Talk:Transsexual/Archive 6

message: Yes let us use the APA/WPATH definition. 8) This is the compleat specification as found in the DSM IV According to: Genderpsychology.org DSM IV and every place else I have seen it. 
Differential Diagnosis
Gender Identity disorder can be distinguished from simple noncomformity to stereo-typical sex role behavior by the extent and pervasiveness of the cross-gender wishes, interests, and activities. This disorder is not meant to describe a child’s nonconformity to stereotypic sex-role behavior as, for example, in “tomboyishness” in girls or “sissyish” behavior in boys. Rather, it represents a profound disturbance of the individual’s sense of identity with regard to maleness or femaleness. Behavior in children that merely does not fit the cultural stereotype of masculinity or femininity should not be given the diagnosis unless the full syndrome is present, including marked distress or impairment. 
Tranvetic Fetishism occurs in heterosexual (or bisexual) men for whom the cross-dressing behavior is for the purpose of sexual excitement. Aside from cross-dressing, most individuals with Transvetic Fetishism do not have a history of childhood cross-gender behaviors. Males with presentation that meets full criteria for Gender Identity Disorder as well as Tranvestic Fetishism should be given both diagnoses. If gender dysphoria is present in an individual with Transvetic Fetishism but full criteria for Gender Identity Disorder are not met, the specifier With Gender Dysphoria can be used. 
The category Gender Identity Disorder Not Otherwise specified can be used for individuals who have a gender identity problem with concurrent congenital intersex condition (e.g., androgen insensitivity syndrome or congenital adrenal hyperplasia).
 
In Schizophrenia, there may rarely be delusions of belonging to the other sex. Insistence by a person with Gender Identity Disorder that he or she is of the other sex is not considered a delusion, because what is invariably meant is that the person feels like a member of the other sex rather than truley believes that he or she is a member of the other sex. In very rare cases, however, Schizophrenia and severe Gender Identity Disorder may coexist.
(all emphasis in the original.
Forget my past positions for a minute and read this with a fresh mind.  Consider the implications of the above. 
To avoid POV problems we need to include ALL of that text INCLUDING the part about transvestetic fetishism.  The interested community of wikipedians has decided through a long consensus to keep these ideas in separate spaces.  To use the DSM defintino we must do that.  
A much more neutral, general, definition I found in a book.  I beg you to just consider this passage as it stands, alone as a good definition of a transsexual....
Terminology is an importnat source of confusion "transsexualism" has many connotations, including "sex change,""trapped in the wrong body,""femininity"(in genetic males) or "masculinity" (in genetic females), and "cross-dressing."  All I mean by "transsexualism" is the desire to become a member of the opposite sex.  An adult with transsexualism is a "transsexual." These definitions say nothing about the motivation, apperance, or subsequent actions of the transsexual.  They do not imply that the transsexual feels trapped in the wrong body, or that the transsexual even ultimately seeks sex reassignment. 
The first objection someone will give is something like... "It says 'transsexualism" is the desire to become a member of the opposite sex,' this confuses sex with gender."  Well here is where the difference between being generally transgendered and being a transsexual comes in. That one sentence all about says all that need to be said.  The use of the first person by this writer would not be appropriate but a definition in this spirit may be better than the DSM one.  Consider this definition, and the DSM defintion of these which is really better (more neutral to the variations that there are in transsexualism, More general etc.)?
--Hfarmer 03:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't even know where to begin with that paragraph. The terminology section already evident in this article is far better than anything proposed on this talk page, and I really don't see the need to open this particular can of worms. Rebecca 04:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What are you talking about.  This article is right now so bad that a transsexual from mexico (see above section was confused by it!--Hfarmer 15:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Who? Where?  I don't see this confusion clearly marked?  It may be worth it to break it out into its own section so that it's more clear to see?  I don't really feel comfortable commenting or supporting or arguing an assertion that the article is confusing without being able to read that other person's comments. --Puellanivis 19:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The definition of transsexualism according to the APA

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

message: Was wondering if these two sections should be merged into one? Is there a dominant, or preferred, style occuring in this article? ZueJay (talk) 03:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh hey, I'm keeping out of this one!! ;-) - Alison☺ 03:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ack! None of that! I was just mostly curious as to why there were the two sections? Usually there is only one or the other, isn't there? ZueJay (talk) 03:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It shouldn't really matter - I've often seen both in an article and it usually follows this format. References relate directly to points in the text and 'Notes' or 'Further reading' gives general reference material to the topic at hand. Merge if you like - I don't really mind. If you use  and  / , they can merge really nicely. - Alison☺ 06:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, that makes more sense now. It looks like the current "References" section should be "Further reading" and the current "Notes" section should be "References." Does that make sense? My thought here is that the current "References" is not direclty cited in the text, but the "Notes" section is; my head goes "The ref tag is used, it should be under a heading of 'References' whereas no tag then it probably should be 'Notes' or 'Further reading.'" 'S-alright? ZueJay (talk) 07:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sounds about right. Lwollert 20:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Changed the headers: Notes --> References, and References --> Bibliography. Bibliography is more formal and probably more reflective of how those sources were actually used for information contained within the article (but not directly cited). ZueJay (talk) 18:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well done! Looks lots better - Alison☺ 18:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I didn't even do anything ;) ZueJay (talk) 19:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Both a ''Notes'' and ''References'' section?

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

message: As a matter of fact it is so long that the automated peer review java script hangs on it.  The article for the BIBLE is only 7 kb's longer and the one for the Quran is 4KB's shorter.  The article is full of uncited material, wiesel words and POV.  It needs to be revamped but without losing any of the meat.  For exmaple how much really needs to be said about transsexual terminology?   Mostly what I will be aiming to do is make this article summary style.  the subsections of this article which are already of article length will become their own articles and thus the bare basic article on transsexualism will become only the lead article in a complex of articles separate and apart from those on transgenderism.  
I don't know when I will have time to do this.  Currently I do not have a personal computer (my old laptop died and HP has yet to live up to the replacement warranty). Until then I will only have limited time on a public comptuer...and the very limited capabilities of my smart phone.  Anyone who want's to help with this endeavour can of course.  Just so long as they are on board with they idea that the current article sucks in general and needs to be gutted I can work with you. --Hfarmer 22:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think your unique brand of help can be better utilized elsewhere. I wholly disagree that either the article "sucks" or is need of gutting. Benjiboi 21:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: I am going to rewrite this. It's too long has too many wiesle words....

message: Hello,
according to physicians gender cannot be reassigned, since it is hard-wired into our brain (or so does the theory says). The "gender reassignment surgery" thingie on Lili Elbe needs to be corrected. I'll do it.
ChloeD 12:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That can't be. By definition, if it is rooted in biology, it is sex, if it is not, it is gender. 72.83.176.58 (talk) 01:37, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

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

message: Why does this keep getting removed from abnormal psychology? It has cited sources in the catagory that places it in it.--J2000ca 04:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cited sources? I looked in :Category:Abnormal psychology and in Abnormal psychology and I didn't find any cited sources to support the inclusion of non-psychological articles in psychological categories. :Category:Sexual and gender identity disorders is a sub-category of :Category:Abnormal psychology. Gender identity disorder, which is listed in DSM-IV Codes, is in :Category:Sexual and gender identity disorders. Related subjects and articles such as Transsexualism are not directly psychological subjects defined in DSM-IV Codes and hence don't appear to belong in either of these categories. If they did, they would belong in :Category:Sexual and gender identity disorders, not :Category:Abnormal psychology. The fact that a suspected sockpuppet of a permanently banned user was inserting the parent category in an apparent effort to insult and demean transgendered people doesn't make it a valid category for the articles to be in. --AliceJMarkham 05:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, to point.  A successfully transitioned, and post-op transsexual is still a transsexual, but no longer suffers from GID in so far as the APA would classify it.  I actually went over the DSM criteria for GID with one therapist (who was totally new to this issue) and when we got to "The disturbance causes clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning."  He responded "well, it certainly did, but I don't think this really qualifies for you anymore."  I had to point out that the reason why was because I was finally treating myself.  The point of all this is, since transsexualism is peripherally related to GID, transsexualism itself is not an abnormal psychology.  It's a resolved medical condition at that point.  Like cancer in remission, or a recovered heart attack or stroke.  It's past tense, treated, and moving on. --Puellanivis 06:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Abnormal psychology is a topics category (it includes the American Psychopathological Association). However I do agree it better belongs in :Category:Sexual and gender identity disorders. Regardless of whether it's resolved or not it's related.--J2000ca 19:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Appending my previous comment. :Category:Sexual and gender identity disorders appears to be a list of disorders so I still think it appropriate to list this article in :Category:Abnormal psychology--J2000ca 19:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me ensure I'm getting this correct. You're asserting that a gender identity condition should be categorized as an abnormal behavior? Benjiboi 19:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No I'm asserting that gender identity condition is categorized in abnormal behavior by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association. Also please try to look at things without bias. Abnormal is not necessary a negative, in some cases it simple refers to statistical infrequency. For example abnormally smart, beautiful or rich (if your into those sort of things)--J2000ca 00:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Simply because it's in the DSM does not mean that it's abnormal.  The DSM states that the conditions described are "disorders".  (Certainly a sense of incongruency would be outside of "order".)  According to http://allpsych.com/disorders/sexual/index.html GID need not present even with dysfunction.  All of this to light, "abnormal" has strong negative connotations, and should typically be avoided.  While "retarded", "idiot", and "moron" all have been medical terms, it still isn't nice to call someone by those terms in this day and age.  Regardless, GID is classified in the DSM as a disorder, the DSM does not say anything about transsexuality being a disorder. --Puellanivis 00:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was responding to Benjiboi. I never said transsexuality was a disorder or that it was listed in the DSM. Abnormal is the accepted term.--J2000ca 02:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

text: As noted in WP:SUBCAT if an article is already the element of a subcategory, then do not place it in the parent category.  The only exception is where someone would be more likely to recognize or search for the person by the generic category than the specific one.  For instance, hypothetically speaking Babe Ruth should be categorized in "Baseball Hall of Famers" but also in "Baseball Players".  The only reason transsexuality/ism would qualify as "abnormal phsychology" is because it exists in the ICD 9 as such, however, GID, the article dealing specifically with the medically described conditions of transsexualism is the appropriate location for "abnormal psychology" and more specifically the "Sexual and gender identity disorders".  This article deals more with cultural, and social factors of transsexuality, and not on the psychological factors of transsexuality.  It can also be reasonably argued that transsexuality is not "abnormal" psychology, but is simply the unexpected condition where the psychology of the person is perfectly natural and normal in line with their "true" gender, yet incongruent with their body.  It's left as a problem for the reader as to which of these (the mind or the body) can actually be more manipulated to ease the unease experienced by this incongruency. --Puellanivis 23:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think this article is in a subcategory already. "It can also be reasonably argued that transsexuality is not "abnormal" psychology, ", find a citation and I'm all for adding it to the category and adding a little blurb to the article on why it's debatable that it's in there, however NOR.--J2000ca 00:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In order for the DSM to consider a condition an abnormal psychology, then there cannot be an underlying medical condition.  In fact, if such an underlying medical condition exists, then it is called a neuropathy not an abnormal psychological state.  Given as evidence from the article's references that the bed nucleus of the stria terminalis (BSTc) is sexually dimorphic and that transsexuals have an incongruent sexual morphology from the development of their other anatomy, this would classify it as a "neuropathy", not a psychology. --Puellanivis 01:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not saying it's listed in the DSM just that's it's relevent to it.--J2000ca 02:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

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

text:  NPOV - Morally offensive views. I think the article belong in :Category:Abnormal psychology according to citations.--J2000ca 00:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, this article is not about psychology.  Thus should not be in "abnormal psychology". --Puellanivis 00:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article has a heading titled "Psychological treatment" and makes numerous references to psychology. At the very least I think we can agree that it is related?--J2000ca 01:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Read that section again.  For transsexuals (not for transgendered people in general, but strictly transsexuals, which is the topic of this article) psychological treatment is typically ineffective at resolving any gender dysphoria.  The single best treatment known for transsexuality is the International Standards of Care.  These SoC do not stop at psychological care, they continue through to physical medical intervention.  The psychological care of TSs focuses on the concommitent psychological disorders that are typical when dealing with TS: depression, social rejection, personal acceptance, self-esteem.  The psychological care of transsexualism itself is only best done as reparative therapy, which is condemned by the APA (both of them). --Puellanivis 01:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All I said was that they are related topics. I think if anything your point indicates that they are related.--J2000ca 02:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The point that I raised is that Transsexualism and GID themselves are not considered by the majority of experts in the field to be abnormal psychological condition, but rather as a natural deviation from typical human development, the same as men and women differ.  That a person's psychological identity is in conflict with that person's body is not a psychological issue (as is shown by the repeated failure of other treatments besides reassignment), but rather a physiological one.  GID is considered by the majority of experts in this field to be a neuropathy, not a abnormal pychological condition. --Puellanivis (talk) 21:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transsexualism - category in abnormal psychology 

message: :Image:Youngkhusra.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 21:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Youngkhusra.jpg

message: Please do not add Leslie Feinberg back under stealth without high quality references. This falls under WP:BLP.--J2000ca (talk) 18:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That section is sourced. (Feinberg 2) refers the reader to the Bibliography section where you see Feinberg wrote the book and 2 is the page number. Benjiboi 21:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Stealth - Leslie Feinberg