Barbara Walters will be doing a story on it tonight on 20-20. It was the first item to be discussed on today's The View, an ad/promo, really. Of course there was the typical progressive liberal self-congratulatory praise from the usual suspects--didn't you know that Oprah already discussed this topic on her show? (As well as Dr. Phil on his?) Someone needs to catch up.
What do I think of this? Since I don't have any direct experience, I will say nothing about the disorder itself or its symptoms (or individual cases and reports), but I would not count on the diagnosis or explanation given by secular "experts"--a problem with self-perception involves the intellectual and cannot be 100% organic, and there is no identity apart from the body (even when we take into account those who suffer from chromosomal disorders that block or impede the proper development of the sex organs and such, these exceptions only prove the rule). Instead, I will address the presuppositions that go into the causal analysis. The dualism of Barbara Walters and others contradicts their materialism--if all there is is the material, then to claim that there is an identity apart from the material is nonsense, and a product of the imagination. On the other hand, if there can be such a divide between mind and body, so that a male mind could be trapped in a female body and a female mind in a male body, then what exactly is maleness? How can the mind have a sex identity of its own, if it is not material? And if it is material, then how can it be said to be male rather than female if there are no distinguishing features. (And if these people go on to maintain that "gender is a social construction" they will be contradicting themselves even more.)
Now, perhaps they will admit that there are sex differences even with respect to the brain and its development. Shouldn't we then compare the development of the brain of these children and see if the brains are really male or female? (And sex hormones do play a role in brain development, iirc.) But instead they'd rather make up a new class of victims of society's intolerance and lack of understanding, promote an identity rooted not in nature or in social relations, but completely dependent upon the choice of the will.
If perception is merely sense perception and there is no intellectual component, then the answer is obvious: "penis" or "vagina" and "I'm like other people who have a penis" or "I'm like other people who have a vagina." In order to make the leap to a judgment involving universals, i.e. maleness or femaleness, there has to be an intellectual component. And there are many factors which can lead to a distorted judgment, but there is no corporal determinism, as if my body is somehow forcing me to judge that I am not a male.
Gender Identity Disorder
Psychology Today's Diagnosis Dictionary: Gender Identity Disorder
Gender Identity Disorder DSM IV Criteria
Gender Identity Disorder in Children
Gender Identity Disorder & Transgenderism (I definitely don't support the explanations offered here, but this is what I take to be an example of the opposing view. Of all these links, I'd probably be most sympathetic to the NARTH one; I link to the "official" DSM IV Criteria used by the "experts" to diagnose GID, but notice it does not give an explanation of its causes.)