4.4 Review

How gender dysphoria and incongruence became medical diagnoses - historical review

Journal

DIALOGUES IN CLINICAL NEUROSCIENCE
Volume 23, Issue 1, Pages 44-51

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/19585969.2022.2042166

Keywords

Gender dysphoria; gender incongruence; transgender

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This article traces the historical evolution of medical and psychiatric diagnoses related to transgender individuals. From ancient Greek and Roman writings to the development of medical classifications in the nineteenth century, the understanding of transgender people has evolved over time. The distinction between sexual orientation and gender diagnosis started to emerge in the early 1900s and continued to evolve until the modern era.
This article is a historical review of the medical and psychiatric diagnoses associated with transgender people across epochs. Ancient Greek and Roman writings already mention gender change. Before a diagnosis even existed, historical documents described the lives of numerous people whom we would consider transgender today. The development of medical classifications took off in the nineteenth century, driven by the blooming of natural sciences. In the nineteenth century, most authors conflated questions of sexual orientation and gender. For example, the psychiatrist Krafft-Ebing reported cases of transgender people but understood them as paranoia, or as the extreme degree of severity in a dimension of sexual inversion. In the early 1900s, doctors such as Magnus Hirschfeld first distinguished homosexual and transgender behaviour. The usual term for transgender people was transvestite, before Harry Benjamin generalised the term transsexual in the mid-20th century. The term transgender became common in the 1970s. This article details the evolution of diagnoses for transgender people from DSM-III and ICD-10 to DSM-5 and ICD-11.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available