Talk:Gender identity/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Skepticism section

Stock makes a clear assertion about gender identity, that "it would seem false to say that everyone has one" in her paper. This was put in the skepticism section and then reverted, I do not think it should have been.Maneesh (talk) 04:29, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

I just want to observe that the section, as of my writing, consists of two unsourced sentences and one sentence (about the views of one philosopher, mentioned above) with a single source. (I see from the edit history that this follows the addition and then removal of some content, following concerns about whether the sources cited were reliable for the kind of information they were being used to add, and whether they were due.) It would be useful to have sources for the other sentences and to review sources to determine "the prominence of each viewpoint [that GI exists vs that it does not] in the published, reliable sources" (per WP:DUE). -sche (talk) 03:06, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

I am not sure which sentences are being claimed to be unsourced. I added both Gareth Roberts and Helen Lewis (citing articles with precise quotes), whose both pages have material on precisely their opinions related to skepticism of gender identity. These are notable people, with notable opinions on the idea of gender identity sourced appropriately (there are a number of articles on both of these people in the news regarding gender identity). I'm not sure how (by the very definition of gender identity in this article) that such matters can be anything other than opinion. The removal of Gareth Roberts and Helen Lewis to the skepticism section should be revertedManeesh (talk) 15:45, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

The Skepticism section, as recently added, seems to me to have huge problems with DUE. This article should be based on reliable sources about Gender Identity, and specialists in other disciplines weighing in on how they feel it does not exist are covered by WP:FRINGE, which was not observed in the recently added section. Newimpartial (talk) 18:19, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

It will look fringe if other editors keep deleting citation to sources which demonstrate it is not. Kathleen Stock is a well known professor. Gareth Roberts has been covered in multiple sources about this topic. Nina Paley has held a panel on salience of gender identity. I've already cited Helen Lewis. CBS news says that older generations are skeptical of gender identity etc. Meghan Murphy has written and spoken extensively on this view, her attempts to speak have been covered by many major media outlets. What skepticism is this letter trying to stop if that skepticism isn't held by anyone notable? There are many sources for this section, but some constructive editing needs to be facilitated.Maneesh (talk) 03:14, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I was referring to the section as it existed as of my comment (this revision), which is substantially how it still looks as of the time of this comment: two of the sentences simply don't have sources after them; one does. As I said, I saw that some other content was formerly also present, but it had other issues (regarding whether the sources it cited were reliaqble for this topic, or due), which the editor who removed it touched on. My current understanding of the state of sources overall on this topic is that disbelief in the existence of gender identity is a small, potentially fringe, position, but I haven't had time recently to look back through sources as thoroughly as I'd like, so I may be missing something (in which case, bring sources up for discussion here). -sche (talk) 22:53, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Please tell quote which idea in the sentence isn't supported by the sources that were provided. Please the read the source from Stock and the Inside Higher Ed. cite.Maneesh (talk) 05:40, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Please explain if and why you think the minority opinion of a philosopher, a sci-fi writer or a newspaper writer is relevant or reliable in an article on a medical topic. Medical topics are subject to notably high standards (WP:MEDRS), and it is for that reason that most of the sources this article cites are medical (and psychological) journals and books. The few non-medical sources which are present (aside from the ones in the section under discussion here) are used only for sourcing information about the non-medical uses / existence of terms; information about the existence of the concept is the province of higher-quality sources. Looking at the other sources you had added in diff, one is a blog by a sci-fi writer, clearly unusable here according to WP:SELFPUB (see also WP:RSPS#Medium), and another is a newspaper op-ed by someone with no medical training, which runs into WP:MEDPOP issues. And, of course, all of it runs into issues of WP:WEIGHT... -sche (talk) 08:08, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't think you are citing WP policies appropriately. Gareth Roberts (and many others) claims on not believing in gender identity have been covered on multiple news sources including the BBC. He's a notable writer and the clearest primary source that shows he doesn't believe in gender identity is where he says plainly that he doesn't believe in gender identity. Why would this article (or anywhere else on wikipedia) not consider the opinions of notable philosophers? Academic philosophers regularly contribute notably to all sorts of fields including ethics, political science etc. Gender identity is certainly *not* an especially or exclusively medical term, may people without medical training have a great deal to say about it. EDIT: Again, which sentence is not supported by the sources that were there? Maneesh (talk) 16:57, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

It is true that Gender identity is not exclusively a medical term, as it is also a term used in laws and legal regulations and also by demographers. It is, however, a term that has a body (or bodies) of specialized literature defining it and explaining its use. Referenced to such controversialists as Nina Paley and Meagan Murphy - the latter of whom is recently known largely from the protests in major Canadian cities when she engages venues to express her FRINGE views publically - simply are not experts on the subject on the same level as, say Statistics Canada q.v.. Newimpartial (talk) 17:48, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for acknowledging the fact about gender identity not being exclusively a medical term, WP:MEDRS doesn't have a whole lot of bearing here. It is used in many places (in a very vague way IMHO) and the reason I presume that there is considerable controversy around it. Where in that stat can. link does it define 'gender identity'? It doesn't (only 'gender' in extremely vague terms not characteristic of stats work) and statscan isn't making a claim on the wether everyone has one or not, it's using it in a way that follows from Canadian legal actions. The term is used in a very specific way in the context of intersex research (this is not to be taken as an endorsement of Money) but that body of work says very little about most people. There are certainly not many people as vocal as Stock, organizations like Fair Play For Women ("I don't have a gender identity") but that doesn't make them fringe. 'Skepticism' is *acknowledged' in many pieces that advocate for *recognizing* gender identity, a citation to an open letter published in a mainstream news source by 12 leading philosophers at academic institutions was removed from the article and it *testifies* to discussions about gender identity skepticism (and how they are being censured). I'm getting a little tired of posting all these links again and again in talk when they should be going in the article itself. It is very difficult for me to see how this could sensibly fall under fringe.Maneesh (talk) 18:26, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

The Statistics Canada piece does not "define 'gender' in extremely vague terms"; it specifies the following:

Gender refers to the gender that a person internally feels ('gender identity' along the gender spectrum) and/or the gender a person publicly expresses ('gender expression') in their daily life, including at work, while shopping or accessing other services, in their housing environment or in the broader community. A person's current gender may differ from the sex a person was assigned at birth (male or female) and may differ from what is indicated on their current legal documents. A person's gender may change over time.

This provides a formal definition of "gender identity" - the gender that a person internally feels, operationalized along a gender spectrum - that certainly is intended to apply to most people, or at least most Canadians. How you could compare the authority of this source to that of "twelve leading philosophers", in terms of BALANCE and DUE, is beyond me. You are also misconstruing the Statistics Canada source by interpreting it as "using [the term] in a way that follows from Canadian legal actions"; please see this brief summary of the consultation process involved. Newimpartial (talk) 19:45, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

No it does not not, that is an informal implicit definition placed within the definition of "gender" in which is written in bold ("gender identity" is *not* written in bold). Even if we are to take that vague implicit definition, the 12 academic philosophers are not denying the existence of such definitions (they are not mad), they are clearly testifying that academics who are skeptical (i.e., critical of the meaning and saliency) of such definitions like are being cesored when they should not be. I could inform you more about how statscan has come to adopt these definitions, but that is beyond the scope of this discussion. I have already cited the reliable sources that clearly demonstrate gender skepticism exists, it is a position taken by notable people (who have wikipedia entries that reference such positions). The existence of credible, notable skepticism towards statscan-like implicit definitions does not deny the existence of those definitions, it needs them to exist to be skeptical of them. These sources should be included here and is not a matter of weight, people who are publicly skeptical of gender identity readily acknowledge they are a minority, which makes it fine to put this section near the end. Maneesh (talk) 20:32, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

increasingly repetitive discussion

Per policy there is no such thing as expert sources who are reliable regardless of what they are talking about. WP:RS requires that individuals be experts in the domain they are addressing for their opinions to be considered Reliable. The bar for non-expert opinions to be DUE for inclusion because of the inherent prominence of the person holding them is much, much higher, and Helen Lewis and Meghan Murphy certainly do not meet that bar; the only non-expert on this topic who might possibly have that level of prominence, that I can think of, is Jordan Peterson. Certainly, arbitrarily chosen "well-regarded academics" do not meet this threshold outside of their area of expertise, which is why I suggested a section on "Philosophy and gender identity" that would present the range of views present in that discipline. You have certainly not made a case for an "organic" body of gender identity skepticism in the references you have given, just a few dissenting voices whose expertise rests in other specific areas. Newimpartial (talk) 21:43, 13 January 2020 (UTC) "WP:RS requires that individuals be experts in the domain they are addressing for their opinions to be considered Reliable"...you are aware that Meghan Murphy has a degree in "Gender, Sexuality and Women's Studies" and has written many published articles those topics. That is not a sufficient expertise to be qualify?Maneesh (talk) 22:20, 13 January 2020 (UTC) An undergraduate Masters degree, and articles published in a journal without independent editorial insight? Errrr, no. Newimpartial (talk) 23:51, 13 January 2020 (UTC) Please read her wikipedia page more carefully then correct your response above.Maneesh (talk) 23:54, 13 January 2020 (UTC) Corrected. Still very, very much no. Newimpartial (talk) 00:05, 14 January 2020 (UTC) Do you believe that amongst the all the places Murphy has published, none of those publications have editorial oversight? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maneesh (talk • contribs) 00:12, 14 January 2020 (UTC) Sure, she has done some reportage, but as far as I know, none of the places she has published her own "analyses" are known to be RS, exercising any effective editorial oversight. Care to enlighten me? Newimpartial (talk) 00:17, 14 January 2020 (UTC) Two in The Spectator USA, that seems to have editors and seems to be reliable. Truth dig, also highly rated by same previous rater. Alternet also considered factual. I'm really not sure what you mean by "reportage", all of her writing seems to focus on the area that she has her degree in. Many of her pieces are published as "comments" (EDIT: looking at the CBC FAQ Murphy's opinion pieces there are indeed 'analysis' and merely augmented with a definitive side...I must presume they go through an editor), is that what you mean? Those previously linked sure do look like plain old published articles that an editor would publish and I don't any obvious problems with the reliability of the sources. It's harder to find articles by her in Canadian sources since search results tend to be dominated by news about her, she has also been interviewed multiple times by reliable sources precisely on her views and public speeches on gender identity.Maneesh (talk) 01:22, 14 January 2020 (UTC) None of the CBC pieces imply any expertise about gender identity; what I see in The Spectator USA is purest OP-ed which can never be used to establish expertise, per policy. I mean either peer-reviewed work or publication in sources that show that her alleged expertise was subject to scrutiny, i.e. where she was not herself the editor. I am waiting... Newimpartial (talk) 03:13, 14 January 2020 (UTC) You are moving goal posts now, peer reviewed was never discussed nor would you expect it to be in the case of a journalist like Murphy who doesn't write in academic journals nor is employed at an academic institution. Your claim that Murphy has not published a in " journal without independent editorial insight" is false. Opinions from people with advanced academic degrees in gender who publish in reliable sources do not inform us about 'gender identity' now? This seems to be an incorrect application of WP:RS, namely "A prime example of this is opinion pieces in sources recognized as reliable.". Meghan Murphy, without any question, has articulated a skepticism of gender identity in reliable sources (it is a major theme in a lot of her writing). Meghan Murphy is notable for writing and speaking on gender identity and covered and interviewed in mainstream news for doing so. She is one instance of a notable person who is skeptical of gender identity, as is Lewis, Stock, Roberts (linked previously)and Hayton in The Economist ("But gender identity is not easy to define, let alone prove."), Ryan T. Anderson("Gender identity can sound a lot like religious identity, which is determined by beliefs. But those beliefs don’t determine reality."). It is disingenuous to suggest that these don't represent a number of notable people holding skeptical/critical opinions the notion of gender identity with these opinions being published in reliable sources. This article will be improved with these opinions being represented accurately. Maneesh (talk) 05:18, 14 January 2020 (UTC) I should also add Sheila Jefferys book which says " Women’s experience does not resemble that of men who adopt the ‘gender identity’ of being female or being women in any respect. The idea of ‘gender identity’ disappears biology and all the experiences that those with female biology have of being reared in a caste system based on sex. ". Murphy is also notably speaking at an upcoming talk entitled “Fighting the New Misogyny: A Feminist Critique of Gender Identity" which has been described in reliable sources.Maneesh (talk) 09:01, 14 January 2020 (UTC) We already have an article on Feminist views on transgender topics; we have absolutely no need of a POV fork of that article here; in fact, to do so would be contrary to policy. If you have sources representing notable anti-feminist critics, such as Jordan Peterson and possibly some of the philosophers and Intersex specialists you have cited, we could have a small section here along with a link to Feminist views on transgender topics. But no POV forks or FALSEBALANCE, please. Newimpartial (talk) 15:35, 14 January 2020 (UTC) Every single source that has been put up here has been specifically discussed 'gender identity' not 'transgender topics' (though gender identity is something that is relevant to transgender topics), I'm not sure why you are trying to equate the two. Maneesh (talk) 17:17, 14 January 2020 (UTC) What, besides "transgender topics", is "gender identity" theory, legislation, skepticism or opposition about? It seems to me that you are creating a distinction without a difference. There may he some "transgender issues" that are in some sense not about gender identity, but I can't imagine any issues about gender identity that are not also about "transgender issues". Certainly everyone you have cited as a "skeptic" takes one or more of the following positions: (1) transgender identity is not a "real thing", though it may represent a mental disorder, (2) some of the people who declare themselves transgender are not "really" trans, and should not be recognized as such, (3) being legally male or female should not be based on gender identity - in other words, trans people should not have access to legal recognition of their gender identity or (4) legal protections for trans people and for gender identity tend to violate other important social values, such as free speech or the safety and equality of women. I am unaware of any "skeptical" position that does not hold at least one of those views, all of which most certainly concern "transgender issues". Can you point me to any RS to the contrary? Newimpartial (talk) 17:32, 14 January 2020 (UTC) By your reasoning, "gender identity" and "transgender issues" should be one article. Again all citations are, very specifically, about 'gender identity' the titles and content of the articles and talks use *precisely* that term very purposefully, not "transgender issues". The way you've enumerated positions 1-4 is very odd and and presents false insinuations of authors/sources I've cited. Which of the sources I've linked to says 1) or 2)? None of them do, if you were familiar with these sources you'd know that. Murphy, for instance, is quite clear in her notable talk (and consistent in her writing), covered in reliable sources, where she says she isn't interested in who identifies as trans but who is male and who is female. Articles and talks I've cited generally deal with laws that invoke 'gender identity' towards the denial of sex. Laws like the UK GRA and C16 are about 'gender identity', not 'trans' issues or people. The acceptance of gender skepticism would have obvious outcomes on those who believe in the idea of gender identity (some of whom also identify as trans, though not all trans-identified people subscribe to gender identity) does not mean that the people who are skeptical of gender identity are focused on "transgender issues". Hayton, whose Economist article has already been cited, identifies as trans yet is clearly skeptical of 'gender identity' ("But gender identity is not easy to define, let alone prove. Even legislators have been forced into circular reasoning."). These sources are *clearly* about gender identity and laws associated with it *not* 'transgender issues' please do not suggest otherwise. I should also add it isn't clear why you think Peterson is appropriate here, he is commonly known for his opposition to C16 in relation to pronouns and compelled speech, he hasn't articulated a particularly skeptical opinion towards gender identity itself that I am aware of. His research is of course nowhere near that field.Maneesh (talk) 02:39, 15 January 2020 (UTC) Nobody whose "research is near that field" takes a "gender critical" position about gender identity - that is what makes the position FRINGE. Holding that gender identity is "difficult to define" is nowhere approximate to being skeptical about its existence or relevance, and I am unaware of anyone actually working in the field who takes the latter view. As far as (1) and (2) of the above are concerned, Gareth Roberts's piece in Medium says that "I don’t believe anybody is born in the wrong body", which certainly amounts to a denial of transgender existence as most trans people experience it (1). And Meghan Murphy verifiably believes that men misrepresent themselves as women to gain access to women's-only spaces: according to Vice, Murphy added that she’s not arguing that trans women don’t have a right to exist, but when asked if she's essentially worried about men disguising themselves as woman and entering women's-only spaces she said "yes" (2). This is farther than I usually go to document the obvious, and I will not be subject to any SEALIONing to demonstrate that "gender critical" perspectives were created with the express purpose of denying trans identities and resisting accommodations for trans people. Once again, "gender identity" is a concept that reflects a subset of "transgender issues" just as "trans man" and "trans woman" are concepts that reflect subsets of trans issues. You have not given even the remotest suggestion that there is "gender identity skepticism" that is not part of attempts to define the social and legal status of trans people in particular ways. And FRINGE "gender critical" perspectives need only be addressed where they are most relevant, which seems to be in the "Feminist views on transgender issues" (describing the minority view) and "Transphobia" articles. There is certainly no need to clutter the "Gender identity" article with the views of people without either substantial prominence or expertise in the subjectx any more than it would be appropriate to clutter the "trans man" and "trans woman" articles with the views of those who are "skeptical" about those identities. Newimpartial (talk) 15:13, 15 January 2020 (UTC) I really don't know what to say, you commit many fallacies in your comments above and not address points like the sources being *clearly* about gender identity and not transgender issues. No field 'owns' a concept as soft as 'gender identity'. It means one in thing amongst those who oppose deception and non-consensual surgery to intersex minors, another to 'gender studies', another in terms of laws etc. *You* suggested Peterson, I am simply saying that I don't know of any places where he is skeptical of the concept, his public positions appear to focus on compelled speech. As for "Meghan Murphy verifiably believes that men misrepresent themselves as women to gain access to women's-only spaces" that is a simple verifiable fact if you read the news, it has happened many times I will not do the google searches for you for trivial facts. As for "amounts to a denial of transgender existence", oh please, it is trivially verifiable from the the very quote you cited that Meghan Murphy is not mad and does not deny the existence of those who identify as trans. You are making ridiculous inferences when you use words like 'amounts to'. For the record, Gareth Robert's position is quoteable from the BBC "does not believe in gender identity." if you don't want to go to his medium post. There are clearly multiple notable positions, from reliable sources that demonstrate gender identity skepticism (I'm not totally averse to calling it criticism); they've all been cited above. This is a article is of poorer quality for not representing these sources. Maneesh (talk) 00:52, 16 January 2020 (UTC) Maneesh, I have clearly demonstrated that (1) and (2) of the positions I mentioned earlier are held by some of your suggested informants, and you have not disputed that (3) and (4) are part of the "gender critical" mix. (Your slipping from my example of (2) as if it were supposed to demonstrate (1) doesn't bode well for your good faith, BYW). In turn, you have not provided any evidence that any of the commentators you have identifies have an objection to "gender identity" that is not part of a wider response to "transgender issues". Instead you have raised the purely linguistic issue that that refer to "gender identity" as part of their discourse. Nobody disputes that that use the term, and they might or not use the term "transgender issues" (or "transphobia"). But our articles on these topics are on the concepts, not simply on the terms and where they are use. Meghan Murphy, for example, does not have any expertise or provide any informed analysis of the term "gender identity"; she simply objects to the use of the concept as part of a broader strategy avowing to protect cis women against men - a strategy reliable informants have termed "transphobic. Unless you are able to provide evidence of objections to "gender identity" that are not part of such a strategy, I have nothing further to add. Newimpartial (talk) 01:21, 16 January 2020 (UTC) You've interpreted statements from Murphy in absurd ways and claimed they support 1) and 2). Your 1) and 2) are just absurd. I can't help you with that and don't think there is anything further to discuss with you. I'm not interested in your judgements of good faith.Maneesh (talk) 01:28, 16 January 2020 (UTC) I find the rolling up of this discussion right after it has occurred by a participant in the discussion to be terrible form and cannot possibly promote an organic consensus. Let another user judge the veracity of your claims or let someone else judge if they are 'frustrated'. Newimpartial's claims about Murphy result from giant leaps of inference that are incorrect, unsupported and lead to absurd conclusions. Maneesh (talk) 04:42, 16 January 2020 (UTC) Try to read for content: I used Roberts for (1) and Murphy for (2), and my reading of Murphy is based on reliable sources. But whatevs. Newimpartial (talk) 02:41, 16 January 2020 (UTC) To respond to the subsequent comment, my rolling up of a repetitive discussion is in line with the talk page guidelines, and as a matter of courtesy I did not do so in a way that gave undue emphasis to my own contributions or gave me the "last word". As far as Murphy is concerned, I gave her expressed concern that gender recognition legislation could lead to "men disguising themselves as woman and entering women's-only spaces" as an example of the "gender critical" belief that, in my words, "some people who declare themselves as trans...should not be recognized as such". I will leave it to readers to determine whether this interpretation is "absurd", as Maneesh has alleged, or whether there is some other way that trans rights would lead to "men disguising themselves as women". Newimpartial (talk) 15:46, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

If you are arguing that the concept of gender identity is controversial 'within philosophy' or 'within Intersex studies' then both of those positions are defensible and could be addressed by article sections about "Gender identity and philosophy" and "Gender identity and Intersex studies". But per WP:CRIT, we should not be gathering together various "skeptical" POV unless "sources treat the negative material as an organic whole, and if readers would be better served by seeing all the negative material in one location". I can't imagine that anyone benefits from the discussion of these issues by philosophers and Intersex specialists "as an organic whole" since all they seem to have in common is an IDONTLIKEIT POV concerning the concept. And the Gender critical POV is most definitely fringe, as are many minority POV that are prominent in, say, the professional community of philosphers. Newimpartial (talk) 19:45, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

No, philosophers are not relegated to only talking about philosophy. If you read the sources, you can see what people like Stock are saying extends well beyond any sort of philosophical niche. "Gender critical POV is most definitely fringe" is a ridiculous statement, many prominent people have been accused of taking such positions; I'm not aware of any survey or study that assess how many people can even define "gender identity" or take a position on it to know that such view are in the minority. As for IDONTLIKEIT, it is a shame that you are not evaluating these sources with a NPOV. This section cannot be sourced if citations to reliable sources are removed. The sources I've cited already make for a very credible section, these sources are quite sensible (at least to many people) and describing them here help improve wikipedia as they are critically assess the notion of gender identity.Maneesh (talk) 20:32, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

"Many prominent people" also avow that the earth is flat, that vaccines cause autism, and that anthropogenic climate change is a hoax. That does not make any of these positions less FRINGE in terms of WP policy. Your reference to surveys makes this result very clear: gender identity is not any less distinguishable from biological sex (or ASAB) if surveys reveal that people don't know what it is, any more than evolutionary theory becomes less valid when a survey reveals that many Americans don't believe in it (and I suspect that a random sample of people in Western societies would give, on average, a more accurate account of gender, transgender and gender identity than they would of natural selection). NPOV and FRINGE require that we give no more attention to "gender critical" gender identity denialists that we would to those holding other FRINGE views. Newimpartial (talk) 21:43, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

The entire section seems poorly sourced to me. Useight (talk) 22:35, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Yet another source on skepticism, thoughtful testimony from a trans identified male succinctly summarized by the headline Gender identity is bollocks.Maneesh (talk) 19:43, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Maneesh, what you are missing in all your comments on skepticism, and all your lists of sources who have been quoted on it, is the concept of WP:DUEWEIGHT. Of course you can find dozens of sources about this, but they are in a tiny minority. The WP:BURDEN is on you, if you want the material included, to show that they are a "significant minority" opinion; otherwise they should not be included at all, or perhaps, only as a footnote.

Note that when you are calculating what is, and isn't, DUE WEIGHT, it's with respect to the scope of the topic of the article. What fails to meet due weight in one context, may meet due weight criteria in an article of much narrower scope. If you create a new article about Gender critical viewpoints, or Skeptics of gender identity, or some such, then very likely many of the sources you have listed would be within the bounds of DUE WEIGHT there, and nobody would object to them, assuming the article passes notability guidelines, which I suspect it does. However there are tens of thousands of academic results for the term "gender identity" and if you go to the web, tens of millions. The sources you quote are real, but they are a very tiny minority compared to that, and they simply don't need to be treated in this article, unless you can establish that they are beyond a "tiny minority". I urge you to create a new child article, however, if you would like to see those views exposed, in an article of narrower scope. Keep in mind, that if those views meet the criteria for fringe viewpoints, then the article title and/or intro paragraph would need to reflect that; see how this is handled, for example, in Fringe theories about the Shroud of Turin, Alternative theories of Hungarian language origins, or Holocaust denial. Hope this helps, Mathglot (talk) 20:21, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Possible Rephrasing of the Second Paragraph.

I feel that how the second paragraph is phrased now (6/20/2020) is a little confusing. In the current phrasing, the sentence about third gender categories comes after the one about transgender people. I think this is confusing because the sentence concerning third gender categories has more to do with the fact that most societies have a gender binary than the sentence concerning those who do not identify with all of the gendered aspects assigned to their sex assigned at birth does. My proposed edit would be to simply move the last sentence so that it comes before the current second-to-last sentence, like so: "All societies have a set of gender categories that can serve as the basis of a person's self-identity in relation to other members of society.[6] In most societies, there is a basic division between gender attributes assigned to males and females,[7] a gender binary to which most people adhere and which includes expectations of masculinity and femininity in all aspects of sex and gender: biological sex, gender identity, and gender expression.[8] Some societies have third gender categories. Some people do not identify with some, or all, of the aspects of gender assigned to their biological sex;[9] some of those people are transgender, non-binary or genderqueer."Zion Maia Parker (talk) 22:19, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Quality and Framing of Article

The quality of this article is very poor. It fails to frame "gender identity" as a theory that emerged recently in a specific cultural context and fails to describe the politically and socially significant events that have unfolded in response to the introduction of this controversial theory into various fields where previously the concept did not exist and where often the concept of "gender identity" is incompatible with existing knowledge and practices. The opening section of this article should start with something like "Gender identity is a controversial theory in the academic field of Gender Studies" and and then go on to describe the context in which this theory emerged, explain how the theory is used and what its creation aims to achieve, and summarise the effects this has had on legal, medical, and other relevant fields which previously had no notion of "gender identity" beyond the globally recognised concept of sex. 95.181.235.14 (talk) 11:40, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Without endorsing any notion of 'gender identity', I can say the above is not correct. I put in the ref to Stoller, the term comes from psychoanalysis (the utility/merit of which is quite controversial) not 'gender studies'. The meaning of the term can be quite nebulous today (I am not sure if it was ever terribly concrete, but then, what in psychoanalysis would be?). Maneesh (talk) 22:58, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Stoller is explicitly classed under the category "Gender Studies Academics" in his own Wikipedia article. The Stoller article also correctly defines gender identity as a theory.95.181.235.16 (talk) 02:41, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

That's an odd way to talk about him. Look at his obituary (found in many widely published papers) which generally describe him as a "psychoanalytic theorist and researcher and Professor of Psychiatry at the UCLA Medical School" and one of the "charter members of the Psychoanalytic Research Society". I can see how someone might describe what he worked on as 'gender studies', but mainly due to the vague meaning of gender. I don't associate Stoller with the "gender studies". His construct of 'gender identity' is perhaps more correctly thought of as something that precipitated gender studies, apparently psychoanalysis is given credit in the origin gender studies. Maneesh (talk) 02:54, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Biological Factors section and WP:RS/MC

@Maneesh: As per the specific sourcing guidelines for medical claims which you've been informed of and linked to, a student-written article which is explicitly stated to reflect it's singular author's opinions is insufficent evidence to support claims as sweeping and absolute as "There is no empirical evidence that can be used to diagnose GD.", particularly seeing as the reasoning provided can just as easily be applied to virtually all known psychological conditions which are diagnosed on a behavioral basis. Notice that our articles on depression, ADHD, psychosis, and more do not contain any such claims that they cannot be diagnosed or proven to exist on the basis of empirical evidence, as professional consensus does not support that. Statistical and experimental data, for example, are both forms of empirical evidence which are readily utilized in the idenfitication of these conditions. If you continue edit-warring with the intent of advancing the personal ideological stances you've experessed here on the Talk page rather than accurately reflecting the existing consensus among the medical and scientific communities, then I won't have much choice but to elevate the matter to either dispute resolution or an administrator directly. Please adhere to WP:RS/MC and WP:ADVOCACY in your future edits. TheMurgy (talk) 20:40, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

You are not correct and deliberately conflating "gender dysphoria" (something that has diagnosis guidelines) and "gender identity" (what the edit ad this very article is about). Throughout the above comment you compare 'gender identity' to 'psychological conditions'. I can't say much about the rest of your post regarding what you interpret as advocacy. A scholarly bioethics paper that makes an uncontroversial claim about gender identity certainly has a place here. Afterall, you only need to provide what sort of imaging apparatus or blood marker you think is used to determine 'gender identity'. Maneesh (talk) 22:21, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

As I undestand it, the edit by Maneesh was not supposed to be about the possibility or impossibility of diagnosing gender dysphoria, but about the impossibility of using physical means to determine gender identity (unlike with biological sex, for example).

At the same time, that edit, regardless of whether it should be in the article or not, certainly doesn't seem to belong in the Biological factors section in the chapter on ″Factors influencing formation″. If it should be included, I would suggest putting it under the present views/philosophy or the definitions heading.

Regards --Yhdwww (talk) 12:19, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

'Gender dysphoira' was not mentioned in my edit nor was it mentioned in the quote cited. The edit and the quote were specifically about 'gender identity', TheMurgy has made a category error above and completely misrepresented the edit and source. If one looks at the first part of the quote "No genetic marker, biochemical test, brain imaging, or objective measurement exists in medical practice for gender identity...", it doesn't necessitate it being under 'biological factors' but it isn't a terrible idea to put it there either. This isn't really philosophy, it is relevant to how 'gender identity' is measured in scientific contexts and should be mentioned alongside the problems, noise, confounding factors etc. in that measurement. Maneesh (talk) 23:09, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

The text provided by Maneesh should be included in the article as it is well-sourced. TheMurgy indeeds made an error by conflating gender identity and gender dysphoria. Mottezen (talk) 07:54, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm still not sure if ″Factors influencing formation″ is the right chapter to put that in, but if you, @Maneesh:, want to put it back in, I wont oppose it. Regards --Yhdwww (talk) 08:50, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps under a 'measurement' section? Such a section can probably be filled out better. Maneesh (talk) 16:49, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Since you're saying that it can't be measured, maybe not 'measurement'. But something like that sounds fine. Perhaps 'determination'. --Yhdwww (talk) 16:53, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

It can't be measured *objectively*, that's for sure. Measurement, as it is carried out in studies, relies on survey/questionnaire which naturally suffer the well known problems that come from measuring this with those tools. Maneesh (talk) 16:58, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I reworded your section slightly. The most substantive of the changes were my changing "gender identity disorder" to "gender dysphoria" (as GID is no longer commonly used and is sometimes considered stigmatizing ) and rewording the description of various methods. In that rewording, I couldn't find a way to fit in the phrase "age-specific" which was originally included, but I think the revised version is clearer. SreySros (talk) 00:25, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I think it's fine. 'age-specific' is subsumed by sub-populations. GID vs. GD is tough since source uses GID, while GD may have replaced GID in the DSM, I'm not entirely comfortable as swapping them here in a precise scientific context. I think using GID (which links to GD) is probably the right way to do things or use a slash. GID ≠ GD, Zucker is of course well acquianted with this matter. Maneesh (talk) 01:16, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

References

Cause of Gender Dysphoria

I am sorry if I am doing this incorrectly, and I apologize if I am going about this in an incorrect manner (new Wikipedia editor), but Gender Dysphoria is not "caused" (as the article incorrectly states) by attempts to transition, but rather transition is an attempt to alleviate Gender Dysphoria. As a new editor, I was unable to make said correction, but would recommend someone do so please, as this is misleading, and possibly harmful. Thank you in advance.

Also, I am open to any advice that seasoned Wiki editors have with regard to editing practices on issues like this, where there is scientific consensus on the matter (such as gender identity),but pertinent factions of the population (driven by politics or ideology) differ from accepted science. Again, Thanks in advance! :) BlushChablisPhilosopher (talk) 23:41, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure where in the article you're seeing it state that? The closest thing I can see is where it says that attempts to change a child's gender identity after age three can result in dysphoria, which is of course not saying that transitioning causes gender dysphoria and isn't really talking about transitioning at all. Is that what you were referring to? --Equivamp - talk 23:59, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I suspect that we are talking about the third paragraph of the lead section here. If so, I don't think it is necessarily saying what BlushChablisPhilosopher thinks, but I can see why they might think that it is. Maybe it can be worded better so that it is clearer what is being said?

Currently we say Gender identity is usually formed by age three.[10][11] After age three, it is extremely difficult to change[11] and attempts to reassign it can result in gender dysphoria.[12] The way I read that, which I think is correct, is to say "Gender identity is usually formed by age three. After age three, it is extremely difficult to change[11] and attempts to raise a child as a gender that does not match that gender identity can result in gender dysphoria." with the implication that this is true irrespective of the child's sex assigned at birth.

Now, that may or may not be what the author intended, and I certainly don't blame anybody for reading it differently. Unfortunately, I don't have access to the book cited in reference 12 to be able to check how closely what we have written matches what that says. So, I can't make a correction here either.

Maybe somebody who does have access to the book can check what it is saying and see if we can reword our coverage to follow it less ambiguously? --DanielRigal (talk) 00:07, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

I checked Google Books for the title in question, Men in Transition, and was able to view pages 101-102 (the pages cited in reference 12). Gender dysphoria is not mentioned on these pages at all. Funcrunch (talk) 00:42, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

I adjusted the referencing for that sentence to one that does support it: [1] More recent sources would be ideal, but I guess we can use this for now. I'm neutral for now on rewording it. I agree that the OP appears to have misunderstood that sentence. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:44, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Per NIH, "Gender dysphoria (GD) according to Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental disorders (DSM 5) is defined as a "marked incongruence between their experienced or expressed gender and the one they were assigned at birth.'" Certainly, a person who regrets having had gender-reassignment surgery could also experience dysphoria, but this would not match the current standard definition of gender dysphoria. This could be examined in more detail in the body of the article if RS discuss it, but is hardly suitable for the lead. HouseOfChange (talk) 22:12, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 February 2021

Hey editors, could you please change "After age three, it is extremely difficult to change gender identity." to "After age three, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible" to change gender identity."? Thank you :) 173.2.37.233 (talk) 09:46, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done 54nd60x (talk) 10:26, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Origin of the term "Gender Identity"

Hi Editors,

The introductory paragraph of this page currently attributes the term "gender identity" to Robert Stoller in 1964.

However, as the later section (#1950s_and_1960s) notes:

Firstly, he may have used this term a year earlier, at the International Psychoanalytic Congress in Stockholm, Sweden in 1963, according to https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/learning-play/200912/boy-or-girl

Also according to that same article, the term seems to have been used substantially earlier: "In 1958, the Gender Identity Research Project was established at the UCLA Medical Center for the study of intersexuals and transsexuals."

Could the introductiry paragraph be brought into line with the more detailed information, to point out that the term was used as early as 1958, please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.125.96.134 (talk) 14:13, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Clinical Definitions Of Gender Identity

WP:MEDRS that explain gender identity composed of both a cognitive and affective component have been reverted. These are mainstream definitions in sex research. Rejection claims range from "it's not 2002", to UNDUE to confusion about subjective and objective measures.Maneesh (talk) 17:53, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Do you have any recent, reliable sources, preferably not by FRINGE forcibly retired figures like Zucker? Newimpartial (talk) 18:13, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS is WP:MEDRS. No one should be interested in innuendo trying to slander the authors. Maneesh (talk) 18:20, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

I had no hand in this but I saw the diffs in my Watchlist and, on cursory evaluation, the content removed seems to be borderline gibberish, casually throwing around outdated terms like "transexualism" without conveying any coherent meaning. I don't know if that means that it failed to summarise the source correctly or whether the source itself is also as incoherent but, either way, it does not belong in that part of the article and adds nothing to the reader's understanding of the subject. If anything, it detracts from it. If this source represents a notable non-mainstream or historical view then it can be explained, in that context, elsewhere in the article, preferably in a way that makes sense. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:26, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

What did you have difficulty in understanding? How would you interpret the instruments in the 2005 Zucker cite on GI measures without knowing what they measure? "transexualism" is still used and has a precise meaning in this context. Maneesh (talk) 18:36, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

I honestly could not work out what it was trying to say at all but I am sure that this is not the correct place within the article for it, if it is valid at all. This is the section on Measurement and this content, insofar as I can understand it, relates to definitions and not to measurement. The definition offered, insofar as I understand it, seems to differ from the definition given at the start of the article (although I'm not sure of that, it might just be odd terminology) and might be better moved into the History and definitions section if it can be explained in a way that a general reader can understand. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:54, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

It may be due to a lack of familiarly with psychosocial measures. The measurement section of course must have to do with measurement. The entire article is far far far off from presenting the idea that "gender identity" is not a crisp concept; there is(very difficult to understand) variation (see "Conceptualization and Assessment of Gender Identity" in that link). Many claims in the article are confused due to this fact. Zukcer's definition in that paper is general enough (you need to first determine that someone has accurate cognitive awareness of their sex and then measure some sort of affective component of desire/belonging/distress etc.) that it covers GI wrt to GD. WP isn't limited to general readers, there is no shortage of WP content that targets those with some basic background knowledge in the subject. Most people don't worry about doing clinical and scientific work on GI/GD, claims need to be as accessible as possible but still WP:STICKTOTHESOURCE to avoid editorializing. Maneesh (talk) 19:09, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Do you have any sources published in the last 15 years that use Zucker's formulation? Preferably something secondary? Newimpartial (talk) 23:03, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Describing this basic clinical definition of gender identity as "Zucker's formulation" is very misleading. His papers are representational of how children (and adults) are diagnosed with gender dysphoria, the underlying measures are from different researchers. You need only apply some diligence to follow the cites to his papers:

"As reported by Zucker (2005), different measures of psychosexual differentiation (e.g., questionnaires, interviews, and other instruments) have been used in gender identity and gender role behavior assessment studies. Many researchers outline that the availability of tools suitable for the measurement of gender-related constructs is essential in order to carry out screenings on community samples of children."

Two particular factors have been shown to predict stability of transgender identity into adolescence and adulthood: intensity of GD and tendency to discuss gender cognitively rather than affectively (“I am a boy” versus “I feel like a boy”; Steensma et al., 2013). Both factors can be assessed through the gender narrative. If gender identity appears to be a large aspect of the case conceptualization or referral question, self-report rating scales of body image/dissatisfaction and gender identity can also be used, such as the body image scale (for older children/adolescents; Lindgren & Pauly, 1975), the transgender congruence scale (validated for 18 and older but appropriate for older adolescents; Jones, Bouman, Haycraft, & Arcelus, 2018), the multidimensional gender identity scale (for children/adolescents; Egan & Perry, 2001), and the gender identity interview (Zucker et al., 1993; for review see Zucker, 2005), all of which are brief enough for the medical consultation setting.

Maneesh (talk) 23:30, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Taking one source at a time, your second (2020, book-length) source makes no reference - as far as I can tell - to either the awareness that one is either male or female or transexualism, the two outdated controversial formulations that seem specific to Zucker. Do you have any relevant, recent reliable sources that make use of either or both of these? Your previous link for "transsexualism" generated, as one of its top hits, a quality 2020 piece discrediting the concept, so I hope you are able to be more precise. Newimpartial (talk) 00:48, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Your query: Do you have any sources published in the last 15 years that use Zucker's formulation? Preferably something secondary?. The cites to Zucker above answer that directly. There should be no question regarding the fact that the way Zucker describes the GI here is something that is mainstream sex research in the context of dysphoria. The use of 'transsexualism' was from quoted from Bailey, who also described GI in terms of cognitive/affective. Bailey is merely saying that an extreme negative affective component maps to 'transexualism' i.e. the desire to under surgery etc. I use WP;STICKTOTHESOURCE, 'transsexualism' could be replaced with dysphoria if it were done carefully with an appropriate cite. Plenty of sources use 'transsexualism', as in, Blanchard’s transsexualism typology, do some google scholar searching to see that. There have been remapping/namechanges etc. as in the DSM but you can find plenty of recent RS that use the term. While preferences for substitute terms may vary, there is no question that the concept of 'transsexualism' is mainstream sex research. The suggestion that notion represented by the word "transsexualism' is somehow discredited is an absurdity particularly in the context of this page. Maneesh (talk) 02:47, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps I have not made myself understood. My objection is not to "Zucker" in some abstract sense; my objection is to what you proposed to add to the main text while citing Zucker et al. (2005) and Bailey et al. (2002), namely Gender identity is clinically defined by two components: the awareness that one is either male or female and the affective appraisal of that knowledge. The affective component is continuous and can range from normal comfort to rejection which is associated with transexualism. I have added emphasis for the phrasing I regard as out of touch. If you are aware of recent, reliable scholarship that bases gender identity measurement on the awareness that one is either male or female or that refers to the end of the affective spectrum as transsexualism, I would like to see it please. We are expected to present actual recent, reliable sources for specific claims on WP, rather than merely asserting that they exist. Newimpartial (talk) 03:06, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Basically, they seem to be saying that cognitive awareness of oneself being anatomically (pre-transition) male or female is a part of gender identity. This does seem unusual and I would be curious if any recent sources include that. Typically I would think gender identity is just defined by what gender 'feels right' (i.e. what those papers would have called the 'affective' component). Crossroads ^-talk- 05:59, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

I can't speak to why you would consider something clear, straightforward and recently cited as 'out of touch'. You don't seem to have much background knowledge of this domain, it is not you who need to qualify a specific instrument, it is other WP:RS and they have already been provided above. There are no requirements for sources being arbitrarily recent, this page is filled with very old sources. Do go ahead and follow the recent cites to Zucker to find more examples (there are 122 to that paper on scholar). I'll help you out with a few more:

Zucker1993: "In the normative developmental literature, gender identity mainly has been operationalized with regard to cognitive milestones, such as the ability to correctly self-label oneself as a boy or as a girl (Slaby & Frey, 1975), with much less attention given to affective appraisals. Zucker et al. (1993), however, developed a gender identity interview for children (GIIC), a dimensional measure, that was designed to assess both cognitive and affective gender identity confusion. A factor analysis confirmed a two-factor structure to the GIIC, and both factors significantly discriminated clinic-referred children with gender identity problems from controls (see also Meyer-Bahlburg et al., 2004, and Ju¨rgensen, Hampel, Hiort, & Thyen, 2006)."

So Zucker1993 provides the GIIC which assess both cognitive and affective components. Verveen2021 uses the GIIC (calling it the GII): "The Gender Identity Interview (GII) is a self-report questionnaire that includes items on affective and cognitive gender confusion. Affective gender confusion is the child’s desire to be a member of the other sex. Cognitive gender confusion is when a child mislabels his or her gender, or shows a lack of cognitive gender constancy over time (Zucker et al., 1993). The GII consists of 12 questions which are scored on a 3-point scale ranging from 0 to 2. A 0 was assigned if the child answered a factual question correctly or gave a stereotypic response. A 1 was assigned for ambiguous or intermediate responses such as ‘I don’t know’ to the question. ‘Do you think it is better to be a boy or a girl?’ A 2 was assigned to responses that were in line with their desired gender and without ambiguity. Children who gave more answers in line with their desired gender identity have a higher score. This correlates to more GI (Zucker et al., 1993). The Dutch translation of the GII was used, which was validated by Wallien et al. (2009)."

Maneesh (talk) 08:13, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

That's actually a good example of what I was talking about. Your 2021 citation mentions Zucker, mentions "cognitive gender confusion", but then doesn't operationalize that dimension at all in their reported findings or analysis. I think I sense a trend. Newimpartial (talk) 12:40, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

You've failed to comprehend the source. Your claim is contradicted by the quote you've tried responding to.Maneesh (talk) 01:30, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Where does your 2021 source make any use of cognitive gender confusion in its analysis or findings? I'll wait... Newimpartial (talk) 01:43, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

You'll have to read what has been quoted more carefully and familiarize yourself with ideas like factor analysis. The source is clear when it describes the GII and what is measures and why it was used in that study. Maneesh (talk) 17:13, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

I've peer-reviewed factor analysis papers in my real life, thanks. I simply don't see anything that uses the cognitive dimension of Zucker's construct. Newimpartial (talk) 17:22, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:MEDDATE, sources should, in fact, be recent. One primary study isn't necessarily WP:DUE enough to indicate widespread use of this definition. Try to find some recent (<5 years) review articles on gender identity and see how they define it. If some but not all mention the two-aspects idea, perhaps it can be added with WP:In-text attribution. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:16, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

There are many claims in the article that are lagging far far behind this standard. You can see in the link presented earlier in the thread that GI is a very slippery and vague word in recent reviews. Even in that (very difficult to understand) link you can see cognitive and affective first in the abstract: "A host of cognitive, affective, social, and defensive processes contribute to these forms of gender identity...". The slipperiness of the word has led to multiple instruments that measure many different things (this article does not capture this at all). You can see multiple measures in a 2019 Routledge book where you can see Zucker's again. This article does not capture the various measurements of GI and bring across the idea that they are used for very different things (children, adults, clinical and non-clinical contexts). It can't do that until some measures are listed. There is no question that Zucker's is quite prominent and should be here. Maneesh (talk) 01:30, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

But your edit presented Zucker's as the one and only measurement construct for GI. Surely some mistake? Newimpartial (talk) 01:40, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Nope, the edit clearly qualifies with "clinically defined" and that probably is correct in terms of GI being an instrument assess gender dysphoria in the clinic. If you can pull out something that seriously argues against that go for it.Maneesh (talk) 03:18, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Do you have any support whatever for your assumption that current clinical constructs make use of cognitive gender confusion as presented in Zucker et al. (2005, back when he was still practicing)? Newimpartial (talk) 15:59, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

See above. Maneesh (talk) 17:13, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

The Routledge book should be a good secondary source; let's summarize that. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:00, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Age of formation problems

The current text defines gender identity as "a personal sense of one's own gender[masculine or feminine in cite]" and that the age of formation of gender identity at age 3 is something precise like the freezing point of water and that it is "difficult" to change, with a cite that looks like it is actually from 1985 (not 2012, despite what google books says). It has a rather small number of cites for such a fundamental fact. "Partially irreversible by age 3 or 4" from the source does not imply "After age three, it is extremely difficult to change gender identity" in the lede and body.

This has problems. The Bukatko2004 source cited is careful to define gender identity as cognitive awareness of being either male or female (not masculine or feminine which describe sex stereotypes) and GID in terms of distress and "cross gender behavior" related to that awareness. From Zucker2021: "By around 3 years of age, if not earlier, most children can self-label themselves as either a boy or a girl (11–14) although cognitive-developmental gender theory suggests that the understanding of gender as an “invariant” aspect of the self does not occur until early to middle childhood, with the achievement of concreate [sic] operational thought (12, 15, 16)." Children with gender dysphoria, distressed by their sex, are (quite obviously) cognitively aware of their sex. Zucker2021 also shows that gender identity changes on its own in many adults (that doesn't seem "difficult"): "Boys clinic-referred for gender identity concerns in childhood had a high rate of desistance and a high rate of a biphilic/androphilic sexual orientation."

In short the article is misrepresenting facts by mixing and matching claims about different definitions of GI as well as editorializing on changing GI.Maneesh (talk) 05:45, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Concerning the study you misleadingly refer to as "Zucker, 2021", I suppose I should be impressed that anyone could get their 2012 dissertation results published by a peer-reviewed journal in 2021, even with two geriatric co-authors. Sigh. Newimpartial (talk) 16:10, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

You can call it Singh2021, it's just short hand for talk (I've just been referring to a lot of Zucker, simply came to mind). Now the age-ism with you, your comments have generally been riddled with very dubious ideas. The mixing and matching of GI definitions in the article is clear.Maneesh (talk) 16:38, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm not against the inclusion of some of the more notable older and less mainstream ideas in the article. It has a history section and that's there for a reason. What I don't like is this push towards a non-mainstream view of the very nature of the subject of the article. We can cover a diversity of views about the topic with appropriate weight, which does not mean giving less mainstream views parity of esteem. I don't know how far up the notability ladder Kenneth Zucker gets. He has an article, so clearly his views and activities are notable, but just as clearly he does not define the current mainstream view of the topic. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:39, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

To be sure, the mixing and matching is independent of Singh2021, though it clarifies certain things nicely.Maneesh (talk) 17:46, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Not sure about the biological factors sections

Some of the things in that section seem out of place or don’t belong. Like the intersex part feels unrelated to an extent (or at least some of the information presented in the intersex part is unrelated biological factors.)CycoMa (talk) 14:47, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Modern lay meanings

IMO this article has major issues, principally due to its use of the traditional definition of ‘gender’ as synonymous with ‘sex’ in its classificatory (as opposed to its operative) sense. This fails to take account of the modern usage of the word and its compounds. Some examples may help.

1. A very influential view, put forward by Judith Butler and others, is that gender is a purely cultural construct. The logical corollary, supported by some authorities, is that newborns (who by definition have no culture, only the propensity to develop it) have no gender – like Plato’s bear-cubs that had to be licked into shape. Yet in the traditional definition, newborns undoubtedly have gender, and it’s the first thing adults notice about them. So either these authorities are talking nonsense (which is unlikely) or they are using a very different definition of ‘gender’ as a combination of sexual psychology and orientation. Others appear to use it as a congeries of the above, plus chromosomal sex and sexual morphology, i.e. a gestalt of different kinds of sexual marker, and this appears to be its current lay usage.

2. Modern definitions of trans (as a sexual status or condition) cite a mismatch between birth sex (which can only take the values female, male, or intermediate as in some intersex people) and ‘gender identity’. While this is valid in terms of the traditional definition, in the broad modern definition all of LGBTQA+, and many I, are 'trans'. This is a widespread usage, and I believe Wikipedia itself cites surveys in which self-defined trans people sub-identify as pangender, agender, genderqueer, genderfluid, asexual, lesbian or gay. This can only be so under the broad definition of ‘gender’.

3. It is well established that some young people experience uncertainty as to their sexual (or gender) identity, which they may resolve before or after puberty, or may accept as a permanent condition, commonly called genderqueer. Adults on occasion transition sexually even when of mature years. If as the article contends, gender identity is fixed by age 3, all this is impossible.

4. The widespread use of terms such as genderqueer, pangender and specifically genderfluid, contradicts the assertion that gender is fixed by age 3.

It’s clear that ‘gender’ and its compounds have a range of meanings, and that there’s no universal agreement on any one. Ideally, there would be, or the word would be abandoned, but neither is going to happen. I accept that some authorities use ‘gender’ in its original meaning, but Wikipedia is not a purely academic source, it’s a popular one that should recognize the variety of definitions and usages of the word, and specify when using it which is meant.Chrismorey (talk) 11:31, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

While I don't see anything here that could contribute to improving the article, I did want to reply briefly before this goes to the archive.

1. Aside from the misreading of Butler, this point seems to unknowingly describe the process of Sex assignment - but the present article seems to be rather more clear about the concept.

2. Actually, this isn't what modern definitions of trans do. Please see Trans woman and Trans man, which do reflect current definitions. Chrismorey's confusion of gender identity and sexuality appears to be a category error, and also WP:OR.

3. This isn't what genderqueer means. Please see Non-binary gender.

4. I don't see such an assertion about fixity in this article. Also, Chrismorey seems ill-informed about the original meaning of gender.

That is all, Newimpartial (talk) 22:51, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Non-neutral paragraph

Most did not dare to argue against Money's theory. Milton Diamond was a scientist who was one of the few to openly disagree with him and oppose his argument. Diamond had contributed to research involving pregnant rats that showed hormones played a major role in the behavior of different sexes.[29] The researchers in the lab would inject the pregnant rat with testosterone, which would then find its way to the baby's bloodstream.[28] The females that were born had genitalia that looked like male genitalia. The females in the litter also behaved like male rats and would even try to mount other female rats, proving that biology played a major role in animal behavior.[29]

No one dared questioned question John Money? Saying no one dared question this isn’t neutral language.

And for the record, that was one study. Is there a consensus on this on? If there isn’t the we shouldn’t act like “oh this one study proved this theory wrong.”

CycoMa (talk) 02:32, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

I think that you correctly identify two problems. Phrases like "did not dare" are not appropriate in Wikipedia articles, even if they would be perfectly fair in other contexts. Secondly, the exclusive emphasis on Diamond seems odd. If Diamond was the first notable person to call BS on Money's claims then that's perfectly correct to mention. He certainly seems to have been one of Money's more persistent critics. Nonetheless we should not give the impression that Diamond alone discredited Money. We need somebody familiar with the research to add other studies to give a more representative view. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:38, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

That’s why I added a tag for that section on its neutrality.CycoMa (talk) 17:41, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Non-binary gender identities

I have a slight issue with the section Non-binary gender identities. It mentions third genders but, here is the problem with that. Third genders aren’t really gender identities, or at least not the same way gender identity is viewed in the west.CycoMa (talk) 15:45, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

You're correct that it's not the same as the West. But they still are genders and identity is a primary component of gender. AFAIK, two spirit people (for example) have a gender identity as two spirit. Travesti definitely do not see themselves as either men or women; their gender identity would be non-binary (Don Kulick, 1998). EvergreenFir (talk) 18:09, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Evaluate an Article

-Article could focus more heavily on the discrimination that those who have differing gender identities face -Add picture, perhaps of those who have been apart of the movement to increase the normality of different gender identities -Overall, the article is very well put together with excellent content and great grammar How does being a part of an already marginalized group affect one’s gender identity and their acceptance of it, if at all?Ferviani (talk) 19:18, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): CRMStudent1.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:38, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Papriika, Devbhakta98. Peer reviewers: Dphelzer, Fonzo 760, Dfourc, Gavinpalazzo.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:38, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 June 2021 and 9 July 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): PineappleSnow.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:38, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Danielkimbo. Peer reviewers: Danielkimbo.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:07, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2018 and 7 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kpsherman.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:38, 17 January 2022 (UTC)