53

The turning point in the classification history of gender incongruence occurred with ICD-11 (WHO, 2018) and DSM-5 (APA, 2013) classifications, which respectively introduced diagnostic categories of “Gender Incongruence” and “Gender Dysphoria.” However, adopting a new and universal standard category for gender dysphoria diagnosis does not resolve the issue of finding an appropriate epidemiological means of estimating the prevalence of the condition. The first task for researchers in this field is to decide whom to consider under the label “trans,” and by what means. Indeed, trans people are a very diverse group (Winter et al., 2016). According to Thompson and King (2015), the conceptual basis of epidemiological studies is intrinsically wrong; therefore, while the aim of research in the field is to promote health and welfare, the means by which trans people are identified actually perpetuates the problem of stigma and inequality in access to healthcare services (Thompson and King, 2015). Trans people face many structural barriers to accessing gender-affirming care, including lack of insurance, coverage exclusions, and coverage denials. Moreover, they usually avoid seeking care out of fear of discrimination. Reisner et al. (2015) propose eight recommendations following the GenIUSS Group model, to guide inclusive sex and gender adult population-based research (Table 3; GenIUSS Group, 2014). Indeed, if epidemiologic research allowed us to precisely identify trans people, it would also be possible to detect conditions more frequently associated with gender incongruence, thereby allowing more specific interventions aimed at improving trans people’s quality of life. Standardized terminology in recognizing trans people could perhaps lead to less discriminatory stigmatization and labelling.