inclusion was based on "expert consensus," which is "the same mechanism that led to the introduction of many new psychiatric diagnoses, including those for which systematic field trials were not available when the DSM-III was published." Katherine Wilson of GID Reform Advocates stated: In the case of gender non-conforming children and adolescents, the GID criteria are significantly broader in scope in the DSM-IV (APA, 1994, p. 537) than in earlier revisions, to the concern of many civil libertarians. A child may be diagnosed with Gender Identity Disorder without ever having stated any desire to be, or insistence of being, the other sex. Boys are inexplicably held to a much stricter standard of conformity than girls. Most psychologists who specialize in gender identity disorder in children note a higher level of male patients brought to them, rather than female patients. A possible explanation would be that cross-sex behavior is less acceptable and therefore more noticeable and more likely to be viewed as problematic by the child's parents (Bradley, Zucker, 1997). Preference for cross-dressing or simulating female attire meets the diagnostic criterion for boys but not for girls, who must insist on wearing only male clothing to merit diagnosis. References to "stereotypical" clothing, toys and activities of the other sex are imprecise in an American culture where much children's clothing is unisex and appropriate sex role is the subject of political debate. Equally puzzling is a criterion which lists a "strong preference for playmates of the other sex" as symptomatic, and seems to equate mental health with sexual discrimination and segregation. Some clinicians, such as Wilson et al., argue that GIDC "has served to pressurize boys to conform to traditional gender and heterosexual roles." Feder states that the diagnosis is based on the reactions of others to the child, not the behavior itself. Langer et al. state "Gender atypicality is a social construction that varies over time according to culture and social class and therefore should not be pathologized." Zucker refuted their claims in a response. Psychiatrist Domenico Di Ceglie opined that for therapeutic intervention, "efficacy is unclear," and psychologist Bernadette Wren says, "There is little evidence, however, that any psychological treatments have much effect in changing gender identity although some treatment centres continue to promote this as an aim (e.g. Zucker, & Bradley, 1995)." Therapeutic intervention for GIDC came under renewed scrutiny in May 2008, when Kenneth Zucker was appointed to