text:
Gender dysphoria

Gender dysphoria (GD) is the distress a person experiences due to a mismatch between their gender identitytheir personal sense of their own genderand their sex assigned at birth. The term replaced the previous diagnostic label of gender identity disorder (GID) in 2013 with the release of the diagnostic manual DSM-5. The condition was renamed to remove the stigma associated with the term disorder.

People with gender dysphoria commonly identify as transgender. Gender nonconformity is not the same thing as gender dysphoria and does not always lead to dysphoria or distress.

The causes of gender incongruence are unknown but a gender identity likely reflects genetic, biological, environmental, and cultural factors. Diagnosis can be given at any age, although gender dysphoria in children and adolescents may manifest differently than in adults. Complications may include anxiety, depression, and eating disorders. Treatment for gender dysphoria includes social transitioning and often includes hormone replacement therapy (HRT) and/or gender-affirming surgeries, and psychotherapy.

Some researchers and transgender people argue for the declassification of the condition because they say the diagnosis pathologizes gender variance and reinforces the binary model of gender. However, this declassification could carry implications for healthcare accessibility, as HRT and gender-affirming surgery could be deemed cosmetic by insurance providers, as opposed to medically necessary treatment, thereby affecting coverage.

Signs and symptoms
Distress arising from an incongruence between a person's felt gender and assigned sex/gender (usually at birth) is the cardinal symptom of gender dysphoria.

No particular sexual orientation indicates gender dysphoria. A 2021 review in Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience found no relation to sexual orientation, but acknowledged that historically the two were often erroneously conflated. The British National Health Service also stated "gender dysphoria is not related to sexual orientation".

Gender dysphoria in those assigned male at birth (AMAB) tends to follow one of two broad trajectories: early-onset or late-onset. Early-onset gender dysphoria is behaviorally visible in childhood but may temporarily subside, leading the person to identify as gay or homosexual for a period of time, followed by recurrence of gender dysphoria. A 2016 review in the Archives of Sexual Behavior states this group is usually sexually attracted to members of their natal sex in adulthood, commonly identifying as heterosexual. Late-onset gender dysphoria does not include visible signs in early childhood, but some report having had wishes to be the opposite sex in childhood that they did not report to others. Likewise, according to the review, transgender people assigned male at birth who experience late-onset gender dysphoria will usually be attracted to women and may identify as lesbians or bisexual, while those with early-onset will usually be attracted to men. The review states a similar pattern occurs in those assigned female at birth (AFAB), with those experiencing early-onset GD being most likely to be attracted to women and those with late-onset being most likely to be attracted to men and identify as gay.

Symptoms of GD in children include preferences for opposite sex-typical toys, games, activities, or playmates as well as a great dislike of their own genitalia. Some children may also experience social isolation from their peers, anxiety, loneliness, and depression. In adolescents and adults, symptoms include the desire to be and to be treated as a different gender. Adults with GD are at increased risk for stress, isolation, anxiety, depression, poor self-esteem, and suicide. Transgender people are also at heightened risk for eating disorders and substance abuse. According to the American Psychiatric Association, those who experience gender dysphoria later in life "often report having secretly hidden their gender dysphoric feelings from others when they were younger".

Causes
The specific causes of gender dysphoria remain unknown, and treatments targeting the etiology or pathogenesis of gender dysphoria do not exist. Evidence from studies of twins suggests that genetic factors play a role in the development of gender dysphoria. Gender identity is thought to likely reflect a complex interplay of biological, environmental, and cultural factors. Neurobiological basis of GD has been proven by the "distinct gray matter volume and brain activation and connectivity differences" in people with GD when compared to controls; and this "leads to the concept of brain gender".

DSM-5
The American Psychiatric Association permits a diagnosis of gender dysphoria in adolescents or adults if two or more of the following criteria are experienced for at least six months' duration:

In addition, the condition must be associated with clinically significant distress or impairment.
 * A strong desire to be of a gender other than one's assigned gender
 * A strong desire to be treated as a gender other than one's assigned gender
 * A significant incongruence between one's experienced or expressed gender and one's sexual characteristics
 * A strong desire for the sexual characteristics of a gender other than one's assigned gender
 * A strong desire to be rid of one's sexual characteristics due to incongruence with one's experienced or expressed gender
 * A strong conviction that one has the typical reactions and feelings of a gender other than one's assigned gender

The DSM-5 moved this diagnosis out of the sexual disorders category and into a category of its own. The diagnosis was renamed from gender identity disorder to gender dysphoria, after criticisms that the former term was stigmatizing. Subtyping by sexual orientation was deleted. The diagnosis for children was separated from that for adults, as "gender dysphoria in children". The creation of a specific diagnosis for children reflects the lesser ability of children to have insight into what they are experiencing, or ability to express it if they have insight. Other specified gender dysphoria or unspecified gender dysphoria can be diagnosed if a person does not meet the criteria for gender dysphoria but still has clinically significant distress or impairment. Intersex people are no longer excluded from the diagnosis of GD.

ICD-11
The International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11) lists 3 conditions related to gender identity:
 * Gender incongruence of adolescence or adulthood
 * Gender incongruence of childhood
 * Gender incongruence, unspecified

ICD-11 defines gender incongruence as "a marked and persistent incongruence between an individual's experienced gender and the assigned sex", with no requirement for significant distress or impairment.

Treatment
Treatment for a person diagnosed with GD may include psychological counseling, supporting the individual's gender expression, or may involve physical transition resulting from medical interventions such as hormonal treatment, genital surgery, electrolysis or laser hair removal, chest/breast surgery, or other reconstructive surgeries. The goal of treatment may simply be to reduce problems resulting from the person's transgender status, for example, counseling the patient in order to reduce guilt associated with cross-dressing.

Guidelines have been established to aid clinicians. The World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) Standards of Care are used by some clinicians as treatment guidelines. Others use guidelines outlined in Gianna Israel and Donald Tarver's Transgender Care. Guidelines for treatment generally follow a "harm reduction" model.

Children
Medical, scientific, and governmental organizations have opposed conversion therapy, defined as treatment viewing gender nonconformity as pathological and something to be changed, instead supporting approaches that affirm children's diverse gender identities. People are more likely to keep having gender dysphoria the more intense their gender dysphoria, cross-gendered behavior, and verbal identification with the desired/experienced gender are (i.e. stating that they are a different gender rather than wish to be a different gender).

Professionals who treat gender dysphoria in children sometimes prescribe puberty blockers to delay the onset of puberty until a child is believed to be old enough to make an informed decision on whether hormonal or surgical gender reassignment is in their best interest. Short-term side effects of puberty blockers include headaches, fatigue, insomnia, muscle aches and changes in breast tissue, mood, and weight. Research on the long-term effects on brain development, cognitive function, fertility, and sexual function is limited.

A review published in Child and Adolescent Mental Health found that puberty blockers are reversible, and that they are associated with such positive outcomes as decreased suicidality in adulthood, improved affect and psychological functioning, and improved social life.

According to the American Psychiatric Association, "Due to the dynamic nature of puberty development, lack of gender-affirming interventions (i.e. social, psychological, and medical) is not a neutral decision; youth often experience worsening dysphoria and negative impact on mental health as the incongruent and unwanted puberty progresses. Trans-affirming treatment, such as the use of puberty suppression, is associated with the relief of emotional distress, and notable gains in psychosocial and emotional development, in trans and gender diverse youth".

In its position statement published December 2020, the Endocrine Society stated that there is durable evidence for a biological underpinning to gender identity and that pubertal suppression, hormone therapy, and medically indicated surgery are effective and relatively safe when monitored appropriately and have been established as the standard of care. They noted a decrease in suicidal ideation among youth who have access to gender-affirming care and comparable levels of depression to cisgender peers among socially transitioned pre-pubertal youth. In its 2017 guideline on treating those with gender dysphoria, it recommends puberty blockers be started when the child has started puberty (Tanner Stage 2 for breast or genital development) and cross-sex hormones be started at 16, though they note "there may be compelling reasons to initiate sex hormone treatment prior to the age of 16 years in some adolescents with GD/gender incongruence". They recommend a multidisciplinary team of medical and mental health professionals manage the treatment for those under 18 and recommend "monitoring clinical pubertal development every 3 to 6 months and laboratory parameters every 6 to 12 months during sex hormone treatment".

The World Professional Association for Transgender Health's Standards of Care 8, published in 2022, declare puberty blocking medication as "medically necessary", and recommends them for usage in transgender adolescents once the patient has reached Tanner stage 2 of development, and state that longitudinal data shows improved outcomes for transgender patients who receive them. Some medical professionals disagree that adolescents are cognitively mature enough to make a decision with regard to hormone therapy or surgery, and advise that irreversible genital procedures should not be performed on individuals under the age of legal consent in their respective country.

A review commissioned by the UK Department of Health found that there was very low certainty of quality of evidence about puberty blocker outcomes in terms of mental health, quality of life and impact on gender dysphoria. The Finnish government commissioned a review of the research evidence for treatment of minors and the Finnish Ministry of Health concluded that there are no research-based health care methods for minors with gender dysphoria. Nevertheless, they recommend the use of puberty blockers for minors on a case-by-case basis, and the American Academy of Pediatrics state that "pubertal suppression in children who identify as TGD [transgender and gender diverse] generally leads to improved psychological functioning in adolescence and young adulthood."

In the United States, several states have introduced or are considering legislation that would prohibit the use of puberty blockers in the treatment of transgender children. The American Medical Association, the Endocrine Society, the American Psychological Association, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and the American Academy of Pediatrics oppose bans on puberty blockers for transgender children. In the UK, in the case of Bell v Tavistock, an appeal court, overturning the original decision, ruled that children under 16 could give consent to receiving puberty blockers. In 2022, the National Board of Health and Welfare in Sweden issued new guidelines recommending that puberty blockers only be given in "exceptional cases" and said that their use was grounded in "uncertain science." Instead, they recommended child psychiatric treatment, psychosocial interventions, and suicide prevention measures to be offered by clinicians.

Psychological treatments
Until the 1970s, psychotherapy was the primary treatment for gender dysphoria and generally was directed to helping the person adjust to their assigned sex. Psychotherapy is any therapeutic interaction that aims to treat a psychological problem. Psychotherapy may be used in addition to biological interventions, although some clinicians use only psychotherapy to treat gender dysphoria. Psychotherapeutic treatment of GD involves helping the patient to adapt to their gender incongruence or to explorative investigation of confounding co-occurring  mental health issues. Attempts to alleviate GD by changing the patient's gender identity to reflect assigned sex have been ineffective and are regarded as conversion therapy by most health organizations.

Biological treatments
Biological treatments physically alter primary and secondary sex characteristics to reduce the discrepancy between an individual's physical body and gender identity. Biological treatments for GD are typically undertaken in conjunction with psychotherapy; however, the WPATH Standards of Care state that psychotherapy should not be an absolute requirement for biological treatments.

Hormonal treatments have been shown to reduce a number of symptoms of psychiatric distress associated with gender dysphoria. A WPATH commissioned systematic review of the outcomes of hormone therapy "found evidence that gender-affirming hormone therapy may be associated with improvements in [quality of life] scores and decreases in depression and anxiety symptoms among transgender people." The strength of the evidence was low due to methodological limitations of the studies undertaken. Some literature suggests that gender-affirming surgery is associated with improvements in quality of life and decreased incidence of depression. Those who choose to undergo sex reassignment surgery report high satisfaction rates with the outcome, though these studies have limitations including risk of bias (lack of randomization, lack of controlled studies, self-reported outcomes) and high loss to follow up.

For adolescents, much is unknown, including persistence. Disagreement among practitioners regarding treatment of adolescents is in part due to the lack of long-term data. Young people qualifying for biomedical treatment according to the Dutch model (including having GD from early childhood on which intensifies at puberty and absence of psychiatric comorbidities that could challenge diagnosis or treatment) found reduction in gender dysphoria, although limitations to these outcome studies have been noted, such as lack of controls or considering alternatives like psychotherapy.

In its position statement published December 2020, the Endocrine Society stated that there is durable evidence for a biological underpinning to gender identity and that pubertal suppression, hormone therapy, and medically indicated surgery are effective and relatively safe when monitored appropriately and have been established as the standard of care. They noted a decrease in suicidal ideation among youth who have access to gender-affirming care and comparable levels of depression to cisgender peers among socially transitioned pre-pubertal youth. In its 2017 guideline on treating those with gender dysphoria, it recommends puberty blockers be started when the child has started puberty (Tanner Stage 2 for breast or genital development) and cross-sex hormones be started at 16, though they note "there may be compelling reasons to initiate sex hormone treatment prior to the age of 16 years in some adolescents with GD/gender incongruence". They recommend a multidisciplinary team of medical and mental health professionals manage the treatment for those under 18. They also recommend "monitoring clinical pubertal development every 3 to 6 months and laboratory parameters every 6 to 12 months during sex hormone treatment".

A review published in Child and Adolescent Mental Health found that puberty blockers are fully reversible, and that they are associated with such positive outcomes as decreased suicidality in adulthood, improved affect and psychological functioning, and improved social life.

More rigorous studies are needed to assess the effectiveness, safety, and long-term benefits and risks of hormonal and surgical treatments. For instance, a 2020 Cochrane review found insufficient evidence to determine whether feminizing hormones were safe or effective, due to the lack of "completed studies that met [their] inclusion criteria." Several studies have found significant long-term psychological and psychiatric pathology after surgical treatments.

In 2021, a review published in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery found that less than 1% of people who undergo gender-affirming surgery regret the decision. It concluded that "There is an extremely low prevalence of regret in transgender patients after GAS. We believe this study corroborates the improvements made in regard to selection criteria for GAS. However, there is high subjectivity in the assessment of regret and lack of standardized questionnaires, which highlight the importance of developing validated questionnaires in this population."

Comorbidities
Among youth, around 20% to 30% of individuals attending gender clinics meet the DSM criteria for an anxiety disorder. Gender dysphoria is also associated with an increased risk of eating disorders in transgender youth.

A widely held view among clinicians is that there is an over-representation of neurodevelopmental conditions amongst individuals with GD, although this view has been questioned due to the low quality of evidence. Studies on children and adolescents with gender dysphoria have found a high prevalence of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) traits or a confirmed diagnosis of ASD. Adults with gender dysphoria attending specialist gender clinics have also been shown to have high rates of ASD traits or an autism diagnosis as well. It has been estimated that children with ASD were over four times as likely to be diagnosed with GD, with ASD being reported from 6% to over 20% of teens referring to gender identity services.

Children and adolescents with gender dysphoria are also more likely to have ADHD, depression and histories of suicidality, self-harm and adverse childhood experiences.

Epidemiology
Different studies have arrived at different conclusions about the prevalence of gender dysphoria. The DSM-5 gives a gender dysphoria prevalence of 0.005% to 0.014% of people assigned male at birth (5-14 per 100k) and 0.002% to 0.003% of people assigned female at birth (2-3 per 100k). The DSM-5 states that these numbers are likely underestimates, being based on the number of referrals to specialty clinics. Not all adults seeking medical transition are referred to specialty clinics.

According to Black's Medical Dictionary, gender dysphoria "occurs in one in 30,000 male births and one in 100,000 female births." Studies in European countries in the early 2000s found that about 1 in 12,000 natal male adults (8 per 100k) and 1 in 30,000 (3 per 100k) natal female adults seek out sex reassignment surgery. Studies of hormonal treatment or legal name change find higher prevalence than sex reassignment, with, for example a 2010 Swedish study finding that 1 in 7,750 (13 per 100k) adult natal males and 1 in 13,120 (8 per 100k) adult natal females requested a legal name change to a name of the opposite gender.

Studies that measure transgender status by self-identification find even greater prevalence of gender identity different from sex assigned at birth (although some of those who identify as transgender or gender nonconforming may not experience clinically significant distress and so do not have gender dysphoria). A study in New Zealand found that 1 in 3,630 natal males (13 per 100k) and 1 in 22,714 (4 per 100k) natal females have changed their legal gender markers. A survey of Massachusetts adults found that 0.5% (500 per 100k) identify as transgender. A national survey in New Zealand of 8,500 randomly selected secondary school students from 91 randomly selected high schools found 1.2% (1,200 per 100k) of students responded "yes" to the question "Do you think you are transgender?". Outside of a clinical setting, the stability of transgender or non-binary identities is unknown.

Research indicates that among people who transition in adulthood, individuals are up to three times more likely to be male assigned at birth. However, among people transitioning in childhood, the sex ratio is closer to 1:1. The prevalence of gender dysphoria in children remains uncertain due to the lack of formal prevalence studies. A 2022 literature review reported that approximately 36% of adolescents assessed in specialized gender clinics were natal males, and 63% were natal females. One study highlighted in the review found no significant change in these proportions from 2014 to 2016. However, when comparing more recent data with earlier studies, there has been a shift favoring natal females (ratio of 1:3) as opposed to nearly equal proportions in earlier studies (ratios of 0.8–0.9:1).

History
Neither the DSM-I (1952) nor the DSM-II (1968) contained a diagnosis analogous to gender dysphoria. Gender identity disorder first appeared as a diagnosis in the DSM-III (1980), where it appeared under "psychosexual disorders" but was used only for the childhood diagnosis. Adolescents and adults received a diagnosis of transsexualism (homosexual, heterosexual, or asexual type). The DSM-III-R (1987) added "Gender Identity Disorder of Adolescence and Adulthood, Non-Transsexual Type" (GIDAANT). DSM-V (2013) replaced gender identity disorder (GID) with gender dysphoria (GD) to avoid the stigma of the term disorder.

Society and culture
Researchers disagree about the nature of distress and impairment in people with GD. Some authors have suggested that people with GD suffer because they are stigmatized and victimized; and that, if society had less strict gender divisions, transgender people would suffer less.

Some controversy surrounds the creation of the GD diagnosis, with Davy et al. stating that although the creators of the diagnosis state that it has rigorous scientific support, "it is impossible to scrutinize such claims, since the discussions, methodological processes, and promised field trials of the diagnosis have not been published."

Some cultures have three or more defined genders. The existence of accepted social categories other than man or woman may alleviate the distress associated with cross-gender identity. For example, in Samoa, the fa'afafine, a group of feminine males, are mostly socially accepted. The fa'afafine appear similar to transgender women in terms of their lifelong identities and gendered behavior, but experience far less distress than do transgender women in Western cultures. This suggests that the distress of gender dysphoria is mostly not caused by the cross-gender identity itself, but by difficulties encountered from social disapproval by one's culture. Overall, it is unclear whether or not gender dysphoria persists in cultures with third gender categories.

Classification as a disorder
The psychiatric diagnosis of gender identity disorder (now gender dysphoria) was introduced in DSM-III in 1980. Arlene Istar Lev and Deborah Rudacille have characterized the addition as a political maneuver to re-stigmatize homosexuality. (Homosexuality was declassified as a mental disorder in the DSM-II in 1974.) By contrast, Kenneth Zucker and Robert Spitzer argue that gender identity disorder was included in DSM-III because it "met the generally accepted criteria used by the framers of DSM-III for inclusion." Some researchers, including Spitzer and Paul J. Fink, contend that the behaviors and experiences seen in transsexualism are abnormal and constitute a dysfunction. The American Psychiatric Association stated that gender nonconformity is not the same thing as gender dysphoria, and that "gender nonconformity is not in itself a mental disorder. The critical element of gender dysphoria is the presence of clinically significant distress associated with the condition."

Individuals with gender dysphoria may or may not regard their own cross-gender feelings and behaviors as a disorder. Advantages and disadvantages exist to classifying gender dysphoria as a disorder. Because gender dysphoria had been classified as a disorder in medical texts (such as the previous DSM manual, the DSM-IV-TR, under the name "gender identity disorder"), many insurance companies are willing to cover some of the expenses of sex reassignment therapy. Without the classification of gender dysphoria as a medical disorder, sex reassignment therapy may be viewed as a cosmetic treatment, rather than medically necessary treatment, and may not be covered. In the United States, transgender people are less likely than others to have health insurance, and often face hostility and insensitivity from healthcare providers. Gender dysphoria being a disorder also means it is covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act, which may aid transgender people in accessing legal protections they otherwise may be unable to. Some researchers and transgender people support declassification of the condition because they say the diagnosis pathologizes gender variance and reinforces the binary model of gender.

An analysis of the Samoan third gender fa'afafine suggests that the DSM-IV-TR diagnostic component of distress is not inherent in the cross-gender identity; rather, it is related to social rejection and discrimination suffered by the individual. Psychology professor Darryl Hill insists that gender dysphoria is not a mental disorder, but rather that the diagnostic criteria reflect psychological distress in children that occurs when parents and others have trouble relating to their child's gender variance. Transgender people have often been harassed, socially excluded, and subjected to discrimination, abuse and violence, including murder.

In December 2002, the British Lord Chancellor's office published a Government Policy Concerning Transsexual People document that categorically states, "What transsexualism is not ... It is not a mental illness." In May 2009, the government of France declared that a transsexual gender identity will no longer be classified as a psychiatric condition, but according to French trans rights organizations, beyond the impact of the announcement itself, nothing changed. Denmark made a similar statement in 2016.

In the ICD-11, GID is reclassified as "gender incongruence", a condition related to sexual health. The working group responsible for this recategorization recommended keeping such a diagnosis in ICD-11 to preserve access to health services.

Gender euphoria

Gender euphoria (GE) is a term for the satisfaction, enjoyment, or relief felt by trans and non-binary people when they feel their gender expression matches their personal gender identity. Psych Central definition is "deep joy when your internal gender identity matches your gender expression." It is proposed that feelings of gender euphoria require societal acceptance of gender expression. In academics and the medical field, a consensus has not yet been reached on a precise definition of the term, as it has been mainly used within a social context. The first attempt to rigorously define gender euphoria through an online survey took place in 2021, conducted by Will Beischel, Stéphanie Gauvin, and Sari van Anders. Transgender congruence is also used to ascribe transgender individuals feeling genuine, authentic, and comfortable with their gender identity and external appearance.

The term gender euphoria has been used by the transgender community since at least the mid-1970s. Originally, it referred to the feeling of joy arising from fulfilling a mix of gender roles, which was different from the concept of gender dysphoria, which is used to describe individuals who wished to medically transition to a different sex. In the 1980s, the term was published in trans contexts, coming up in interviews with trans people. For example, in a 1988 interview with a trans man, the subject states, "I think that day [Dr. Charles Ilhenfeld] administered my first shot of the 'wonder-drug' must have been one of the 'peak-experiences' of my life -- talk about 'gender euphoria'!" The interview indicates he is referring to testosterone.

Other figures, including Mariette Pathy Allen and Virginia Prince, have used the term in their work. In 1990, Virginia Prince used the phrase in the trans magazine Femme Mirror, ending an article with, "...from here on you can enjoy GENDER EUPHORIA - HAVE A GOOD LIFE!" Starting in 1991, a monthly newsletter named Gender Euphoria was released, featuring articles about transgender topics; Leslie Feinberg read the newsletter to better understand the transgender community. However, there are instances in which gender euphoria has been used with a different meaning, such as in 1979, when the Black feminist Michele Wallace used it to describe the male privilege present in Black men.

The term has been embraced as part of a movement to stop pathologizing being transgender. In 1989, Mariette Pathy Allen published an unnamed transgender person's quote in her photography book Transformations: "The shrinks may call it 'gender dysphoria,' but for some of us, it's gender 'euphoria,' and we're not going to apologize anymore!" The movement to focus on the positive side of gender expression was also advocated for in 1994, when the Scottish "TV/TS" periodical The Tartan Skirt wrote, "Let's accentuate the positive, discard the negative, and promote the new condition of 'Gender Euphoria.'" In 1997, Patrick Califia described transgender activists picketing using signs that read "Gender Euphoria NOT Gender Dysphoria" and handing out "thousands of leaflets" at protests. The following year, in 1998, Second Skins: The Body Narratives of Transsexuality reported:

"The transactivist group Transexual Menace is campaigning to have the diagnosis 'Gender Identity Disorder' removed entirely from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. 'Gender Euphoria NOT Gender Dysphoria'; its slogans invert the pathologizing of transgender, offering pride in queer difference as an alternative to the psychiatric story."

Similarly, Florence Ashley has advocated for the medical field to focus on helping patients achieve gender euphoria instead of treating patients on the basis of gender dysphoria. They argue that currently, in order for individuals to receive gender-affirming care, they must be diagnosed with gender dysphoria, which is not always accessible and entails people must be experiencing significant distress before they can fully express their own gender identity. Ashley's stance that gender euphoria does not need to be preceded by a clinical diagnosis of gender dysphoria, and that gender euphoria is complex, is echoed by Elliot Tebbe and Stephanie Budge in their 2022 Nature Reviews Psychology article, in which they write, "Gender euphoria is not merely the absence of gender dysphoria, but rather a conglomeration of positive emotions and subjective well-being in response to being affirmed in one’s gender."

Gender euphoria has also been expressed through art. In 2019, the Midsumma festival in Australia hosted "Gender Euphoria," a cabaret focusing on "bliss" in transgender experiences, including musical, ballet, and burlesque performances. A reviewer described it as "triumphant – honest, unpretentious, touching, and a vital celebration." Moreover, photography in the East Village in Manhattan has served as means to express gender euphoria, contrasting fashion photography, which is said to reinforce the gender binary.

title: Gender dysphoria


text:
William A. Dembski

William Albert Dembski (born July 18, 1960) is an American mathematician, philosopher and theologian. He was a proponent of intelligent design (ID) pseudoscience, specifically the concept of specified complexity, and was a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture (CSC). On September 23, 2016, he officially retired from intelligent design, resigning all his "formal associations with the ID community, including [his] Discovery Institute fellowship of 20 years". A February 2021 interview in the CSC's blog Evolution News announced "his return to the intelligent design arena".

In 2012, he taught as the Phillip E. Johnson Research Professor of Science and Culture at the Southern Evangelical Seminary in Matthews, North Carolina, near Charlotte.

Dembski has written books about intelligent design, including The Design Inference (1998), Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science & Theology (1999), The Design Revolution (2004), The End of Christianity (2009), and Intelligent Design Uncensored (2010).

Intelligent design is the argument that an intelligent cause is responsible for the complexity of life and that one can detect that cause empirically. See Chapter 4 of Mere Creation (1998), "Redesigning Science".
 * Dembski postulated that probability theory can be used to prove irreducible complexity (IC) and what he called "specified complexity." The scientific community sees intelligent design—and Dembski's concept of specified complexity—as a form of creationism attempting to portray itself as science.
 * Dembski postulated that probability theory can be used to prove irreducible complexity (IC) and what he called "specified complexity." The scientific community sees intelligent design—and Dembski's concept of specified complexity—as a form of creationism attempting to portray itself as science.
 * Dembski postulated that probability theory can be used to prove irreducible complexity (IC) and what he called "specified complexity." The scientific community sees intelligent design—and Dembski's concept of specified complexity—as a form of creationism attempting to portray itself as science.
 * Dembski postulated that probability theory can be used to prove irreducible complexity (IC) and what he called "specified complexity." The scientific community sees intelligent design—and Dembski's concept of specified complexity—as a form of creationism attempting to portray itself as science.

Biography
Dembski was born in Chicago, Illinois, the only child of Catholic parents. His mother was an art dealer and his father was a college professor who held a D.Sc. in biology from the University of Erlangen-Nuremberg and taught evolutionary biology. While growing up, Dembski was neither particularly religious nor did he question the theory of evolution.

Dembski attended an all-male Catholic preparatory school in Chicago. He finished high school a year early, excelling in math and finishing a calculus course in one summer. After high school, Dembski attended the University of Chicago, where he experienced educational and personal difficulties, struggling with the advanced courses and finding the unfamiliar social milieu of college challenging. He dropped out of school and worked at his mother's art business while reading works on creationism and the Bible. Finding the creationist works interesting in their challenge of evolution but their literal interpretations lacking, Dembski returned to school at the University of Illinois at Chicago, studying statistics.

It was in 1988 at a conference on randomness that Dembski began to believe that there was purpose, order, and design in the universe by the intervention of God. Remaining in academia, Dembski ultimately completed an undergraduate degree in psychology at the University of Illinois at Chicago in 1981 and master's degrees in statistics, mathematics, and philosophy (1983, University of Illinois at Chicago; 1985, University of Chicago; 1993, University of Illinois at Chicago, respectively), two PhDs, one in mathematics and one in philosophy (1988, University of Chicago; 1996, University of Illinois at Chicago, respectively), and a Master of Divinity in theology at the Princeton Theological Seminary (1996).

At the Princeton Theological Seminary, Dembski met his future wife, Jana. Dissatisfied with what he called the "free-swinging academic style" of the school, Dembski also was involved in a group known as the Charles Hodge Society. Based on the works of the 19th century thinker Charles Hodge, the group was devoted to strengthening the faith of students faced with what members believed to be the "theological disarray" of the times, and to providing an example of how to oppose "false and destructive ideas." It published a journal (a recreation of the Princeton Theological Review (1903–1929)) and met with considerable opposition on the campus, facing two lawsuits, threats of violence, accusations of racism and sexism; being denied funding; and hearing that membership "jeopardized their academic advancement."

Dembski and Jana have one daughter and two sons. One of his sons has autism and Dembski has attributed some of his son's problems to vaccines.

Early opposition to evolution
Dembski holds that his knowledge of statistics and his skepticism concerning evolutionary theory led him to believe that the extraordinary diversity of life was statistically unlikely to have been produced by natural selection. His first significant contribution to intelligent design was his 1991 paper, "Randomness by Design," published in the philosophy journal Noûs.

Former UC Berkeley law school professor Phillip E. Johnson's book Darwin on Trial (1991) attracted a group of scholars who shared his view that the exclusion of supernatural explanations by the scientific method was unfair and had led to the Edwards v. Aguillard ruling that teaching creation science in public schools was unconstitutional. Dembski was part of that group at a symposium at Southern Methodist University in Dallas, Texas, in March 1992, before they came to call themselves "The Wedge."

Dembski wrote a contribution to the 1994 book The Creation Hypothesis. Another chapter, contributed by the creationists Charles Thaxton and Walter L Bradley, discussed "design detection" and redefined "specified complexity" as a way of measuring information. These ideas led to Dembski's notion of specified complexity, which he developed in The Design Inference, a 1998 revision of his PhD dissertation in philosophy.

In 1987, the phrase "intelligent design" replaced "creation science" in drafts of a book, Of Pandas and People, that was intended for secondary school students. The phrase referred to the idea that life was created through unspecified processes by an intelligent but unidentified designer. The book asserted that there was a logical need for such a designer because of the appearance of design in biological organisms. This replacement was intended to evade the Edwards v. Aguillard ruling. The book was published in 1989 amidst campaigning by the publisher for the introduction of "intelligent design" into school science classes.

Biochemist Michael Behe, another member of "The Wedge," contributed the argument that he subsequently called "irreducible complexity" to a subsequent edition of Pandas in 1993. The book contained concepts which Dembski later elaborated in his treatment of "specified complexity."

Discovery Institute
After completing graduate school in 1996, Dembski was unable to secure a university position; from then until 1999 he received what he calls "a standard academic salary" of $40,000 a year as a Postdoctoral Research Fellow at the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture. "I was one of the early beneficiaries of Discovery largess," says Dembski.

Until September 2016, Dembski served as a senior fellow at the CSC, where he played a central role in the center's extensive public and political campaigns advancing the concept of intelligent design and its teaching in public schools through its "Teach the Controversy" campaign as part of the institute's wedge strategy. He has since resigned his fellowship position with the Discovery Institute.

Michael Polanyi Center controversy
In 1999, Dembski was invited by Robert B. Sloan, President of Baylor University, to establish the Michael Polanyi Center at the university. Named after the Hungarian physical chemist and philosopher Michael Polanyi (1891–1976), Dembski described it as "the first intelligent design think tank at a research university." Dembski had known Sloan for about three years, having taught Sloan's daughter at a Christian study summer camp not far from Waco, Texas. Sloan was the first Baptist minister to serve as Baylor's president in over 30 years, had read some of Dembski's work and liked it; according to Dembski, Sloan "made it clear that he wanted to get me on the faculty in some way." The salaries were supported by a grant from the John Templeton Foundation.

The Polanyi Center was established without much publicity in October 1999, initially consisting of two people – Dembski and a like-minded colleague, Bruce L. Gordon, who were hired directly by Sloan without going through the usual channels of a search committee and departmental consultation. The vast majority of Baylor staff did not know of the center's existence until its website went online, and the center stood outside of the existing religion, science, and philosophy departments.

The center's mission, and the lack of consultation with the Baylor faculty, became the immediate subject of controversy. The faculty feared for the university's reputation – it has historically been well regarded for its contributions to mainstream science – and scientists outside the university questioned whether Baylor had "gone fundamentalist." Faculty members pointed out that the university's existing interdisciplinary Institute for Faith and Learning was already addressing questions about the relationship between science and religion, making the existence of the Polanyi Center somewhat redundant. In April 2000, Dembski hosted a conference on "naturalism in science" sponsored by the John Templeton Foundation and the hub of the intelligent design movement, the Discovery Institute, seeking to address the question "Is there anything beyond nature?" Most of the Baylor faculty boycotted the conference.

A few days later, the Baylor faculty senate voted by a margin of 27–2 to ask the administration to dissolve the center and merge it with the Institute for Faith and Learning. President Sloan refused, citing issues of censorship and academic integrity, but agreed to convene an outside committee to review the center. The committee recommended setting up a faculty advisory panel to oversee the science and religion components of the program, dropping the name "Michael Polanyi" and reconstituting the center as part of the Institute for Faith and Learning. These recommendations were accepted in full by the university administration.

In a subsequent press release, Dembski asserted that the committee had given an "unqualified affirmation of my own work on intelligent design," that its report "marks the triumph of intelligent design as a legitimate form of academic inquiry" and that "dogmatic opponents of design who demanded the Center be shut down have met their Waterloo. Baylor University is to be commended for remaining strong in the face of intolerant assaults on freedom of thought and expression."

Dembski's remarks were criticized by other members of the Baylor faculty, who protested that they were both an unjustified attack on his critics at Baylor and a false assertion that the university endorsed Dembski's controversial views on intelligent design. Charles Weaver, a professor of psychology and neuroscience at Baylor and one of the most vocal critics of the Polanyi Center, commented: "In academic arguments, we don't seek utter destruction and defeat of our opponents. We don't talk about Waterloos."

President Sloan asked Dembski to withdraw his press release, but Dembski refused, accusing the university of "intellectual McCarthyism" (borrowing a phrase that Sloan himself had used when they first tried to dissolve the center). He declared that the university's action had been taken "in the utmost of bad faith ... thereby providing the fig leaf of justification for my removal." Professor Michael Beaty, director of the Institute for Faith and Learning, said that Dembski's remarks violated the spirit of cooperation that the committee had advocated and stated that "Dr. Dembski's actions after the release of the report compromised his ability to serve as director." Dembski was removed as the center's director, although he remained an associate research professor until May 2005. He was not asked to teach any courses in that time and instead worked from home, writing books and speaking around the country. "In a sense, Baylor did me a favor," he said. "I had a five-year sabbatical."

Seminary teaching
From 1999 to 2005, he was on the faculty of Baylor University, where he was a focus of attention and controversy. During the academic year 2005–2006, he was briefly the Carl F. H. Henry Professor of Theology and Science at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky, as well as the first director of the school's new Center for Theology and Science (since replaced by prominent creationist Kurt Wise). The seminary teaches creationism but its professors vary on the details, with most adhering to the young Earth creationist viewpoint of a relatively recent creation which occurred literally as described in Genesis; Dembski does not hold to young Earth creationism (YEC). On his position at Southern, Dembski also remarked that "Theology is where my ultimate passion is and I think that is where I can uniquely contribute." He left Southern in May 2006. Starting in June 2006 he became a professor in philosophy at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary (SWBTS) in Fort Worth, Texas. Since taking up a position within Southwestern's School of Theology in June 2006, Dembski has taught a number of courses within its Department of Philosophy of Religion. For some of his courses, he requires that his students promote intelligent design on "hostile" websites for course credit. The Southern Baptist Convention operates both seminaries.

In September 2007, the SWBTS hosted a conference, "Intelligent Design in Business Practice," presented by Dembski, Acton Institute theologian Jay Richards, and three business academics presently or formerly teaching at universities in the Southern United States.

Mims–Pianka controversy
On April 2, 2006, Dembski stated on his blog that he reported Eric Pianka to the Department of Homeland Security because he and fellow Discovery Institute Fellow Forrest Mims felt that Pianka's speech while accepting the Texas Academy of Science's Distinguished Texas Scientist Award in 2006 fomented bioterrorism. This resulted in the Federal Bureau of Investigation interviewing Pianka in Austin. On April 5, Dembski wagered that Pianka's popularity would drop if the full text of his speech to the Texas Academy of Science were made public.

Baylor Evolutionary Informatics Lab controversy
Subsequently, in July and August 2007, Dembski played a central role in the formation of the Evolutionary Informatics Lab (EIL), cofounded with Baylor University Engineering Professor Robert J. Marks II. According to Baylor administration, the EIL website hosted at Baylor was deleted because it violated university policy forbidding professors from creating the impression that their personal views represent Baylor as an institution. Dembski says the website was removed because it dealt with intelligent design. Baylor said they would permit Marks to repost his website on their server, provided a 108-word disclaimer accompany any intelligent design-advancing research to make clear that the work does not represent the university's position. The site now resides on a third-party server and still contains the material advancing intelligent design. Dembski's participation was funded by a $30,000 grant from the Lifeworks Foundation, which is controlled by researcher Brendan Dixon of the Biologic Institute (which has close ties to the Discovery Institute).

Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary flood controversy
While serving as a professor at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, Dembski wrote The End of Christianity, which argued that a Christian can reconcile an old Earth creationist view with a literal reading of Adam and Eve in the Bible by accepting the scientific consensus of a 4.5 billion year of Earth. He further argued that Noah's flood likely was a phenomenon limited to the Middle East. This caused controversy and Dembski's reading of the Bible was criticized by Tom Nettles, a young Earth creationist, in The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology, Southern Seminary's official theological journal. In 2010, the dean of Southwestern's School of Theology, David Allen, "released a White Paper through the seminary's Center for Theological Research defending Dembski as within the bounds of orthodoxy and critiquing Nettles for misunderstanding the book. The paper included Dembski's statement admitting error regarding Noah's flood." Southwestern Seminary president Paige Patterson, a young Earth creationist, "said that when Dembski's questionable statements came to light, he convened a meeting with Dembski and several high-ranking administrators at the seminary. At that meeting, Dembski was quick to admit that he was wrong about the flood. "'Had I had any inkling that Dr. Dembski was actually denying the absolute trustworthiness of the Bible, then that would have, of course, ended his relationship with the school,' he said."

Public advocacy
In December 2001, Dembski launched the International Society for Complexity, Information and Design (ISCID), of which he is Executive Director. Dembski is also the editor-in-chief of ISCID's journal, Progress in Complexity, Information, and Design (PCID), which appears to have ceased publication with its November 2005 issue. He has several more books in preparation as well as producing an Adobe Flash animation mocking Judge John E. Jones III, who presided in the landmark 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District case. He is also a member of American Scientific Affiliation, the Evangelical Philosophical Society, and the American Mathematical Society, and is a senior fellow of the Wilberforce Forum.

Dembski frequently gives public talks, principally to religious, pro-ID groups, and creationists. Barbara Forrest and Paul R. Gross noted that Dembski has not been hesitant in associating with young Earth creationists, such as attending conferences with Carl Baugh.

Dembski, along with fellow Discovery Institute associates Michael Behe and David Berlinski, tutored Ann Coulter on science and evolution for her book Godless: The Church of Liberalism (2006). Approximately one-third of the book is devoted to polemical attacks on evolution, which Coulter, as Dembski often does, terms "Darwinism."

Dembski participated in the documentary film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, released in 2008. Dembski told the Southern Baptist Texan that those who need to see the movie are the "parents of children in high school or college, as well as those children themselves, who may think that the biological sciences are a dispassionate search for truth about life but many of whose practitioners see biology, especially evolutionary biology, as an ideological weapon to destroy faith in God." Dembski has appeared on several television shows, including a 2005 interview with Jon Stewart on The Daily Show with Edward Larson and Ellie Crystal where he said he accepted religion before science.

Writing
In 1998, Dembski published his first book, The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities, which became a Cambridge University Press bestselling philosophical monograph.

In 2002, Dembski published his book No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot Be Purchased without Intelligence. Dembski's work was strongly criticized within the scientific community, which argued that there were a number of major logical inconsistencies and evidential gaps in Dembski's hypothesis. David Wolpert, co-creator of the No free lunch theorem on which Dembski based his book, characterized his arguments as "fatally informal and imprecise," "written in jello," reminiscent of philosophical discussion "of art, music, and literature, as well as much of ethics" rather than of scientific debate.

Mathematician Mark Perakh has stated he believes Dembski overemphasizes his own self-importance in his writing.

Peer-review controversy
One of the common objections to intelligent design being accepted as valid science is that ID proponents have published no scientific papers in the peer-reviewed scientific literature in support of their conjectures. The ruling in the 2005 Dover trial, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, found that intelligent design had not been tested by the process of being published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal and was not supported by any peer-reviewed research, data or publications. Despite the Dover trial ruling, the Discovery Institute lists Dembski's 1998 book The Design Inference under the heading "Peer-Reviewed Scientific Books Supportive of Intelligent Design Published by Trade Presses or University Presses." The Discovery Institute describes Dembski as a mathematician and philosopher, who includes in his credentials a B.A. in psychology and postdoctoral work in mathematics, physics and computer science.

In an expert report, computer scientist and number theorist Jeffrey Shallit states that despite common claims in the popular and religious press, Dembski is not a scientist by any reasonable standard, has not published any experimental or empirical tests of his claims, submitted his claims to the scrutiny of his peers or been published in a scientific journal. In a footnote, Shallit states that he does not consider mathematics to be science. Shallit describes Dembski's published mathematical output as "extremely small" for a research mathematician and remarks that "it is very unlikely that his meagre output would merit tenure at any major university."

Since Shallit's statement, Dembski has (as of May 2010) published four peer-reviewed papers in information theory venues associated with the IEEE professional society. The papers deal with active information in the context of searches for solutions to problems. Quantified active information is introduced in "Conservation of Information in Search: Measuring the Cost of Success." A second paper, "Evolutionary Synthesis of Nand Logic: Dissecting a Digital Organism," claims to deconstruct the evolution simulation Avida by uncovering the sources of active information in the program. A third paper discusses the role of Jacob Bernoulli's principle of indifference in the analysis of evolution. The most recent paper, "Efficient Per Query Information Extraction from a Hamming Oracle," calculates the performance of various search algorithms which use the Hamming distance to search for a single string of a certain length in the set of all strings of this length.

Dembski states that his book The Design Inference has also been peer-reviewed: "This book was published by Cambridge University Press and peer-reviewed as part of a distinguished monograph series, Cambridge Studies in Probability, Induction, and Decision Theory." In his expert report, Shallit states, "I know that book manuscripts typically do not receive the same sort of scrutiny that research articles do. ...it is not uncommon for a 10-page paper to receive 5 pages or more of comments, whereas a book manuscript of two hundred pages often receives about the same number...." In addition, Mark Isaak claims that Dembski's book was reviewed by philosophers and not biologists.

The Inner Life of the Cell copyright controversy
In November 2007, a graduate student named S. A. Smith brought an apparent case of wholesale academic misuse of unlicensed content to public attention. She noticed that a video used by Dembski in his lecture was identical to The Inner Life of the Cell animation created by Harvard University and XVIVO Scientific Animation. The audio track giving a scientific explanation was stripped off and the video was used with an alternative narration. The matter was brought to the attention of Harvard and XVIVO. David Bolinsky, creator of the video, wrote that Dembski was warned about using the video without permission.

In response to the allegations, Dembski has claimed that he downloaded the video from the Internet, and added a voiceover narration that he deemed appropriate for his audience. According to Dembski, the downloaded version omitted the opening credits but contained the closing credits, which were shown to the audience. However, Smith later documented several instances where images from the Harvard/XVIVO animation were apparently removed from his book The Design of Life (2008) but the related footnotes and references were not. indicating that Dembski was already aware that permission had been denied for him to use the animation when he delivered his presentation at the University of Oklahoma.

On April 9, 2008, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, a movie Dembski appears in, was given a cease-and-desist by XVIVO accusing Premise Media, the Expelled producers, of plagiarism concerning the same video. A June 2008 Premise Media press release announced Premise Media and XVIVO, LLC, "reached an agreement" noting "XVIVO has agreed that the Premise Media documentary does not infringe on any of XVIVO's intellectual property rights."

Evolution
Dembski's views on evolution have been a source of considerable controversy within both the mainstream scientific and creationist communities. Dembski does not accept universal common descent. His mainstream scientific critics have accused him of dishonesty in his representation of scientific facts and writing, and he has also been criticised by the traditional creationist community for not supporting the young Earth creationist position, though this community does defend some of his other arguments.

Science vs. naturalism
Dembski objects to the presence of the theory of evolution in a variety of disciplines, presenting intelligent design as an alternative to reductionist materialism that gives a sense of purpose that the unguided evolutionary process lacks and the ultimate significance of ID is its success in undermining materialism and naturalism. Dembski has also stated that ID has little chance as a serious scientific theory as long as methodological naturalism is the basis for science. Although intelligent design proponents (including Dembski) have made little apparent effort to publish peer-reviewed scientific research to support their hypotheses, in recent years they have made vigorous efforts to promote the teaching of intelligent design in schools. Dembski is a strong supporter of this drive as a means of making young people more receptive to intelligent design, and said he wants "to see intelligent design flourish as a scientific research program" among a "new generation of scholars" willing to consider the theory and textbooks that include it.

Intelligent designer
Dembski's theories do not attempt to explain the origin of the intelligent designer that created the universe, which he argues is unnecessary, since such an intelligent designer is likely outside the dimensions of space and time which are the subject of empirical science.

He has not had any of his pro-intelligent-design articles published in peer-reviewed mainstream scientific journals. While intelligent design proponents often allege that such failure to be published is due to a pro-evolution bias or conspiracy, Dembski himself has said he prefers to disseminate his ideas in non-peer-reviewed media: "I've just gotten kind of blasé about submitting things to journals where you often wait two years to get things into print. And I find I can actually get the turnaround faster by writing a book and getting the ideas expressed there. My books sell well. I get a royalty. And the material gets read more."

In December 2007, Dembski told Focus on the Family that "The Designer of intelligent design is, ultimately, the Christian God."

Specified complexity
Specified complexity is an concept which Dembski has proposed and used in his works promoting intelligent design, an argument intended to give a formal definition of patterns that are both specified and complex. He claims it is a reliable marker of design by an intelligent agent, a central concept of intelligent design, as opposed to natural selection in modern evolutionary theory. The concept of specified complexity is widely regarded as mathematically unsound and has not been the basis for further independent work in information theory, complexity theory, or biology. Specified complexity is one of the two main arguments used by intelligent design proponents, the other being irreducible complexity.

Intelligent design and Christianity
Dembski's position on intelligent design's relationship with Christianity has been inconsistent. He has suggested that the "intelligent designer" is not necessarily synonymous with a god: "It could be space aliens. There are many possibilities," but has on several occasions been explicit in labelling the designer as the Christian god and linking ID with a religious revival through which Christianity can be restored to its formerly pre-eminent place in society, supplanting "materialist" science. In his book Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science & Theology he states "The conceptual soundings of the [intelligent design] theory can in the end only be located in Christ." On his website, DesignInference.com, Dembski said that intelligent design provides an intellectual basis to restore Christian philosophy over materialism.

Dembski has also spoken of his motivation for supporting intelligent design in a series of Sunday lectures in the Fellowship Baptist Church in Waco, Texas, the last of which took place on March 7, 2004. Answering a question, Dembski said it was to enable God to receive credit for creation.

Intelligent design movement
Dembski sees intelligent design as being a popular movement as well as a scientific hypothesis and claims that it is in the process of dislodging evolution from the public imagination. At the CSICOP's 4th World Skeptics Conference, held on June 20–23, 2002, in Burbank, California, he told the audience that "over the next twenty-five years ID will provide the greatest challenge to skepticism." He asserted that "ID is threatening to be mainstream," and that polls show 90 percent support for the hypothesis, indicating that it has "already becom[e] mainstream within the public themselves." "The usual skeptical retorts are not going to work against ID" and ID "turns the tables on skepticism." Evolution, in his view, "is the ultimate status quo" and "squelches dissent." Young people, who "love rebellion" see that and are attracted to ID as a result. "The public supports intelligent design. The public is tired of being bullied by an intellectual elite." He contends that skeptics resort to rhetoric and "artificially define ID out of science," admitting only materialistic explanations as legitimate. ID "paints the more appealing world picture," whereas skepticism works by being negative, which "doesn't set well with the public... To most people evolution doesn't provide a compelling view."

Bible code
Dembski has also indicated an interest in the Bible code. In a favorable book review of Jeffrey Satinover's Cracking the Bible Code (1997), Dembski wrote that "The philosopher Bertrand Russell was once asked why he didn't believe in God. He replied, 'Not enough evidence.' Satinover's fascination with the Bible Code is that it may provide evidence for God's existence that would have convinced even a Bertrand Russell."

Faith healing
Dembski once took his family to a meeting conducted by Todd Bentley, a faith healer, in hopes of receiving a "miraculous healing" for his son, who is autistic. In an article for the Baptist Press he recalled disappointment with the nature of the meeting and with the prevention of his son and other attendees from joining those in wheelchairs who were selected to receive prayer. He then concluded, "Minimal time was given to healing, though plenty was devoted to assaulting our senses with blaring insipid music and even to Bentley promoting and selling his own products (books and CDs)." He wrote that he did not regret the trip and called it an "education," which showed "how easily religion can be abused, in this case to exploit our family."

Responses to critics
Dembski previews material on the Internet for open peer review. This helps identify errors and address objections prior to publication, allowing him to get "the last word in the exchange." Dembski's style in response to his critics (particularly of his mathematical papers) is polemical. For instance, in reply to a critique of the "law of conservation of information" posted on talkreason.org, Dembski states: "I'm not and never have been in the business of offering a strict mathematical proof for the inability of material mechanisms to generate specified complexity in the same way that no physicist is in the business of offering a strict mathematical proof for the conservation of energy."

Books
Sole author

Co-author

As editor or contributor
 * "Papers from a conference, entitled Design and its Critics, held at Concordia University, Mequon, Wis., June 22–24, 2000."
 * "Papers from a conference, entitled Design and its Critics, held at Concordia University, Mequon, Wis., June 22–24, 2000."
 * "Papers from a conference, entitled Design and its Critics, held at Concordia University, Mequon, Wis., June 22–24, 2000."
 * "Papers from a conference, entitled Design and its Critics, held at Concordia University, Mequon, Wis., June 22–24, 2000."
 * "Papers from a conference, entitled Design and its Critics, held at Concordia University, Mequon, Wis., June 22–24, 2000."
 * "Papers from a conference, entitled Design and its Critics, held at Concordia University, Mequon, Wis., June 22–24, 2000."
 * "Papers from a conference, entitled Design and its Critics, held at Concordia University, Mequon, Wis., June 22–24, 2000."
 * "Papers from a conference, entitled Design and its Critics, held at Concordia University, Mequon, Wis., June 22–24, 2000."
 * "Papers from a conference, entitled Design and its Critics, held at Concordia University, Mequon, Wis., June 22–24, 2000."

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: William A. Dembski


text:
Talk:Ninety–ninety rule

Shouldn't this say the first 90% takes 10% of time, the remaining 10% takes 90% of time? Or are we saying a program takes 180% of predicted time to write? --rmhermen
 * The quote is accurate, which is what we are reporting here :-). Pete 00:42, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)

 * Someone has "fixed" the quote. I have added back the humorous version which is found in Murphy's law type compendiums. Ellsworth 00:09, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

But the "180% of time" is the gag of the whole rule!!! It wants to make clear that people often make big mistakes while predicting the time needed for the implementation of the code. --Jochen

 * Yes, you are exactly right. Looking at the history of the article, it is clear that an anonymous user (IP 83.149.32.48) made the mistake of thinking that the quote was a typo. He then made an edit on June 18, 2005 to correct the "typo". (And ironically his edit summary had a typo.) But if you look at the actual source of the Tom Cargill's quote, you will see that the "180% time" variation is indeed Cargill's original version, not some variant. Vocaro 07:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

 * I have edited the page so that Cargill's original quote appears properly. Vocaro 07:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

problem
the quote and the 'corrected' quote are the same Brainhell 04:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Not quite, the difference is bolded:

 * "The first 90% of the code accounts for the first 10%/90% of the development time. The remaining 10% of the code accounts for the other 90% of the development time."

 * –Adrian J. Hunter 05:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

This quote is actually slightly incorrect. Having 180% of the time is important for the chuckle, but the code should only add up to 100%, not 90/90 as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.164.72.231 (talk) 16:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

alternative rule
While looking for the rule by its name, I found another variant here: http://obvious.services.net/2011/06/90-90-rule-of-project-management.html
 * The 90 - 90 rule of project management
 * The first 90% of the work takes the first 90% of the time.
 * Then, the other 90% of the work takes the other 90% of the time.

I also thought it was a typo, at first (both parts add up to 180%). Then I thought that it emphasises how not only the "raw" time to complete the work, but as well any other quantitative measurement of work (i.e. materials, effort, expected lines of code) can be underestimated when making projections. In this interpretation, I think the "formula" and its sarcasm are valid in their own right.
 * -[Jim Klimov] 18:39, 13 January 2012 (MSD) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.5.113.11 (talk)

Removed section
I removed the section called 'Prior art', which described a supposed previous version of this rule. Anecdotes of the 'I knew a guy once...' kind are not sufficiently verifiable or notable to be included on Wikipedia. Terraxos 03:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Mistaken for a "typo" ?
Typo? Or mis-spelling

Deleted "humorous fact"
Programmer's dream is to identify... (etc.) - I think this kind of "facts" should not be in a place like wikipedia.

Alternative
I've always heard this as "90% complete, 90% of the time", meaning that it takes the longest time during a development to do the seemingly small things at the end of the development. And that this is certainly not only in software circles, but most any development of any kind. Should this be added to the article? 202.78.155.23 (talk) 05:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

 * Frankly, no. The article is about a particular humorous but on-target aphorism. Your personal observation, however much it make you happy to know it might be true, belongs in your personal blog or web page. Snezzy (talk) 23:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Original
If you look at the original paper this is referred to as the "Rule of Credibility"

<quote> [Rule of Credibility] The first 90 percent of the code accounts for the first 90 percent of the development time. The remaining 10 percent of the code accounts for the other 90 percent of the development time.

Tom Cargill Belt Labs </quote>--myork (talk) 21:58, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

 * It's annoying the original is no longer freely available. I integrated your edit into the last paragraph. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 12:08, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Aphorism is not exclusive to computer programming and software development
While it may be true that the the aphorism with that specific wording is exclusive to the field of computer programming and software engineering it appears that the term "Ninety-Ninety Rule" and the general message behind the aphorism is not exclusive to these fields. Nowhere in the article does it explain where the name for the aphorism came from. None of the quotes in the article nor in the Talk Page contain the phrase "ninety-ninety." In fact, the only name given to the rule in the quotes is the "Rule of Credibility." Is there documentation for when the "Rule of Credibility" became "the Ninety-Ninety Rule"?

An online search for "ninety-ninety rule" turns up the following aphorism, attributed to Arthur Bloch, the writer of the Murphy's Law books.

 * "Ninety-Ninety Rule of Project Schedules: The first ninety percent of the task takes ninety percent of the time, and the last ten percent takes the other ninety percent."

This version of the aphorism is used in many fields.

I seem to recall that this was in the second of the Murphy's Law books, Murphy's Law Book Two: More Reasons Why Things Go Wrong!, which was published in January of 1980. I will have to look it up to be sure.

I can't tell when Tom Cargill made the statement/aphorism. There is a link in the Talk Page posted by user myork to the "original paper," but I received an error message when I tried it:

 * An error occurred while processing your request.
 * Reference #50.2e080f17.1446823711.63b4f197

If by the original document you mean Bentley's article, that appears here:

http://www.bowdoin.edu/~ltoma/teaching/cs340/spring05/coursestuff/Bentley_BumperSticker.pdf

So, what is the date of the use of the aphorism by Tom Cargill? We know it's sometime before the September 1985 publication of John Bentley's article. Bentley's article doesn't give a date. According to a biography on a page for Consulting Inc., his date of graduation is 1979. He began working at Bell Labs in 1982 and began work on C++ in 1983.

So, I'll look up the Murphy's law issue if someone with more knowledge of the computer world can find out earliest date of use by Cargill and when it became known as the ninety-ninety rule.

By the way, there's no Wikipedia article on Tom Cargill. Should there be one? Ileanadu (talk) 15:53, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Citation to Bentley's article
It appears that "Programming Pearls" was a recurring title used by Bentley. For example:

Programming pearls: a literate program (June 1986)

Programming pearls: a spelling checker (May 1985)

Programming pearls: associative arrays (June 1985)

Thus, it might be useful to add the subtitle to that particular article. In this case, it's "Programming Pearls: Bumper-Sticker Computer Science. Ileanadu (talk) 15:56, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Adds up to how much? (180 or 900?)
I'd rather "add it up" to 900 than to 180.

The way I understand it is that after reaching point p you expect to having finished 90% of your work.

When having actually finished you realize that 90% of the actual work was still left at point p (so you actually only finished 10% of all your work at point p).

So altogether you needed 900 of what you mistakenly considered being one percent at point p. -- 5.146.199.7 (talk) 19:34, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Ninety–ninety rule


text:
Gales Brewery

George Gale & Co. Ltd was a Hampshire brewery with a distinctive range of, mainly, bitter beers. Founded in 1847 it was bought by the London brewers, Fuller's of Chiswick in 2005. The brewery was closed in 2006 with production transferred to Chiswick.

History
Established in 1847 Gales Brewery (George Gale & Co. Ltd) was an old brewery situated in Horndean, on the edge of Waterlooville, near Portsmouth in Hampshire, England. It made the nutty HSB (Horndean Special Bitter) and the newer Gales Bitter. It took its water from its own well situated under the brewery which is fed from the South Downs, and the yeast and 'liquor' (local water used for brewing), coupled with the local brewing style, produced beers with a sparse head, quite dark in colour.

In late 2005 Fuller, Smith & Turner bought Gales for £92 million. It raised fears as to the future of Gales Horndean brewery and some of its beers, and the Campaign for Real Ale (CAMRA) launched a campaign to encourage Fuller's to continue production of the full Gales line at Horndean. However, in January 2006, Fuller's began cutting jobs at the Horndean brewery, and it was announced on 27 February 2006 that the brewery would close at the end of March 2006, although distribution and warehousing would continue in the area.

At that point, production of the Gales brands moved to Fuller's Griffin Brewery in Chiswick, London, with the exception of Gales Bitter which was discontinued.

As of 2017, most of the brewery site has been replaced with apartments and retail shops. The main tower remains standing and was converted alongside the construction of new buildings into apartments.

Standard Varieties

 * Gales Light Ale
 * Other discontinued draught & keg ( pressured) beers *XXX Light Mild, *XXXD Dark Mild, *777 Keg Mild, *Gales Keg Bitter
 * Other discontinued bottled beers *Nut Brown

Limited Edition Brews

 * Last Drop = The last ale brewed at the Gales Brewery before its closure in 2006.
 * Gales Trafalgar 200 = Was first brewed in 2005 to celebrate the bicentenary of Nelson's famous victory.
 * Gales Clubhouse Bitter =
 * Gales Crowning Glory = Was brewed to celebrate the Queen's Golden Jubilee in 2002.
 * Gales Millennium Brew = Was brewed to celebrate the new millennium in 2000.
 * Gales Conquest Ale
 * Gales D-Day Ale
 * Gales Silver Jubilee Ale = Was brewed to celebrate the Queen's Silver Jubilee in 1977
 * Gales Royal Wedding Ale = Was brewed to celebrate the 1981 Royal Wedding.
 * Gales Portsmouth 800 Ale = Was brewed to celebrate the 800th anniversary of Portsmouth in 1994.
 * Gales Golden Jubilee Ale = Was brewed to celebrate the Queen's Golden Jubilee in 2002.
 * Gales Victory Ale
 * Gales Vanguard Ale

title: Gales Brewery


text:
Commandos (series)

Commandos is a stealth-oriented real-time tactics video game series. The five games released between 1998 and 2006 are all set during World War II and follow the adventures of a fictional Allied commando unit. Each mission is loosely based on historical events during World War II to carry the plot. The series was developed by the Spanish developer Pyro Studios and published by Eidos Interactive. The series has sold a total of 3.3 million copies and generated $41 million of revenue at retail.

Commandos: Behind Enemy Lines
Commandos: Behind Enemy Lines (CBEL) was released on 1 July 1998. It was published by Eidos Interactive, and developed by Pyro Studios. It features 20 missions. The view is isometric with tactical gameplay. A Sega Mega Drive/Genesis version of Commandos: Behind Enemy Lines, with the first 5 missions, was also made by Russian homebrew programmers, but lacked sound and certain other features of the PC version.

Commandos: Beyond the Call of Duty
Commandos: Beyond the Call of Duty, a set of new Commandos missions issued as a standalone game, was released on 31 March 1999. Despite it being much shorter than Behind Enemy Lines, it is a much more difficult game containing levels on a far greater scale to the extent of being comparable to those that were to be seen in Commandos 2. It has 8 missions, with locations including Yugoslavia and Greece.

Commandos 2: Men of Courage
A full sequel, released in 2001, was rebuilt with a 3D engine, more interactive environments, more skills for the commandos, and new characters. Like its predecessor, it drew heavily from war films and titled its levels in reference to such films as The Bridge on the River Kwai and Saving Private Ryan. The game received even greater praise.

Several new characters were added to the series in this sequel: a thief called Paul "Lupin" Toledo, a dog called Whiskey and Wilson, a shot-down pilot claiming to be from the Light Brigade.

A remastered version of the game, called Commandos 2 - HD Remaster, was released in 2020.

Commandos 3: Destination Berlin
This is the third sequel in the series and was released in October 2003. In this game the mouse wheel can be used to rotate the player's vantage point. It was the first in the series to use a true 3D engine, but the game was criticized for its short missions and lack of hotkeys.

A remastered version of the game, called Commandos 3 - HD Remaster, was released in 2022.

Commandos: Strike Force
Released during the first months of 2006, this game marks a diversion from the first three games. Although the missions are set up in a similar fashion (several different objectives, some to be achieved through stealth, others through use of force) and in most occasions the player is allowed to change between different characters, this is the first game in the series to apply a first-person perspective, similar to Medal of Honor or Call of Duty games than to earlier entries of the series.

Strike Force only has three Commandos, making it the only game in the series to have the least amount of playable characters. They are the Green Beret, The Sniper and The Spy but they are not the same characters from previous instalments; they each bear different appearances, names, and skills.

The game attracted an overwhelmingly negative reaction, especially from fans of the earlier games in the series who saw this as a massive modification, concurrent with a great reduction in the series' trademark difficulty. Similarly, it was promoted as mixing elements of strategy from the past games with traditional first-person shooter game-play but instead only hinted at them whilst being predominantly action-oriented. As a result, both critics and fans felt it did little to distance itself from the recent flood of similar games.

Commandos: Origins
A sequel, Commandos: Origins, is currently in development by Claymore Game Studios and to be published by Kalypso. It will be released on PlayStation 5, Xbox Series, and PC in 2024.

Music
David Garcia-Morales Inés composed the music of the first game and Mateo Pascual that of the next four installments. All five soundtracks are available on iTunes and Amazon.

Mods
Following the discontinuation of the series by Pyro Studios, a couple of mods have been developed by fans. Commandos: Strike in Narrow Path is a stand-alone expansion for Commandos: Behind Enemy Lines containing 9 missions and was released initially in 2010. Commandos 2: Destination Paris tweaks the gameplay of Commandos 2: Men Of Courage and adds over 100 missions to the base game.

Future
The series was acquired by Kalypso Media, which announced work on a new game in the series in April 2020. In 2020 and 2022 respectively, they published remastered versions of Commandos 2: Men of Courage and Commandos 3: Destination Berlin for the Nintendo Switch, Xbox One and PlayStation 4 with adapted controls for the consoles' gamepads.

title: Commandos (series)


text:
Eldridge Pope

Eldridge Pope & Co. was a traditional brewery situated in Dorchester, Dorset. It originated with a brewery in Durngate Street (on the site of the present Waitrose) run by Charles and Sarah Eldridge from 1837; later, the Pope family of Dorset solicitors entered the business, firstly in the form of a partnership, then as a limited company - Eldridge, Pope & Co. Ltd. - incorporated in 1897. A new brewery was meanwhile built closer to the railway line in 1880, and opened in 1881. The brewery closed in July 2003 following its sale to a property company, and now forms part of the Brewery Square development. The pub estate went on to be acquired by Marstons in 2007, whereupon Eldridge Pope became a dormant company. Most of the brewery was demolished in 2020, 140 years after it was built.

History
The origins of Eldridge Pope can be traced back to 1837, when hotel landlord Charles Eldridge and his wife Sarah bought the Green Dragon Brewery in Durngate Street, Dorchester. Together they turned the brewery into a thriving small business, and following Charles's death in 1846, Sarah continued to run it in partnership with local brewer Samuel Mason, under the trading name 'Eldridge, Mason & Co'.

On his retirement in 1870, Mason sold his stake in the Brewery to Edwin Pope and his younger sibling Alfred Pope. Sarah Eldridge's son-in-law John Tizard inherited her share of the business, but when he died in 1871 the Popes assumed full control.

By 1879 the company had outgrown its Durngate Street premises, and the Pope brothers wanted to build a large new brewery to satisfy their expansion plans for the company. They bought up four acres of land next to the railway line, and commissioned distinguished local architect W. R. Crickmay to design the new structure.

The new brewery was officially opened in 1881, and very quickly became the biggest employer in Dorchester. Sixteen years later the Pope brothers incorporated the business as a private limited company under the name 'Eldridge, Pope & Co. Limited'.

The following decades saw the next generation of the Pope family take over the running of the company. In 1921 Clement Pope, son of Alfred, created the Huntsman trademark, which became one of the most recognizable and popular brands associated with the company.

In 1922 a huge fire ripped through the brewery, damaging much of the brewhouse and several other buildings. It was not until 1925 that the rebuilding work was completed and the brewery was able to produce beer again.

Denis Edwin Holliday was head brewer at Eldridge Pope throughout the 1960s and 70s. This era was associated with the production of popular real ales such as Royal Oak and Thomas Hardy's Ale. Holliday also had an entry in the Guinness Book of Records, 1978 edition, for brewing the strongest commercially brewed beer.

In 1997, the management of the brewery bought the business but not the site. They called their company Thomas Hardy Brewery & Packaging. In 1998, Thomas Hardy acquired another brewery in Burtonwood to form Thomas Hardy Burtonwood.

In 2003, Thomas Hardy Burtonwood offered to buy the site from Eldridge Pope for £8m but the offer was declined. Instead, Eldridge Pope sold the site to property company Landworth Properties. Landworth then raised the rent to what the brewery felt to be an uneconomic level causing it to cease its business there with the loss of 57 jobs.

One year after the brewery's closure, the family lost control of the business to pubs entrepreneur Michael Cannon who acquired the pubs for £40m plus £42m debt. He identified the need for a three-year, £14m investment programme and a focus on increasing disappointing food sales. He injected his Que Pasa bar chain into the business. The company continued to operate for a further three years under Michael Cannon's management. In January 2007, the assets of Eldridge Pope & Co. Limited were sold to Marstons plc for £155m. Michael Cannon and his fellow shareholders who included several members of the Pope family made a return of 2.8 times his original investment after turning the business around.

The site of the Eldridge Pope brewery was subsequently developed into a shopping and eating complex with restaurants, shops, apartments, a cinema, gym and a hotel.

Culture
In 1985, the brewery's founder, Sarah Eldridge was the subject of Entertaining Strangers: A play for Dorchester by the playwright David Edgar and produced as a community play by the people of Dorchester, In 1987 the play was transferred to The National Theatre, with Judi Dench in the role of Sarah Eldridge.

title: Eldridge Pope


text:
User:Michael Shulman

I am an assistant professor of mathematics at the University of San Diego.

Michael Shulman

title: User:Michael Shulman