Talk:Causes of gender incongruence/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

The meanings of gynephilic and androphilic

I changed the redirects for the gynephilic and androphilic terms so that they don't point to the history section, but an anon changed them back. When these terms are used in this article and others, the historical meanings aren't usually what is meant. I think it's misleading for them to point to the history section. The history section is also only a snippet of information about the terms. Pipenswick (talk) 02:25, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

@Pipenswick What do you mean by this? What is unclear? MaitreyaVaruna (changing name to Immanuelle) please tag me (talk) 02:55, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

@MaitreyaVaruna, the article for the terms - androphilia and gynephilia - says that "androphilia and gynephilia are terms used in behavioral science to describe sexual orientation, as an alternative to a gender binary homosexual and heterosexual conceptualization. Androphilia describes sexual attraction to men or masculinity; gynephilia describes the sexual attraction to women or femininity." That's also how the terms are used in this and other articles. The history section of the article for the terms talks about different things. Do you think the history section of androphilia and gynephilia is about terms "used in behavioral science to describe sexual orientation, as an alternative to a gender binary homosexual and heterosexual conceptualization. Androphilia describes sexual attraction to men or masculinity; gynephilia describes the sexual attraction to women or femininity."? If not, why redirect the terms there? The terms are still used. They aren't just history. Pipenswick (talk) 03:18, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

@Pipenswick they clearly aren't historical terms so describing them as such is just confusing. We should make this clearer with the modern usage as I think you did MaitreyaVaruna (changing name to Immanuelle) please tag me (talk) 03:41, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, I've reverted the IP. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:05, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 April 2022

We can add {{Transgender sidebar}} Don'taskwhyImadethis (talk) 01:43, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

 Done 20:39, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 10 April 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Originally proposed name has more support than the "dysphoria" alternative. (closed by non-admin page mover) Vpab15 (talk) 18:15, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

---

Causes of transsexuality → Causes of gender incongruence – Current title uses antiquated terminology that has been in large part replaced with gender incongruence (such as in the ICD). A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 07:55, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

• Move to Causes of gender dysphoria. We tend to use the DSM nomenclature for article titles rather than ICD, and the term currently used by the DSM-5 is "gender dysphoria". Also, we don't even have an article on gender incongruence, but we do have one on gender dysphoria. It would be very odd to have an article about the causes of something without actually having an article about that something. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:32, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
• Agreed. We should move it to Causes of gender dysphoria causes of gender incongruence could be interpreted as anything. Some people might think it's just Gender nonconformance MaitreyaVaruna (talk) 15:53, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
• Move to Causes of gender dysphoria or Causes of gender incongruence. I and others explained the reasoning above on this page.--14Jenna7Caesura (talk) 16:04, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
• Move to Causes of gender dysphoria (or maybe Causes of gender incongruence) per nom and per User:Rreagan007 above. Paintspot Infez (talk) 16:04, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
• Move to Causes of gender incongruence, as that is what the current terminology is per ICD-11. If that fails, I would still support a move to Causes of gender dysphoria as it is more in line with current terminology, even if it is still obsolete as a term. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:20, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
• Move to Causes of gender incongruence. Both dysphoria and incongruence have specific, distinct meanings, and the article could reasonably be about either subject IMO. I did notice, however, that in some archived discussions, sources were rejected because they were about dysphoria and not transsexualism, aka incongruence. 2001:56A:711D:4500:4550:7DE0:CC22:7011 (talk) 01:34, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
• Move to Causes of gender dysphoria. Gender dysphoria is the WP:COMMONNAME in WP:MEDRS for this topic. On PubMed, in 2021-2022, there are 452 sources talking about "gender dysphoria" but only 130 sources talking about "gender incongruence". The latter could be easily confused by readers with mere gender non-conformity. I therefore oppose "Causes of gender incongruence". Crossroads ^-talk- 23:16, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Move to Causes of gender incongruence or, as a second choice, Causes of gender dysphoria. The bulk of the article content is about the mismatch, not the distress; "incongruence" is supported by tertiary MEDRS for the former. As to the issue of "incongruence" sounding too much like "non-conformity", I think that (a) we can't hope to eliminate every possible reader confusion in a title alone, and sometimes people looking things up in an encyclopedia need to read the article; (b) the term "incongruence" is rare enough for most English speakers that "what the heck is that?!" is a more likely reaction than jumping to the wrong meaning; (c) it's not our job to override the WHO's choice of terminology. XOR'easter (talk) 22:43, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

The article is about people who underwent medical transition (hence the existing title), and such procedures are done to alleviate the distress of dysphoria. These were studies of people diagnosed under criteria that required distress. Gender incongruence includes all who experience incongruence between their gender and assigned sex, with no requirement of distress or any medical transition. We're not overriding WHO since as I showed in my comment, most researchers are still using DSM terminology, not ICD - we'd be following their lead. Crossroads ^-talk- 01:16, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Comment: a problem I see with "Causes of gender dysphoria" is that it's a different topic. A) One cause of experiencing dysphoria is "other people being transphobic to you", but I don't think this article is intended to list transphobic things; it is about why people are trans (≈have a gender incongruent with assigned sex). And B) as our articles on Transgender and Transsexual note (saying "Many transgender people experience gender dysphoria"), some trans people don't necessarily have dysphoria. So, "causes of transsexuality"/"causes of being trans"/"causes of gender incongruence" and "causes of gender dysphoria" are two different topics. Do all the sources on "why people are trans" that we cite even mention "gender dysphoria"? If not, the history of editing in this area (as 2001:56A notes) tells us that if we rename the article, someone will remove them for not mentioning the article topic... -sche (talk) 21:41, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Move to Causes of gender incongruence or, alternatively, Causes of transgender identity formation (or Causes of gender identity formation in transgender people). The bulk of the article's sources aren't about gender dysphoria. And some people with gender dysphoria end up not being trans, and some trans people don't have gender dysphoria. Pipenswick (talk) 02:16, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

No great ideas from me, but I oppose Causes of gender dysphoria. -sche's and XOR'easter's comments capture the problem well for me. I'd add that the article is not written about studies about people with gender dysphoria, but about people who are transgender or transsexual. The extra problem is that "transgenderism" is out as a term due to use by anti-trans people and movements, and I'm not aware of a widely used alternative term for "the state of being trans". 'Transness' isn't uncommon in sources I read, but maybe it's too informal? You can tell I'm torn. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:57, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers: I prefer transgender identity (see below) to refer to the abstract concept of transness, and it seems sufficiently used in sources [1][2]. I personally like transness, but it's definitely too casual and neologistic to use here. The unfortunate transgenderism is technically accurate, but the ism implies a transgender dogma or ideology, hence its popularity in transphobic rhetoric. It should probably be avoided here. RoxySaunders (talk · contribs) 04:05, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks RoxySaunders. Agreed on transgenderism. I'm inclined to support your proposal, but I'm giving it some thought and reading time. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:10, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

• Move to Causes of transgender identity; generally support replacing transsexuality (per WP:IDONTLIKEIT). Diagnosis with gender dysphoria (or gender incongruence, or non-conformity or identity disorder) is not necessary nor sufficient for being trans*, so using the clinical terminology here (even when technically due among the current sources) can be JARGONy and pathologizing. The focus on clinically diagnosed "transsexuals" (please stop noun-ing adjectives in wikivoice, thank you) is a limitation of MEDRS, rather than a distinction the article title should steadfastly reflect. Per the above, the article is about why trans people are trans, so Causes of trans/transgender identity seems like the natural, common, and recognizable title. RoxySaunders (talk · contribs) 03:42, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

We ourselves as editors are "limited" by MEDRS. It's true that transgender identity is not exactly equivalent to gender dysphoria, but the article has been really about the latter, has it not? After all, "transsexual" pretty much always refers to those who medically transition, which has required a diagnosis. I'll grant, though, that your proposed title is better than the "gender incongruence" one. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:17, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

• Move to Causes of gender incongruence. Most recent sources that discuss the terms make a clear distinction between the two in a way that clearly establishes that what the article currently describes largely focuses on incongruence. See eg. Gender incongruence (GI) refers to the feeling that the physical characteristics of the body are not in line with the experienced gender. This may (in the case of gender dysphoria) or may not be accompanied by distress., or Despite many similarities, ‛gender dysphoria’ from DSM-5 and ‛gender incongruence’ from ICD-11 are not interchangeable terms. The new WHO definition stresses the individual and subjective experience of incongruence between the assigned and experienced gender. The incongruence may cause significant clinical suffering and impairment of functioning, that is fulfill the criterion B for gender dysphoria according to DSM-5, especially in face of social disapproval, but neither the suffering nor the impairment of functioning is necessary for diagnosis. Distress, to the point of causing clinical suffering and impairment of functioning, is a central component of gender dysphoria, which the sources agree is not present in all transgender / transsexual / gender incongruent individuals. Many sources already in the article also establish that dysphoria is not central to the topic, eg. the very second sentence says that it often results in gender dysphoria. None of these have ever been central to the definition of transsexuality. Renaming the article would therefore narrow and change its topic in a way that excludes parts that many of the best sources treat as within the broad topic it currently covers. The fact that there are substantial sources talking about gender dysphoria doesn't change the fact that it does not map oneo-to-one to the article's current topic. I could support splitting off a separate article for gender dysphoria, but not retitling / repurposing this article into it - it doesn't have the same meaning as the current title or the current content, nor is there a particularly compelling argument to narrow the article's definition in that way. --Aquillion (talk) 06:12, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Conflicting sources and the prioritization thereof

The section on androphilic male-to-female transsexuals cites a DTI study and concludes that "androphilic transsexuals were halfway between the patterns exhibited by female and male controls". A very similar study examined androphilic, gynephilic and bisexual male-to-female transsexuals using DTI and found that regardless of the sexual orientation of those involved "The results of this study show that the white matter microstructure in FtM and MtF transsexuals falls halfway between that of FCs and MCs." MC=Male Control, FC=Female Control. While it is true that according to the sources cited in the section on gynephilic male-to-female transsexuals "no feminization of the brain's structure have been identified." it is not true according to the study above, and several others I could point to. As is the article favors one of two views. Presenting both, and noting the conflict, would rectify this.

2A10:8001:1B52:0:FCC3:E9A4:B931:FC85 (talk) 08:04, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Really, WP:Secondary sources - review articles - are greatly preferred, especially per WP:MEDRS. So that existing primary source material should be replaced soon. If you know of one that covers this other study you point to - and one somewhere probably does since it's years old - then please point it out. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:07, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

It took a bit of trawling but I found something.

The transsexual brain – A review of findings on the neural basis of transsexualism reads:

Kranz et al. (2014a,b) employed diffusion weighted magnetic resonance imaging (DW-MRI) in a sample of hormonally untreated MtF and FtM transsexuals with early-onset gender dysphoria and controls to determine the influence of biological sex, gender identity as well as sexual orientation on several diffusivity parameters. The mean diffusivity (MD, a measure of the total diffusivity within a voxel) was observed to be highest for female controls, followed by FtM transsexuals, then MtF transsexuals, and lowest for male controls. For MD values, the transsexuals seem to take up an intermediate position between the sexes. No group differences were found in FA maps. Sexual orientation had no significant effect on the diffusivity parameters. Their results are conflicting with those from Rametti et al. (2011a,b) who reported FA-values only and found FA-values to be greater in male vs. female controls, FA-values of FtM transsexuals to be closer to males, and those of MtF transsexuals to fall halfway between male and female controls. As the results from both research groups differ substantially, no reliable conclusion can be made so far. Still, both studies indicate a deviation of white matter microstructure patterns in transsexuals from the biological sex towards values of the desired sex.

Is this adequate?

2A10:8001:1B52:0:1D9C:1740:4D7E:41D6 (talk) 20:27, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes that is a good source. I made this edit. I may reorder the material in those subsections in the future. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:33, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for following through where I could not. Someone should definitely rework the various sections so that the overall view they present is congruent in presenting the incongruence of the results at some point but that's a very helpful step in the right direction. Hopefully more people will step up so I don't feel like I'm assigning you, in specific, more work haha.

2A10:8001:1B52:0:5577:A13C:BFD:B393 (talk) 06:10, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

To quickly elucidate what I mean by that.. as of now the article cites three different meta-analyses (among others!), Guillamon et al (2016) [2], Frigerio et al (2021) [20], and Smith et al (2015) [21], with each coming to somewhat different conclusions, yet the first is privileged over its brethren. Guillamon and Smith clash over Kranz while Frigerio concludes that it's difficult to draw a firm conclusion. Despite of that the article opens with Guillamon's perspective, which it presents as the field's, without noting that there's professional disagreement over it. The issue echoes downwards, with sections centered on androphilic and gynephilic transsexuals, but no mention of bisexuality, which conforms to the hypothesis that every transsexual falls into one of these groups but goes against the competing notion that true bisexuality can be found in transsexuals. This creates strange situations, like Kranz being cited in a section about transsexuals of a particular sexual orientation despite explicitly examining allosexual transsexuals of all orientations, with the alternative being citing Kranz twice or more. A significant rework is needed. Not being an established editor I can't edit a protected article but if that would help I could post my proposed edits here. Alternatively, some experienced Wikipedians could take up this task.

2A10:8001:1B52:0:F87B:DA7C:C7D2:9B6F (talk) 15:21, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Many months have passed but the problem still persists. The article is still incorrect, and not being an established editor I still can't correct it because it's protected.

2A10:8001:1B52:0:910A:17B8:9CBC:5A88 (talk) 11:50, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Problems with the presentation of Blanchard's taxonomy.

In the last paragraph of the psychological section, it is implied that Blanchard taxonomy predicts brain structure differences between androphilic and gynephilic trans women. However, the only way the taxonomy makes sense to me is if we interpret it as a primarily sociocultural theory. I would like to see some explanation in the article for why the taxonomy predicts greater brain structure changes than a competing biological theory. For example, there is no mention of controls for brain structure differences between cis androphiles and cis gynophiles. There is also no mention of why different reasons for transition would increase the likelihood of brain structure differences.

The second issue I see is a reference to Blanchard's use of terms like "homosexual transsexuals" to refer to androphilic trans women. As using the latter term would bring the section in line with the rest of the article, and we are not directly quoting Blanchard, the inclusion appears to be solely for the purpose of character assassination. If Blanchard really is as biased as the language suggests, then his perspectives are not science, and should not be treated as science. On the other hand, if the language is simply standard for the time, then we should update the article to reflect more modern terminology, and remove the wasted extra sentences discussing his word choice.

2001:56A:711D:4500:81A0:50F3:69A3:808D (talk) 19:35, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Yeahhhhhh Blanchard doesn't really believe in bisexuals existing. Snokalok (talk) 19:43, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Fix transgender typo

In the brain structure section, "transgender" is misspelled as "trangender". Can you fix that? The page is locked so I can't edit it. Turboplate (talk) 21:05, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

 Done Good catch! Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:06, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

See also

PAGE: Sex differences in psychology 88.104.102.175 (talk) 20:45, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Primary sources

I see that it's been mentioned and partly addressed previously, but the fact is that the article still relies heavily on primary sources, and there are entire sections that will need to be cut, unless the current primary studies can be replaced with surveys or literature reviews, or books or other secondary sources. Probably a third to a half of the Biological factors section is subject to removal, unless sourcing can be improved, starting with the twins studies. Mathglot (talk) 09:09, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Highly cited and relevant primary sources *are* allowed Snokalok (talk) 05:43, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

To elaborate:

Hare was cited by 293 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18962445/

Bentz was cited by 152 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17765230/

Zhou was cited by 1121 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7477289/

Kruijver was cited by 671 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10843193/

Garcia-Falgueres & Swaab was cited by 317 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18980961/

Rametti was cited by 252 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20562024/

Only Diamond (the twin study) could be subject to removal, since it was only cited by 70. Regarding everything else, though, they're all very solid sources and removal of such would be severely unwarranted.

@Mathglot Snokalok (talk) 06:23, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

@Snokalok: I think you're overlooking the main points of WP:PRIMARY wrt how it affects usage of primary sources in this article. All of the sources you listed may be subject to removal, depending on how they are used. First of all, number of incoming cites may affect their impact, but that's external to Wikipedia and doesn't affect our policies and guidelines regarding verifiability and reliable sources. Merely asserting they *are* allowed, doesn't make it so. If you read the guideline, bullet 2 says:

"Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation."

What does this mean in a practical sense? Well, take the source you listed above with the most citations: Zhou et al., and have a look at § Brain structure in the article. Currently, the text from "A first-of-its-kind study by Zhou et al." to "...affected by prenatal androgens" is sourced to Carlson (2010), which is a textbook talking about the Zhou study, and so is a secondary source; this is fine, and this text may remain. The remainder of that paragraph, from "cadavers of six persons..." to "...orientation was found" is sourced to Zhou et al. (1995) and must come out, or be cited by a WP:SECONDARY source. Why? Because all of that text was *not* interpreted by a secondary source, but by wikipedia editors reading the Zhou article, drawing their own conclusions directly from the Zhou study, and then adding those impressions to the article. That is strictly prohibited.

It's not that the PRIMARY source itself is prohibited, it's just that, as bullet #1 says, you have to use them with care, because it's so easy to fall into the trap in bullet 2 of prohibited interpretation, as the person who wrote the second half of that paragraph has done. Per bullet #3, the "any reasonable person" point, you could use Zhou (or any primary source) to say things nobody would challenge, for example "in a study done in 1995 by Zhou..", or "the Zhou study about the human brain and its relation to transsexuality..." or "the number of subjects was N", all of those could reasonably be sourced directly to the Zhou study, as no reasonable person could possibly question it. The rest of that paragraph cited to Zhou is not in the category of unassailably obvious statements of fact like the title of the study or when it was conducted, or the study sample count, and involves a Wikipedia editor's interpretation of reading Zhou; that is strictly prohibited.

This same analysis would have to be carried out for each one of the sources you listed above on a case-by-case basis, to determine what exact content is being cited to a primary source; if it's obvious stuff, date or authors of the study, where it took place, number of subjects, that's all okay; any interpretation of results of any kind is not okay.

It gets worse. Any article that contains biomedical information regardless of the article topoic is subject to even stricter requirements of WP:MEDRS. I won't go further into that now, because WP:PRIMARY is the lower bar, and we should remove that stuff first. It's possible after that is completed, MEDRS won't require further removals. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 08:29, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

(Back on desktop so I could actually find the reply button)

Right, I still think we should keep the primaries, but as a backup, I'm preparing a list of quotes from review articles along with links to the reviews to serve just in case. I'll post them one by one so that I can come back and continue later. @Mathglot

Quote

"Female INAH3 and BSTc have been found in MtF transsexual persons. The only female-to-male (FtM) transsexual person available to us for study so far had a BSTc and INAH3 with clear male characteristics (Figs 3 and 4). These sex reversals were found not to be influenced by circulating hormone levels in adulthood, and seem thus to have arisen during development. A functional imaging study found, in addition, that pheromones caused a sex-atypical hypothalamic activation in MtF transsexuals. All observations that support the neurobiological theory about the origin of transsexuality, i.e. that it is the sizes, the neuron numbers, and the functions and connectivity of brain structures, not the sex of their sexual organs, birth certificates or passports, that match their gender identities."

Source

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21334362/

Suggested Implementation

A 2011 review published in Frontier in Neuroendocrinology found that "Female INAH3 and BSTc have been found in MtF transsexual persons. The only female-to-male (FtM) transsexual person available to us for study so far had a BSTc and INAH3 with clear male characteristics. (...) These sex reversals were found not to be influenced by circulating hormone levels in adulthood, and seem thus to have arisen during development" and that "All observations that support the neurobiological theory about the origin of transsexuality, i.e. that it is the sizes, the neuron numbers, and the functions and connectivity of brain structures, not the sex of their sexual organs, birth certificates or passports, that match their gender identities". (CITATION) Snokalok (talk) 17:52, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Okay but MEDRS does allow for primary sources for “describing major research that has made a significant impact (i.e., continued and substantial coverage)”, and MEDRS allows citation counts to be used as evidence of this fact, particularly for rare or under-researched conditions (which I think we can safely consider gender dysphoria to be).

Furthermore, while caution for primary sources is advised under MEDRS, in the event they are used, direct quotations are encouraged. So direct quotations would be a better modification than removal, in line with everything stated above. Snokalok

EDIT: I used curly brackets for tagging by accident

(talk) 15:31, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

@Mathglot Snokalok (talk) 15:33, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

I'll try to get back to you on this in more detail later. All I can say for now, is that I don't think gender dysphoria is "rare or under-researched"; there are tons of secondary sources available . More later. Mathglot (talk) 03:03, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Professional org opinions

We should note that the NHS and American Psychiatric Association both explicitly say there’s no link between gender identity and sexual orientation.

https://psychiatry.org/patients-families/gender-dysphoria/what-is-gender-dysphoria

https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/gender-dysphoria/ Snokalok (talk) 17:08, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

I checked the two pages you linked (both can be considered reliable sources) and neither one could be used to source the statement, "there is no link between gender identity and sexual orientation." Please be more careful about the assertions you make and/or the references that you claim support them. A statement like that added to the article would either have to be removed, or sourced to references that actually back them up. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 18:36, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

"Gender dysphoria is not related to sexual orientation. People with gender dysphoria may identify as straight, gay, lesbian or bisexual." NHS

"Gender identity is also different from sexual orientation. Sexual orientation refers to the types of people towards which one is sexually attracted. People who are transgender have the same diversity of sexual orientations as people who are cisgender (people whose sex assigned at birth matches their gender identity)." Psychiatry

What about my statement was incorrect? @Mathglot Snokalok (talk) 01:24, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Gender identity and gender dysphoria are two entirely different concepts. As far as “different from” that’s not the same as “no link between” so you can’t say that. Mathglot (talk) 01:34, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough actually. Also could you implement the review I posted in the thread above?

Thanks

@Mathglot Snokalok (talk) 06:38, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

(Sorry, did not mean for that to sound how it did, it's just 3am) Snokalok (talk) 06:46, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Not to worry, you're fine! But, not quite sure which review you mean, or what you mean by "implementing" it. Can you elaborate? Mathglot (talk) 02:54, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

You wanted a secondary source to replace the material on the INAH3 and the stria terminalis. While I still think we should keep the primary sources on those for the reasons previously given, this would address your concerns about secondary sourcing. That is, what I'm asking is, could you please add it to the article in the relevant location? I also gave a suggested implementation, that is, how I would personally word it and cite the quote (which I believe to be of fair importance). @Mathglot Snokalok (talk) 03:03, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Can't reply just now, but you can just follow WP:BE BOLD and add it; the worst that can happen, is it gets reverted by somebody, and then can be discussed further (see WP:BRD). Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 03:07, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Ah yes, I would, except for the unfortunate circumstance that I am not extended confirmed protected, but you are. @Mathglot Snokalok (talk) 03:11, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Psychology section

The paragraph starting with "A 2016 review found support for the predictions of Blanchard's typology that androphilic and gynephilic trans women have different brain phenotypes." Should perhaps mention the review was in the Archives of Sexual Behavior, due to the fact that many of its editors were students of and major proponents of Blanchard. Additionally, we should repeat the "The review also found differences when comparing cisgender homosexual and heterosexual people, with the same limitations applying." from above Snokalok (talk) 05:41, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Guillamon et al. (2016) is a literature review, therefore a WP:SECONDARY source, and is perfectly fine in the article (also meets MEDRS). I can see no reason a priori not to mention the name of the journal in the body text, although as it is already given in the citation, it seems to be unnecessarily redundant. Otoh, if it is mentioned along with an assertion about "its editors were students of and major proponents of Blanchard" that would a) require a secondary citation talking about that journal to support it, and probably several of them. In addition, b) adding the journal even with several citations could possibly be SYNTH, if written in such a way to impugn the journal or to imply that publications in the journal about trans women are less than reliable because of their editorial board, unless that is, in fact, the opinion about Arch. Sex. Behav. among the preponderance of secondary sources and not the opinion of some Wikipedia editors. Bottom line: I would be very careful about adding the content you propose, and make sure it is well supported. Mathglot (talk) 08:48, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

I’m not suggesting all of what I said above, merely a justification for saying “A review published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior found…”. That’s what I think we should be saying first and foremost Snokalok (talk) 15:17, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Though now that I think about it, we should examine the Archives of Sexual Behavior’s possibility of being a biased source, seeing as its editor in chief since 2001 is a known conversion therapist Snokalok (talk) 15:53, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

@mathglot Snokalok (talk) 15:53, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi User:Snokalok. First, a couple of minor bits of housekeeping: Please see WP:THREAD about replying to talk page comments, in particular the part about indentation. Secondly, you see how my name is red just above? That's because you tried to link mathglot in WP:MAINSPACE, that is, as if 'mathglot' were the name of an article in Wikipedia. When it's like that, it won't notify me; see the {{Reply to}} template, for one way to notify a user (there are others: see WP:NOTIF).

Okay, to your points, now; last point first: you could definitely examine the possibility of Arch. Sex. Behav. being a biased source. Wikipedia may not define "biased source" in the way one might think, so please read WP:BIASED first. Secondly, this might be surprising to you, but it's actually okay to use biased sources at Wikipedia. What's not okay, is to use unreliable sources. So have a look at the pages on both of those terms so it's clear what it is you want to examine, as if you want to persuade anyone to your point of view, you'll have to be on board with the terminology the way we use it here, first.

The first point is more subtle, and honestly, might fly under the radar of most policies or guidelines, which probably means you can do whatever you want. What I mean by that, is this: you want to add, "In a review published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior, blah..." or something like that. So, that seems completely inoffensive, so why not, right? Even if it duplicates information in the citation, so what? Here's the thing: we generally use in-text attribution when it would be impermissible to say something in Wikipedia's voice; so, we couldn't say in an article, that "a trans woman is a male-to-constructed-female", with note 17 referencing Janice Raymond, even though she did say that, because it's minority opinion. You would have to provide in-text attribution, like this: "according to Janice Raymond's 1979 The Transsexual Empire, a transsexual is a 'male-to-constructed-female'", then it would be permissible in an article. So, by adding "According to a review published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior..." it's not clear why the journal is being mentioned: that is, it is definitely in-text attrbution to use it that way, but what's the motivation for it? Just accidental, doesn't mean anything? Or, is it because the editor who added it decided that it would be impermissible to use Arch. Sex. Behav. without in-text attribution because it's a minority or biased opinion? That's the subtle part: adding the journal name when it's redundant and not required, gives the whole thing a *whiff* of an outlier reference, a fringe opinion, something like that, without actually substantiating that. So, that's a kind of under-the-table editorializing, where the editor who added that, could kind of *imply* bias on the part of Arch. Sex. Behav., without actually substantiating it with reliable sources. So, I wouldn't do that, and yes, it's very subtle, but if someone removed it after you added it, I'd support the removal for that reason. This is hard to explain, so if you're not following, I get it; ask questions, or make me clarify it.

On the flip side, if you put your doubts about the bias about ASB in the article openly, rather than try to sneak it in, then I think that's okay. Go to WP:RSN, or WP:FRINGE, and start a discussion about whether ASB is a reliable source or not, or whether it's biased or not and hosts articles with fringe opinions. If it's considered unreliable, or fringe, then I think you could add in-text attribution, along with a footnote to a reliable source supporting the majority opinion that ASB is a biased source, and then it would be okay.

I'm having a hard time explaining this, and also I think it's too long and I may not be making sense. I'm going to ask for help from trusted users @Crossroads, RoxySaunders, and Tamzin: to see if they understand what I'm trying to say, and maybe they can say it shorter and better than I can. Sorry for the wall of text, but I'm trying! In the end, just adding the name of the journal is not a huge deal, so maybe it's fine; there are other, more important things to worry about, such as the § Primary sources issue. Mathglot (talk) 03:05, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

While I see the point you're making overall, I feel like given the fact that there is still some... controversy (putting it neutrally) over transness and gender dysphoria, it could be useful to in-text cite where each piece of review came from, so as to get a clear picture and not send mixed messaging. Also yeah I was on mobile when I did the lower case and went to change it but then figured I'd tagged you enough already. @Mathglot Snokalok (talk) 03:06, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Archives of Sexual Behavior is a mainstream journal. It's rare for editors to not have their own pet theories. I don't think the link you pointed to is particularly objectionable. The issue, really, is that the conclusions of that review are contradicted both by a prior meta-analysis and by further research. However since no other review specifically states that this is so - that their data go against this prediction made by the review - it'd require synthesis to point this out. I understand why Wikipedia's policy is as it is, and it seems to work better in the aggregate, but in this case the end result is unfortunately the presentation of a one-sided view on a highly controversial scientifically contested question. 2A10:8001:1B52:0:2534:2367:BA1:862C (talk) 08:25, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Outdated terminology in this article

The term transsexual is outdated when used in a general sense. This should only be used for individuals who identify as transsexual. See:

https://www.apa.org/topics/lgbtq/transgender

According to the APA Style guide, the term “transsexual” is largely outdated, but some people identify with it; this term should be used only for an individual who specifically claims it.

Transsexualism is also an outdated term that has largely been replaced with gender dysphoria. The term transsexualism was replaced with gender identity disorder, which was replaced with gender dysphoria. The term gender dysphoria is what is used in the DSM-5. The term transsexualism needlessly pathologizes transness itself rather than indicating an issue with gender dysphoria or gender incongruence. This article should be updated to use modern language that is less negative and stigmatizing. Hist9600 (talk) 19:02, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

You're not wrong. We use the word transsexual a lot in the article. There is a difficulty here though in that the terms we're using right now are defined by the sources that provide them. To take one section as a framing example, #Genetics, can we accurately swap "male-to-female transsexuals" and "female-to-male transsexuals" with "trans women" and "trans men" respectively without altering the underlying meaning of the sources? Alternatively, is there a more recent version of the 2008 androgen receptor study, or better yet a review paper of that study and other similar ones, that could be used and also uses current terminology? Those are the sorts of questions we'd need to ask when updating the terminology elsewhere in the article.

However with regards to transsexualism, we only seem to use that when referring to Blanchard's typology. I'm not sure how we could avoid using that word, without excising that content from the article. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:13, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

I haven’t closely read this article, but I think it is generally acceptable to replace instances of “FtM transsexual” with the hypernyms “trans man” (noun) or “transmasculine” (adjective) and vice versa for MtF, without sacrificing clarity. In instances where we’re specifically talking about HRT or SRS patients, we should specify such, rather than assume “transsexual” is still an appropriate label.

Someone could make an argument that, technically, “MtF” and “FtM” are more neutral than trans man or woman, as they don’t assume gender identity (i.e. they also arguably include transmascs and transfermmes who medically transition their sex, but don’t have a binary man/woman identity). Such “non-binary transsexuals” certainly exist, but (given certain connotations) I’d be shocked if any of them actually identified with such a label, so I don’t see this as an actual valid concern. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 20:16, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

I think in most cases you're probably right, but we should err on the side of caution and check with the sources to ensure that we don't accidentally change meaning. It'll slow down updating slightly, but that seems better than the alternative of potentially misleading readers. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:24, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

@Sideswipe9th: Against your wishes I've gone ahead and made these changes to the terminology used in the article. You're welcome to check them (and my prior edits) to see if I got anything wrong.

Somehow I get the nagging feeling that Crossroads would also be interested in this, so I'll go ahead and ping him now. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 23:27, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Woah, I think you've misunderstood. I'm not against the changes, I just wanted to take the time to make sure it was done carefully :)

Reading the changes now, will give feedback shortly. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:36, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Oh I understood you perfectly; I was just saying that I'd circumvented your call for caution and BOLDly (but not hastily or recklessly) made all of the proposed changes in one go. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 23:44, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Why am I suddenly feeling a bit like Treebeard? "Don't be hasty mistress Roxyadoc."

Up to the changed paragraph beginning Hulshoff Pol et al. (2006), so far looks good. There's a couple of places where I'm tempted to swap trans woman and trans man for transfeminine and transmasculine, just for some word variation in their respective paragraphs. But that's just nitpicking at this point. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:54, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain, based on the citations in the rest of the paragraph and the paper's title that the 2016 review tagged with the {{which}} template is Guillamon et al.]

I made one change to the gynephilic trans men section, swapping "non-trans" for a wikilinked cisgender. Seemed to be more consistent with other mentions of cisgender control groups elsewhere in the article.

Such normative treatments are sometime criticized by intersex rights organizations as is there another way to phrase this? I feel like there's a word similar to heteronormative or cisnormative that would fit better than "normative" here but my internal thesaurus is pulling a blank here.

Otherwise, looks good to me :) Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:07, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

That word would seemingly be "endonormative" (a backformation from hetero/cisnormative + endosex). I can find a scant few instances of its use [3][4][5] with respect to intersex activism (mostly from well-meaning trans activists, like myself). Generally though, it borders on WP:neologism (Wiktionary doesn't comment on it except as a linguistics term), and I doubt it would be acceptable (or likely to be understood) if used here. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 00:25, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Ah, damn. I knew there was a word, and that it'd be a neater way to explain that sentence, but you're right in that it seems seldom used. How about inserting endosex then? The sentence would read Such endosex normative treatments are sometimes criticised by intersex rights organisations as...? I feel like that sentence needs some sort of qualifier, for unfamiliar readers, on normative to explain which norm is being applied in those treatments. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:31, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

You're welcome to insert endosex normative, or replace it with a larger, more explanatory phrase like ... such treatments, which alter sex characteristics to match normative, binary expectations, have been criticized .... Alternatively, we could use "normalizing" treatments, with scare quotes, as we do in the last paragraph at Intersex § History. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 01:13, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping; it's a lot of changes but the most important thing is that it doesn't say or imply anything the sources don't. If it can be swapped out okay then that's fine with me, and if not, then we should reword either back to what it was or something else.

I think endosex is too much of a neologism to use; the Wikipedia article on it seems to be written trying to justify its use by picking examples where it was used, but I didn't see any dictionaries (unless I overlooked it). We can just write "such treatments" - although ethical debates over them are rather out of scope here anyway it seems. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:17, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Changing the title

The title's word "transsexualism" is not the correct term for what is talked about in the article, but a term used to further an outdated belief that transgender people must medically transitiom. A more correct title would be "Causes of gender incongruence". SAMSMILE4 (talk) 12:50, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

That is not what the sources are about and nothing of the sort is implied. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:24, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

wiktionary:transsexual says:

"Although some authors distinguish transsexual (pertaining to physical sex) and transgender (pertaining to gender), transgender is generally taken to encompass transsexual and has largely displaced it; transsexual is now often considered outdated, although some people who have undergone SRS still prefer it; compare the usage notes at transgender.[3] Neither term should be confused with transvestite (which see for more).[1][2][4]"

And wiktionary:transgender says:

"The term transgender was coined in 1965[1] and popularized in the late 1970s,[3][4] and by the 1990s it had largely displaced the older, narrower term transsexual.[2][5] Transsexual is now often considered outdated[3] although some people still prefer it; see its entry for more. Neither term should be confused with transvestite (which see for more)."

(see the sources over there)

This article seems to conflate transgender with transsexual, freely switching between the two, even in the lead sentence. I understand that this can be a result of multiple Wikipedians editing it over time, but if we are going to insist that transsexual is the more accurate term of the two, then we should insist on that. Otherwise we should not use the outdated term in the title, even if academic language lags behind popular usage a bit.

And yes, transsexual is the narrower of the two, implying that someone has changed their physical sex, i.e. had SRS. Not all transgender people have had (or even desire to have) SRS. --Hirsutism (talk) 17:10, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

The study of the causes of transsexuality investigates gender identity formation of transgender people is the lead of this article. If the article is about the causes of gender dysphoria or the formation of non-cis gender identities, then causes of gender incongruence or the causes of transgender identities are both titles that are much more appropriate for the article. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 22:59, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

• Gender incongruence is an acceptable term. I moved the page.--14Jenna7Caesura (talk) 00:37, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

@14Jenna7Caesura: Please don't move this page again without a full discussion. The section you are responding to was started over a year ago, when the page title was Causes of transsexualism. (I won't be reverting the move but I hope someone else does) Funcrunch (talk) 00:59, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

The points made above are cogent. I am ready to listen to input from others.--14Jenna7Caesura (talk) 01:02, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Then start a new section for discussion. This is now the the second time you've moved this page in five months without first seeking input from others. Funcrunch (talk)

I have studied the term "transsexualism". I have come to understand that it stigmatizes trans people. I have arrived at the conclusion that the tyranny of the majority shouldn't be used to further stigmatize a suspect group. If there is overwhelming justification, I will be overriden--that is okay.--14Jenna7Caesura (talk) 01:19, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

At the time you moved this page today, the title was not Causes of transsexualism, it was Causes of transsexuality. In any case, another editor has reverted your move (@Tbhotch: thanks) and I have requested arbitration enforcement regarding your numerous page moves on gender and sexuality articles. Funcrunch (talk) 01:46, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

I saw your eagerness to de-humanize trans people and talk about their "status" (which should be "civil rights") as if they are cocaine. You want to impose your will. I don't see any true discussion on your part.--14Jenna7Caesura (talk) 01:55, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

@14Jenna7Caesura: Regarding my "eagerness to de-humanize trans people" and talk about them "as if they were cocaine", I'm openly trans myself, as clearly stated on my user page, so your accusations are ridiculous. In any case, you're talking about a completely different page; the move from "transsexualism" to "transsexuality" in the title of this page took place in 2016. (I can't seem to find a link to the archives on this talk page to see the relevant discussion.) Funcrunch (talk) 02:03, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Here's a diff of the move discussion, which I initiated myself. (Not sure why the editor who started this section posted as if "transsexualism" was in the title of this article in December 2020; it was not as far as I can tell.) Funcrunch (talk) 02:11, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

You may not fully grasp the legal implication "sexuality" term may have on LGBT civil rights such as the Equality Act (United States). Vernon Jones says that gender civil rights isn't on a par with racial civil rights because sexuality is subject to change. https://news.yahoo.com/gop-candidate-vernon-jones-says-204222593.html Therefore, I support the "gender incongruence" term as opposed to "sexualism" and "sexuality." --14Jenna7Caesura (talk) 02:14, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi, first time editor who made an account specifically for this discussion so lmk if this is the wrong place to express this. I believe the article should not be "causes of gender incongruence" since gender incongruety covers numerous social and personal feelings that have nothing to do with the physical dysphoria discussed within the referenced academia. Brain studies and genetics are studied within the context of determining the cause of physical dysphoria only, so saying "gender incongruence" and then citing brain studies would make the information inherently inaccurate. I identify with the term transsexuality, as do many binary trans people, but am open to using other terms like "physical dysphoria" since that is what is often used in the referenced literature. Also please do not use Vernon Jones as a source for your argument against a term many of us identify with, it comes off as ignorant and offensive. Matzadelbosque (talk) 18:53, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

discusson of source 8

Mentioned in the gender incongruence in twins section is a claim that there is a virtual absence of dizygotic twins that both identify as trans, with “dizygotic twins” appearing next to the condition in which they were not both trans in parentheses. The parentheses make the conditions look like a definition of “dizygotic”, which tripped me up when I was first reading it. It doesn’t need to be in parentheses, could someone remove those? Also the general discussion of source 8 could be improved Geepaws (talk) 21:19, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Conflicting statements

"A 2015 review reported that two studies found a pattern of white matter microstructure differences away from a transgender person's birth sex, and toward their desired sex. In one of these studies, sexual orientation had no effect on the diffusivity measured."

"While MRI taken on gynephilic trans women have likewise shown differences in the brain from non-trans people, no feminization of the brain's structure has been identified."

The second quote denies the former. DTI is an MRI technique. I think it should be rephrased so that it's clear that it's referring to a specific study with certain results, not all MRI studies. 2A00:A040:197:205E:815C:B4B6:E497:CFB2 (talk) 21:18, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I see this section has been updated. While this is a step in the right direction I don't think simply removing the contradictory studies is the proper approach. The fact of the matter is that some studies reached one conclusion while others reached its opposite. Editorializing by picking one set or the other to present is not Wikipedia's mandate. The article should present both.

The 2016 meta-analysis noted no signs of feminization in the brains of gynephilic transgender women. The 2015 meta-analysis did find such signs. Let's just say that. 2A00:A040:197:205E:60EF:6F8A:476E:40AB (talk) 16:36, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Can you specify this a bit more? Basically, with a diff or a quote, show what you would like to (re-)add to the article. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:56, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, WP:DUE suggests that all notable views from reliable sources should be represented. Hist9600 (talk) 21:09, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Unclosed Double Square Bracket WikiLink

The article is protected so I can't but someone please fix it 106.69.15.1 (talk) 13:31, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

I removed the brackets rather than link to the non-existent hypothalamic uncinate nucleus. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:08, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 July 2023

There might be a formatting error on the page. To fix it, I believe the line

<!--Start transclusion target, to transclude content into [[Transsexual]], [[Transgender]], etc--> [[Twin studies|Studies conducted on twins]] suggest that there are likely genetic causes of gender incongruence, although the precise genes involved are not known or fully understood.

should have an enter included after "-->". But maybe I am mistaken and this is intentional.Appelstr000p (talk) 10:17, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 10:49, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Parenting section

An earlier version of this article had contributions by myself under the "parenting" section. I believe this section should be renamed "Social hypotheses" or something like that. One issue is that the present discussion is not actually relevant to causes of gender incongruence. For example, the boys raised in a female role are not actually discussing causes of gender dysphoria, it simply discusses typical boys who were raised as girls, some of whom retained a female identity. Many of them probably retained a female identity because it was simply easier (as they had their genitals removed at birth). From what we know about all of these cases is that they were very masculine. It is not exactly evidence of socialization into being transgender. I am somewhat supportive of entirely removing that section of content, and it can be re-added with sources that are actually relevant to gender dysphoria. For the most part, social theories of gender dysphoria tend to come from the likes of Kenneth Zucker (regarding prepubescent dysphoria) which could be discussed and critiqued. Also his mentor Richard Green's theories are important and controversial. It may even be best to distinguish prepubescent onset vs adolescent onset under different headings. Zenomonoz (talk) 09:07, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Intro?

The intro currently states The most studied factors are biological, especially brain structure differences with relation to biology and sexual orientation. Environmental factors have also been proposed. Is this actually true? I would say the most studied factors would be the psychoanalytic explanations for gender incongruence through the 1970s-1990s which largely came up short. Biological research into gender dysphoria has barely scratched the surface. It gives the false impression that all the focus is on biology and social environment has been ignored. Also note Environmental factors have also been proposed is probably not clear, given environmental factors also include the non-social environment (such as prenatal environment). This probably needs work or trimming? Zenomonoz (talk) 11:11, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Seems likely. This probably needs to be elaborated upon better to show this shift and to be more historically accurate. Crossroads ^-talk- 18:03, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Hmm yes I think I'll have to do a bit of reading to find some better sources. It's probably best to change the intro since the body does not state 'The most studied factors are biological'. Zenomonoz (talk) 22:21, 23 August 2023 (UTC)