Oh no, it's a thread about trans issues made by John Dule

[John Dule]

1. If you say on one hand it doesn't matter if something is classified as such (i.e a mental disorder) then why isn't reducing stigma a valid reason to remove it, if removing the classification doesn't affect the treatment/intervention offered? For example, the US DSM-5 folded my Aspergers into an autism spectrum disorder and created a new diagnosis of social communication disorder not on the spectrum, but something entirely new. It hasn't affected the net treatment per se, but has for some, negatively impacted perception of people with Aspergers. So not only does it work both ways, it highlights how reducing stigma is valid when it impacts upon society and socialisation.

The category matters insofar as it represents a valid scientific classification. Political and social considerations should be left aside when scientific research is being conducted, and the politicization of scientific inquiry is wrong. It is painfully obvious that the reclassification of gender dysphoria represents a concession (however mild) to activists.

For example, there is a stigma attached to the word "disabled," because it implies that the person with the disability is less physically capable than others. Should people with spinal cord injuries protest this classification? Should they pressure doctors and scientists to reclassify their disability, so as to remove the stigma surrounding the word "disabled?" Of course not. Firstly, there is no reason why we should single out this one particular affliction, removing the "stigma" attached to it while simultaneously ignoring the "stigma" attached to other disabilities. And secondly, science should not have to cave to the demands of the activist class. Scientific terminology ought to be above political considerations.

This is not to say that gender dysphoria must be classified as a "disorder." I do not care either way. What I do care about is that the reason for its classification is based solely on scientific calculations rather than political ones. Because the disorder was reclassified "to remove stigma" and for no other reason, I have to conclude that scientific considerations were not the driving force behind this reclassification, and I oppose it for that reason and that reason alone.

It's also been removed from the UN classification in ICD-11. Given that the decision was made by those versed in health, it can hardly be considered 'political.' It was clearly a scientific consensus.

I'm not questioning their expertise, I'm questioning whether or not that expertise was the only factor in this decision. Seeing as their reasoning explicitly states that the reclassification was motivated by social considerations, I remain unwilling to defer to their conclusion. I am not saying this to belittle, demean, or marginalize anyone-- I am simply troubled by the injection of unscientific considerations into something that should be a purely scientific matter.

And there is certainly not a broad-base consensus on this subject as there is on, say, climate change.

[John Dule]

I'm still trying to work through these to respond to them. I will try to get to as many as I can; if I skip any portions of these responses it's because I don't think there's any meaningful disagreement between us.

1) I go back and forth over this without really knowing what to say. However reading at the Wikipedia article you read, it seems gender dysphoria is still classified as a disorder? Not being explicitly called a disorder doesn't mean it isn't considered one. Indeed something like say, anorexia is also a disorder despite not having the word disorder in its name.

The disorder was not just renamed, it was reclassified-- that is, moved into a separate category.

Sex is very simple, just look at whatever you have between your legs, or take a DNA test and look at your chromosomes.

The problem for you I guess comes from trying to distinguish gender from gender roles. My guess is that gender roles are certain patterns of behavior and what not that come imposed from society; while gender is your affirmation as to what role you would develop inside society. I would also draw a distinction between various levels of gender roles; some are harmful and on their way out ("women should stay in the kitchen") while others aren't going away any time soon.

If gender roles are imposed by society (and should therefore be questioned), then why should a transgender individual feel compelled to adopt the specific, stereotypical gender roles of the gender they identify as? I think the answer is that on some fundamental level, gender roles are the natural product of the differences between the sexes. This is why trying to completely untether sex from gender is, to me, a self-defeating proposition.

I imagine your main worry would be that what Nathan describes could lead to say, a standard cis man changing their gender from a legal point of view, getting scholarships indended for women and what not while not having any changes in their behaviour or appearance and being male in all but name. That is an overblown worry, although I will say that it is also a legitimate one; and a worry that I am not sure how it can be reconciled with the demands of gender activists other than "hope for the best".

I believe there are meaningful solutions to be had, but they will involve some degree of compromise (something that seems impossible on this issue so far). When someone says to a trans woman "You're still a man," what they are saying is "You are still a member of the male sex." When the trans woman responds "No, I'm a woman," what they're saying is "No, I identify as female and I have adopted female social roles." The thing is, both of these people fully understand what the other person is saying, but they refuse to make any concessions whatsoever because compromising on this subject will force them to negate important parts of their identities. Both of them are right and both of them are wrong. This is a very difficult obstacle to work around when discussing trans issues.

One obvious compromise is for us to continue to separate men and women on the basis of biological sex when it makes sense, while instead segregating based on social gender roles when that makes sense. For example, I think bathroom segregation is more of a social distinction than a biological one; I think bathrooms should be gender-neutral. However, athletic competitions are clearly segregated for biological reasons due to the effects of testosterone on the body. Of course, the mere suggestion of this is enough to earn outrage from the gender theory crowd. I'm just saying we need to be able to discuss these things.

5) Well, you are merging gender and gender roles here but whatever. I can't speak for any actual trans people but I think that 99% of them would like to be addressed by whatever pronouns belong to the gender they identify as.

This raises another weird question: If there are more than two genders, then what exactly are the gender roles for the other genders? There is clearly no established social role for someone who wishes to be called "xir." But in any case, I won't wade into that subject right now because A) It's irrelevant to trans issues, and B) It will probably make people mad.

[afleitch]

1. If you say on one hand it doesn't matter if something is classified as such (i.e a mental disorder) then why isn't reducing stigma a valid reason to remove it, if removing the classification doesn't affect the treatment/intervention offered? For example, the US DSM-5 folded my Aspergers into an autism spectrum disorder and created a new diagnosis of social communication disorder not on the spectrum, but something entirely new. It hasn't affected the net treatment per se, but has for some, negatively impacted perception of people with Aspergers. So not only does it work both ways, it highlights how reducing stigma is valid when it impacts upon society and socialisation.

The category matters insofar as it represents a valid scientific classification. Political and social considerations should be left aside when scientific research is being conducted, and the politicization of scientific inquiry is wrong. It is painfully obvious that the reclassification of gender dysphoria represents a concession (however mild) to activists.

For example, there is a stigma attached to the word "disabled," because it implies that the person with the disability is less physically capable than others. Should people with spinal cord injuries protest this classification? Should they pressure doctors and scientists to reclassify their disability, so as to remove the stigma surrounding the word "disabled?" Of course not. Firstly, there is no reason why we should single out this one particular affliction, removing the "stigma" attached to it while simultaneously ignoring the "stigma" attached to other disabilities. And secondly, science should not have to cave to the demands of the activist class. Scientific terminology ought to be above political considerations.

This is not to say that gender dysphoria must be classified as a "disorder." I do not care either way. What I do care about is that the reason for its classification is based solely on scientific calculations rather than political ones. Because the disorder was reclassified "to remove stigma" and for no other reason, I have to conclude that scientific considerations were not the driving force behind this reclassification, and I oppose it for that reason and that reason alone.

It's also been removed from the UN classification in ICD-11. Given that the decision was made by those versed in health, it can hardly be considered 'political.' It was clearly a scientific consensus.

I'm not questioning their expertise, I'm questioning whether or not that expertise was the only factor in this decision. Seeing as their reasoning explicitly states that the reclassification was motivated by social considerations, I remain unwilling to defer to their conclusion. I am not saying this to belittle, demean, or marginalize anyone-- I am simply troubled by the injection of unscientific considerations into something that should be a purely scientific matter.

And there is certainly not a broad-base consensus on this subject as there is on, say, climate change.

Can you acknowledge that's a problem? You're not willing to defer to expertise on this one issue. Why might that be?

[John Dule]

1. If you say on one hand it doesn't matter if something is classified as such (i.e a mental disorder) then why isn't reducing stigma a valid reason to remove it, if removing the classification doesn't affect the treatment/intervention offered? For example, the US DSM-5 folded my Aspergers into an autism spectrum disorder and created a new diagnosis of social communication disorder not on the spectrum, but something entirely new. It hasn't affected the net treatment per se, but has for some, negatively impacted perception of people with Aspergers. So not only does it work both ways, it highlights how reducing stigma is valid when it impacts upon society and socialisation.

The category matters insofar as it represents a valid scientific classification. Political and social considerations should be left aside when scientific research is being conducted, and the politicization of scientific inquiry is wrong. It is painfully obvious that the reclassification of gender dysphoria represents a concession (however mild) to activists.

For example, there is a stigma attached to the word "disabled," because it implies that the person with the disability is less physically capable than others. Should people with spinal cord injuries protest this classification? Should they pressure doctors and scientists to reclassify their disability, so as to remove the stigma surrounding the word "disabled?" Of course not. Firstly, there is no reason why we should single out this one particular affliction, removing the "stigma" attached to it while simultaneously ignoring the "stigma" attached to other disabilities. And secondly, science should not have to cave to the demands of the activist class. Scientific terminology ought to be above political considerations.

This is not to say that gender dysphoria must be classified as a "disorder." I do not care either way. What I do care about is that the reason for its classification is based solely on scientific calculations rather than political ones. Because the disorder was reclassified "to remove stigma" and for no other reason, I have to conclude that scientific considerations were not the driving force behind this reclassification, and I oppose it for that reason and that reason alone.

It's also been removed from the UN classification in ICD-11. Given that the decision was made by those versed in health, it can hardly be considered 'political.' It was clearly a scientific consensus.

I'm not questioning their expertise, I'm questioning whether or not that expertise was the only factor in this decision. Seeing as their reasoning explicitly states that the reclassification was motivated by social considerations, I remain unwilling to defer to their conclusion. I am not saying this to belittle, demean, or marginalize anyone-- I am simply troubled by the injection of unscientific considerations into something that should be a purely scientific matter.

And there is certainly not a broad-base consensus on this subject as there is on, say, climate change.

Can you acknowledge that's a problem? You're not willing to defer to expertise on this one issue. Why might that be?

I already explained why that is in the part of my comment that you didn't put in bold.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Classification of mental illness has never been a purely scientific. It always been, and to some extent unavoidably is, informed by social norms and the predominant values of those in the profession at any given time.  That being said some reasons for classifying or declassifying something as a mental illness are better than others.  If something causes "clinically significant distress or impairment" in the words of the DSM, fear of stigma shouldn't be sufficient reason to drop its classification unless perhaps one believes the stigma is itself the reason for the distress.  But is the view generally held by trans rights advocates of the mental suffering of gender dysphoria that it could be completely gotten rid of with changing social norms if biomedical interventions were for whatever reason unavailable?  I haven't gotten that sense.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Classification of mental illness has never been a purely scientific. It always been, and to some extent unavoidably is, informed by social norms and the predominant values of those in the profession at any given time.  That being said some reasons for classifying or declassifying something as a mental illness are better than others.  If something causes "clinically significant distress or impairment" in the words of the DSM, fear of stigma shouldn't be sufficient reason to drop its classification unless perhaps one believes the stigma is itself the reason for the distress.  But is the view generally held by trans rights advocates of the mental suffering of gender dysphoria that it could be completely gotten rid of with changing social norms if biomedical interventions were for whatever reason unavailable?  I haven't gotten that sense.

This depends on which trans rights advocates you ask; it's not something there's a consensus on in the trans community (in fact, there's quite a lot of intracommunity acrimony and hostility surrounding exactly this question). I agree with you that declassifying gender dysphoria makes more sense if we answer the question in the affirmative, but my view of disability in general (including mental illness) is social or biosocial enough already that I'm happy to accept its declassification either way.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Classification of mental illness has never been a purely scientific. It always been, and to some extent unavoidably is, informed by social norms and the predominant values of those in the profession at any given time.  That being said some reasons for classifying or declassifying something as a mental illness are better than others.  If something causes "clinically significant distress or impairment" in the words of the DSM, fear of stigma shouldn't be sufficient reason to drop its classification unless perhaps one believes the stigma is itself the reason for the distress.  But is the view generally held by trans rights advocates of the mental suffering of gender dysphoria that it could be completely gotten rid of with changing social norms if biomedical interventions were for whatever reason unavailable?  I haven't gotten that sense.

This depends on which trans rights advocates you ask; it's not something there's a consensus on in the trans community (in fact, there's quite a lot of intracommunity acrimony and hostility surrounding exactly this question). I agree with you that declassifying gender dysphoria makes more sense if we answer the question in the affirmative, but my view of disability in general (including mental illness) is social or biosocial enough already that I'm happy to accept its declassification either way.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean about a social view of disability and how that relates to declassifying a particular phenomena as a mental illness?

[HisGrace]

All the verbal tap dancing on trans issues is just because feminists and the identity politics left in general don't want to have to admit that gender isn't a social construct. So instead they invent all this confusing jargon and make nonsense assertions like saying biological sex is a social construct because I guess something has to be or they'll go out of business. If the message was just "we want to be free to present ourselves how we want to the world" instead of inventing all this dumb jargon and demanding everyone use it, they'd be having a lot more success. The point being, a lot of people are confused by the current rhetoric on this issue so I'm not going to assume someone is a bigot just because they're not using all the "right" buzzwords.

[HisGrace]

Sex is very simple, just look at whatever you have between your legs, or take a DNA test and look at your chromosomes.

The problem for you I guess comes from trying to distinguish gender from gender roles. My guess is that gender roles are certain patterns of behavior and what not that come imposed from society; while gender is your affirmation as to what role you would develop inside society. I would also draw a distinction between various levels of gender roles; some are harmful and on their way out ("women should stay in the kitchen") while others aren't going away any time soon.

If gender roles are imposed by society (and should therefore be questioned), then why should a transgender individual feel compelled to adopt the specific, stereotypical gender roles of the gender they identify as? I think the answer is that on some fundamental level, gender roles are the natural product of the differences between the sexes. This is why trying to completely untether sex from gender is, to me, a self-defeating proposition.

The bolded part of your post is the intellectual difficulty I was talking about in my post and the thing the left doesn't want to have to deal with. Unless you're going to be a TERF the answer that makes sense is that gender is not a social construct and is distinct from sex. As the other poster I quoted said, sex is just sex characteristics, your genitalia. That's it. Gender is in the mind. If you think it's a social construct than you pretty much have to be a TERF and say a transwoman is just a man in a dress. If you think gender is something you're born with then it's possible transpeople are born with a mind opposite what their gender is. But then that also refutes a lot of feminist rhetoric. Recent research in neurology has shown differences in men and women's brains (the areas of the brain producing most emotions being larger for women is one specific one I remember reading about). It would be interesting to see if transpeople have brains like the gender they present themselves as or something in between.

[Kingpoleon]

Fair enough, but I would make the same argument with regards to that case. If homosexuality isn't a mental disorder, it should have been declassified for that reason. But declassifying something as a mental disorder in order to "remove stigma" implies that everything else in the category of "disorder" does deserve that stigma.

For the record, I think homosexuality could be classified as a disorder. But I also think that homophobia could be classified as a disorder as well.

As far as mental disorders go, it is relatively harmless. Most research focused on gay men does indicate some higher rates of additional mental issues - the primary cause of which is not difficult to guess. However, there are also (probably) lower divorce rates, higher incomes, and higher average intelligence. This is extremely unusual because even disorders which are generally associated with intelligence - such as ADHD - indicate lower intelligence scores than the total population. A mental disorder which results in a heightened general intelligence could hardly be classified as a normative mental disorder. Milo Yiannopolis has said some stuff about this research which makes further studies rather difficult - linking a group of people to higher/lower average intelligence is, by its very nature, highly controversial. It is this avoidance of controversy attempted by the APA in such delistings.

Tbh, I was more annoyed by the implication that Southerners have better manners than Yankees.

Yankees have a very different set of manners. For one thing, men, especially fathers, are far more powerful. Southern women are in charge of most families, which is why, as I’ve explained to several sociologists, the South is a matriarchal society. There is a certain deference to mothers as the ultimate authority that an outsider cannot easily spot. This is most notable not just in the stereotypes of a hick talking about his ma, but also in the matriarchal nature of African-American families, which stem from the South.

[afleitch]

Homosexuality is not a mental disorder.

[Del Tachi]

Yankees have a very different set of manners. For one thing, men, especially fathers, are far more powerful. Southern women are in charge of most families, which is why, as I’ve explained to several sociologists, the South is a matriarchal society.

This is entirely a product of African-American culture (which originated in the South but has now diffused all over the U.S. thanks to the Great Migration); Southern Whites are no more "matriarchial" than White people in other parts of the Anglosphere.

[Kingpoleon]

This is entirely a product of African-American culture (which originated in the South but has now diffused all over the U.S. thanks to the Great Migration); Southern Whites are no more "matriarchial" than White people in other parts of the Anglosphere.

This is not really that accurate. Women, especially old women, are still seen as family leaders in most rural parts and even some suburbs in the South. Most don't consider themselves in charge, but their husbands know they are.

The recent Hispanic immigrants to the region, alongside the large black population, may reinforce this, especially considering the heightened rates of interracial marriage.

https://www.al.com/opinion/2015/05/lessons_from_a_southern_matria.html
https://networks.h-net.org/node/73374/announcements/910535/through-mama%E2%80%99s-eyes-unique-perspectives-southern-matriarchy

[Del Tachi]

This is entirely a product of African-American culture (which originated in the South but has now diffused all over the U.S. thanks to the Great Migration); Southern Whites are no more "matriarchial" than White people in other parts of the Anglosphere.

This is not really that accurate. Women, especially old women, are still seen as family leaders in most rural parts and even some suburbs in the South. Most don't consider themselves in charge, but their husbands know they are.

The recent Hispanic immigrants to the region, alongside the large black population, may reinforce this, especially considering the heightened rates of interracial marriage.

https://www.al.com/opinion/2015/05/lessons_from_a_southern_matria.html
https://networks.h-net.org/node/73374/announcements/910535/through-mama%E2%80%99s-eyes-unique-perspectives-southern-matriarchy

Henpecked husbands are not a unique or universal Southern phenomenon, lol.  And at any rate, I'm unsure a personal anecdote and a call for essays for a one-day symposium hosted by the gender studies department at third-rate university really suggest a bona fide sociological theory about motherhood in the South.  I'd be interested in hearing you elucidate your perspectives on this issue (perhaps in another thread or a PM), but I'll stop here for the sake of not getting this thread OT.   

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Fair enough, but I would make the same argument with regards to that case. If homosexuality isn't a mental disorder, it should have been declassified for that reason. But declassifying something as a mental disorder in order to "remove stigma" implies that everything else in the category of "disorder" does deserve that stigma.

For the record, I think homosexuality could be classified as a disorder. But I also think that homophobia could be classified as a disorder as well.

As far as mental disorders go, it is relatively harmless. Most research focused on gay men does indicate some higher rates of additional mental issues - the primary cause of which is not difficult to guess. However, there are also (probably) lower divorce rates, higher incomes, and higher average intelligence. This is extremely unusual because even disorders which are generally associated with intelligence - such as ADHD - indicate lower intelligence scores than the total population. A mental disorder which results in a heightened general intelligence could hardly be classified as a normative mental disorder. Milo Yiannopolis has said some stuff about this research which makes further studies rather difficult - linking a group of people to higher/lower average intelligence is, by its very nature, highly controversial. It is this avoidance of controversy attempted by the APA in such delistings.

There isn't any intrinsic reason why a mental disorder couldn't be correlated with higher intelligence.  Something that may be adaptive in one way often has a cost in another.  The evidence on mood and anxiety disorders are mixed w/ respect to iq, and the correlation seems it may go in different directions at different points on the spectrum -  but it's possible that high intelligence leads for some people to a hyper-perception of negative or threatening possibilities.

[It’s so Joever]

Forget everything else....but did you say state-raised children and a 100% inheritance tax?

....I am pleasantly surprised.

[John Dule]

Forget everything else....but did you say state-raised children and a 100% inheritance tax?

....I am pleasantly surprised.

While I don't actually support this, I believe it will be close to reality in a few hundred years.

[Kingpoleon]

There isn't any intrinsic reason why a mental disorder couldn't be correlated with higher intelligence.  Something that may be adaptive in one way often has a cost in another.  The evidence on mood and anxiety disorders are mixed w/ respect to iq, and the correlation seems it may go in different directions at different points on the spectrum -  but it's possible that high intelligence leads for some people to a hyper-perception of negative or threatening possibilities.

Standing alone, obviously not. But a mental disorder requires significant distress or impairment of personal functioning. Minority stress is typically not consider a stand alone mental illness, in part because it is less dependent upon genetics and familial environment than societal environment. Considering the lack of evidence of significant distress or functional impairment inherent to homosexuality, I find its categorization as a mental illness seriously harmful.

[Fubart Solman]

Having been called out in the OP, I do feel the need to respond, at least in brief. My thoughts are basically that while it may be considered a mental disorder, if I were in their shoes, I wouldn’t want to be classified as mentally ill regardless of its scientific classification. Whereas a lot of your posts would be in disagreement if I’m reading them properly.

[John Dule]

Having been called out in the OP, I do feel the need to respond, at least in brief. My thoughts are basically that while it may be considered a mental disorder, if I were in their shoes, I wouldn’t want to be classified as mentally ill regardless of its scientific classification. Whereas a lot of your posts would be in disagreement if I’m reading them properly.

1) Whether or not anyone "wants" to be diagnosed with something should be irrelevant to whether or not they receive that diagnosis. If we are going to pretend there is a shred of scientific validity behind psychology, we cannot go around declassifying mental illnesses for reasons that are transparently socio-political.

2) As Del Taco pointed out, the only way SRS can be classified as "medically necessary" is if it is a treatment for an illness. Otherwise it must be treated as purely cosmetic, which opens up another bunch of problems that the trans community has to confront.

3) Acknowledging that someone has a behavioral disorder does not mean that they can't make choices for themselves or express how they ought to be treated. People with bipolar disorder are not "lesser" than the rest of us simply because they have disorders. The same is true for those with gender dysphoria.

[muon2]

One aspect that I haven't seen raised, is that there are findings that in some trans persons the biological brain doesn't match the sexual phenotype of the body. The studies are more compelling in the case of FtM and less so in MtF. As our ability to discern the affected brain structures improves with technology, then it seems that some trans diagnoses can move out of the purely psychological or sociological and into physical medical science.

Some of the stigma associated with the choice of label comes from their use for mental conditions as opposed to physical conditions. It would be great if mental conditions were treated by society in the same way as physical conditions, but that may be a long time off. In the short term, I would hope that the stigma due to label association would diminish as more trans cases look like straightforward physical medical conditions.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

1. If you say on one hand it doesn't matter if something is classified as such (i.e a mental disorder) then why isn't reducing stigma a valid reason to remove it, if removing the classification doesn't affect the treatment/intervention offered? For example, the US DSM-5 folded my Aspergers into an autism spectrum disorder and created a new diagnosis of social communication disorder not on the spectrum, but something entirely new. It hasn't affected the net treatment per se, but has for some, negatively impacted perception of people with Aspergers. So not only does it work both ways, it highlights how reducing stigma is valid when it impacts upon society and socialisation.

The category matters insofar as it represents a valid scientific classification. Political and social considerations should be left aside when scientific research is being conducted, and the politicization of scientific inquiry is wrong. It is painfully obvious that the reclassification of gender dysphoria represents a concession (however mild) to activists.

For example, there is a stigma attached to the word "disabled," because it implies that the person with the disability is less physically capable than others. Should people with spinal cord injuries protest this classification? Should they pressure doctors and scientists to reclassify their disability, so as to remove the stigma surrounding the word "disabled?" Of course not. Firstly, there is no reason why we should single out this one particular affliction, removing the "stigma" attached to it while simultaneously ignoring the "stigma" attached to other disabilities. And secondly, science should not have to cave to the demands of the activist class. Scientific terminology ought to be above political considerations.

This is not to say that gender dysphoria must be classified as a "disorder." I do not care either way. What I do care about is that the reason for its classification is based solely on scientific calculations rather than political ones. Because the disorder was reclassified "to remove stigma" and for no other reason, I have to conclude that scientific considerations were not the driving force behind this reclassification, and I oppose it for that reason and that reason alone.

It's also been removed from the UN classification in ICD-11. Given that the decision was made by those versed in health, it can hardly be considered 'political.' It was clearly a scientific concensus.

[Citation needed] Just because they should be making such decisions apolitically doesn't mean they definitely aren't being affected by politics. Humans are inherently political animals.

[Velasco]

"Gender dysphoria" is neither a "disability" nor a "behavioral disorder". By using the two latter, Dule is telling us he's a bit of a transphobic.

The term "dysphoria" is challenged by some trans persons, but I don't think it has offensive connotations similar to those used by Dule. It refers to describe "a state of feeling very unhappy, uneasy, or dissatisfied".

By no means "dysphoria" is a disability,  in the same way that having XY cromosomes does not imply being biologically compelled to choose blue color over pink. If you are XY and prefer pink, there's nothing wrong with you or your behaviour. Obviously gender identity is much more complex than that. But in any case being "unhappy" and "dissatisfied" affect negatively the psyche, but they are neither "disorders" nor "wrong behaviours"

[Del Tachi]

One aspect that I haven't seen raised, is that there are findings that in some trans persons the biological brain doesn't match the sexual phenotype of the body. The studies are more compelling in the case of FtM and less so in MtF. As our ability to discern the affected brain structures improves with technology, then it seems that some trans diagnoses can move out of the purely psychological or sociological and into physical medical science.

Some of the stigma associated with the choice of label comes from their use for mental conditions as opposed to physical conditions. It would be great if mental conditions were treated by society in the same way as physical conditions, but that may be a long time off. In the short term, I would hope that the stigma due to label association would diminish as more trans cases look like straightforward physical medical conditions.

Using brain scans to "diagnose" something as personal and subjective as someone's gender is downright terrifying.  Reducing gender identity to a straightforward, biological explanation would be a huge step backward for LGBT people and everyone else.   

Putting that aside, my understanding is that the early evidence used to suggest the "developmental mismatch theory" relied on studying the dead brain tissues of older individuals.  I don't think there's any evidence that these (limited, not universal) differences in brain structure exist in utero or in young children, which means they could be the result of developmental or environmental changes later in life.       

[muon2]

One aspect that I haven't seen raised, is that there are findings that in some trans persons the biological brain doesn't match the sexual phenotype of the body. The studies are more compelling in the case of FtM and less so in MtF. As our ability to discern the affected brain structures improves with technology, then it seems that some trans diagnoses can move out of the purely psychological or sociological and into physical medical science.

Some of the stigma associated with the choice of label comes from their use for mental conditions as opposed to physical conditions. It would be great if mental conditions were treated by society in the same way as physical conditions, but that may be a long time off. In the short term, I would hope that the stigma due to label association would diminish as more trans cases look like straightforward physical medical conditions.

Using brain scans to "diagnose" something as personal and subjective as someone's gender is downright terrifying.  Reducing gender identity to a straightforward, biological explanation would be a huge step backward for LGBT people and everyone else.   

Putting that aside, my understanding is that the early evidence used to suggest the "developmental mismatch theory" relied on studying the dead brain tissues of older individuals.  I don't think there's any evidence that these (limited, not universal) differences in brain structure exist in utero or in young children, which means they could be the result of developmental or environmental changes later in life.       

There were cadaver studies late last century. Since then there have been a number of MRI and SPECT studies comparing brain structures and brain blood flow on living humans. This century has also seen gene-linked identical/fraternal twin studies and hormone receptor response studies. Most of the studies are small, but they consistently point to biological differences in some of the trans population.

I don't suggest that these techniques would identify one's gender as an absolute. But for some transgender individuals medical techniques may be able to provide a biological explanation for their gender. I think having biological evidence to augment psychology could be helpful for some, and one shouldn't be compelled to take a test if it wouldn't be helpful.