GID Prevalence Controversy

[Jim Beaux]

Leaving to one side the debate about whether the terminology gender identity disorder (GID) is accurate or reasonable, there is a separate argument over the prevalence of GID i.e. the number of people who have GID.

Experts within the field are disagreeing by a factor of 10 to 20, or more.

At one end these differences place GID as a rare occurrence. At the other extreme, it becomes common enough to classify it as simply a natural variation. The medical treatment of GID could be radically different depending on which prevalence of GID is assumed to be correct.

The prevalence of GID affects various knock on areas.

A simple one is the ratio of SRS to GID. What proportion of transsexuals get SRS?

SRS to GID seems academic, but it is core to providing overall healthcare estimates. For countries such as the US, this approach allows insurers to determine how much extra should be added to healthcare insurance policies if cover re GID is to be included. NB San Francisco has already taken this step for city employees, so it has already carried out an evaluation of the additional cost per policy.

Since the differences on GID prevalence appear to be major and critical, I will try to add further posts in this thread that accurately reflect the protagonists views.

[Jim Beaux]

Lynn Conway wrote an open letter to the president of the American Psychological Association (APA) on 5 Sep 08. This followed a report that had been issued by the APA entitled 'Report of The Task Force on Gender Identity and Gender Variaton'.

The task force announced the prevalence of GID to be 1:11,900 mtf and 1:30,400 ftm.

Conway asserted that this was an under-estimate by a factor of 10-20.

Conway's summary of the alleged errors made by the Task Force
- figures were taken from Dutch SRS numbers of the 1980s, not GID numbers
- internal errors in the Dutch report made figures too small by a factor of 4
- recent studies showed GID prevalence to be of the order of 1:1000 or 1:500.

Conway then suggests that the source of the prevalence figures selected by the Task Force is Ken Zucker and Ann Lawrence. Conway asserts that Zucker and Lawrence are WPATH's experts on prevalence, with responsibility for that part of the forthcoming revision of the Standards of Care (SOC), and that Zucker had presented these figures at WPATH 2007 Symposium.

Olyslager and Conway warned at WPATH 2007 that Zucker's presentation was inaccurate.

Conway asserts that if the GID rate is 1 in 500 people will be inclined to see it as natural variation, and suggests that at 1:10,000 it 'permits tran-reparist therapists such as Zucker ... (to suggest) all the child needs is minor gender-repairs to avoid that 'bad outcome' '.

Full letter at http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TS/Prevalence/APA/APA%20Letter%209-05-08.html

[Ecstatic]

Elsewhere on the forum, perhaps a couple of years back, I commented extensively on this (I'll try to find the link later). You're right, the estimates of incidence per capita of GID range widely, from as low as 1:50 to as high as 1:30,000. Personally, I think the range of 1:300 - 1:1000 more typical, with variation allowing for cultural differences (i.e., higher incidence in Thai culture than in Arab culture), though whether there is an innate ratio native to homo sapiens which is either extenuated or repressed by cultural norms is more difficult to assess.