using test performance. The study subjects included 27 MtF transsexuals and 16 control cisgender men, and the authors reported that no female-typical patterns in cerebral lateralization or cognitive performance were found within the transsexual sample.

or , then sign your comment with  ''. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.''


 * Support as proposer, per earlier discussion. Funcrunch (talk) 15:12, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Support per the above-mentioned discussion. -sche (talk) 05:15, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Any additional comments:

What is the procedure for closing this move request? It's gotten zero comments (besides mine) in six days. If it's OK to move the page now, I would prefer that someone with more experience like do it, so I don't screw it up. Funcrunch (talk) 02:36, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * ETA: I did look at the closing instructions, but would still prefer that someone with more experience handle this. Funcrunch (talk) 02:41, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * There has been no involvement in this discussion, so I'm relisting it. Because you started the discussion, you wouldn't be allowed to close it anyway. It'll get dealt with eventually.  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   06:36, 11 June 2016 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Causes of transsexuality. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121031104641/http://www.dsm5.org/ProposedRevision/Pages/proposedrevision.aspx?rid=482 to http://www.dsm5.org/ProposedRevision/Pages/proposedrevision.aspx?rid=482#

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:58, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

correlation not causation; please revise
The section on brain structure discusses correlation. This is out of place for an article about *causation*. Please add more disclaimer that this is one hypothesized cause still under investigation, cite some principle investigators in this area, and remove detail (put it in a different article dedicated to brain structure) -- currently it reads as if this brain structure *causes* the transsexual thinking and self-identifying, but that is not what correlation or structure per se implies. -- Newagelink (talk) 11:28, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Causes of transsexuality. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100619084712/http://www.wpath.org/journal/www.iiav.nl/ezines/web/IJT/97-03/numbers/symposion/cauldwell_03.htm to http://www.wpath.org/journal/www.iiav.nl/ezines/web/IJT/97-03/numbers/symposion/cauldwell_03.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.dsm5.org/ProposedRevision/Pages/proposedrevision.aspx?rid=482%23

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:31, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Potential addition
While reading about the subject I ran across this paper: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4699258/ "The results of this study show that the white matter microstructure in FtM and MtF transsexuals falls halfway between that of FCs and MCs" with FC standing for Female Control and MC for Male Control. This result is of particular interest because it was found to be true regardless of the individual's sexual orientation (i.e. gynephilia/androphilia) while controlling for hormones. I've never contributed to Wikipedia before so I don't trust myself to do a good job. Perhaps I should get learning but for now I hope you don't mind me just calling this into attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.182.102.57 (talk) 09:34, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Recent move of article
Michipedian, regarding your recent move of this article, see above. I'm thinking that this move is something you should have discussed first. Same goes for this related move you made. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:39, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, sorry, I thought it was non-controversial. Those are the only two articles I have seen that use the term transsexuality. You can move both pages back, or I can if you would like. Michipedian (talk) 16:41, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * This move should not have been done without discussion. Please revert. Funcrunch (talk) 17:11, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, done. Michipedian (talk) 01:08, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Transsexuality vs. transsexualism
I just want to start a discussion on this before submitting a move request. I was under the impression that transsexualism was the common term used to describe this phenomenon. It seems to be the more common use on Wikipedia. I am fine with either, but I do feel as though there should be consistency in terms, so long as they refer to the same phenomenon. Is there a consensus on this issue anywhere? Michipedian (talk) 01:09, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * For background and starters, please see the discussion above that took place about a year ago, which led to this article being renamed to from Causes of transsexualism to Causes of transsexuality. Funcrunch (talk) 01:35, 20 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Given that RM, would anyone like to undo which changed -ity to -ism throughout the article? Tenemoc (talk) 00:22, 15 February 2018 (UTC)


 * ✅. -sche (talk) 17:18, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Edited a contradictory statement
In the section headlined Gynephilic male-to-female transsexuals, the text begins by stating; Gynephilic male-to-female transsexuals also show differences in the brain from non-transsexuals, in a pattern intermediate between male or female, or more female than male. The section then describes how MRI scannings were performed on 24 gynephilic male-to-female transsexuals. However, when you read the reported findings from those scannings, it concludes that; "no sex-atypical features with signs of 'feminization' were detected in the transsexual group....The present study does not support the dogma that [male-to-female transsexuals] have atypical sex dimorphism in the brain but confirms the previously reported sex differences."

So, while certain structural differences were detected in the gynephilic group that differed from the brains of both non-transsexual males and females, it was however not a feminized such structure that was present, wherefore in other words the introductary statement saying that Gynephilic male-to-female transsexuals also show differences in the brain from non-transsexuals, in a pattern intermediate between male or female, or more female than male is not only contradictory but also completely incorrect. As seen in the section treating the MRI findings on androphilic male-to-female transexuals it is was/is only this group that actually displays a feminized brain structure, while the gynephilic group does not.

Hence I edited out the mentioned introductury line as it was incorrect and not what the findings actually showed, and instead changed to; While MRI on Gynephilic male-to-female transsexuals have likewise shown differences in the brain from non-transsexuals, no feminization of the brain's structure have however been identified. The rest of the section I kept intact as it were. - Okama-San (talk) 09:06, 17 September 2017 (UTC)


 * This is absolutely true in the context of the study you're quoting - no such differences were found by it - but not in general. See the study mentioned under "Potential Addition" in the talk page. It found that hormone-naive transsexuals, regardless of orientation, have sex-intermediary white matter microstructures. That is, the white matter microstructures of gender dysphoric natal males are feminized and those of gender dysphoric natal females are virilized, falling halfway between what is typically found in normative men and women. I'd write a paragraph on this subject myself but I still have no confidence in my ability to meet Wikipedia's high standards. 109.66.33.150 (talk) 16:47, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Cleaned up 'Gynephilic female-to-male transsexuals' section
For consistent vocabulary: included the previously used andro- / gynophilic terms in place of 'attracted to X/Y' Mya Lysippe (talk) 08:43, 23 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Mya Lysippe, I'm certain that you are not new to Wikipedia editing, despite the newness of your account, but I will go ahead and state some things that you might be unfamiliar with: When it comes to edits like this, the issue is that it may be seen as too technical, which is partly why this article is currently tagged with a WP:Technical tag. The vast majority of people have no idea what androphilic and gynephilic is. Although some transgender people dislike the terms "male-to-female" and "female-to-male," other transgender people embrace them; I'm sure you know that, however.


 * With this edit, you engaged in WP:Editorializing. This is not allowed. I changed the edit to this (followup note here). It is not for you to state that "Blanchard's autogynophilia theory is then called into question" or "which makes the distinction that Blanchard counts on for his entire premise incorrect."


 * With this edit, you added "controversial and widely debunked theory." Again, it is not for you to state this. Yes, the theory is controversial, but see WP:LABEL. Furthermore, that it is controversial is already noted in the lead of the article. And unless there is academic consensus that the theory is widely debunked, you should not be adding that either. At the moment, it is simply debated by two different sides. So, yes, I reverted you on the editorializing and unsourced additions. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:44, 25 October 2017 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:53, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Who decided that this page is too 'technical', or 'difficult' for ordinary readers to understand?
Who decided that this page is too 'technical', or 'difficult' for ordinary readers to understand? I wonder. I am an ordinary reader, I reckon, in that I fall into that broad range centred on those people who have average intelligence. I am not clever, I don't have an honours degree or a Phd, but I have spent an awful lot of time reading difficult material. For me, the reason I did this is because the most interesting material is often quite difficult to read. But no matter how difficult something is, you can usually pick up some clues, and you can use these clues to find other sources. The real obstacle to understanding is not difficulty - it is the presence of misleading statements, I would suggest. So are there any misleading statements in this article? I know what to do - I will read it, to see whether I feel any suspicion at all that I am being misled, and I will report back. 82.32.112.174 (talk) 08:55, 7 January 2018 (UTC)


 * It is important to be clear about what 'gender identity' is. It is not the same type of thing as the 'sex label' that appears on your birth certificate.  Early psychologists used introspection as a tool for trying to understand the mind, and it still has a role to play, as a reality-check, if nothing else.  It is uncontroversial to believe that for many people 'gender identity' is a very stable element of their overall self-concept.  Your self-concept is something that you perceive, and as part of that perception, you accept that it may change over time in many ways, even while many elements of your self-concept are so stable as to seem immutable.  Ignoring the 'many' for a few moments, there is ample evidence that some people do not perceive their 'gender identity' as immutable, and some people perceive that their 'true' gender identity is steady, but opposite to the 'binary sex label' that they currently live with.  It is difficult always to find neutral language, but I will have to content myself with considering that the latter group of people live their lives in the awareness that their is some kind of 'mismatch' in their gender identity.  For those who suffer significant distress as a direct consequence of 'their' gender identity mismatch, their is a medical label available (in the USA): Gender Dysphoria. This is the newish term that is favoured by the relevant medical bodies, in preference to the earlier term G.I.D, (Gender Identity Disorder).  It is not hard to believe that GID could be (in all sorts of ways) prejudicial to the interests of any individual so labelled.  While people may be content to self-label themselves, the reality is surely that 'gender identity', for many (or most) individuals will be an enduring certainty - but still fundamentally a perception, for all that. 82.32.112.174 (talk) 09:27, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

This tag has been removed. There is no clear evidence that all Wikipedia articles must be written to the 6th grade level, and therefore this article is left as it is written. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.82.9.1 (talk) 18:59, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Delete redlinked names on main page?
The mainpage provides examples of people (and an association) who agree/disagree with Blanchard's typology of transsexualism. Several are redlinked. Typically, it is the opinions if notable writers that merit mention, and if notable, there would presumably be pages. Should the be removed/replaced with better examples? (FWIW, as one of the people named on the page, I just thought it appropriate to acknowledge my obvious COI.) — James Cantor (talk) 16:32, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Consistent removal of primary-sourced material?
Flyer22 has recently removed a few sections, namely one on phantom limb syndrome and one on persistance of GD in children, based on them being primary-sourced. I'm not necessarily against this, but most of the rest of the article also seems to consist of things based on primary sources. Could this be handled more consistently? Or is there perhaps some hidden consistency that I'm overlooking? --Tailcalled (talk) 08:58, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * See this discussion at Talk:Sex differences in intelligence. There, I stated that "existing poor content does not mean that it is okay to add more poor content. Removal of [the] poor content does not mean that [we] need to take a chainsaw to all of the existing content." What it does mean is that we should start trying to replace the WP:Primary sources with WP:Secondary or WP:Tertiary sources. "A lot of this stuff can be updated with tertiary or secondary sources. So, per the WP:Preserve policy, if any of the primary sources that are removed can be easily replaced with tertiary or secondary sources, they should be replaced with those sources."


 * But regarding something like this, whether supported by a primary, tertiary or secondary source, it is also a matter of WP:Due weight. The text is focused on what the general literature states and then on what outlier research by Steensma et al. states. Why should we include the Steensma et al. material? Because Kenneth Zucker responded to it? Also, are Steensma et al. really stating that "natal males who are allowed to transition during childhood [being] much more likely to persist in their dysphoria" is a cause of transsexuality?


 * On a side note: Since this article is on my watchlist, I prefer not to be pinged to this talk page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:11, 24 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I understand that it doesn't justify adding more poor content. However, you also removed the phantom limb syndrome part, which is the confusing thing.


 * I'm not sure what you mean when you say Steensma et al's study is "outlier research". I'm not aware of any studies that find contradictory results, unless we compare very broadly (e.g. including cases like David Reimer). Steensma did in fact find that natal males who are allowed to transition are much more likely to persist (see e.g. table 1 or table 3 in the study), and they did propose that transition was a causal factor: "or it may, with the hypothesized link between social transitioning and the cognitive representation of the self, influence the future rates of persistence". Both Zucker and the Netherlands group that did the original research are pretty important in the field, so I don't know that it's undue weight. But I don't have a good feeling for what is or is not due weight, so I'll defer to your opinion if you still think it's inappropriate to have on Wikipedia. --Tailcalled (talk) 08:48, 24 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Regarding the "Phantom limb syndrome" removal, you are saying it wasn't a primary source matter?


 * By "outlier research," I mean research that deviates from what the literature generally states. It's common for the literature to state that the vast majority of children with gender dysphoria will grow out of it. This is why the aforementioned text began by stating "Studies have generally found that most children with gender dysphoria stop being dysphoric in adulthood." It's actually a "before adulthood" matter, but anyway. You then contrasted that with a "however." Your "however" text stated the following: "However, Steensma et al have found that natal males who are allowed to transition during childhood are much more likely to persist in their dysphoria. It has been proposed that this is because gender transition increases the likelihood of persistence. Lower social class has also been found to be correlated with persistence of gender dysphoria." If we are to include this material, which I'm not stating that we should, it would best to include Zucker's response to it. Also "persist in gender dysphoria" does not equate to "a cause of transsexuality," as in "it causes transsexuality." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:45, 25 December 2018 (UTC)


 * With regards to phantom limb syndrome, I'm saying that I can imagine two main consistent ways of handling the primary source issues, and none of the seem to make sense for removing the phantom limb section. One possibility would be to only remove new sections that have too many primary sources. In that case, phantom limb syndrome wouldn't be removed because it has been in the article for quite a bit of time. Alternatively, one could "take a chainsaw to the existing content" and remove more content.


 * With regards to Zucker's response to the Steensma results, that is something we could include. Would you mean something along the lines of "Zucker has hypothesized that future research on desistance will find much higher persistence rates as a result of social transition becoming more common"?


 * I would say that things that cause gender dysphoria persistence are also causes of transsexuality. Kids who desist don't become transsexuals, while kids who persist do, so if something causes the kid to persist, it will also cause them to become transsexual. It could perhaps be considered a somewhat indirect cause, but if we don't include indirect causes the whole article could just be replaced with a sentence saying "people transition because of gender dysphoria". --Tailcalled (talk) 09:36, 25 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I didn't pay attention to the phantom limb syndrome material until I saw this edit by you. A section based on a single study is a WP:Due weight matter. And, of course, there is the WP:Primary source aspect. I've already given my view on handling primary source material. Existing primary source material is not a free-for-all to add more primary source material. The content that can be replaced with secondary or tertiary sources should be replaced with secondary or tertiary sources. The content that should be there should stay there, per WP:Preserve. Undue content should be removed.


 * Regarding Steensma and Zucker, I'm not endorsing that any of it be added.


 * You stated, "Kids who desist don't become transsexuals." But the DSM-5, when speaking of adolescent and adult natal males, states, "or, there is an intermittent period in which the gender dysphoria desists and these individuals self-identify as gay or homosexual, followed by recurrence of gender dysphoria." Regarding this and this, we can also see that how "transgender" or "transsexual" is being defined matters, given that transgender (as noted by the Transgender article) can be a broad term and "transgender" and "transsexual" are not automatically the same thing. Regarding "causes," I'm stating that we need to avoid WP:Synthesis. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:41, 25 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Wrt. phantom limb syndrome, fair enough.


 * Zucker's paper addresses the question of whether the desistance is temporary only, so if you are concerned about it being synthesis to assume a link here, we could include a mention of this. Something along the lines of "Due to lack of research, it is still an open question how many of the children who were assumed to be desisters will end up transitioning later in life. There are early-onset transgender women who intermittently identify as homosexual cisgender men before transitioning. However, Zucker argued that they should not be confused for the late-onset transgender women, whose gender dysphoria originates from a different developmental pathway." --Tailcalled (talk) 17:10, 25 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Though... on further reflection this starts deviating from the point of the article. I'll rethink my suggestion for a bit. --Tailcalled (talk) 18:31, 25 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Do any of the sources state what you suggested? I mean the following: "There are early-onset transgender women who intermittently identify as homosexual cisgender men before transitioning. However, Zucker argued that they should not be confused for the late-onset transgender women, whose gender dysphoria originates from a different developmental pathway." It's not what the DSM-5 states, although the DSM-5 does note the difference between early-onset and late-onset gender dysphoria among transgender girls/trans women. When the DSM- states "or, there is an intermittent period in which the gender dysphoria desists and these individuals self-identify as gay or homosexual, followed by recurrence of gender dysphoria," it's referring to what it calls "adolescent and adult natal males." But it doesn't clarify if it's talking about one or the other or both. Also, "early-onset gender dysphoria" refers to the mindset of prepubescent children, usually anyway. Before and by puberty, which is commonly seen as the start of adolescence (although defining the start and end of adolescence is not always easy/consistent), researchers have a good indication as to whether a child will continue to identify as the opposite sex/gender (the whole "grow out of it" thing). I questioned your "kids" sentence above because adolescents are also kids, and the DSM-5 states what it states about "intermittent period" and "recurrence." What you stated about the point of the article is what I meant -- focusing on things that sources state are likely causes of transsexuality. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:14, 26 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Okay, I struck the piece I did above because I re-read the DSM-5 text I linked to; it states, "Early-onset gender dysphoria starts in childhood and continues into adolescence and adulthood; or, there is an intermittent period in which the gender dysphoria desists and these individuals self-identify as gay or homosexual, followed by recurrence of gender dysphoria." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:20, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Social, psychological and biological factors
Originally, the article distinguished between psychological factors and biological factors. However, this seems misleading to me, as it implies that psychological factors are somehow distinct from biological ones. Considering that "biological factors" apparently involves the brain, I'd rather consider psychological and biological factors to be different levels of abstraction. Instead, one thing that seems worth distinguishing between is social environmental factors and biological factors, which is why I changed the article to have sections for biological factors, social factors, and psychological models. However, as Flyer22 pointed out, the beginning of the social factors section mentions "psychological and environmental factors and personality conflicts". It's not very clear to me what is meant by this, as I don't have the source that is cited. However, it is immediately followed by a mention that David Reimer seems to disprove "this theory that gender identity is determined by parenting", which makes it sound like they are talking about social factors rather than internal psychological factors. For this reason I re-added the "psychological factors" heading. If the assumption about what the sources say is wrong, we can change it back, but we should then probably also change the David Reimer mention to be less misleading. --Tailcalled (talk) 14:02, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Part of the section "argued that transsexuality was a psychological/emotional disorder caused by psychological and environmental factors and personality conflicts." There are aspects in the section that are psychological. So I felt it odd to have the material separated from the Psychology section.


 * As for "psychological factors are somehow distinct from biological ones," well, psychology and biology are two different fields, as you know. I get where you are coming from in the human brain sense, but psychology does deal with some ways of thinking that sources do not attribute to biology. We have psychology articles on Wikipedia that are not deemed to also be biology articles simply because psychology is involved.


 * As for the current setup that has "Social factors" under "Psychology," I'm not strongly opposed to it. I'd already employed that setup, except that I titled the first subsection "General," while you changed it to "Social factors." One solution to what titles to use for the headings is to stick to what the sources state or are otherwise clearly about. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:11, 24 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I just realized that there's apparently an archive available for David Oliver Cauldwell's article. It seems to essentially be saying that everyone (apparently?) is predisposed to transsexuality (or at least, childhood gender identity disorder) and parenting makes people grow out of it? And that even if parenting doesn't, "sound sexuality" (presumably non-autogynephilic heterosexuality in more modern and specific terms) and "desirable hereditary antecedents" (which is "biological", but not very specific in mechanism) will lead to growing out of it. (Damn, I keep forgetting how strange old-school psychological theories are...) The current article seems to misrepresent Cauldwell's views (at least the ones described in the source), e.g. ignoring parts like "or, and this is most probable, there may be glandular pathology or simple grandular imbalance". My understanding is that Harry Benjamin also believed in a significant degree of biological element, so perhaps the whole reference to these two people needs to be redone.


 * I understand that psychology and biology are different fields and that they can't well be mixed in practice. What I'm more pointing out is that a large part of the difference is different levels of abstraction. We wouldn't talk about a dichotomy between "chemical factors" and "physical factors" when describing, say, combustion; a full explanation would instead have a chemical description of the large-scale phenomena and a physical description of the small-scale phenomena, with the implicit understanding that the chemical description is an emergent phenomenon that exists as a result of a more-fundamental physical effect. Of course, the things studied by psychology aren't only the things that emerge from neurological effects; it also includes social effects, which is why I see the need for a "social factors" section. --Tailcalled (talk) 10:17, 24 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Regarding the views, yes, reword the material to be as accurate as possible concerning whatever author's views. As for "strange old-school psychological theories," we do have the WP:Fringe guideline.


 * As for the headings, we can leave them as they are for now and get back to them if they need to be changed to better represent the material. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:45, 25 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I never really know whether strange old-school psychological theories are fringe or not. Freudianism is still somewhat mainstream, isn't it? Plus, my reading is probably not the most charitable one. I'll think about ways to rewrite the section. Cauldwell's writing still strikes me as weird, though, and I'm more familiar with Benjamin than Cauldwell. It might be worth looking into replacing Cauldwell with someone else. --Tailcalled (talk) 20:52, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
 * We report on Frued's beliefs, such as penis envy, but I'm not aware of today's psychology and sexology topics treating Freud's beliefs as valid. His feelings about female orgasm, for example, have been discredited by science. As noted in his Wikipedia article, he was plain wrong on that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:14, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Changing text to "always resulting in gender dysphoria"
Roppp26, regarding this, this, this and this, like I stated elsewhere, keep in mind in that the term transgender can be broad and include genderqueer (non-binary) people and cross-dressers, and that not all of these people have gender dysphoria. There are other facets as well, as noted by the sources below. Even if speaking of transsexual people only and keeping in mind that some transsexual people do not prefer the term transgender to describe themselves (as made clear in both the Trangender and Transsexual articles), they do fall under the transgender umbrella. The reason that stating that transsexual people always experience gender dysphoria has been challenged with your edits is because of what sources like the following state:

This 2016 "Surgical Management of the Transgender Patient" source, from Elsevier Health Sciences, page 15, states, "Not all transgender persons have gender dysphoria. For those who do, medical and surgical therapy can play a pivotal role in relieving their psychological discomfort." This 2017 "The Trans Partner Handbook: A Guide for When Your Partner Transitions" source, from Jessica Kingsley Publishers, page 53, states, "Some trans people don't have any dysphoria, some have a little, some have it occasionally and some have a lot." This 2018 Medscape source states, "Not all transgender people experience dysphoria." This 2018 LGBT health program source, from the National LGBT Health Education Center, states, "Many, but not all transgender people experience gender dysphoria." This 2017 Slate magazine source states, "Not all transgender people experience gender dysphoria because not everyone feels pressured or conflicted over expressing their gender identity, and transitioning medically and/or socially usually relieves or significantly reduces gender dysphoria for those who do." This 2018 Bustle source states, "'' 'incongruence' is generally referred to by the transgender community as gender dysphoria, which can manifest as a severe discomfort with one's body and how it's perceived and gendered by other people. Not all transgender people experience gender dysphoria.''"

All that stated, given that the American Psychiatric Association begins by defining gender dysphoria as "a conflict between a person's physical or assigned gender and the gender with which he/she/they identify," and notes lower in its "Definitions and Pronouns" section that gender dysphoria "as a general descriptive term refers to an individual’s discontent with the assigned gender. It is more specifically defined when used as a diagnosis," it's easy see why one would state that all transsexual people have gender dysphoria. But it also states, "Not all transgender people suffer from gender dysphoria and that distinction is important to keep in mind. Gender dysphoria and/or coming out as transgender can occur at any age." It seems that by "not all transgender people suffer from gender dysphoria," it means "not all transgender people experience or have gender dysphoria." If you or anyone else has sources that state that transsexual people (rather than transgender people broadly-speaking) always experience gender dysphoria, provide those sources here on the talk page. See WP:Reliable sources and WP:MEDRS. I only cited a few media sources above just to show the range of sources stating the same thing or similar. It's better to go by academic sources for this topic. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:00, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Brain structures in gay and straight people
I personally think [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Causes_of_transsexuality&type=revision&diff=880998893&oldid=880998226 this was a reasonable removal] for the reasons Tailcalled gave in their edit summary, but I want to ping, who has [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Causes_of_transsexuality&type=revision&diff=692664956&oldid=692613534 defended its relevance]. Do any sources directly compare / contrast the brain differences here to the brain differences in gay and straight people? (Does Byne (2001) get into that at all?) That would make a stronger case for inclusion. -sche (talk) 22:01, 31 January 2019 (UTC)


 * That information has been mentioned in some sources about transgender brain studies. I also remember James Cantor mentioning it before. When sourced properly, it's relevant because, like I stated before, "There are studies about the male brain and the female brain. Of course, some feminists reject the notion of the male brain and the female brain, but scientists know that there are some differences between male and female brains that attribute to behavior differences. It's not all social causes. Brain studies on this topic are flawed, though, since brain scans, for example, also show that cisgender lesbian women have brains more similar in shape to cisgender heterosexual men and cisgender gay men have brains more similar in shape to cisgender heterosexual women, and there is the 2015 'Sex beyond the genitalia: The human brain mosaic' meta-analysis, which indicates, 'Brains with features that are consistently at one end of the 'maleness-femaleness' continuum are rare. Rather, most brains are comprised of unique 'mosaics' of features, some more common in females compared with males, some more common in males compared with females, and some common in both females and males.' " The sources that were used for the removed content aren't about transgender people or their brains and it seems that they don't address transgender people or their brains; so cutting the content made sense. The mention of the matter should also be cut from the lead, though, until the matter is properly sourced and re-added lower in the article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:19, 1 February 2019 (UTC)


 * If my initial relevancy post isn't clear, it's that there has been the argument that just like a cisgender heterosexual man and cisgender lesbian woman having somewhat similar brains does not mean that the lesbian woman should have been born a heterosexual male, a cisgender woman and trans woman having somewhat similar brains doesn't mean that the trans woman should have been born female. Similar is argued regarding cisgender heterosexual women and cisgender gay men (that it doesn't mean that the gay men should have been born female), and cisgender men and trans men (that it doesn't mean that the trans men should have been born male). Of course, with regard to both gay/lesbian and trans people, there is speculation about what might have happened in the womb with regard to masculinization and feminization and how that might have affected gender and sexual orientation. The causes of sexual orientation are mainly about looking into why people are gay or lesbian. And going back to transgender people, some have also noted that not all transgender people have brain markers that indicate that they should have been born the opposite sex. Also take note that I meant "born female" and "born male" in the anatomical sense that doesn't take brain anatomy into account/solely with regard to some sources' terminology when not using words such as "cisgender" or "assigned sex." I'd already used "cisgender" for earlier parts of the sentences (obviously). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:06, 1 February 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:45, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

I think it's a relevant point to bring up if it can be sourced. However, as far as I could tell, the sources didn't mention it. I've dug a bit and found this review which seems to make the point about habits causing brain changes. I'm not aware of any papers bringing up the point about homosexuality, though. --Tailcalled (talk) 13:53, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, I've speculated about whether it would make more sense to talk about "Biological markers" than "Biological causes" for the brain-related things, for these reasons. But I haven't been able to think of a way to structure this well when considering that there is also the genetic data, which seems causal.--Tailcalled (talk) 13:57, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

The section on brain function in gynephilic male-to-female transsexuals is either incorrect or inconsistent with the section above it
The section right above it speaks of androphilic MTFs and cites [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21195418 The microstructure of white matter in male to female transsexuals before cross-sex hormonal treatment. A DTI study], Rametti et al, to back the claim that "Studies have shown that androphilic male-to-female transsexuals show a shift towards the female direction in brain anatomy.". The study in question used diffusion tensor imagining to examine the white matter tracts of HRT-naive androphilic MTFs. Quoting the abstract:
 * METHOD:
 * DTI was performed in 18 MtF transsexuals and 19 male and 19 female controls scanned with a 3 T Trio Tim Magneton. Fractional anisotropy (FA) was performed on white matter of the whole brain, which was spatially analyzed using Tract-Based Spatial Statistics.
 * DTI was performed in 18 MtF transsexuals and 19 male and 19 female controls scanned with a 3 T Trio Tim Magneton. Fractional anisotropy (FA) was performed on white matter of the whole brain, which was spatially analyzed using Tract-Based Spatial Statistics.


 * CONCLUSIONS:
 * Our results show that the white matter microstructure pattern in untreated MtF transsexuals falls halfway between the pattern of male and female controls. The nature of these differences suggests that some fasciculi do not complete the masculinization process in MtF transsexuals during brain development."

Compare and contrast these findings with those of White Matter Microstructure in Transsexuals and Controls Investigated by Diffusion Tensor Imaging, Kranz et al:
 * Here, we aimed to study the potential influences of biological sex, gender identity, sex hormones, and sexual orientation on white matter microstructure by investigating transsexuals and healthy controls using diffusion tensor imaging (DTI). Twenty-three female-to-male (FtM) and 21 male-to-female (MtF) transsexuals, as well as 23 female (FC) and 22 male (MC) controls underwent DTI at 3 tesla. Fractional anisotropy, axial, radial, and mean diffusivity were calculated using tract-based spatial statistics (TBSS) and fiber tractography.
 * Here, we aimed to study the potential influences of biological sex, gender identity, sex hormones, and sexual orientation on white matter microstructure by investigating transsexuals and healthy controls using diffusion tensor imaging (DTI). Twenty-three female-to-male (FtM) and 21 male-to-female (MtF) transsexuals, as well as 23 female (FC) and 22 male (MC) controls underwent DTI at 3 tesla. Fractional anisotropy, axial, radial, and mean diffusivity were calculated using tract-based spatial statistics (TBSS) and fiber tractography.


 * Conclusion
 * The results of this study show that the white matter microstructure in FtM and MtF transsexuals falls halfway between that of FCs and MCs. Our data harmonize with the hypothesis that fiber tract development is influenced by the hormonal environment during late prenatal and early postnatal brain development that is proposed to determine gender identity."

Both studies examined the white matter tracts of HRT-naive MTFs via DTI. Both found signs of what Wikipedia called a "shift in the female direction" in the section discussing the first study. A key difference is that the second study examined gynephiles as well as androphiles. It doesn't make much sense to cite one study but ignore the other. Either the first study doesn't prove what the article claims it does in the case of androphiles, in which case the section on androphiles should be edited, or the second study proves that the brains of gynephiles are also shifted "in the female direction", in which case the section on gynephiles should be amended. Savic's paper, which currently dominates the section on gynephiles, examined something else altogether and is thus beside the point.

--84.108.15.183 (talk) 01:53, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

On Blanchards theory
"Blanchard theorizes that "homosexual transsexuals" transition because they are attracted to men"

First off, is it only me or is there no source? Second, Blanchard to my knowledge has never said such a thing, Bailey has however. I asked Blanchard (he is very active on twitter and other chat programs) and he says this is Baileys theory (Bailey confirmed). Blanchard as far as I know has only said they are on the same spectrum as gay men (causes of brain not differentiating properly being the same for both), and that they transition due to their femininity/wanting to live as women. Chronicler87 (talk) 04:26, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Also, I really don't understand why Blanchards model is put under "psychological models", Blanchard has been very clear that his typology is based in biology. It was Blanchard that theorized the fraternal birth order effect for example, which he believes in one of the main causes for the brain not differentiating (which means biology). Chronicler87 (talk) 04:39, 13 March 2019 (UTC)


 * To the degree that one distinguishes between psychological and biological models, it seems reasonable that this would be about the level of abstraction they focus on. There's going to be some (infinitely more complex) biological story underlying any psychological story. However, it's very rare to talk about the biological story when discussing Blanchard's model (even though it's generally implicitly agreed that there is one), while someone who talks about brain sex or neurological body-maps is automatically inherently talking about biology. One option would be to remove the biological/psychological distinction, but there is some logic to keeping it. --Tailcalled (talk) 14:14, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm more concerned with the article not referencing Blanchards work, and the fact that Baileys work is put under Blanchards name. Chronicler87 (talk) 01:51, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

"Correlation between Autism Spectrum (AS)" material
Sharouser, regarding this, this, this, this and this, I'm going to guess that you didn't read WP:MEDRS even though I pointed you to it. Per WP:MEDRS, WP:Primary sources generally should not be used for medical content, especially not news sources. And this article already has enough primary sources that should be replaced with secondary and/or tertiary sources if they can be. Yes, you included one systematic map review, but the way you added the material needs work and that source is about gender dysphoria. This is not the Gender dysphoria article (although, yes, gender dysphoria is significantly related to causes of transsexuality). As for this "Increased gender variance in autism spectrum disorders and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder" source, it is about gender variance. I will alert WP:Med to this matter and see if anyone from there will weigh in on this. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:01, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

I see that RexxS explained on your talk page. Thanks, RexxS. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:44, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes high quality sources will be needed. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 10:28, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Consider, which says "Transsexualism involves prenatal neuroanatomical changes, has a psychiatric association, and is found to be more prevalent in conjunction with schizophrenia and autism spectrum disorders." Their evidence base is probably not personally convincing to some people, but the claim that autistic people tend to be trans* at a greater rate than neurotypical people is not original research.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:14, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * See This. This is a high quality source. This section should be restored. If we rename "Correlation between Autism Spectrum (AS)" to "Proposed correlation between Autism Spectrum (AS)", it does not cause any problem. --Sharouser (talk) 12:54, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The source -- Gender Dysphoria and Autism Spectrum Disorder: A Systematic Review of the Literature -- is (as it specifically mentions) about gender dysphoria and autism spectrum disorder. It is not about the causes of transsexuality. Where does the source talk about autism spectrum disorder being a cause of transsexuality? That "there is a growing clinical recognition that a significant proportion of patients with gender dysphoria have concurrent autism spectrum disorder (ASD)" is not the same thing as "research indicates that autism spectrum disorder causes or contributes to transsexuality." Unless the source states something like the latter, the material belongs in the Gender dysphoria article, which covers transgender people/people with gender dysphoria being at a high risk for certain disorders. Not here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:52, 26 April 2019 (UTC)


 * The source -- Transgender Associations and Possible Etiology: A Literature Review -- that WhatamIdoing pointed to seems to be more on-topic and implying cause. I state "implying cause" because it also relays, "Childhood adversities and neglect are also linked to having a transgender identity." But I need to read that source, and the systematic review one. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:03, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Parenting
Regarding this part:

I'm pretty sure that there are many intersex people who are quite articulate on how often intersex minors are medically treated when they are far too young to consent, with doctors near-randomly assigning a gender to them, their parents being told to lie to them about it their whole life, and yet they still often grow up to transition (sometimes finding out they're intersex only after having to come to terms with being transsex), so I'd say that there are countless examples of replication of that part of the Reimer experiment. While such people aren't dyadic, they're sometimes naturally cis (at least, until their sex is changed without their consent, as Reimer's was). So although the exact experiment wasn't replicated on a larger scale, something similar that also disproves people will believe authority figures dictating their gender to them certainly was replicated on a larger scale. So I think we can categorically rule that one out.

If this theory is mentioned at all, it should be only in the context of debunking it.

ZoeB (talk) 17:59, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

FDR in a Dress
(I think that's my favorite talk page edit headline I've ever done) What is the point of the whole yarn about Roosevelt, and the assignment of colors? I understand that the presenter shared that, but that doesn't mean it belongs in this article. I don't see how the idea that Roosevelt was clothed in dresses, or that pink and blue now represent opposite genders, have anything to do with the causes of transsexuality, whether the Dr. thought it did or not. Furthermore, even if it belonged in the article, it definitely doesn't belong under the "Parenting" heading. I hope I don't sound nasty. It's just that Dr. Sharer's supposed examples of gender expression are not only so dated but really don't show any trans leanings at all - my history's dusty, but I'm pretty sure young Franklin didn't grow up to be the first transgender American president... "Yes... It's Raining " 19:59, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The article does not suggest FDR was trans in anyway, it says that parents can influence gender expression but not gender identity and that prior to the 1940's it was common to dress both young girls and boys under 6 years in white dresses in what was considered at the time to be gender neutral. So even though we see his parents dressing FDR in a white dress when he was 3years old, his parents actions had no effect on FDR's gender identity as an adult. ~ BOD ~ TALK 22:34, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * This is embarrassingly stupid. A lil research or erudition would have revealed that it had been common in the West for all children under 5, especially those of the upper classes to be in dresses, dressed the same, i.e. in the female clothing, long hair, etc. This didn change till after the turn of the 20th century and FDR was born in in the 19th to a rich family. Lycurgus (talk) 17:28, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Not just the upper-class. My Kansas farmer ancestors did the same, as I've seen in well-preserved photos ranging from shortly after the US Civil War to well into the 20th century. (The elder of my sisters still has one of these dresses, from around our great-grandmother's childhood, ca. WWI).  Anyway, I agree that the material is basically useless.  For the very reason that it was normal in that period to dress little boys in dresses, it tells us nothing at all about parenting effects on gender ID, because FDR's treatment was not loaded with gender-conformation pressure of any kind.  It would make much more sense to cite something like evidence of a modern family forcing a boy to wear dresses until his school years and to continue wearing them at home long after his exposure to gendered-dressing norms among his peers, yet this not having any effect on the child's actual gender ID (though I bet it would have effects on self-esteem, trust of family members, etc.).  I would be surprised if there were no material out there about cases like this, so we have no need to rely on bogus stuff about FDR that doesn't show what someone thinks it does. Just because it was published is no reason for us to use it if we know it's wrong.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼

Psychological causes? Seeking editor opinions
What are other editors thoughts on the current opening paragraph of the psychological section:


 * "Psychiatrist and sexologist David Oliver Cauldwell argued that transsexuality was caused by multiple factors. He believed that small boys tend to admire their mothers to such a degree that they end up wanting to be like them. However, he believed that boys would lose this desire as long as his parents set limits when raising him, or he had the right genetic predispositions or a normal sexuality. Harry Benjamin considered the causes of transsexuality to be badly understood, and argued that researchers were biased towards considering psychological causes over biological causes."

Both of these are from the 1960's and seem like the typical wild speculations from psychologists (especially of that era) rather than anything meeting the standards for inclusion? I'm sure it can be adjusted to talk about 'early theories' but I don't know of it's value. At least Blanchard's taxonomy acknowledges that biology underlies the etiology of transsexuality, but that context specific and psychological factors sit on top of that. Sxologist (talk) 11:21, 24 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Edit: sorry I did not see that Benjamin was critical of that view. Perhaps it simply needs to clarify the decade of Cauldwells suggestions? Sxologist (talk) 11:24, 24 August 2020 (UTC)


 * How researchers initially thought about the matter is important to cover. Early thoughts on subjects is one reason we have history sections in our Wikipedia articles. But I'd rather us not create a "History" section or an "Early theories" section just to cover that little bit of material. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:08, 25 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Agreed it doesn't need its own section, but I did add years to clarify that these are old ideas. Crossroads -talk- 02:20, 25 August 2020 (UTC)


 * To be clear, I didn't suggest adding an entire section or heading about history or early theories, I said "I'm sure it can be adjusted to talk about 'early theories' ", meaning specifying the period of the hypothesis. I could have made that clearer. Edit: thanks Crossroads for the change, that looks good. Sxologist (talk) 02:46, 25 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I've just reviewed the top dozen or so relevant articles and there's an implicit expression of the movement away from psychological toward biological explanations for the cause of sexuality generally. The psychology &sect; here, recounting the old style philosophical speculations clothed in scientific garb, shows why. Many very fundamental biological processes are not fully understood at a detail level (e.g. exactly how at a molecular level meiosis does the job of reverting to the organisms original ploidy) and this is one that isn't even really started other than extremely crude phenomenological and observational studies. Since this is an area of rapid advancement and there is no dearth of cheap animal models, in time there will be a complete picture from genes to behavior. Right now however we're in an interregnum where the old psychological approach hasn't been discarded and in many places is still operative and the biological approach isn't anywhere near connecting molecules to behavior. There are common sense kinds of things that can be reasonably concluded however they are generally outside of what is permissible generally due to the fraught nature of the subject. It is the case for the mentioned article space that there is little left of the psychological approach right now.Lycurgus (talk) 16:25, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The current Psychological section also concerns biological underpinnings. Researchers generally do not think of a topic like this (or specifically sexual orientation) as just being due to one or the other, but rather a complex combination of both (or more than one). Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:45, 5 December 2020 (UTC)


 * The paragraph should just be deleted per WP:AGE MATTERS and WP:MEDDATE. This article isn't about the history of transsexuality research, it's about the causes of transsexuality. Our Sexual orientation content (which is probably the closest analog), only presents research from the late 1990s and later. Presenting theories from the 1940s here is ridiculous. Kaldari (talk) 23:14, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:AGE MATTERS and WP:MEDDATE have nothing to do with this. The text is not about the state of current research. It's about historical beliefs about the cause(s) of transsexuality. And as seen at WP:MEDSECTIONS and in various medical articles, we include history material. It's most commonly included in a "History" section. But like I stated above, I'd rather us not create a "History" section or an "Early theories" section just to cover that little bit of material. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:35, 5 December 2020 (UTC) Tweaked post. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:45, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes. If Sexual orientation is completely lacking in any information on the history of research into this area, then it's that article that is lacking (or it needs to be in a side article which is cross-referenced and summarized at the main one per WP:SUMMARY). It does readers a disservice to pretend that post-1990s views are the only ones that have ever been dominant, since any given reader may be at such an article because they're trying to understand something they encountered in an older work (maybe even a novel or something). Remember that our readers are not medical/psych professionals, and we cannot predict why they are at any article.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:56, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Unbalanced
I added Template:Unbalanced because the article emphasizes biological determinism without due weight to other causal explanations. Let's discuss. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 18:12, 27 January 2021 (UTC)


 * What other causal explanations are you thinking about? If you have reliable sources for other explanations the article would probably benefit from their inclusion, possibly under the "Psychological" section? Sr ey Sr os talk 18:35, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That is called WP:Drive-by tagging and is against Template:POV. There is no shortage of watchers at this article. You need to present evidence, in the form of WP:MEDRS sources, of a lack of balance. Crossroads -talk- 19:27, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You are a smart person who undoubtedly knows there is plenty of evidence for social, cultural, psychological, and other non-biological causal factors. But I don't want to be tagged as a drive-by bad guy, so I'll work on writing some new content with reliable sources, although you could do the same if you were so inclined. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 16:31, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * If you think the article is wrong or inadequate, the onus is on you to prove it, and improve it, and convince editorial consensus that you're actually making an improvement (which will be a challenge under WP:DUE). Be aware that patience is very thin in this entire category of topics and it is under discretionary sanctions for a reason.  Please be mindful of the amount of detailed and tense consensus-building, and in-depth and frequent source research (all volunteer time) that it has required to get an article like this to the state that is in and to stay stable. It is not possible for an article of this sort to make everyone happy, because the issue is so socio-politicized. It has to stay as neutral and as glued to high-quality secondary source material as possible. It's something to keep in mind, especially with regard to not trying to rely on bunch of a primary-research papers, op-ed/advocacy work, "professional" opinion from people in the wrong fields, tertiary sources, or other low-quality material. There is some room in any such topic for some examination of differing but major and non-WP:FRINGE real-world medical and psych views that are well-covered in secondary source material, but the further one of them gets from what the preponderance of the reliable sources are telling us, the less weight it will get, if any mention at all.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:49, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Valid and important points that I will take to heart. Thank you. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 17:20, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

NPOV violation
How is saying “ Lynn Conway, Andrea James, and Deidre McClosky attacked Bailey's reputation following the release of The Man Who Would Be Queen” out of nowhere, with no context, not an NPOV violation? Snokalok (talk) 15:55, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I have now cut it as off-topic for this specific article. Crossroads -talk- 05:27, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! Snokalok (talk) 10:39, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Citation doesn’t support statements
The psychological section says autogynephilia is common in trans people (objectively false), and cites the DSM-V chapter on gender dysphoria. I looked at said chapter, and it doesn’t. So why was my edit removing what is clearly an editorialized and unsupported line, reverted? Snokalok (talk) 14:34, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I replaced the DSM-5 bit with text from another article that summarizes it more accurately. Crossroads -talk- 05:27, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! Snokalok (talk) 10:54, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Can we bring back Moser
I feel like, in a discussion of Blanchard’s taxonomy, including mention of the Moser study that found that 93% of cis women respondents fit into Blanchard’s classification of AGP is fairly relevant. Snokalok (talk) 10:41, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Moser's study was itself rebutted; e.g. . We should keep the discussion of the typology brief in this particular article rather than getting into the back and forths here. Crossroads -talk- 19:41, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

The problem is the typology is being presented in this article as a legitimate theory and not what it actually is, pseudoscientific pathologization of a vulnerable group, popularized by Bailey and given institutional backing by Raymond that both the fields of psychology and gender studies have since moved on from.

To keep it and present it as current fact would be like presenting hysteria or drapethomania as fact.

As for Lawrence’s reply, Moser only used Blanchard’s methodology and classification, and Lawrence’s reply can be effectively summarized as “It’s different when REAL women do it”.

Case and point, her comparison of the scales Moser and Blanchard used.

Moser: “I have been erotically aroused by contemplating myself in the nude.”

Blanchard: “Have you ever become sexually aroused while picturing yourself having a nude female body or with certain features of the the nude female form?”

These questions are only asking different things if you’re working under the belief that trans women are men, and that visualizing yourself as a woman during these acts is only a valid and normal action if you’re a “real” woman.

Do you see the issue? Snokalok (talk) 21:29, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

(Forgot to tag) Snokalok (talk) 21:32, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I should also add, though I assume you’re aware of this already, that under WP:GENDERID, trans women are women and wikipedia considers them such. Snokalok (talk) 21:49, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Additionally, under WP:GENDERID, wikipedia’s own position is that a person’s gender identity has nothing to do with their sexual orientation, and so presenting Blanchard’s taxonomy as fact thus falls in direct conflict with wikipedia rules themseves. Snokalok (talk) 22:05, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * It is not being presented as fact now - far from it - and the typology doesn't contradict trans women being women. It does not engage in the philosophical question of defining womanhood. It is a theory about the development of gender dysphoria or gender identity. It is quite controversial, yes, but you are overstating the degree to which scientists reject it., , and pp. 47-48 A number of trans women, such as Anne Lawrence and the trans women she has interviewed in her research, give credence to the theory. Per WP:OR and WP:NPOV, Wikipedia can't take an editorial position as to whether Moser or Lawrence are right. This article here notes relatively briefly that the typology exists and why it's been criticized, which is enough. Crossroads -talk- 21:26, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

With regards to Anne Lawrence (whose criticism, may I reiterate, is absolutely nonsensical and based on making an assumption and then coming up with circumstantial arguments post hoc to support it), there are always members of any marginalized group who hold views at odds and detrimental to the larger group. That doesn’t mean they speak for said group.

Secondly, I’m saying that it is a relevant part of that criticism to mention Moser’s findings. The way it’s currently phrased in the article makes it sound like “social activists vs scientific data”, when really there is significant scientific data out there against Blanchard’s typology, and that data is important to elaborate on, which I don’t think is unreasonable considering the amount of attention the psychological section already gives to sources in favor of Blanchard’s typology.

Snokalok (talk) 01:07, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Listen if you really still hold Lawrence’s criticisms in regard as valid, why don’t we simply include both? We put in Moser’s data, and then Lawrence’s criticisms. Snokalok (talk) 01:17, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Feel free to present a specific proposal that represents both, if you like. It isn't about what I hold as valid but representing the sources anyway. As it is, though, it seems to be presented as scientists vs. scientists anyway. As for "members of any marginalized group who hold views at odds and detrimental to the larger group", every group has a diversity of views as to what is detrimental and what is not. Anne Lawrence and those she studied surely wouldn't consider these views detrimental to themselves. We can't be saying editorially that one side is right, regardless of our own personal opinions. Crossroads -talk- 04:56, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Something along the lines of:

A 2009 study by Charles Moser surveying a number of cis women in the healthcare field based on Blanchard’s methods for identifying autogynephilia found that 93% of respondents qualified as autogynephiles based on their own responses (CITATION)

This study was later criticized by Anne Lawrence, who argued that “ Many of the items in Moser’s scale bear little resem- blance to the items Blanchard used to assess autogynephilia, and even those items that do bear some resemblance to Blanchard’s do not adequately assess the essential element of autogynephilia—sexual arousal simply to the thought of being a female”. For example, she believed that there was a significant difference between Blanchard’s question of “ Have you ever become sexually aroused while picturing yourself having a nude female body or with certain features of the the nude female form?” Aimed at trans women, and Moser’s survey question of “I have been erotically aroused by contemplating myself in the nude.” Aimed at cis women. (CITATION) Snokalok (talk) 20:42, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Snokalok (talk) 20:44, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

In hindsight, perhaps it should be “she argued that there was a significant difference between blah blah blah” Snokalok (talk) 22:35, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I think more than one sentence for Lawrence's response is too much; one sentence for each at the most seems best. Crossroads -talk- 02:13, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

This study was later criticized by Anne Lawrence, who argued that there was a significant difference between Blanchard and Moser’s criteria, for example - Blanchard’s question of “ Have you ever become sexually aroused while picturing yourself having a nude female body or with certain features of the the nude female form?” Aimed at trans women, versus Moser’s survey question of “I have been erotically aroused by contemplating myself in the nude.” Aimed at cis women.

Would that work? Snokalok (talk) 21:10, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * That's just a longer, run-on sentence. The cherry-picking should be removed and then just have the general argument. People can then read the papers or another Wikipedia article for the details. Crossroads -talk- 21:27, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

This study was later criticized by Anne Lawrence, who argued that “ Many of the items in Moser’s scale bear little resem- blance to the items Blanchard used to assess autogynephilia, and even those items that do bear some resemblance to Blanchard’s do not adequately assess the essential element of autogynephilia—sexual arousal simply to the thought of being a female”. Snokalok (talk) 21:43, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps it should be “who argued in a letter to the editor” (I think that’s what it was?) Snokalok (talk) 21:44, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Referring to citations in text and all that Snokalok (talk) 21:45, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I summarized it a bit more and added this. Crossroads -talk- 04:38, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

WP: MEDRS unbalanced enforcement
Why is it that any biology-related source has to be a review to be considered reliable, but the psychological section is full of individual papers and doctoral theses with impunity? Snokalok (talk) 14:37, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing any doctoral theses now. I cut some primary sources. The ones that remain could be easily replaced with secondary sources, though I am not sure if they are being challenged. At this point it basically looks to be briefly discussing the typology and why it's debated, which we do have to cover. Crossroads -talk- 05:27, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Actually I should’ve put this in here.

Right then, two things:

1. I think it’d be very relevant to include the Moser study.

2. I think it’s important to, when discussing the existence of neurological differences between andro and gynephilic trans people, note that neurological differences also exist between andro and gynephilic cis people, and that on those grounds this does not remotely validate Blanchard’s taxonomy. Snokalok (talk) 10:57, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Regarding point 1, I will address this in the section you started below on it. With point 2, you need a WP:MEDRS source - meaning, a review article - that makes that specific point. If one already in the article makes that point, that can be used as well. Do you have one? Crossroads -talk- 18:59, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I did, the 2021 review stated several neurological differences, which I mentioned in my edit to approximately the same level of detail that the previous review had been described at.

The previous review was stated as “ A 2016 review found support for the predictions of Blanchard's typology that androphilic and gynephilic trans women have different brain phenotypes.” Followed by several lines about how the review said this meant Blanchard was right.

My summary of the 2021 review was “ A 2021 review, however, also found that cisgendered heterosexual men and women likewise had different brain phenotypes from their homosexual counterparts.”, which I would consider to be approximately the same level of detail.

Snokalok (talk) 21:18, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * We cannot put WP:Synthesis in the article, and making this point about Guillamon et al and from there, Blanchard, having been wrong because maybe those differences were sexual orientation-related doesn't seem supported by the paper. They touch on that topic in the paragraph starting "Finally, as Guillamon et al. (2016) noted,..." A bit later, it says that "Due to conflicting results, it was, however, not possible to identify specific brain features which consistently differ...between heterosexual and homosexual groups." Crossroads -talk- 20:55, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

And is it not synthesis to say “ A 2016 review found support for the predictions of Blanchard's typology that androphilic and gynephilic trans women have different brain phenotypes”? If you really want to work solely without regard to synthesis, the quote in the 2016 study that comes after this line should suffice. That is, would it not make more sense to delete the synthesizing summary and leave only the relevant quote to speak for itself? Snokalok (talk) 01:10, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * That isn't synthesis, it is based on text from the paper itself. Crossroads -talk- 04:51, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

As was mine. The study did indeed find neurological differences between cis people of different sexual orientations. Is that not worth mentioning given that the same phenomenon in trans people is being used to support Blanchard?

Additionally, when mentioning the 2021 review, can we mention specific parts of the brain (such as the corpus callosum)? Snokalok (talk) 02:42, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

(decided it was less energy to do these one at a time) Snokalok (talk) 02:43, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Does the paper mention that in a context of criticizing Blanchard? I didn't see it. Per WP:Synthesis, to "imply" a conclusion not in the source is still synthesis. As for mentioning specific parts of the brain, I don't see a way to do that without cherry-picking bits from the article. We should stick to what the general conclusions are. Crossroads -talk- 03:11, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

No but it does draw a conclusion of neurological difference in sexual orientation in cis brains, which is relevant to the current topic at hand since to only mention it in regards to trans brains and then pose that as supporting Blanchard’s typology is intellectually dishonest.

As for cherry-picking concerns, I’ve found a better way.

“Among transgender individuals meet- ing criteria for GD, cortical thickness [80, 81], gray matter volume [80, 82], white matter microstructure [83, 84], structural con- nectivity [85], and corpus callosum shape [86] have been found to be more similar to cisgender control subjects of the same preferred gender compared with those of the same natal sex.”

2019 review in Neuropsychopharmacology.

Here’s the link.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30082887/

Is this satisfactory? Snokalok (talk) 04:14, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Snokalok (talk) 04:14, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

I just realized I should probably type this up as a proposal so:

A 2019 review in Neuropsychopharmacology found that “ Among transgender individuals meeting criteria for GD, cortical thickness, gray matter volume, white matter microstructure, structural connectivity, and corpus callosum shape have been found to be more similar to cisgender control subjects of the same preferred gender compared with those of the same natal sex.” (CITATION) Snokalok (talk) 05:49, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for finding that. I added that and found a way to mention cisgender sexual orientation within a proper context here. With the 2016 Guillamon review, keep in mind that it also emphasizes the limitations of that research and states that future research would be needed to actually confirm that prediction. Crossroads -talk- 21:52, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

While I appreciate the attempt, I feel your statement says something significantly different. Yours leads the reader to the conclusion of Blanchard/Bailey’s “trans people are confused gays” whereas what I meant needed to be included was that the existence of neurological differences between gay and straight trans people should be taken with the understanding that there are also neurological differences between gay and straight cis people, which is something the review also found Snokalok (talk) 16:59, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Snokalok (talk) 17:00, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * What conclusion a reader could be led to can be in the eye of the beholder, but I could remove that sentence. When you say "the review also found" that, can you clarify what text you are referring to? Crossroads -talk- 04:32, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Two sentences really I feel are critical:

“In homosexual individuals the majority resemble those of their same-sex heterosexual population rather than their opposite-sex heterosexual population.”

“Sexual orientation could be associated with brain structural specific features regardless and independently from gender identity as some recent studies suggest.”

With emphasis on the second one.

I feel it’s very important to specify that the report mentions a difference in neurology between trans people and gay people who are both attracted to the same sex, whereas simply saying “the study found similar results for gay people” to me downplays the fact that there are differences and neurological structures independent of each other. Snokalok (talk) 11:42, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Snokalok (talk) 11:43, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, I think this should clarify the matter properly. I think. Crossroads -talk- 04:33, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Androphilic female-to-male transsexual brain structure
Has there never been a notable study on the brains of gay trans men?★Trekker (talk) 18:11, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes.
 * 2A10:8001:1B52:0:A000:BEC:523A:6D6B (talk) 13:40, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Source 1 Study
Greetings,

The first source provided on the page directs to an archived page without relevant information for the wiki publication. Is there a more recent source someone can find? MaiaWierer (talk) 13:03, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Gynephilic trans women
Since there's so little information about the subject, should this section on brain structure be that big? Pipenswick (talk) 02:56, 10 February 2022 (UTC)


 * There is information, as per the "Conflicting sources and the prioritization thereof" discussion on this page, but it hasn't been incorporated into the article.
 * 2A10:8001:1B52:0:A000:BEC:523A:6D6B (talk) 11:39, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Can someone restore the archive links on this page?
I tried to find links to archives of this talk page when engaging in discussion about the page title, but could not. From viewing earlier edits in the talk page history, it appears this page was archived at some point. Funcrunch (talk) 02:19, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It appears there is only one archive which was at Talk:Causes of transsexualism/Archive 1. I moved that to Talk:Causes of transsexuality/Archive 1. The talk page header should notice that and display the archive now. Johnuniq (talk) 03:04, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * there's also Talk:Causes of transexuality/Archive 1 (with one s). Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:10, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I knew there would be a stuff-up but fortunately that page is later than Archive 1, so I moved Talk:Causes of transexuality/Archive 1 to Talk:Causes of transsexuality/Archive 2. Johnuniq (talk) 03:23, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks to both of you! Funcrunch (talk) 03:33, 10 April 2022 (UTC)