Also written: GID
| Source | Year | Position |
|---|---|---|
| DC Fiscal Policy Institute | 2017 | Avoid |
| Diversity Style Guide | 2023 | Avoid |
| Movement Strategy Center | 2024 | Avoid |
| Trans Journalists Association | 2026 | Avoid |
“Avoid … Gender Identity Disorder … Gender Affirmation …”
DCFPI places "Gender Identity Disorder" in its avoid column, pairing it (alongside "Sex change") with "gender affirmation" / "sex reassignment surgery" / "gender confirmation surgery" as the language to use instead.
“Outdated, avoid. See gender dysphoria.”
The Diversity Style Guide's dedicated entry is a one-line redirect: the term is dated; avoid it and see "gender dysphoria." Its "transgender" entry adds the chronology — the 2013 DSM-5 replaced the Gender Identity Disorder entry with Gender Dysphoria and revised the diagnostic criteria.
“Gender Identity Disorder … Sex Change … Gender affirmation”
Movement Strategy Center's gender/sex avoid-table pairs "Gender Identity Disorder" and "Sex Change" together in the avoid column, directing writers to "gender affirmation" instead.
“This is an outdated term. *Gender identity disorder* used to be the official psychiatric diagnosis from the American Psychological Association for trans people seeking transgender medical care in the U.S. In 2012, it was changed to *gender dysphoria* …”
TJA's distinctive point is the gatekeeping history — the diagnosis was a precondition trans people had to clear to access care, not a neutral label. It dates the switch to gender dysphoria to 2012 (the DSM-5's finalization), where the Diversity Style Guide cites the 2013 publication; both mark the same revision cycle.
The four sources are unanimous: “Gender Identity Disorder” is a dated clinical term to avoid, superseded by “gender dysphoria.” None of the corpus treats it as live usage. DCFPI and Movement Strategy Center both file it in an explicit avoid-this/use-this table; the Diversity Style Guide’s dedicated entry is a one-line redirect (“Outdated, avoid. See gender dysphoria.”); and the Trans Journalists Association labels it outdated and explains why. The consensus tracks a real change in the diagnostic manuals, and the sources point writers toward the same replacements.
Where they diverge is small. The two avoid-tables (DCFPI, Movement Strategy Center) pair “Gender Identity Disorder” with “Sex Change” and send both to “gender affirmation,” folding the diagnosis and the surgical language into a single affirmative frame. The journalism-facing sources (DSG, TJA) keep the diagnostic lineage in view: they want writers to reach for “gender dysphoria” specifically when a diagnosis is meant, and “gender-affirming care” when treatment is meant. The Diversity Style Guide goes furthest, noting that whether a psychiatric diagnosis should be required at all remains contested even as its existence enables insurance coverage.
On chronology, the sources split on a year. The Diversity Style Guide ties the change to the DSM-5, released by the American Psychiatric Association in 2013, which replaced the “Gender Identity Disorder” entry with “Gender Dysphoria.” The TJA dates the change to 2012. Both refer to the same DSM-5 revision cycle (the manual was finalized in 2012 and published in May 2013); the term itself dates to earlier editions. The practical takeaway is stable across the gap: since the DSM-5, “gender dysphoria” is the current diagnostic term and “Gender Identity Disorder” survives only in historical or quoted reference.
See the structured audience notes above: journalists should reserve the term for historical reference and use “gender dysphoria” / “gender-affirming care” for current diagnosis and treatment; advocates should follow the sources’ affirmative replacements and lead with self-identification; and clinical/internal contexts should treat the diagnosis as a coverage mechanism rather than a description of the person.