Content uploaded by Simon Pickstone-Taylor
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Simon Pickstone-Taylor on Apr 23, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
Comment
www.thelancet.com/child-adolescent Published online August 19, 2019 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/PII
1
The 11th edition of WHO’s International Classification
of Diseases (ICD-11), approved by the World Health
Assembly in May, 2019, incorporates a number of
changes relevant to children and adolescents, including
those in regard to their sexual and gender development.
Endorsed in 1990, ICD-10 contained several
psychological and behavioural disorders associated
with sexual development and orientation. Some
disorders appeared to target youth who are attracted to
individuals of the same sex and were out of step with
our contemporary understanding of young people’s
sexuality. Examples of these diagnoses included
egodystonic sexual orientation for individuals distressed
about their sexual orientation, and sexual maturation
disorder for individuals distressed about being uncertain
regarding their sexual orientation. It has been argued by
Cochran and colleagues1 that these diagnoses, which had
long survived the removal of homosexuality from ICD
in the early 1990s, effectively pathologised same-sex
attraction. The criticism seems fair. All things considered,
it is improbable in the heteronormative world where
we live that many people would be distressed by the
knowledge, or indeed the possibility, that they might
be heterosexual. Rather, it would be those experiencing
feelings of same-sex attraction who might be distressed.
ICD-11 finally consigns these diagnoses to history. Few
people regret their passing.
WHO’s decision to relocate gender incongruence of
adolescence or adulthood (ie, after puberty onset)—
transsexualism diagnosis in ICD-10, previously classified
as a mental disorder—to a new chapter on sexual
health has been widely welcomed by health providers
in the field, as well as the communities they serve. The
relocation is evidence of substantial progress made in
the past decades in our understanding of transgender
people’s identity and experiences.2
However, gender incongruence of childhood, the ICD-11
diagnosis used with gender-diverse children who have not
yet reached puberty, has proved far more controversial.
A wide range of health-care providers, researchers, and
representatives of the transgender community and their
organisations have voiced misgivings about the diagnosis,
through academic papers,3,4 position statements, a
civil society expert group report, and an international
petition (the Berlin Statement). This statement was
signed, in 2016, by over 200 clinicians and scholars who
collectively have more than 2000 years of experience
in transgender health. Overall, opinions of health-care
professionals working in transgender health are divided
on the diagnosis, as shown by a membership survey
of the World Professional Association for Transgender
Health, published in 2016.5 Meanwhile, the European
Parliament in 2015 expressed its clear opposition to the
gender incongruence of childhood. The concern that the
diagnosis is inappropriate, unnecessary, and harmful,
and that it should be removed from ICD-11 altogether
is evident. As ICD-11 enters its implementation phase,
we highlight some of the arguments for the removal of
gender incongruence of childhood from the manual.
The diagnosis pathologises the experiences of young
children who are merely exploring their experience
of gender, incorporating a gender identity into a
broader sense of who they are, learning to express that
identity, and managing any associated stigma. These
young children do not need puberty suppressants,
masculinising or feminising hormones, or surgery.
Rather, they need a safe emotional space with the
freedom to explore, embrace, and express their gender
identity.6,7 For some children, this process requires
social transition; a child-led change in their expressed
gender identity through adoption of a preferred
name and pronouns, as well as clothing and hairstyle,
consistent with their gender identity. Ensuring that
families, caregivers, and educational providers both
understand and support the child’s gender experience
is paramount in facilitating transition and minimising
negative experiences (such as bullying or social
exclusion). Research and clinical experience show that
social transition in affirming, supportive home and
school environments leads to positive outcomes, with
no signs of clinical pathology.6,7 Not all young children
will be so fortunate as to have the support they need.
However, we suggest that the application of a clinical
diagnosis would only add to their gender-minority
stress and parental or social rejection, signalling to the
social environment the misconception that something
ICD-11 and gender incongruence of childhood: a rethink is
needed
Lancet Child Adolesc Health 2019
Published Online
August 19, 2019
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/PII
For more on the joint statement
on ICD-11 process for trans and
gender-diverse people see
https://transactivists.org/icd-11-
trans-process/
For more on the civil society
expert group report on ICD-11
see https://transactivists.org/
critique-and-alternative-
proposal-to-the-gender-
incongruence-of-childhood-
category-in-icd-11/
For more on the Berlin
Statement see https://
transpolicyreform.wordpress.
com/2019/07/22/the-2016-
berlin-statement-on-childhood-
gender-incongruence-diagnosis-
an-archive-copy/?fbclid=IwAR2k
SrG12hOzOJRAUphILPtjmT3tyn
FMaqavwGapHBErNYdUpLS1Rb
A7Oa0
For more on the European
Parliament position see http://
www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/
document/A-8–2015–0230_
EN.html
iStock/Ridofranz
Doctopic: Analysis and Interpretation
THELANCETCHILDADOL-D-19-00381
[PII_REPLACE]
Embargo: August 19, 2019—23:30 (BST)
Comment
2
www.thelancet.com/child-adolescent Published online August 19, 2019 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/PII
is wrong with them.8,9
There is an inconsistency in the different diagnostic
approaches WHO has taken in regard to young people’s
sexual orientation compared with young children’s gender
diversity. The ICD-10 diagnoses of sexual maturation
disorder and egodystonic sexual orientation pathologised
individuals exploring a same-sex attraction, who are
learning to embrace and express a same-sex attracted
identity, as well as coping with associated stigma. To its
credit, WHO took the view that such diagnoses should
be removed entirely from the diagnostic manual, with
counselling support provided (when sought on the
basis of sexual orientation) through non-pathologising
codes in ICD-11 chapter 24, Factors influencing health
status or contact with health services.10 Many such non-
pathologising codes exist. Among the more relevant
would be codes for people experiencing social rejection
and exclusion, or discrimination. Non-pathologising
codes could also be used to document services for gender-
diverse children who have not yet reached puberty. Sadly,
WHO chose not to take this approach, opting instead to
pathologise these children’s diversity.
A call to action published in The Lancet in 2016 urged
WHO to reconsider what was then its proposal for
gender incongruence of childhood.11 As professionals
working in transgender health, in various settings, and
from each continent, we write to express our most
sincere hope—shared by many health-care providers,
researchers, and community organisations globally—
that in the coming months and years, as ICD-11 content
is reviewed, WHO does indeed revisit this deeply
problematic diagnosis.
*Sam Winter, Diane Ehrensaft, Michelle Telfer, Guy T’Sjoen,
Jun Koh, Simon Pickstone-Taylor, Alicia Kruger, Lisa Griffin,
Maya Foigel, Griet De Cuypere, Dan Karasic
School of Public Health, Curtin University, Perth, WA 6102,
Australia (SW); Child and Adolescent Gender Center (DE),
Department of Pediatrics (DE), and Department of Psychiatry
(DK), University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA,
USA; Department of Adolescent Medicine, The Royal Children’s
Hospital Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia (MT); Center for
Sexology and Gender, and Department of Endocrinology, Ghent
University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium (GT’S); Department of
Neuropsychiatry, Osaka Medical College, Osaka, Japan ( JK);
Division of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, University of Cape
Town, South Africa (SP-T); Department of Sexually Transmitted
Infections, HIV/AIDS and Viral Hepatitis, Brazil Ministry of Health,
São Paulo, Brazil (AK); Brazilian Professional Association for
Transgender Health, São Paulo, Brazil (AK); Pride Inside,
Richmond, VA, USA (LG); US Professional Association for
Transgender Health, East Dundee, IL, USA (LG); Psychology
Institute, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil (MF); and
Gender Team Ghent, University of Ghent, Belgium (GDC)
sam.winter@curtin.edu.au
SW was a member of the WHO Working Group on Sexual Disorders and Sexual
Health, has received travel and accommodation expenses as a speaker or
participant at meetings on ICD reform, and is a former member of the Board
of the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH). GT’S
is President of the European Professional Association for Transgender Health
(EPATH), is a co-editor for the International Journal of Transgenderism and the
Journal of Sexual Medicine, is on an Advisory Board for Ferring and Novartis,
and has received grants from Bayer, Ipsen, and Sandoz. GDC is a former
member of the Board of the WPATH and is a member of the Board of the
EPATH. All other authors declare no competing interests.
1 Cochran S, Drescher J, Kismödi E, et al. Proposed declassification of disease
categories related to sexual orientation in the International Statistical
Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD-11).
Bull World Health Organ 2014; 92: 672–79.
2 Drescher J, Cohen-Kettenis P, Winter S. Minding the body: situating gender
identity diagnoses in the ICD-11. Int Rev Psychiatry 2012; 24: 568–77.
3 Winter S, Ehrensaft D, Pickstone-Taylor S, De Cuypere G, Tando D.
The psycho-medical case against a gender incongruence of childhood
diagnosis. Lancet Psychiatry 2016; 3: 404–05.
4 Cabral M, Suess A, Ehrt J, Sehoole T, Wong J. Removal of gender
incongruence of childhood diagnostic category: a human rights
perspective. Lancet Psychiatry 2016; 3: 405–06.
5 Winter S, De Cuypere G, Green J, Kane R, Knudson G. The proposed ICD-11
gender incongruence of childhood diagnosis: a World Professional
Association for Transgender Health membership survey. Arch Sex Behav
2016; 45: 1605–14.
6 Olson KR, Durwood L, Demeules M, McLaughlin KA. Mental health of
transgender children who are supported in their identities. Pediatrics 2016;
137: 1–8.
7 Ehrensaft D, Giammattei S, Storck K, Tishelman A, Keo-Meier C. Prepubertal
social gender transitions: what we know; what we can learn—a view from a
gender affirmative lens. Int J Transgend 2018; 19: 251–68.
8 Cabral M, Suess A, Ehrt J, Seehole TJ, Wong J. Removal of a gender
incongruence of childhood diagnostic category: a human rights
perspective. Lancet Psychiatry 2016; 3: 405–06.
9 Suess Schwend A, Winter S, Chiam Z, Smiley A, Cabral M. Depathologising
gender diversity in childhood in the process of ICD revision and reform.
Glob Public Health 2018; 13: 1585–98.
10 Winter S. Gender trouble: the World Health Organization, the International
Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD)-11
and the trans kids. Sex Health 2017; 14: 423–30.
11 Winter S, Settle E, Wylie K, et al. Synergies in health and human rights:
a call to action to improve transgender health. Lancet 2016; 388: 318–21.