Talk:Causes of gender incongruence/Archive 1

References needed

It appears that this page is largely unreferenced. Could any of the contributors of interested parties please look for references, particularly to early theories, behavioural theories and their discreditation?
Cheers Lwollert 02:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

---

There is a "Citation Needed" indicator following the statement in the sixth paragraph of the Possible Physical Causes section:

"There is also evidence from transsexual people born between the 1930s and 1970s that exposure to a synthetic estrogen known as diethylstilbestrol(DES), routinely used at the time to prevent miscarriage and treat morning sickness, may have contributed to disrupting the hormonal balance within the womb. Evidence suggests that an unusually high percentage of physical males whose mothers were known to have taken this medication present as transgender or transsexual, either in childhood or in later life.[citation needed]"

This statement has no basis in fact and may have been placed here on the basis of anecdote, urban legend, or wishful thinking. That would explain why there is no reference given. In fact, reference 9, the Centers For Disease Control DES Update, clearly states that as of 2003 the only well-documented effect of prenatal DES exposure in DES Sons is benign epididymal cysts. In no follow-up studies of male children exposed prenatally to DES have psychosexual efffects of any kind been observed. I will watch this page for a while to see if anyone comes forward with a reference to support this statement. If that does not happen, I will edit the page using reference 9 to present what is currently known about the effects of DES exposure on human males.
"Always look to the data!" JRamlow 07:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Due to the lack of references, I have removed many statements from this page, including that DES statement. If someone has evidence please post that with the new content. Cornince (talk) 03:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

The Citation that should have been used is Prenatal Exposure to Diethylstilbestrol (DES) in Males and Gender-Related Disorders: Results from a 5-Year Study by Scott P. Kerlin, Ph.D. given at the International Behavioral Development Symposium 2005, Minot, North Dakota. The only copy available online is embedded in a men's health forum. An earlier paper was The Presence of Gender Dysphoria, Transsexualism, and Disorders of Sexual Differentiation in Males Prenatally Exposed to Diethylstilbestrol: Initial Evidence from a 5-Year Study by the same author, given at the 6th Annual E-Hormone Conference, New Orleans, October 27-30, 2004. This one is available at TransAdvocate so its neutrality may be disputed. Zoe Brain (talk) 22:18, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

It has been several years since the Minot conference. (Incidentally, I was there.) That the presentation has not been published in a peer-reviewed journal (whereas many of the other presentations given there have now been published) suggests that that particular one might not have been well evaluated by the peer reviewers to which the final paper was submitted (if it was submitted to a peer-reviewed outlet at all).

— James Cantor (talk) 02:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Could we have some guidance please on what are "authoritative sources" and what are not? For example, will adding as a primary citation a peer-reviewed paper given at a professional conference automatically cause the paragraph to be deleted? What about theses which are convenient summaries of journal articles in the references? What happens if two citations are given, one "authoritative", one not? What about foreign language publications? I have no wish to get involved in a WikiWar, nor to waste my time writing paragraphs that get deleted shortly afterwards on grounds I don't completely understand. For example, what happens when a RS cites a non-RS source, such as a paper delivered at a symposium?Zoe Brain (talk) 01:55, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The WP policies on these are given at WP:V and WP:RS. Conference presentations are not peer-reviewed papers. Sources are peer-reviewed papes when they are published in a peer-reviewed journal. There exists a "reliable source noticeboard" WP:RS/N for discussion of individual sources over which there is some question. Policy about foreign lanugage publications is discussed at WP:NONENG. I hope that is a help.
— James Cantor (talk) 02:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the data. I did read through it (I confess after I made the comment, next time RTFM Zoe..), but still have a problem. For example, Reproduction, the journal of the society for Reproduction and Fertility, is an RS, and the article The control of sexual differentiation of the reproductive system and brain makes a vague statement about the effect of DES on Transsexuality citing Beyer D, Kerlin S & Diamond M 2005 Prenatal exposure to diethylstilbestrol(DES) in males and gender-related disorders:results from a 5-year study. Proceedings of the International Behavioral Development Symposium. Minot State University, North Dakota. USA. amongst others. In order for that Beyer, Kerlin, Diamond paper to have been accepted, it must have undergone a peer-review process, and appeared in an academic publication, the proceedings of the conference. I know from painful personal experience that not all papers submitted are accepted after peer review. Perhaps if both citations were given, an unimpeachably RS one that makes a flat statement, and the paper that provides the evidential data, would that be acceptable? I'd appreciate you having a look at the German data too. The detail, the meat, is in the (non-RS?) thesis cited, and a less detailed "pop-sci" view in Aerzte Zeitung (which is an RS for most purposes, but perhaps as questionable as New Scientist). Are PhD or Masters Theses that have been accepted considered RS? they are certainly academic publications.

I had a look at the noticeboard, but it appears there is no consensus here on this abstruse matter. We have two issues - to provide not just statements, but a reference to the evidence so readers can judge the quality thereof - and to filter out the rubbish. I think than in such a fast-moving field, the filter's less than optimal here. Would a solution be to state A paper was presented at (blah blah) suggesting that (etc etc).? Many thanks for your efforts, BTW. Zoe Brain (talk) 04:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Joan vs John

It might be worth putting in a link to the John vs Joan Case, that is, the case of David Reimer and all the effort John Money put into the transsexual debate. (I know he's unpopular, and what was done to David Reimer was unconscionable, but he was fundamental in the early treatment of transsexuals, and worked with Harry Benjamin
Cheers Lwollert 02:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Cerebral Sexual Dimorphism

There is at least one study showing that the brain does in fact have sexually dimorphic characteristics. Putting such a finding wiht the almost axiomatic proposition that anything that forms in a human body may end up developing divergently from normative leads to a simple conclusion that divergent sexual dimorphic development may occur between the brain and all other parts of a human body. Note, this is not a cause, it's rather a realization that inevitably that if the brain is in fact sexually dimorphic, then at least one form of transsexualism would be a form of intersexuality.

I personally feel that there is a distinction between finding the etiology of transsexualism, and enforcing a binary gender order. Recall that I hold as an axiom that if something can diverge in the human body, that eventually at sometime it will. Now, "divergent development" is completely different from calling it a disease or disorder. Women and men are naturally diverent in development. While it may work in mind experiments to assume that a perfectly developed human would never have transsexuality, and that only two genders would result from such perfect development, that biology is horribly bad at going "perfectly". Thus every person is in some way divergently developed from the perfection of their genetic heritage. This standing also follows that divergencies need not be complete, and in fact, by imperfect biology, will never be complete. Thus, the notion of a binary gender system requires as an assumption the existence of perfect biology, which we all know is in fact quite imperfect.

This position that transsexuality and transgenderism should be considered "naturally occuring divergent developments" of the human body, has a number of benefits. The condition is no longer a DSM criteria, as the condition is not psychological, but rather physiological, thus granting continued medical access, and care. Whereas any event that would simply dismiss GID the same as homosexuality from the DSM would say that the condition requires no treatment at all. Also, there is the greater potential for legal recognition, and a stronger medical argument from which to demand medical coverage.

Just some thoughts, but restating what's above, if the brain is sexually dimorphic, then at least some transsexuals would be intersexed. --Puellanivis 20:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Genes don't have a perfect blueprint in them, they don't work that way. Your genetic information is much more like a cookbook, describing how proteins, enzymes and hormones can be made. Now if you have ever done a little bit of cooking, you know that the recipe is often incomplete, you just have to try to get it "sort of" right, and the actual outcome will also depend on all kinds of things that are not in the cookbook (where did you get the fruit, how old is the milk, the air humidity, the phase of the moon etc... ).

Consider now that your little cooking experiment would have gone on for many years, and the yeast is sentient, and the recipe is unique and unlike anything you've done before ( no two people have completely identical DNA, not even twins ), you're using new equipment never tested before, and every now and then some bacteria start growing in the saucepan so you kill them all by pouring whiskey into the sauce.

My point is that we don't even have a "perfect" blueprint to begin with. You could not possibly predict the outcome from the genes alone, because your DNA doesn't even have all the information that is needed. In some cases the DNA even codes for proteins which will cause the embryo to die in the middle of pregnancy. There is no such thing as perfection in biology. 95.109.104.45 (talk) 07:56, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Possible physical causes

The possible physical causes section is in need of serious editing, primarily for purposes of clarity. Very quick switches are made between discussion of BSTc studies and hormonal studies such as those centered around Ar-Ir, without the difference in structures examined being examined or apparently even stated. Such distinctions are very important in order to accurately represent the findings of current studies in this area

--Zach Chidester 19:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Reference #4 Invalid

I attempted to go to http://www.psych.org/psych_pract/copptherapyaddendum83100.cfm in the fourth References footnote but it says "Page not found". Does this reference need to be removed and a citation-needed inserted in the corresponding section(s) in the article?

Newagelink (talk) 02:46, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

weasel words

I have added several weasel tags to statements that seemed quite weasely. Basically, this article has a lot of problems. Cornince (talk) 03:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you entirely. Because so little is actually known about the etiology of transsexuality, I think this page should be merged with Transsexuality. I suspect that anyone who actually wants to know about etiology of transsexuality would go to that page, not look for this one.
— James Cantor (talk) 11:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Experts needed

Have added tags to show that the input of experts is needed for the 2 main sections of this article. Cornince (talk) 20:46, 19 October 2008 (UTC) EDIT: It is necessary that the experts, in each of the sections, to assess the content and to make corrections, additions, and citations as needed. Cornince (talk) 21:44, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

The problem with this is that in this field of study, there are many conflicting views, ranging from "Transsexualism is just perversion and mental illness" to "Transsexualism is literally being born in the wrong body", therefore you could potentially have two types of "experts" fighting over what is and isn't here, with no consideration that they may be breaking NPOV because they believe their theories are the absolute truth and any others are wrong. Bit like Intelligent Design vs Evolution, really. Xmoogle (talk) 13:28, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I just realized the strangeness of the Intelligent Design vs Evolution comment. In the scientific community, evolution wins hands down. There is no real controversy in the scientific community. --68.221.150.21 (talk) 05:42, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Xmoogle. The people who support one camp generally do not recognize that people in the other camp are experts. However, I do believe that NPOV articles can be written that summarize the tenets of each side, despite disagreeing over who is an "expert."
— James Cantor (talk) 23:19, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Raising question about phrasing

Specifically, I'm wondering how appropriate it is to refer to "the cause of transsexualism". If the scientific literature is unclear on any causes of transsexualism, is it any more clear that there is only one cause that applies to all transsexuals? Should we include specific language to warn against the assumption that transsexualism is a monolithic phenomenon with a single cause? --7Kim (talk) 23:10, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

This article, when I corrected the wording, now has an NPOV issue, as the advocates of psychotherapy and the opponents of the physical causes view are not represented in the article as it presently stands. I do not know enough on the subject to find the appropriate, reliable sources myself, so I request that the editors of this article do that. Cornince (talk) 15:51, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Curing transsexualism

quote:

In 1972, the American Medical Association Committee on Human Sexuality published the medical opinion that psychotherapy was generally ineffective for transsexual adults. [11]

--

opinion is not Necessarily a fact. therefore i think this sould be deleted from the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.180.21.45 (talk) 09:52, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Opinion from published experts on a topic warrants inclusion in the article. Cornince (talk) 09:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Major cleanup

Well, this article needed it. Prompted by discussion on Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory, I went ahead and took care of it, as well as adding new info. Everything is now categorized, references now formalized and clarified, and so forth.

Naturally, there's no such thing as a perfect article, so have it at it with that which I may have missed! -- 70.57.222.103 (talk) 09:15, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

reference 24 invalid

the 24th reference links to "gp160 of HIV-I synthesized by persistently infected Molt-3 cells Is terminally glycosylated: Evidence that cleavage of gp160 occurs subsequent to oligosaccharide processing" by Merkle, R; Helland, D; Welles, J; Shilatifard, A; Haseltine, W; Cummings, R not the stated study by Garcia-Falgueras and Swaab. Not sure how to obtain this study in question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.226.159.121 (talk) 18:09, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 19:44, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Phantom limb syndrome

I noticed that someone has inserted a biased critique asserting that "most" of the penis is kept when in fact, most of the mass of the penis is removed. Additionally, the author asserts that "most" of the penis was kept to create the vagina. In fact, if skin is taken, it is in the form of a skin graft; that is, the skin is excised. Most of the modern surgeries use skin grafts for the vaginal wall and not a simple inversion.

In support of the critique, the author points our that scrotal skin is used for the labia. I would note that, in fact, some skin is used and that its use in no way supports the point of the author, namely that PLS study is inaccurate because "most" of the penis is still present - a patently false assertion.

I've left the critique in place because I think there may be some substance to it (debatable and not supported by citation), but I did change the absolutist language and changed the word "most" to a more accurate "some." The critique now reads:

This study, however, overlooks the differences between an amputation, where the nerves connecting the penis and the brain are severed, and male-to-female gender reassignment surgery, where some of the penis and scrotum may be reused to create a vaginal canal, labia and a clitoris. In this case, some of the nerves connecting the new genitalia to the brain remain largely intact.

--Ehipassiko (talk) 22:32, 7 June 2014 (UTC)