Talk:Gender dysphoria

message: It's been one month since print publication, should it not be included in this article:
*  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pyxis Solitary (talk • contribs) 23:50, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't meet WP:MEDRS. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:11, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  (post-ec comment): Can you elaborate? Why doesn't it? Mathglot (talk) 06:15, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a journalistic article written by a journalist - I don't think being published in BMJ changes that. I don't see why we would use it for any actual medical content rather than citing the relevant medical bodies directly. Maybe for some society stuff/commentary on the state of evidence so far. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:34, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually not even "commentary on the state of evidence so far" I'd say since we'd want a systematic review for that (and can cite the systematic reviews she mentions directly if needed). Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:57, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

text: The thing that immediately strikes me is that the article evokes this. Perhaps I'm being overly cynical, but it helps to remember that there is a whole demographic of transphobic idealogues who will happily point to "professional disagreement" in order to further their agenda - when said disagreement is irrelevant to the material facts (as with Evolution). AbominableIntelligence (talk) 18:43, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: 100% agree with this. Block is manipulating the statistics of detransitioning and other contentious trans-related issues to make it seem much more common place than it actually is. There is clearly an agenda in mind here. I would be concerned if this was going to be used as a source for what's supposed to be a neutral article. BreakfastSonata (talk) 12:35, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

text: Suggest that it not be included on the grounds that, though published in a very high quality source and directly addressing current professional opinion on appropriate treatment for gender dysphoria in the young, it's inconvenient. 2407:7000:9BF1:4000:4D73:4B53:3B58:9B53 (talk) 08:48, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

text: Regarding "investigations reporter":  BMJ Investigations Unit. Pyxis Solitary  (yak yak). Ol' homo. 10:26, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

text: I haven't been overly impressed by some-such coming out of the BMJ lately, but I can't recall the specific examples.  That said, if the BMJ is now engaging in "investigative journalism", my inclination is to treat it exactly as we would another high-quality source (think New York Times) doing an investigative piece in medicine.  It's a good source for making statements, for example, about society and culture, but not necessarily or the best for statements about biomedical fact. Attribution seems safe ... According to the BMJ Investigations Unit ... or some such.  By the way, some of what is in Society and culture now looks like it might be better placed in a History section. SandyGeorgia (Talk)  14:01, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Using it somewhere with attribution, at least, sounds good. Crossroads -talk- 18:52, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: What are we even debating? I don't see any article content proposed, just a reference. What is the reference supposed to support? Nosferattus (talk) 21:07, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Article published March 2023

message: Hi, so at the start of the "Epidemiology" section it states:
And the citation links to page 454 of the DSM-5.
I can't verify since I'm not sure the specific sources used, but my reading of the "Prevalence" section in the DSM is that they are getting these estimates based on face-value number of referrals compared to the general pop. Specifically it says:
If these rates are just based on the amount of a population going to specialty clinics, I don't know if it's appropriate at all to use it as an estimate of the % of the population *diagnosable* with gender dysphoria (it'd be an estimate of the % of the population *diagnosed* with GD at one point in time). At the very least it should be qualified, since that's a much stronger statement that could be, e.g., cross referenced with the current amount of people identifying as trans women to say "X% of those identifying as trans women do not have diagnosable gender dysphoria", which wouldn't be a valid conclusion based on my reading of what the DSM is saying. VoeVoeVoe (talk) 23:28, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, they are very unrealistic numbers and extremely low. Far too low to be representative of the general population based on available surveys. This study says:  Hist9600 (talk) 03:09, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

text: Yeah, this does seem ripe for rewording. At the very least, @ you're correct that it's not accurate to paraphrase the DSM5 prevalence number as an estimate of , and as @ points to, there are newer, more confident and likely more accurate prevalence estimations in the literature. Srey Srostalk 03:20, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm looking at the page in the DSM-5, and even the DSM-5 says that, "not all adults seeking hormone treatment and surgical reassignment attend specialty clinics", and further says that the numbers are likely to be underestimates (p. 454). Yet the numbers were used rather uncritically in the article here. Not a good use of this source. Hist9600 (talk) 15:36, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

text: I've updated the article to at least use the DSM-5 source better and include the caveats clearly stated in the DSM-5 itself. Additional criticism of these numbers from other sources may also be appropriate. Hist9600 (talk) 16:29, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice edit, and agreed. Srey Srostalk 16:30, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issue With DSM-5 Prevalence Estimate