↓ Skip to main content

From Mental Disorder to Iatrogenic Hypogonadism: Dilemmas in Conceptualizing Gender Identity Variants as Psychiatric Conditions

Overview of attention for article published in Archives of Sexual Behavior, October 2009
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
16 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
106 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
198 Mendeley
Title
From Mental Disorder to Iatrogenic Hypogonadism: Dilemmas in Conceptualizing Gender Identity Variants as Psychiatric Conditions
Published in
Archives of Sexual Behavior, October 2009
DOI 10.1007/s10508-009-9532-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Heino F. L. Meyer-Bahlburg

Abstract

The categorization of gender identity variants (GIVs) as "mental disorders" in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) of the American Psychiatric Association is highly controversial among professionals as well as among persons with GIV. After providing a brief history of GIV categorizations in the DSM, this paper presents some of the major issues of the ongoing debate: GIV as psychopathology versus natural variation; definition of "impairment" and "distress" for GID; associated psychopathology and its relation to stigma; the stigma impact of the mental-disorder label itself; the unusual character of "sex reassignment surgery" as a psychiatric treatment; and the consequences for health and mental-health services if the disorder label is removed. Finally, several categorization options are examined: Retaining the GID category, but possibly modifying its grouping with other syndromes; narrowing the definition to dysphoria and taking "disorder" out of the label; categorizing GID as a neurological or medical rather than a psychiatric disorder; removing GID from both the DSM and the International Classification of Diseases (ICD); and creating a special category for GIV in the DSM. I conclude that-as also evident in other DSM categories-the decision on the categorization of GIVs cannot be achieved on a purely scientific basis, and that a consensus for a pragmatic compromise needs to be arrived at that accommodates both scientific considerations and the service needs of persons with GIVs.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 198 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 5 3%
Canada 2 1%
Sweden 2 1%
Belgium 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Korea, Republic of 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Unknown 185 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 37 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 34 17%
Student > Master 30 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 27 14%
Researcher 21 11%
Other 40 20%
Unknown 9 5%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 85 43%
Medicine and Dentistry 32 16%
Social Sciences 30 15%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 4%
Arts and Humanities 7 4%
Other 18 9%
Unknown 18 9%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 May 2019.
All research outputs
#1,335,489
of 14,347,706 outputs
Outputs from Archives of Sexual Behavior
#720
of 2,602 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#28,953
of 282,110 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Archives of Sexual Behavior
#18
of 45 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,347,706 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,602 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 23.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 282,110 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 45 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its contemporaries.