A New Theory of Gender Dysphoria Incorporating the Distress, Social Behavioral, and Body-Ownership Networks

Sex versus gender associations with brain structure

In contrast to sex (a biological distinction), little is known about the associations between gender (a societal construct) and brain structure in the general population. In response to this knowledge gap, we examined the associations of sex vs. gender with FreeSurfer-generated cortical thickness and proportion-adjusted subcortical brain volume regions-of-interest (ROIs) in healthy adults (n = 88) screened for general medical conditions, mental illness, substance abuse, and intracranial pathologies. Gender role endorsement was assessed using the well-established and validated Bem Sex Role Inventory. For our main objectives, we calculated a continuum score as a composite measure of gender. For our secondary objectives, we examined sex-specific associations of the masculine vs. feminine gender role endorsement domains with brain structural outcomes. We found that female sex, independent of continuum scores, was associated with larger proportion-adjusted volumes for the basal ganglia, hippocampus, and ventral diencephalon. Higher continuum scores, independent of sex, were associated with thicker cortical thickness for the left and right superior frontal cortex, caudal and rostral middle frontal cortex, and right pars orbitalis. Female sex and higher continuum scores were independently associated with larger corpus callosum volumes. Post-hoc testing showed sex-specific associations between higher femininity scores and thicker prefrontal cortical thickness for the ROIs in females, but not in males. In conclusion, sex and gender showed semi-independent associations with brain structure in a general population sample. Our research supports the disaggregation of sex and gender to provide a more nuanced perspective on brain structural differences between men and women.

Attachment Patterns in Children and Adolescents With Gender Dysphoria

The current study examines patterns of attachment/self-protective strategies and rates of unresolved loss/trauma in children and adolescents presenting to a multidisciplinary gender service. Fifty-seven children and adolescents (8.42–15.92 years; 24 birth-assigned males and 33 birth-assigned females) presenting with gender dysphoria participated in structured attachment interviews coded using dynamic-maturational model (DMM) discourse analysis. The children with gender dysphoria were compared to age- and sex-matched children from the community (non-clinical group) and a group of school-age children with mixed psychiatric disorders (mixed psychiatric group). Information about adverse childhood experiences (ACEs), mental health diagnoses, and global level of functioning was also collected. In contrast to children in the non-clinical group, who were classified primarily into the normative attachment patterns (A1-2, B1-5, and C1-2) and who had low rates of unresolved loss/trauma, children with gender dysphoria were mostly classified into the high-risk attachment patterns (A3-4, A5-6, C3-4, C5-6, and A/C) (χ² = 52.66; p < 0.001) and had a high rate of unresolved loss/trauma (χ² = 18.64; p < 0.001). Comorbid psychiatric diagnoses (n = 50; 87.7%) and a history of self-harm, suicidal ideation, or symptoms of distress were also common. Global level of functioning was impaired (range 25–95/100; mean = 54.88; SD = 15.40; median = 55.00). There were no differences between children with gender dysphoria and children with mixed psychiatric disorders on attachment patterns (χ² = 2.43; p = 0.30) and rates of unresolved loss and trauma (χ² = 0.70; p = 0.40). Post hoc analyses showed that lower SES, family constellation (a non-traditional family unit), ACEs—including maltreatment (physical abuse, sexual abuse, emotional abuse, neglect, and exposure to domestic violence)—increased the likelihood of the child being classified into a high risk attachment pattern. Akin to children with other forms of psychological distress, children with gender dysphoria present in the context of multiple interacting risk factors that include at-risk attachment, unresolved loss/trauma, family conflict and loss of family cohesion, and exposure to multiple ACEs.