Talk:Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Reference to Finnish Guidelines

I have edited the article to add a reference to the recommendations of the Finnish Council on Health Care Choices on gender dysphoria in minors, which SEGM translated into English. The edit was deleted on the basis that it linked back only to the SEGM website. I have restored the edit and added a link to the original FInnish version of the guidelines at the Council for Health Care choices website. Justdad78 (talk) 22:08, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

But the latter establishes no substantial connection to the topic of this article, so I'm have removed it until consensus for inclusion develops here on Talk. Newimpartial (talk) 22:10, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps I should add that if the implication is that the SEBGM influenced the Finnish recommendations, we need an independent source asserting that. Otherwise we run the risk of WP:POV and/or WP:SYNTH. Newimpartial (talk) 22:16, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

I am quite sure what @TheTranarchist meant was that there was no reliable, secondary source for the addition. While the document itself as a primary source can be used to prove its own existence, if no secondary sources have detailed it, questions may arise regarding the relevance and due weight of mentioning it. Madeline (part of me) 22:13, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

The unofficial translation of the Finnish guidelines is one of the activities that the SEGM has undertaken and a reference to it is relevant to an article which purports to describe the activities of SEGM. The guidelines themselves represent an example of the evidence based approach which SEGM advocates/ Justdad78 (talk) 22:16, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

We don't usually make reference to the translations individuals or groups have made unless the translation itself has been the object of secondary commentary. We don't use primary sources for that. Newimpartial (talk) 22:19, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Just reviewed the edits now. The question that needs to be asked is why is this WP:DUE? What makes the SEGM translation of those recommendations noteworthy, and such that it deserves a paragraph in an article that is not about those recommendations? Out of the many publications SEGM have produced, why is this one important?

In order to answer those questions, you need to demonstrate via reliable, secondary sources that the translation has importance. The original Finnish document, and the translation by SEGM are both primary sources, and while they verify that the translation exists, they do nothing to help us contextualise their importance and demonstrate why we should have any content covering it. It is important to remember that not every publication by an organisation is noteworthy for inclusion in an encyclopaedia. One thing to note, as you are a new user, you may be unfamiliar with what we consider reliable sources on Wikipedia. While we have a helpful list of sources that have been discussed multiple times, often you are required to check the Reliable Sources Noticeboard archives for past discussions on sources that haven't been frequently discussed, which can be difficult and overwhelming for new editors. So I would recommend that if you're unsure about whether a source is reliable, that you post it here so that we can assess it together. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:23, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

The translation of the Finnish guidelines is important because the guidelines themselves provide one of the first examples of a national health authority adopting an evidence based approach to gender dysphoria in children. The guidelines provide an illustration of the kind of approach to treatment that SEGM promotes.

https://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/2021/05/13/doubts-are-growing-about-therapy-for-gender-dysphoric-children Justdad78 (talk) 23:53, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Again, analogies between the approach promoted by SEBGM and the approaches taken by other organizations and various jurisdictions are WP:OR unless secondary sources make that connection themselves. I don't see that in the link from The Economist just provided. Newimpartial (talk) 00:01, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately this is not an article on the Finnish guidelines. The Economist source, while reliable, cannot be used for the content that was proposed because it does not mention or link to SEGM in any way. To include it would therefore be WP:SYNTH and it would fall afoul of the no original research policy.

If you want to include a paragraph on the translation of the Finnish guidelines, then you need to provide a reliable source that asserts why SEGM's translation is important, and ideally what impact that translation has had (if any). The source must mention SEGM in some way for it to comply with the relevant policies and guidelines that cover articles such as this. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:18, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

@Justdad78 Here is a source that describes the translation, attributes to the Society for Evidence Based Gender Medicine, it's a publication based in Ireland. https://gript.ie/gender-reassignment-of-children-experimental-practice-finnish-health-authority/

Thanks.

Jdbrook talk 22:04, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

@Jdbrook: Just to note, Justdad78 is currently indefinitely blocked, and has expressed that he will not be returning to Wikipedia editing.

I'll also point out that Gript does not appear to be a reliable source, and seems to publish either only opinion articles, or make it so that it is impossible to distinguish non-opinion articles from the opinion articles. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:17, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

That's a source, yes, but I believe Justdad was challenged to find a reliable source. Newimpartial (talk) 22:19, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

@Sideswipe9th Thank you for the info about justdad78 and Gript, it does indeed seem unreliable, I didn't find that page about Gript earlier or I'd not have suggested it. Thank you both. Jdbrook talk 01:43, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

No worries. This sort of issue, trying to identify if a source is or is not reliable, is why talk page discussions are always recommended in controversial content areas such as this one. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:13, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Yet another revision (reverted, yet again): a description of what someone said was taken out as "opinion"

@NewImpartial You took out the following:

In August 2022, SEGM Adviser J. Mason and a co-author said that the American Academy of Pediatrics has ignored the evidence regarding medical intervention for gender dysphoria. They called the AAP out for "effectively burying" a resolution asking the AAP to do an evidence review which would bring the AAP "into line with better-informed European countries."

This is what Mason says in the article. It's an opinion article by a SEGM adviser and she is making this public statement, this is absolutely correct.

It is fine to say "SEGM member William Malone told The Christian Post in 2019 that "No child is born in the wrong body, but for a variety of reasons some children and adolescents become convinced that they were"." but not to say that a person says something in the Wall Street Journal that they actually say in the Wall Street Journal?

Please explain.

Thanks.

Jdbrook talk 04:58, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

If you think there is a reason to remove the Malone quote, then go ahead with my blessing. But I had understood that the passage in the article cited to The Christian Post was cited to actual reporting, but the bit you tried to add cited an unreliable WSJ WP:RSOPINION piece. Newimpartial (talk) 05:30, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

The WSJ piece is what Mason actually said, in the WSJ opinion piece. The Christian Post is reporting what Malone said. I have no reason to think that The Christian Post is lying about what Malone said, but if it is appropriate to list what Malone says it is appropriate to list what Mason says. And it is difficult to argue Mason is not calling out the AAP, as that is exactly what the article she co-authored is doing.

Thanks.

Jdbrook talk 06:16, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Please read WP:RS and WP:RSOPINION. Whatever Malone said that isn't repeated in independent sources is unlikely to be due for inclusion in WP article. Newimpartial (talk) 11:23, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

@Newimpartial this section is about activities of the Society for Evidence Based Gender Medicine.

The essay in the WSJ co-authored by adviser J. Mason is one such activity. What is your basis for claiming that the article in the WSJ written by someone on the board of the Society for Evidence Based Gender Medicine is not an activity that Wikipedia should report?

Thanks.

Jdbrook talk 21:57, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

It is only an activity Wikipedia should report insofar as it is covered in independent, reliable sources. Wikipedia editors are not supposed to engage in WP:OR about SEBGM's success or otherwise in using media and professional bodies to spread its message. Newimpartial (talk) 22:08, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

What is your basis for claiming that the article in the WSJ written by someone on the board of the Society for Evidence Based Gender Medicine is not an activity that Wikipedia should report? It's a question of WP:WEIGHT and WP:OR. Per policy, Wikipedia articles are based primarily on reliable, secondary sources, as secondary sources are needed to establish notability and avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. Mason writing an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal is inherently a primary source, and doesn't give us any information about how that statement has been regarded by the author's peers. Of the many words in Mason's op-ed, why is his comments on the AAP noteworthy? We cannot tell that from a primary source.

In the case of William Malone, if you check the citations you'll see that we never cite Malone's contributions to The Christian Post directly. We only do so via reliable secondary sources; BuzzFeed News and an ABC affiliate station. Those secondary sources provide us with some information to contextualise which parts of Malone's interview with The Christian Post were noteworthy to others. That said, it's definitely a weaker paragraph and seems out of place in the activities section. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:11, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

@Sideswipe9thThis section is about activities of SEGM. A WSJ editorial by a SEGM Advisor is relevant as it is a SEGM activity. The op-ed is entitled "The American Academy of Pediatrics’ Dubious Transgender Science," so yes, the AAP is the focus of the article.

Primary and secondary arguments for medical information are very different than talking about what an organization stands for or supports publicly. These are statements Mason plus co-author chose to appear in one of the most influential publications in the United States under their names. Asking that someone else tell you that Mason said these things in this op-ed, i.e., a secondary, is there actually any reason to doubt that Mason did not write these things?

Thanks.

Jdbrook talk 03:06, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Questioning "opposes standard medical care for gender dysphoria."

There doesn't seem to be standard medical care for gender dysphoria, as there is disagreement between experts. The UK and Swedish and Finnish and WPATH appear to differ. And the French National Academy of Medicine. See, e.g., https://www.bmj.com/content/378/bmj.o2303 . It is not clear that SEGM disagrees with all of these, if one wanted to say they are, all together, "standard." Also there is e.g., https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26119518/ which is earlier and talks with reference to WPATH guidelines: "However, in actual practice, no consensus exists whether to use these early medical interventions." So this sentence about SEGM opposing standard medical care at the beginning of the page does not appear accurate.

Thanks. Jdbrook talk 23:37, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

They also oppose poor trans people of any age transitioning (see their actions in Arizona), don't forget that part. Do you have any evidence that a blanket ban on public funding for medical transition at any age is supported by medical consensus? I'm not going to bother debating the rights of minors since that part itself is so blatantly against "standard medical care for gender dysphoria" I needn't bother. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 23:52, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

@TheTranarchist@TenBlueEagles I don't see evidence of medical consensus, so I don't expect to find someone who agrees with it or disagrees with it.

Where do you see the opposition for medical interventions for poor trans people "at any age"? The headings in the Arizona brief seem to be about adolescent females with mental health problems, double mastectomies on minors, and the poor quality of the evidence regarding these interventions for young people. A lot of evidence reviews have been regarding minors, and it seems this case is about minors.

Thanks. Jdbrook talk 00:10, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Re: The headings in the Arizona brief seem to be about adolescent females with mental health problems, double mastectomies on minors, and the poor quality of the evidence regarding these interventions for young people - if you are going to insist on taking these WP:FRINGE, transphobic political interventions at face value and defending their POV verbatim - well, I can't see that as being on topic for WP Talk pages, at all. Repetition of bigoted talking points isn't really a way to improve Wikipedia articles IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 00:42, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

To clarify, two transgender minors (who still deserve rights fringe views aside) filed a class-action lawsuit on behalf of people under 21 because the state has had a flat out ban on providing medicaid coverage for transition related surgeries since 1982 (for reference, 18-21 means adult). SEGM, being their wonderful selves, filed a brief misgendering them and congratulating the state for refusing to extend that coverage. Their brief states SEGM recognizes the right of mature adults to undergo gender-affirming interventions despite the low quality of evidence on which the interventions are based but is very concerned about applying experimental procedures to vulnerable youth, whose gender identity is still developing and whose ability to meaningfully consent to interventions with unknown long-term outcomes is highly uncertain. They sneak into the footnotes that This Brief refers to “pediatrics” as the practice of medicine for patients under age 18; “children” as pre-pubescent; “adolescents” as pubescent individuals; and “young people” and “youth” as those 25 and under. There is a lot of high quality evidence that adults are benefited by transition (same for youth, but it's easier for anti-trans groups to cry "save the children"), which this explicitly contradicts. It also makes clear they oppose the right of those under 25 to transition while nominally just protecting the children. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 01:07, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

@Newimpartial I said what it looked to me like the brief covered, rather than what was said about the brief earlier in the discussion (" oppose poor trans people of any age transitioning"). I don't see that you've addressed what I said?

@TheTranarchist as you just quoted above, SEGM explicitly says it recognizes the rights of mature adults, so I don't see where you are getting the "trans people of any age transitioning" being opposed.

Also, why did you highlight the low quality of evidence statement? This is a technical term and refers to, e.g., the recommendations of the Endocrine Society regarding double mastectomies and surgeries (https://academic.oup.com/jcem/article/102/11/3869/4157558#99603239 ) which it appears to me gave the evidence behind their recommendations (section 5) low quality GRADE, very low quality GRADE or didn't grade it ("Direct evidence for these statements was either unavailable or not systematically appraised and considered out of the scope of this guideline.")

Note that some countries view 18 as adult for some things but not others (e.g., smoking and drinking in the US), given the reality of how brains develop regarding decision making, hence the age of around 25 for Finland for these interventions, too, and WPATH SOC8's mention of people just above 18 as well as being different (transitional-age adults, p S44). Again, there isn't consensus.

Most recent reviews I've seen (Sweden, Finland, UK) concentrate on young people. What evidence reviews are high quality?

And again, it doesn't seem there is a "standard medical care" for gender dysphoria, given the expert disagreements.

Thanks.

Jdbrook talk 02:14, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Are you disputing that the "standard medical care" for gender dysphoria is to make gender-affirming surgeries and treatments available to adults? If you are, what authorities support your contention that there is a dispute about this? No red herring, please. Newimpartial (talk) 02:28, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Also, Jdbrook, if you are going to talk about adolescent females with mental health problems, I'm just not going to talk about that, because it is irrelevant to the reality SEBGM's "brief" was supposed to be addressing. That was, in fact, a red herring. Newimpartial (talk) 02:31, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

@NewImpartial the brief is focusing on minors. I was giving you the headers of the section. Here is more on the case:https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/21-15668/21-15668-2022-03-10.html

The Amicus Brief gives evidence that "THERE IS NO MEDICAL CONSENSUS SUPPORTING BENEFICIAL EFFECTS OF MASCULINIZING MASTECTOMIES FOR ADOLESCENT FEMALES."

They specifically address "Neither the WPATH nor the Endocrine Society guidelines establish a valid standard of care for masculinizing mastectomies." Page 24.

There is the definition of youth in footnote 20 as mentioned by @TheTranarchist but this brief seems to be talking about laws for minors. They say therapy can help youth, but as far as what is accepted practice they talk about minors:

ETHICAL EXPLORATORY PSYCHOLOGICAL INTERVENTIONS ARE A COMMONLY ACCEPTED PRACTICE FOR TREATING MINORS’ DISTRESS page 28.

Going back to the question: is the argument that this Arizona case shows that SEGM opposes standard medical care for gender dysphoria?

They state why there is no standard of care for this intervention, explicitly, and more generally there are, as I said above, different criteria espoused by different experts, and a lack of consensus, more generally.

Thanks.

Jdbrook talk 04:27, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

The law applies to adults too, dance around it as much as you want, and they stated they oppose adults transitioning. Also, The Endocrine Society and WPATH opposed the ban, and I trust them more than an organization which has been critiqued and compared to NARTH for not offering any real alternatives to care apart from insisting that respecting transgender people is bad and publishing opinion pieces since they can't get in peer-reviewed journals.

This Arizona case shows that SEGM opposes standard medical care for gender dysphoria yes it does, as evidenced by actual medical organizations speaking against it. More than that, most sources referring to them contrast their positions with the actual medical organizations. See, for example, Every major medical association in the United States — including the American Medical Association, the Endocrine Society, the Pediatric Endocrine Society, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychiatric Association, and the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry — has issued statements supporting gender-affirming care for youth. Unless SEGM is on board with that, it is opposed to medical consensus. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 04:45, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

First of all, referring to young trans men as adolescent females is offensive, POV language, and the fact that a FRINGE group used this language when lobbying state lawmakers does not make it either DUE for article space or appropriate for you to parrot in Talk space. That isn't how mainstream scholarship refers to young trans people, and so if you want to convince anyone of anything, you need to avoid using POV language.

Also, one of the issues at stake was the age limit of 21 set for gender-affirming surgery in Arizona to be covered by Medicaid. Are you denying that the SEBGM brief was filed in opposition to lowering that limit from 21? If it was, that flies in the face of standard practice for treatment of gender dysphoria, in which there is no significant debate within the relevant professional communities about the appropriateness of those 18 and over to be able to access surgery and other treatment. Newimpartial (talk) 05:45, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

@TheTranarchist@Newimpartial

You are claiming SEGM goes against the standard of care. They have given evidence and I have given evidence that there is no agreed upon standard of care. They have in fact detailed issues with WPATH and the Endocrine Society guidelines and said there is no consensus and again, I've given you several guidelines.

You can repeat that you prefer some professional societies over the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare, its counterpart in Finland, the UK review of the gender care services in the largest pediatric gender clinic in the world, and the recommendations of the French National Academy of Medicine, but that doesn't mean there is consensus.

There are several standards. Many prioritize psychotherapy, which does in fact help some kinds of gender dysphoria resolve and helps to try to figure out what kind one is dealing with. There is more than one treatment for gender dysphoria, and similarly, there are ways of being trans identified which are temporary.

Repeating that one prefers WPATH and the Endocrine Society or that 18-21 for WPATH is recommended for a certain treatment doesn't change this.

Thanks.

Jdbrook talk 06:40, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Re: Repeating ... that 18-21 for WPATH is recommended for a certain treatment doesn't change this. - actually, if there is general agreement within the community of practice worldwide that surgery and supplementary treatments should be available for those 18-21, then that does indeed change this, because it means that in spite of the WP:FUD you are sowing on their behalf, SEBGM's detailed issues with WPATH do in fact mean that it goes against the standard of care for transgender adults in particular. And this is, in fact, one of the things the WP:RS reliable sources say about SEBGM. Newimpartial (talk) 11:19, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

"Standard medical care" is vague and seems to have a degree of country-relativeness, which can confuse international readers; we should specify what treatments they oppose and who in turn opposes SEGM's position. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:04, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

@Newimpartial @Crossroads I have a suggested sentence:

SEGM objects to the new WPATH SOC8 guidelines (https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/964604)

This states one guideline that SEGM disagrees with, it is specific and it has a reliable reference (Medscape).

Instead of "a group that opposes standard medical care for gender dysphoria"

Thanks.

Jdbrook talk 03:14, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Doesn't that imply that SEGBM's objections are specific to WPATH SOC8? Because that doesn't appear to be the case... Newimpartial (talk) 03:24, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

@Newimpartial that lists a set of guidelines (to be accurate the draft, but it is a sweeping statement) that SEBGM disagrees with, and has a clear reference. One could say what it is concerned about more generally, e.g.,

"SEGM member Roberto D’Angelo said the group was concerned with the “low quality of evidence” in gender-affirming treatment." https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/avivastahl/transgender-trans-kids-healthcare-science and the list below.

This says exactly which rules for care it disagrees with, otherwise one is back to arguing about which medical care is "standard". It also disagrees with the American Academy of Pediatrics, it seems, according to the op-ed by a SEBGM Advisor in the WSJ which I am still trying to argue is a good reference for an activity of SEBGM. This is what the WSJ op-ed says:

"The AAP has ignored the evidence that has led Sweden, Finland and most recently the U.K. to place severe restrictions on medical transition for minors. The largest pediatric gender clinic in the world, the U.K.’s Gender Identity Development Service, was ordered to shut down in July after an independent review expressed concerns about clinicians rushing minors to medical transition. Medical societies in France, Belgium and Australia have also sounded the alarm. The U.S. is an outlier on pediatric gender medicine"

Thanks.

Jdbrook talk 04:03, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

WP:RSOPINION material is not DUE unless discussed in independent sources, as a rule. And as far as Buzzfeed, you have chosen a sentence that is fairly tangential to the source article as a whole, have you not? Why have you done that? Newimpartial (talk) 04:52, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

I would go with something like "SEGM opposes [X] treatment for gender dysphoria in children, a position that is in turn opposed by [Y]." Crossroads ^-talk- 16:09, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

@Crossroads I agree with this.

Jdbrook talk 02:26, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Rewording the lead: "accused" of spreading misinformation

Can we just describe them as as spreading misinformation in the lead? From just the content in this article, they:

1) Claim it's not conversion therapy when you do it to trans people (despite every medical organization in the world disagreeing)

2) Claim ROGD exists and use it as a basis for attacking transgender rights, when it doesn't and medical orgs agree it shouldn't be used

3) Claim most kids with dysphoria grow out of it, despite that having been debunked numerous times and the study they base it off even making a pretty large caveat

4) Have been described as spreading medical misinformation (or even pseudoscience) by multiple other researchers in the field, reliable scientific sources, and reliable sources in general.

Generally speaking, that they spew misinformation is pretty agreed upon by reliable sources and per WP:FRINGE we should describe it as such instead of making a false equivalency with "accused of spreading misinformation" and leaving whether or not it's misinformation up for question.

Would it be better to just update that portion of the lead to The group is known for spreading misinformation about gender dysphoria and gender-affirming care or a more detailed The group is known for spreading misinformation about gender dysphoria, gender-affirming care, and the scientific evidence base concerning transgender healthcare. They have mischaracterized current clinical best practices, supported the discredited theory of rapid onset gender dysphoria, and claimed that conversion therapy can only be applied to LGB people, not transgender people. SEGM is routinely cited in anti-trans legislation and court cases, sometimes testifying directly? TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 21:04, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

I've updated the language to be more clear about what they do. Skyerise (talk) 16:06, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

initial description of SEGM

@Newimpartial why did you remove my change to the initial description of SEGM? I took it from an Associated Press article.

I had put in:

The '''Society For Evidence-Based Gender Medicine (SEGM)''' is an [[Nonprofit organization|non-profit organisation]] of health professionals who are "concerned about medical transition risks for minors."<ref>{{Cite web |date=2022-05-04 |title=Early transgender identity tends to endure, study suggests |url=https://apnews.com/article/science-health-gender-identity-79a844a84cbc3fc1ff178476cc16cf2e |access-date=2022-10-10 |website=AP NEWS |language=en}}</ref> It has been called a group that opposes standard medical care for gender dysphoria.

Do you have some citations to show that the AP description is incorrect?

The AP description did not call them an activist organization so I took that part out. And I don't see that we editors have converged on whether they oppose standard medical care for gender dysphoria because we haven't agreed there is a standard medical care for gender dysphoria, given all the disagreements between guidelines out there.

Thanks.

Jdbrook talk 03:58, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Despite your protestations to the contrary, the only recognized treatment for gender dysphoria is transition. Conversion therapy used to be tried, until it was proved not to work and denounced by every medical organization. Unless you can point to sources that state that there is a standard care for transgender people apart from transition, opposing people's right to transition is opposing standard medical care.

The AP article mentions them briefly, the other sources go in depth and actually list what medical organizations actually believe, and how SEGM's positions are contrary to that. For example, from BuzzFeed News: Every major medical association in the United States — including the American Medical Association, the Endocrine Society, the Pediatric Endocrine Society, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychiatric Association, and the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry — has issued statements supporting gender-affirming care for youth.

You have proposed one source, that paints an incredibly incomplete picture, while the current lead is based on 5 and reality. Hope that helps. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 04:17, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

@TheTranarchist Actually, for recommendations which have something besides medical/social intervention:

the French National Academy of Medicine recommends psychotherapy as first line, as does

Finland (which I think someone showed you above, and I think they specifically don't have surgery below perhaps it is 18),

the risks outweigh the benefits in general for medical intervention, so only exceptional cases are treated, others no, not generally, with medical intervention (Sweden for under 18's), and the

UK is also not agreeing that the only recognized treatment for gender dysphoria is transition ( the national review of the UK's child/adolescent gender clinic, the Cass Review mentions several ways gender dysphoria can resolve including: gender dysphoria resolves without transition, settled sexuality resolves gender dysphoria, continued gender fluidity, and then they also have social and medical transition).

Psychotherapy can help resolve certain kinds of gender dysphoria which is likely why it is first line, as there is no clear test to tell when gender dysphoria isn't temporary. There are case studies showing this, composite case studies in a book on gender dysphoria, etc. The claim is not that every case of gender dysphoria will resolve with psychotherapy, but that some will, and the issue is that no one can say for certain who those "some" are. You can also see lack of clarity about how gender dysphoria for anyone will behave stated as expert opinion in the recent Reuters report: https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-transyouth-care/, quotations by de Vries (who is the lead author of seveal keypapers), Anderson (another leading physician in the field).

"Unless you can point to sources that state that there is a standard care for transgender people apart from transition, opposing people's right to transition is opposing standard medical care."

Your claim is that standard medical care is medical transition. The burden of proof is on you. I've given you guidelines above that do not require medical transition. They disagree with each other. I've said that there is no consensus and also given a paper for that.

Thanks.

Jdbrook talk 04:48, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

As I asked above, are you disputing that there is consensus supporting medical transition for adults, when they desire it, as the best practice for standard care for trans people? If you are, please provide some RS that gives some evidence of this dispute - the French and Finnish sources you have provided so far so not do this. Newimpartial (talk) 05:35, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

@Newimpartial The Finnish guidelines are for under 25. Not under 18.

Thanks.

Jdbrook talk 06:18, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

So are you saying that because the Finnish guidelines take a different position, that therefore there is no consensus in the relevant professional community for the availability of surgery to trans people age 18-25? Newimpartial (talk) 11:26, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

@TheTranarchist and I have quoted what AP says the organization does. You are saying it is not what it does and choosing to override the AP?

Thanks.

Jdbrook talk 05:00, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Better sources are already used in the article. The AP is simply quoting what the organization says about itself, and that by itself does not make the self-serving and misleading description WP:DUE for inclusion in the article. Newimpartial (talk) 05:32, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

@Newimpartial I do not see that Buzzfeed's description of a group is better than the Associated Press' description of a group, that appears to be your opinion, is it not?

Thanks.

Jdbrook talk 06:17, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Where AP is parroting the group's misleading self-description, yes. But scholarly sources are better. Newimpartial (talk) 11:24, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

@Newimpartial your current stance seems to be that if an organization agrees with with the group calls itself, that it is misleading. This will restrict you to sources which disagree with what the group claims it is doing, as well as violating WP:NPOV . The Associated Press is a reliable source and thus should be quoted. Currently it is violating WP:NPOV.

The other references for those first three sentences are Buzzfeed News, CBS Miami, The Advocate and Medpage today. The Economist is also quoted, however, it does not support those sentences, in fact it says that different guidelines disagree (Europe vs. America section, for instance). Jdbrook talk 21:54, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

No, I am not automatically disqualifying sources that accept SEBGM at face value. However, it is clearly a minority of sources that do so in their own editorial voice. Newimpartial (talk) 22:10, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

@Newimpartial None of the statements at the top report what SEBGM says it does, what AP says it does, what the Economist says it is, or what Medscape says it does. An accusation against it is the second sentence and its non-recognition as a scientific organization (what does that mean??) is the third sentence. (Does it claim anywhere on its web pages that it is a scientific organization?)

Instead an "accusation" is listed with high priority--even there, in the article saying an accusation, following the link to its Buzzfeed source, it says "SEGM member Roberto D’Angelo said the group was concerned with the “low quality of evidence” in gender-affirming treatment." https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/avivastahl/transgender-trans-kids-healthcare-science

How many references are required for this information to actually appear in Wikipedia?

"The Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine, a nonprofit group of health professionals who are concerned about medical transition risks for minors"--https://apnews.com/article/science-health-gender-identity-79a844a84cbc3fc1ff178476cc16cf2e Associated Press

"Mason is a clinical advisor to SEGM, an organization set-up to evaluate current interventions and evidence on gender dysphoria." https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/964604 Medscape Medical News

"the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine, an international group of doctors and researchers." https://www.economist.com/international/2020/12/12/an-english-ruling-on-transgender-teens-could-have-global-repercussions Economist (agreed, not as descriptive as the other two)

"We are an international group of over 100 clinicians and researchers concerned about the lack of quality evidence for the use of hormonal and surgical interventions as first-line treatment for young people with gender dysphoria. We represent expertise from a range of clinical disciplines.

Our objectives include evaluating current interventions for gender dysphoria, providing balanced evidence summaries, promoting the development of effective and supportive psychosocial approaches for the care of young people with gender dysphoria and generating good, answerable questions for research.

Young people with gender dysphoria deserve respect, compassion, and high quality care. Please join us in our mission to promote evidence-based care for children, adolescents, and young adults that prioritizes life (i.e. measures of mortality), quality of life, long-term outcomes, and fully informed consent. SEGM is free from political, ideological, religious, or financial influences." https://segm.org/about_us SEBGM itself

And for the misinformation claim, SEBGM is saying the evidence is low quality, which is what all the evidence reviews are saying, and why several countries have changed their policies drastically. The op-ed in the WSJ that somehow is not a SEBGM activity (see discussion below) is exactly about this issue.

This page does not appear to be an accurate representation of this organization: its stated goals are not even listed anywhere, even though high quality publications like AP and Medscape believe them and report them and the Economist uses them as a source.

Thanks.

Jdbrook talk 03:53, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Why are you only quoting from sources sympathetic to the organization? Are you unable to find more mainstream sources? Newimpartial (talk) 04:50, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Medscape and AP are as mainstream as it gets. We don't define "mainstream" based on POV or as "agrees with anti-gatekeeping activists". Crossroads ^-talk- 16:08, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

I find it difficult to believe that this article represents a mainstream view. Newimpartial (talk) 16:12, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

@Newimpartial @Crossroads Medscape is a mainstream medical journal. Sources are just being dismissed because of their content.

I really don't know what to say.

This Medscape article is being thrown out because an editor doesn't think this Medscape article is representing a mainstream opinion of what SEBGM is? Is the article about what some people think SEBGM is or what it is? AP is being thrown out for what SEBGM is but quoted otherwise. Buzzfeed quotes a member saying that the group is concerned with low quality evidence. This is not mentioned either.

There are repeated sources saying that SEBGM is concerned with the quality of evidence behind these medical treatments. By the group itself, by others. This is not being mentioned.

Currently this page does not say what SEBGM does besides the incorrect claim that it disagrees with standard medical care for gender dysphoria, as there is no standard medical care, there are a wide diversity of approaches. I gave an article that has someone from SEBGM saying that WPATH is not doing evidence based care. This would be a correct statement, where SEBGM disagrees with a policy.

(Some other countries are doing evidence reviews, and putting together policies based on them, that would be evidence based medicine. Is SEBGM against them?)

So the lead is currently this incorrect statement about the group and then an accusation about it (what misinformation is it spreading in particular??) and then a claim that it is also not recognized as a scientific organization (who recognizes scientific organizations? who gets to decide this?)?

"The Society For Evidence-Based Gender Medicine (SEGM) is an activist non-profit organisation and group that opposes standard medical care for gender dysphoria. The group has been accused of spreading misinformation about gender dysphoria and gender-affirming care. It is not recognized as a scientific organization."

This doesn't actually tell you what SEBGM does.

Another questionable statement:

"In Texas, Attorney General Paxton cited SEGM's statement that "childhood-onset gender dysphoria has been shown to have a high rate of natural resolution, with 61-98% of children reidentifying with their biological sex during puberty" in a bill that would restrict gender-affirming care for transgender youth. However, the statistic is cited from a paper which showed a strong association between the intensity of a child's dysphoria and its persistence."

The 61%-98% statement is a standard result from a review article by Ristori & Steensma (2016), because....the group is quoting the evidence. The second sentence is a non sequitur. What is it doing there? What does the "however" imply, did SEBGM say something incorrect?

Ditto:

"In April 2022, the Florida Department of Health wrote a memo which misrepresented the scientific consensus to stop minors in the state from socially or medically transitioning and cited Malone."

There isn't a "scientific consensus."

And they cited Malone for what exactly? Here is the memo: https://www.floridahealth.gov/_documents/newsroom/press-releases/2022/04/20220420-gender-dysphoria-guidance.pdf As far as I can see it quotes medical research and evidence reviews.

Why didn't the Wikipedia page actually link to the memo? I would put the actual link in now except then the whole sentence doesn't make sense, because I don't see Malone cited anywhere in the memo.

"The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services stated "gender-affirming care for minors, when medically appropriate and necessary, improves their physical and mental health. Attempts to restrict, challenge, or falsely characterize this potentially lifesaving care as abuse is dangerous.""

SEBGM criticized the US department of Health and Human services for not using the evidence when it made these statements. That would be accurate to report. So did Florida, in the memo.

To summarize what is listed under activities:

1. A quotation from one adviser in the Christian Post. (But a quotation from an adviser in Medscape has been rejected.) Also a sentence about social transition making gender dysphoria persist, attributed to an SEBGM member, from the AP article which was not considered ok to say what SEBGM is. The AP did not give all the research references because it is a newspaper article. There's an insinuation this statement by Malone is false, is it false?
2. Quoting legislation saying that SEBGM says something, and then someone else saying what the legislation quotes SEBGM for is not supported.
3. Quoting Mallory Moore's blog for what the world's leading scientific bodies think. And the controversial CAAPS statement.
4. Quoting SEBGM for something (accurate) in a review article in the literature and then a non-sequitur about an association--is this implying SEBGM said something incorrect? Did SEBGM say something incorrect?
5. A description of a memo that supposedly quotes Malone, but it doesn't, here is the memo: https://www.floridahealth.gov/_documents/newsroom/press-releases/2022/04/20220420-gender-dysphoria-guidance.pdf And an opinion by a Florida paper about the Florida Board and SEBGM. The description of SEBGM by Associated Press and Medscape are not, for some reason, acceptable for the page, just this opinion by a Florida paper.

For each, there are issues:

(1) What is quoted and not quoted is not consistent with what else has been allowed on the page.

(2) Is one group criticizing another group for what SEBGM supposedly said.

(3) Why is this blog being quoted? Is this a reliable source?

(4) the "however" statement should be dropped. Yes, SEBGM was quoted for something in a research article, likely from its pages which have information on studies. That is correct. The other sentence just seems to be insinuating something?

(5) The statement about the memo is just incorrect and should be dropped. I see no reason to include the Florida opinion and not include those of AP or Medscape or others.

Some accurate statements about what the group is and does include:

SEBGM is "a nonprofit group of health professionals who are concerned about medical transition risks for minors" (AP)

SEBGM Advisor Mason has criticized the WPATH SOC8 draft saying " it is not evidence based." (Medscape)

SEBGM criticized the US HHS for not using evidence when it wrote its policies.

SEBGM Advisor Mason has co-written an editorial in the Wall Street Journal calling for a review of the evidence by the American Academy of Pediatrics. (Wall Street Journal)

Thanks.

Jdbrook talk 13:21, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Jdbrook, I think we need to start by evaluating your premise that there is no standard medical care for gender dysphoria. What is the basis for this claim? It doesn't seem to fit the available sources. If your position is that there isn't a standard because SEGBM (and its Genspect allies) defy the standard upheld by the vast majority of relevant professional bodies, that seems pretty PROFRINGE to me. Newimpartial (talk) 13:48, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Showing there is a standard is where the burden of proof lay, and it must be cited to MEDRS.

Frankly the entire article suffers from the issue of being in a weird limbo where because it is ostensibly just about an organization, it cites non-MEDRS and activist sources that we would never allow on articles about gender dysphoria itself. However, MEDRS applies to all medical claims. And the topic is difficult because there are striking and severe differences between national intelligentsias and media-classes on this matter (and some others). What one country considers mainstream another condemns as the views of misinformed rednecks and fundamentalists.

I don't know where we go from here. I suggest trying to edit the article to improve it where possible; we may need an RfC on the first sentence. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:20, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that WPATH is a non-MEDRS source for standards of care for gender dysphoria? That sounds like an EXTRAORDINARY claim that should not be taken seriously without evidence.

Also, while you have previously asserted that claims that aren't high quality MEDRS to begin with need higher quality MEDRS to offer criticism of them, I haven't seen any convincing evidence of community support for that view.Newimpartial (talk) 23:30, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

I never suggested that. WPATH is a MEDRS, among many others. We should be focusing on that class of sources. Any sort of medical claim needs a MEDRS, yes. There is no exemption for 'debunking'. Many poorly sourced incorrect claims are not noteworthy to begin with. Further use of in-text attribution and more specificity, especially in the lead sentence, can also help. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:01, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

So which of the claims SEBGM makes has sufficiently high-quality sourcing that they should be presented (with attribution) in article text? I assume that the RSOPINION and legislative submission content don't make the grade; am I right?

(And lest you accuse me of straw-goating you in my previous comment, I will point out the many discussions on Talk:ROGD where you have insisted that higher quality MEDRS references be used to debunk claims than the sources that made the claims in the first place. I am not by any means fabricating that, and will happily present the relevant diffs if that is important to anyone.) Newimpartial (talk) 00:12, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

@Newimpartial You keep asking the same thing over and over again. There are several different protocols in use for treating gender dysphoria. Which I have listed: Finland, Sweden, the UK's new guidelines, above. Now as of last week Florida, after an evidence review, and then WPATH and then the affirmative model which is not the same. If you agree with one, you disagree with the other. France is arguing to prioritize psychotherapy too. References are above. So you can say something is standard but it is not agreed upon. Whose standards?

As far as high quality sourcing, none of the medical evidence in this field is high quality, and very little is moderate quality, that is what the evidence reviews find. From the Endocrine Society to the UK NHS/NICE review to Sweden to the review of evidence reviews by experts at McMaster (home of evidence based medicine) that was commissioned by Florida. That is in fact the reason for the policy changes in these countries.

As for quality sources as to what SEBGM is, AP, Economist, Medscape are not ok for some reason...

I appreciate @Crossroads for looking at this too.

I believe the Wikipedia approach for trying to find what is accurate is not succeeding for this page.

Thanks.

Jdbrook talk 02:36, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Re: That is in fact the reason for the policy changes in these countries - I think you would be hard pressed to find indeoendent sources supporting your claim that recent changes in Florida or in the UK were based primarily on evidence based medicine. But some day, some way I hope that you will indeed produce such sources - which have clearly eluded you so far. Newimpartial (talk) 02:48, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

@Newimpartial

The UK changes were recommended by the Cass Review made after they got results from two evidence reviews: https://cass.independent-review.uk/nice-evidence-reviews/

The Florida changes were made after doing an evidence review (more precisely a combination of evidence reviews, which also evaluated the quality of earlier evidence reviews): https://ahca.myflorida.com/letkidsbekids/docs/AHCA_GAPMS_June_2022_Attachment_C.pdf

Both of these reviews found the evidence to be low or very low certainty or quality, i.e., the studies cannot be used to reliably estimate outcomes. Given that the benefits cannot be established and the risks are significant, both the UK and Florida put restrictions on these medical interventions. Sweden did the same, it is not included in the Florida synthesis of reviews (by a professor at McMaster, which is where evidence based medicine was developed), because it was not in English, but here is its summary of recommendations: https://www.socialstyrelsen.se/globalassets/sharepoint-dokument/artikelkatalog/kunskapsstod/2022-3-7799.pdf The summary is in English.

Here is a salient quotation:

"For adolescents with gender incongruence, the NBHW deems that the risks of puberty suppressing treatment with GnRH-analogues and gender-affirming hormonal treatment currently outweigh the possible benefits, and that the treatments should be offered only in exceptional cases. This judgement is based mainly on three factors: the continued lack of reliable scientific evidence concerning the efficacy and the safety of both treatments [2], the new knowledge that detransition occurs among young adults [3], and the uncertainty that follows from the yet unexplained increase in the number of care seekers, an increase particularly large among adolescents registered as females at birth [4]."

They did the evidence reviews and then constructed their policies in response, that is how you do evidence based medicine.

The AAP seems to have refused to do an evidence review in preparation for their new guidelines https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/979262 and its previous guidelines (Rafferty et al. 2018) were based on misquoting the evidence (see the peer reviewed article by Cantor, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31838960/ ). And if you try to argue as some have in court that he hasn't treated gender dysphoric children, note that whether the AAP misrepresented its sources or not is independent of who checks, if they are doing it correctly.

Notably, the evidence review based and thus evidence based guidelines diverge from those of the AAP. That is, there is not a consensus right now.

Thanks. Jdbrook talk 01:19, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

You are citing Cantor as an authority again. Cantor is FRINGE (and was banned from enwiki for socking, as well). I'm not seeing any there, there. Newimpartial (talk) 02:49, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

That is completely irrelevant to Jdbrook's main point. Given that major medical authorities in some countries seem to agree with Cantor, FRINGE seems a rather strong descriptor. The US and Canada are not the whole world. Crossroads ^-talk- 17:33, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Please read for content. I am not suggesting that all opposition to gender-affirming care is FRINGE; I am addressing specifically Jdbrook's reference to Cantor as an authority on the topic. Newimpartial (talk) 17:45, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Article bias

SEGM does not support ex-gay conversion therapy. They believe that many trans identifying individuals are actually gay. Article as written is slander and false. 69.138.246.176 (talk) 16:03, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Conversion therapy is internationally recognized as applying to gender identity as well as sexual orientation. The article does not say they "ex-gay conversion therapy" at all, it clearly says "gender-identity". SEGM's claim that trans people are actually gay has no basis in fact and no bearing on the discussion. Historically speaking, there has never been an instance of "kid says they're gay, therapists try and force them to be trans", while the reverse, "kid says they're trans, therapists say they're not and try and force them to be gay", has actually happened. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:17, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Proposed changes for SEGM to balance the article

I checked the articles and found that the page does not currently appear to be neutral and many reputable sources show this ( [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] ).

As a result, I want to make these additions to the article:

to Summary:

Extended content

SEGM has also been described as a non-profit organization of health and research professionals that questions the "gender-affirming care" approach to gender dysphoric adolescents, a hotly-debated topic in North America and some parts of Europe in a number of prominent and independent publications, including Medscape, The Associated Press, Wall Street Journal, Newsweek and others. SEGM questions the science behind the recommendations to use puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and subsequent surgery for gender-dysphoric youth, and particularly the AAP recommendations to use these interventions as the first line of treatment for minors presenting with gender dysphoria. SEGM is named among the organizations, as well as a growing number of European and American physicians, opposing the "informed consent" model of care for young people. Under this alternative model of care for gender dysphoria, mental health assessments for youth are not required and hormones can be provided after just one visit following the collection of a patient’s or guardian’s consent signature.

to Activities and positions:

Extended content

In the article published by The Economist, an endocrinolist and a board member of SEGM William Malone compared the ongoing gender-indentity medical debate with the opioid crisis in the US: “William Malone... sees parallels with previous medical scandals, not least the opioid crisis. There is a mix of “Big Pharma, a vulnerable patient population, and physicians misled by medical organisations or tempted by wealth and prestige”, he says. But now there is gender-identity ideology on top. “We are completely saturated with corporate influences and lobby groups,” says Dr Malone. “The only way they will be halted is if a massive number of people are harmed and they get together to sue the people who harmed them.

to Activities and positions:

Extended content

In "Early transgender identity tends to endure, study suggests," published by the Associated Press on May 3, 2022, journalist and medical writer Lindsay Tanner cited SEGMs advisor Dr. William Malone's opinion opposite a five-year study published online in Pediatrics: “that early social gender transition may cement a young person’s transgender identity, and lead minors on the path to eventual medicalization, with all its inherent risks and uncertainties.”

to Reception:

Extended content

Former top Food and Drug Administration official David Gortler criticized the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) for releasing a document titled "Gender-Affirming Care and Young People." In an article published in Newsweek magazine, Gortler stated: "...Puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones for gender transition are all off-label, non-FDA-approved use... “Likewise, the Society for Evidence Based Gender Medicine (SEGM) fact-checked HHS' document...It raised concerns over the manner the guidance was developed, noting its inadequate literature review, biased recommendations that do not acknowledge the low quality of evidence it relies upon, failure to consult a range of views—such as those for whom "gender-affirming" care was not beneficial—and failure to identify or acknowledge alternative treatments.”

to Reception:

Extended content

An author of Irreversible Damage Abigail Shrier in The Wall Street Journal criticized American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) for for suppressing the gender dysphoria debate and trying to marginalize dissenting organizations like SEGM. Shrier quoted Julia Mason, a pediatrician, SEGM board member and AAP fellow: "The AAP is “working very hard to give an appearance that everything’s been decided and there’s no debate. The growing numbers of detransitioners suggests that [pediatricians] don’t really know what we’re doing in this case". The same author quoted another SEGM's researcher:" “When the home of the Nobel Prize in medicine stops transitioning children as a matter of general practice, and pulls it back into tightly controlled research settings, is this not a wake-up a call for the rest of the world?”"

to Medical Community:

Extended content

SEGM has been described as an organization opposing the medical approach of "informed consent" among minors with gender dysphoria in a Medscape article, "Transgender Teens: Is the Tide Starting to Turn?". In the publication authors Becky McCall and Lisa Nainggolan expressed concerns about growing number of gender dysphoric youth who are challenging mistaken decisions as teenagers to accept medical treatment that including puberty blockers, cross-gender hormones, and double mastectomies, noting the particularly notable case Bell v Tavistock case. The authors also noted: "In the UK, such surgeries are reserved for people over 18, but in the US, double mastectomies have been performed on children as young as 13 years old".

to Medical Community:

Extended content

In October 2022, Kaiser Health News, criticized political advocacy group founded by Stephen Miller for funding a false ad campaign based on the assumption that "“Joe Biden and the New Left even promote surgery on teens and young adults, removing breasts and genitals,” the ad claims. KHN received an email from SEGM "condemning false ad campaign" and stated: "Even leaders of the Society for Evidence-based Gender Medicine, who are wholly skeptical of the acceleration in gender-affirming care, said “it is not accurate to say that the Biden administration is pushing these interventions on kids.”

Cidertail (talk) 14:19, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Starting with just the lead editions, which are a complete misreading of the sources, WP:OR, and WP:FRINGE apologia

• source 1: it's already described as a non-profit, we could perhaps add that they're composed of "health and research professionals" to the lead.
• for that questions the "gender-affirming care" approach to gender dysphoric adolescents, a hotly-debated topic in North America and some parts of Europe in a number of prominent and independent publications, including Medscape,[2] The Associated Press, Wall Street Journal,[3] Newsweek[4] and others.[5][6][7], the whole section is WP:OR and WP:FRINGE

The scare quotes around gender-affirming care are not neutral, and "hotly debated" is not supported by sources

source 2: provides SEGM sigcov, with muliple experts saying that SEGMs positions are WP:FRINGE

source 3: an WP:RSOPINION piece that quotes a bunch of SEGM members is neither WP:DUE nor supportive of "hotly debated"

Source 4: another opinion piece

Source 5: is not WP:SIRS coverage, it contains 1 quote from 1 SEGM member

Source 6: Doesn't mention SEGM once...

Source 7: is another opinion piece, that doesn't mention SEGM once

• SEGM questions the science behind the recommendations to use puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and subsequent surgery for gender-dysphoric youth, and particularly the AAP recommendations to use these interventions as the first line of treatment for minors presenting with gender dysphoria[2][8][9][10]

for a start, this is already covered in the lead by SEGM opposes informed consent for transgender healthcare for people under the age of 25 and is known for mischaracterizing standards of care for transgender youth

Source 2: does not mention the AAP at all

Source 8: does not mention the AAP, nor SEGM, once. Blatant WP:OR

Source 9: does not mention SEGM once, and is a commentary letter

Source 10: mentions neither SEGM nor the AAP...

• SEGM is named among the organizations, as well as a growing number of European and American physicians, opposing the "informed consent" model of care for young people. Under this alternative model of care for gender dysphoria, mental health assessments for youth are not required and hormones can be provided after just one visit following the collection of a patient’s or guardian’s consent signature[11][12][13]}

Informed consent is not an alternative model, it is the recognized model

Source 11: doesn't mention SEGM once

Source 12: is written by SEGM... hardly WP:INDEPENDENT. Apart from the disclosure of affiliation, it also doesn't mention SEGM once.

Source 13: once again, doesn't mention SEGM once...

TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:33, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

While the editor @TheTranarchist was banned from editing pages related to gender, my comments here for further escalation with more neutral editors who are ready to verify independently the sources i found and make their own unbiased conclusion. TheTranarchist automatically puts another opinion as "fringe" and doesn't recognize a growing number of sources that are opposite to their biased opinion. This is not how Wikipedia and policy on neutral editing works. All I want is to see that the sources on this page are used properly and without distortion of the facts, and that the information is balanced. It is absolutely necessary for independent researchers and editors to get involved in this situation. I believe there is a need to appeal as well.

:* for that questions the "gender-affirming care" approach to gender dysphoric adolescents, a hotly-debated topic in North America and some parts of Europe in a number of prominent and independent publications, including Medscape,[2] The Associated Press, Wall Street Journal,[3] Newsweek[4] and others.[5][6][7], the whole section is WP:OR and WP:FRINGE

::: The scare quotes around gender-affirming care are not neutral, and "hotly debated" is not supported by sources

::: source 2: provides SEGM sigcov, with muliple experts saying that SEGMs positions are WP:FRINGE

::: source 3: an WP:RSOPINION piece that quotes a bunch of SEGM members is neither WP:DUE nor supportive of "hotly debated"

::: Source 4: another opinion piece

::: Source 5: is not WP:SIRS coverage, it contains 1 quote from 1 SEGM member

::: Source 6: Doesn't mention SEGM once...

::: Source 7: is another opinion piece, that doesn't mention SEGM once

1) It is clearly supported by the sources and they are listed there. This is not a logical argument when you are clearly trying to distort the facts and refuse to accept the most notable sources I found.

2) Second, there is no justification for your to use labels on my research such as WP:FRINGE, WP:RSOPINION and WP:DUE - it is very easy to verify the information that I retrieved and rewritten from the same independent sources. Again, you simply reject unfavorable to your opinion agenda but allow a lot of sources on the page to express an opposite opinion. Isn't it exactly against the Wikipedia policy on neutral unbiased editing?

:* SEGM questions the science behind the recommendations to use puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and subsequent surgery for gender-dysphoric youth, and particularly the AAP recommendations to use these interventions as the first line of treatment for minors presenting with gender dysphoria[2][8][9][10]

::: for a start, this is already covered in the lead by SEGM opposes informed consent for transgender healthcare for people under the age of 25 and is known for mischaracterizing standards of care for transgender youth

::: Source 2: does not mention the AAP at all

::: Source 8: does not mention the AAP, nor SEGM, once. Blatant WP:OR

::: Source 9: does not mention SEGM once, and is a commentary letter

::: Source 10: mentions neither SEGM nor the AAP...

This is not covered properly with clearly negative review of the organization. While I recognize the criticism, there is no consensus on the topic and many sources confirm it. Also, it is not understood, while the summary is full of criticism but cannot include a more neutral summary of the organization? Many respectable sources do not name SEGM as "fringe" or else. Second, there is no source that indicates SEGM doesn't recognize "transgender care" for people under 25, so again - a distortion of facts.

Third, there is a lot of opinion pieces on this page used against the organization and you gladly used them. It is all about the opinions of the journalists, so you selectively cherry picked the negative opinions and refused to accept the alternative opinions. This is simply playing with the facts.

And TheTranarchist: never commented on the other sections I shared but simply removed them with no justification.

Cidertail (talk) 14:21, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Ok, taking this bit by bit. Starting with the sources related to your first point.

• Source 2, per policy we need to discount a lot of the words said by Malone on behalf of SEGM. He makes claims about third parties (ie Endocrine Society, Abigail Shrier, Keira Bell), and the small amount of information he does say about SEGM is pretty self-serving. Conversely there are multiple experts within the piece who do describe the organisation as existing on the fringes of medical research, with one directly stating [SEGM] are very much outside the mainstream.. There's very little Medscape put into their own editorial voice, so at best we could use this article for attributed statements made by those interviewed within.
• Source 3, it's very clearly an article that's subject to WP:RSOPINION, as the WSJ prominently mark it as an opinion article. At best we could use this to say something like "Abigail Shrier said X about SEGM", but there's absolutely no content here that we could put into wikivoice.
• Source 4, another opinion, so subject to the same policy.
• Source 5, this has a single paragraph, with the majority of content being quotations from Malone. When looking at the non-quotation text, at best all this article could support is that SEGM are a non-profit, who see a parallel between trans youth healthcare and previous medical scandals like the opioid crisis.
• Source 6, does not mention either SEGM or Malone.
• Source 7, this appears to be another opinion article, so subject to the same policy as sources 3 and 4.

Now looking at the content that it was proposed these sources support.

• that questions the "gender-affirming care" approach to gender dysphoric adolescents First off, the scare quotes part of the Manual of Style would apply to putting gender-affirming care into quotation marks. None of the sources really support this insofar as text they have put into their own editorial voices.
• a hotly-debated topic in North America and some parts of Europe seems unsupported by all except maybe Medscape, and even then it's only tenuously supported.
• in a number of prominent and independent publications, including This is pure textbook original research and synthesis. We are forbidden by policy to put text like this into articles, unless strong secondary reliable sources have said it. None of the sources provided support this assertion.

On your second point, WP:FRINGE, WP:RSOPINION, and WP:DUE are not labels applied to editors. They are shortcuts to relevant policies and guidelines that apply to all content on Wikipedia. In particular, DUE is part of the non-negotiable NPOV policy, and all content must comply with it. Where I've said "very clearly an article that's subject to RSOPINION", that means that we're talking about a very clearly marked opinion article and not factual reporting. We have very clear guidance for how to handle such content, at that shortcut. I am not going to comment on you simply reject unfavorable to your opinion agenda, except to say that it is a personal attack against another editor who cannot defend themselves. Please remember to not personalise discussions in this manner, comment on the content, not the contributor.

Now for the sources related to your second point.

• While source 2 mentions several organisations and trans healthcare providers, the AAP is not mentioned.
• Source 8 has no mention of AAP or SEGM.
• Source 9 is a commentary letter made by Annelou de Vries, a child and adolescent psychiatrist at Amsterdam University Medical Center. While it was published in the AAP Pediatrics journal, it's unclear as to whether or not it was peer-reviewed. In these circumstances, at best it could be used for opinions of de Vries. Neither SEGM nor Malone are mentioned in the letter.
• Source 10 is a research paper by Kenneth Zucker. There is no mention of SEGM or the AAP in the article.

Three of the sources, 8-10 are unusable for any content about SEGM. All four sources are unusable for any content about the AAP. When looking at the proposed content, none of the sources support it, making it unverifiable text. If you wanted to include the proposed sentence, you would need to provide reliable sources that are secondary or tertiary to SEGM that clearly and unequivocally state this. Once those sources are provided, then we can start to look at whether there is due weight to describe the organisation in those terms, or whether such a description would be a instance of false balance.

On the point relating to SEGM opposes informed consent for transgender healthcare for people under the age of 25 that is an accurate representation of Malone's words, on page 8 of source 2.

With regards to there is a lot of opinion pieces on this page used against the organization, in the current version of the article there are 31 sources. Of these, I've only been able to identify three opinion articles, citation numbers 25, 29, and 30. Looking at the content they support:

• 25 is supporting a sentence relating to Van Mol, and an attributed quotation.

  I'll be removing the sentence relating to Van Mol, and re-attributing the quotation to make it clearer that the quotation is the words of R.V. Scheide and not of the publication.

• Taking 29 and 30 at the same time. 29 is an open letter to the Polish Society for Psychodynamic Psychotherapy. It's being used to support attributed quotations from the letter in relation to SEGM. 30 is a related statement by the Polish Sexological Society. It's being used to support an attributed sentence relating to that statement.

  Because this paragraph lacks secondary sourcing, I will be removing it. I have no objection to re-adding it however if any secondary reliable sourcing, in either English or Polish, can be provided.

If there are any other opinion articles currently cited, could you please provide links to them so that they can be checked?

In relation to the other sections, TheTranarchist did comment on them, just in the edit summaries where the content was reverted. If you want to see her justifications for the removal, just click here and here, and on a desktop web browser her comments will be underneath the links to her talk and contributions pages. In my opinion however they have many of the same problems as the first.

• The first proposed addition to "activities and position" is cited to a single opinion article.
• The second proposed addition to the same section is puffery of Malone, and only tangentially related to the topic of this article. This is not an article about the study published in Pediatrics, and Wikipedia is a collection of random quotations by article subjects or those directly related to them. Information on Wikipedia must be kept in context, and this addition tells us nothing about the organisation itself nor its activities. Just that someone quoted from their founder.
• The first proposed addition addition to "reception" is cited to content on SEGM's website, and an opinion article in Newsweek. The same point that I made about Wikipedia not being a collection of random quotations also applies to this. As before, this does not tell us anything about the organisation nor its reception, just that they've been quoted.
• The second proposed addition to the same section is cited to an opinion article in the Wall Street Journal. As with my previous point, this does not tell us anything about the organisation nor its reception, just that the opinion article's author cited them.
• The first addition to "medical community" has one secondary source, the Medscape article, and two journal articles that do not mention SEGM and so are unusable. The quotations relating to the Bell v Tavistock judgement are off-topic for this article. The sentence relating to SEGM's opposition to informed consent is already included in the article.
• The second addition to the same section is already covered in the article. It was re-written slightly by TheTranarchist when she removed the other non-policy compliant sections, but it is currently in the article in a manner that is roughly policy compliant.

I realise this is a very long reply, but hopefully this is helpful to understand why TheTranarchist, Filiforme1312, Madeline, and myself all have now objected to the proposals, and which policies and guidelines that I (and likely the others) feel they contravene. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:37, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

@Cidertail: though TheTranarchist is now subject to a TBAN, WP:BANREVERT does not apply to edits made prior to a sanction taking effect.

On the merits of the content you wish to include, I agree with what TheTranarchist has written here. There are significant policy problems with the proposed content, as explained above. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:52, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi, Sideswipe9th! Are you sure you've had time to get up to speed in such a short time? I ask because I spent hours analyzing the subject. This article is obviously non-neutral. Even the very first sentence contains a negative assessment instead of an unbiased description. My attempt to suggest changes and discuss them with TheTranarchist got me nowhere, but I am willing to discuss it anew as I want to continue working to improve the article. Cidertail (talk) 23:32, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

With respect, your proposed changes have been on this talk page for over a week. I would have replied then, however TheTranarchist had already covered everything I would have said with respect to the policy issues surrounding the proposed content, so I saw no need, and with no further replies from yourself there was no obvious need to continue the discussion.

With regards to the first sentence of the article, that fairly reflects how SEGM are covered in reliable sources. While SEGM and their supporters might consider it non-neutral, it is nonetheless complaint with our core content policies as it is verifiable and fully NPOV compliant as it reflects the balance of how reliable sources discuss and cover this organisation. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:59, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm afraid it's hard for me to agree with you. The first phrase is The Society For Evidence-Based Gender Medicine (SEGM) is an activist non-profit organisation that is known for mischaracterizing standards of care for transgender youth and engaging in political lobbying using misinformation which contradicts the evidence base around transgender healthcare.

The only fact is that SEGM is an activist non-profit organization. All other statements, regardless of what the sources say, are not facts, but estimates and views. An article may have it in the Criticism section, but not in the first sentence.

The transgender care for youth is a hot and controversial topic, because it involves bodily integrity and the detransition phenomenon, and there's nothing good about having an unbalanced article that presents the organization of doctors as a conspiracy of transphobes.

And that's just the first sentence. The entire article gives a biased impression of the organization and the sources in it will not stand up to the criticism that was directed at the ones I suggested. They are misused or manipulated, and the organization's position is distorted. Cidertail (talk) 01:53, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

What we're discussing here is something that a lot of editors struggle with. How can content on a person, organisation, or topic be either positive or negative, while still being neutral? Aren't we supposed to have no strong feelings, one way or the other? The reason editors struggle with this is because what Wikipedia policy means when it says All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view is different from how most people would describe neutral content. Following the NPOV policy means that we are neutral in our editing, and not neutral in our content.

In practice, what this means is that follow carefully what reliable sources say about any given article subject. If all reliable sources say the subject is good, then we state that it's good. If instead they say that it's bad, we state that it's bad. If sources are mixed, then things get a little more complicated. First we need to look at and assess what the majority, minority, and slim minority viewpoints on the subject are. Then we need to balance those perspectives, in doing so we must make sure that the article treats each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For the bulk of the content in the article, this means that it will follow the viewpoint of the majority of sources on the subject, while also containing some content on the significant minority viewpoint in relative proportion to that viewpoint's prominence in reliable sources.

While that might look like non-neutral content to a reader or editor who has a contrary opinion on a subject, it is nonetheless neutral within the way that we define neutrality on Wikipedia.

Now, bringing it back to this article. As I said before, I believe that this article fairly and accurately represents the mainstream view on SEGM. As an organisation, SEGM are opposed to the standard gender affirming care model of transgender healthcare, and in their opposition they have mischaracterised that model of care[11] and promoted discredited and unsupported theories like rapid-onset gender dysphoria and conversion therapy. Because of their departure from the mainstream view with regards to transgender healthcare, they have received a lot of criticism from both the press and academia. Within the realm of what we consider reliable sources, there is pretty much no positive coverage of the organisation that I'm aware of, and what does exist does not raise to the level of dueness such that it would be considered a significant minority viewpoint by our NPOV policy.

At the end of last month, TheTranarchist made a series of comments on the content you've suggested adding to the article, and the sources proposed to support it. Now while she obviously cannot contribute any further to this discussion, I would nonetheless be interested to hear your response to those points. In particular I would like to hear why you believe sources that fail verification should be used to support content that they cannot support, and how at minimum the sources that are verifiable constitute towards there being a significant minority viewpoint in support of the organisation and its activities. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:49, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

@Sideswipe9th, I commented under the TheTranarchist's comments and I cannot understand how Medscape, The Wall Street Journal, Newsweek or The Associated Press are not accepted while other much less known websites or blogs are allowed to express their opinion. Again, there is no consensus on the topic - it is still debated and there is a growing numbers of sources that oppose "established status quo" - I just brought a few of them. Also, I'm going to launch the full revision of this page. I'm not the supporter of the SEGM but I can't accept the fact that some sources are allowed to use and the others (the eligible ones) are rejected. Also, I'm going to place a tag on this page until this dispute comes to a resolution - there is an undue weight to one opinion here and we are very far from neutral use of sources on this Wikipedia page. Cidertail (talk) 14:28, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

I've spent some time reviewing this and will echo Thetranarchist and Sideswipe9th's concerns and request for a direct response to them. Pending consensus, I would suggest refraining from this overhaul, including in piecemeal. This topic area is especially prone to misunderstandings of WP used to bring articles in line with the subject's self perception. Filiforme1312 (talk) 21:25, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

I also agree and do not find Cidertail's points very convincing from an NPOV perspective. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 21:32, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Forgot to mention:

Its a little unclear if this post is meant to address the addition of WP:NPOVD. In the interest of clearing the tag, concerns with existing content should be specifically detailed with corresponding WP. A new thread or section may be warranted.

Corresponding NPOVD section:

Drive-by tagging is discouraged. The editor who adds the tag should address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort. Filiforme1312 (talk) 22:46, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

I've removed both of those templates now per Template:POV#When to remove #2 and WP:WTRMT #4 and 7. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:46, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

References

Extended content

Neutrality

Hi, @Sideswipe9th, @Filiforme1312, and @Maddy from Celeste!

(Personal attack removed)

From a variety of sources, some scolding the organization and some favorable, the former have been carefully selected. As for style of speech, I have already cited as an example the very first phrase, in which there are a lot of value judgments and few facts.

Seriously, I think the editors who read this discussion got a first and false impression of the organization from this article. But basically, all this article is a competent skillful denigration.

For example, it says here that SEGM proposes to ban transgender transition until the age of 25. Any normal person would be outraged by this, and any attempt I make to question the article's accuracy will always look like an attempt to clean up a transphobic organization.

However, SEGM is not a transphobic organization, although there are certainly sources who consider it so.

Nevertheless, the organization's primary sources state that they support LGBT people and trans people in particular. That every adult person has the right to do what they want. They just have their position on how to deal with gender dysphoric youth who want a gender-affirming surgery. And we know that the US, UK, Norway, Finland, and other countries use various approaches in this regard. And SEGM's position is not marginal and is not alternative medicine (the article, by the way, is included in such a category).

Nevertheless, any my attempts to make changes are blocked. Even my edit where I changed the short description from "Organization opposing transgender rights" to "Organization in the field of transgender youth healthcare" was rolled back.

Wikipedia is about cooperation and consensus, not political windmill fighting. I hope for a little more attention to my arguments, because it seems to me that the article should adequately reflect the organization and its views to give us a chance to reasonably accept or reject them - and not a caricature of them. Cidertail (talk) 23:49, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

I have removed the personal attacks and grave dancing. Focus on the content, not other contributors. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:14, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

it says here that SEGM proposes to ban transgender transition until the age of 25 Yes, that is verifiable content. SEGM opposes the informed consent model for trans healthcare for all transgender people under the age of 25. That comes from the exact words of the organisations founder.

Nevertheless, the organization's primary sources state that they support LGBT people and trans people in particular. How the organisation describes their activities is not an accurate determiner for how they are perceived by others. Wikipedia policy states that Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources, and to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. What is important to us, as editors, is representing how the organisation is described in secondary sources. How the organisation describes its activities would only really be relevant in a juxtaposition for how they have either succeeded or failed in meeting their self-described goals, and would require strong reliable sources who made that same juxtaposition before it could be included.

SEGM's position is not marginal and is not alternative medicine As I quoted in a related section above SEGM have been described by multiple experts within their field as existing at the fringes of medicine. No comment on the article being in the alternative medicine category, except to say that if there is a consensus for it then it should probably be in Category:Alternative medicine organizations per WP:CATSPECIFIC.

Nevertheless, any my attempts to make changes are blocked. Specific reasons have been given, by myself and TheTranarchist, when reverting your proposed additions to the article. Those reasons are based on relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines that apply to all content added to Wikipedia articles.

I hope for a little more attention to my arguments I do not see any non-attentive dismissal of your arguments and proposals. Multiple policy reasons have been given for why the content cannot be placed into the article. In addition, where you have pointed out policy non-compliant text, I have removed it from the article. I believe that other editors are giving fair attention to what you are saying, they are just disagreeing with it. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:23, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

it says here that SEGM proposes to ban transgender transition until the age of 25. Any normal person would be outraged by this...

Youth is not synonymous with Minor. Youth is generally understood to end at 25 in the US.

The source for this is clear irt Malone's views on age, cognitive development, and what forms of gender affirming care are inappropriate under 25. It names HRT, GnRHs, hysterectomies and surgery generally. This does not stop SEGM from engaging in advocacy for bills banning healthcare for a lower age, which may be the source of confusion. Filiforme1312 (talk) 00:54, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Low quality, biased article focused on defamation

Flagging entry here WP:LBL

Enough said in the many discussions here. This article is exactly what WP is not for: a place to grand stand opinions, to defame and formulate attacks to make a veil of validity over them as “unbiased fact”

the tiny number of contributors are blocking all attempts to remove bias from the article

this Article is not salvageable and should be removed. Whether one supports or does not support the position of SEGM, then if a WP article is needed, it should be written from the ground up. Right now the current editors are basically squatting on this page to air their POV.

It is the antithesis of what WP is for.

Jennpublic (talk) 21:37, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

And you believe this, entirely because the authors stated the overwhelming medical consensus which is that SEGM pedals in medical misinformation and unsupported theories? Snokalok (talk) 03:17, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Subjective Editing

I believe that certain editors of this article need to refresh on WP:Point, WP:Listen and Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. There is more than enough back-and-forth editing because of certain POVs that, in my and apparently many other opinions in this Talk thread, should cease; especially and particularly the introductory paragraph that has excessive subjective language and is against Wikipedia policy for unbiased, neutral editing. As everyone reading this and the article itself knows, this topic is highly controversial and there is no consensus on what is right or wrong; certain sources are from provenly biased organizations. Using an opinionated WSJ article as a source to make a point could easily be rebutted with an opinionated one from Fox News; it's a matter of point of view. I started my Wikipedia account to assist in grammar and proper wording specifically, and seeing this kind of pissing match is disappointing when so many people disagree with one another. Just keep it neutral. WyntersMyst (talk) 05:49, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

100% agree. I also joined WP with intent to just improve grammar and such, on the assumption that WP was an authentic collaboration of people trying to collate objective information to create a reliable source in itself.

Although this is a minor article on a minor organization, it is articles such as this which are dragging WP down to a “pissing contest” (as you aptly say) … of folks trying to enforce their POV as fact. Jennpublic (talk) 18:43, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

I may have worded that last part strong. I hope I did not break any policies here; it's just to clarify what this looks like to the general public. Wikipedia, as you said, looks less reliable with extremely biased opinionated phrasing. It's unnecessary and you wouldn't find it said like that in an encyclopedia; therefore it shouldn't be here.

@Jennpublic WyntersMyst (talk) 19:20, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Using an opinionated WSJ article as a source to make a point could easily be rebutted with an opinionated one from Fox News; it's a matter of point of view. – the difference is that the Wall Street Journal is considered generally reliable on all topics, including politics, while Fox is not. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 19:25, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Not the point here. That was just an example. Again, you're generalizing based on opinion and in no way sound neutral. I could point out facts that WSJ has gotten wrong to you, but that's not the point of Wikipedia. WyntersMyst (talk) 19:32, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

The "point of Wikipedia" is to summarize what reliable sources have to say on the topic. If the sources supporting your point of view are of lacking or questionable reliability, as is the case for Fox News on politics (WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS), then those will naturally be given less weight. That is precisely what neutrality means here. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 19:44, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

This article is near WP:LBL status because of how biased it sounds in certain sentences. My point is being missed once again. Forget I mentioned Fox News. I was only saying to keep the wording neutral. I didn't delete anything that makes SEGM look bad, just changed wording so that it isn't making Wikipedia look like they hold a subjective opinion. WyntersMyst (talk) 19:58, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

However, after more consideration, I have to agree with you regarding your own point of neutrality with sourcing; but that was not my point, just to clarify. WP:NPOV's (your own source as well as mine when starting this subsection) states verbatim: "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Again, forget me mentioning Fox (either way, regardless of anyone's personal feelings about them, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources specifically lists Fox News as "generally reliable" for straight news reporting and "unclear" with politics).

Let me be clear; I did not join Wikipedia to argue political points of view, but to assist with improper grammar and biased wording/phrasing in a multitude of topics. When I see something like "SEGM falsely claimed" or "SEGM mischaracterizes" in the introductory paragraph, I immediately want to correct it into something that appears less opinionated. When doing so, I never quoted Fox News; that would just lead to arguing and turn into WP:SNOW in the end. If everyone could remain neutral, professional and cordial as editors regardless of their political/personal beliefs or feelings, everything could be much easier. WyntersMyst (talk) 01:34, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Request for major rewrite

Hello Sideswipe9th. It appears that this article requires significant revision in order to adhere to an encyclopedic format. As it stands, the article largely consists of a collection of quotes, which is in violation of MOS:QUOTE. Moreover, the EARWIG tool has indicated a 57.4% - violation possible score, suggesting a potential copyright violation.

In light of these concerns, it would be beneficial for us to engage in a discussion to collaboratively revise and improve this article. Colaheed777 (talk) 17:44, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

You need to actually look at the earwig result, not just quote the number up top. In this case there is no copyright violation. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 20:10, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, while Earwig is saying it's a possible violation, at closer inspection the hits seem to be primarily coming from names of individuals and organisations, and some lengthy quotes that are in the article. The former is unavoidable as there's only really one or two ways you can name a person or organisation.

On the later, we should look at paraphrasing the portions of quotes where possible. For example we could rephrase:

The Yale School of Medicine issued a report which stated "The core members of SEGM frequently serve together on the boards of other organizations that oppose gender-affirming treatment and, like SEGM, feature biased and unscientific content. These include Genspect, Gender Identity Challenge (GENID), Gender Health Query, Rethink Identity Medicine Ethics, Sex Matters, Gender Exploratory Therapy Team, Gender Dysphoria Working Group, and the Institute for Comprehensive Gender Dysphoria Research."

to something like:

A report issued by the Yale School of Medicine stated that 14 of SEGM's core members often work together on the boards of other organizations that oppose gender-affirming healthcare who "like SEGM, feature biased and unscientific content". Other such organisations include...

In the ellipsis at the end, we could look at including only those organisations that we consider notable (ie those we have articles on), or we could continue the quotation to include the list as previously. In this example, the only content that we're close to putting into Wikivoice is uncontroversial stuff, ie that SEGM board members frequently serve on the boards of other organisations that oppose gender-affirming healthcare, while leaving the potentially controversial bit on bias and unscientific content in an attributed quotation.

I don't know if we need a full article rewrite though. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:40, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the input. Yes, the article does require partial revision, particularly converting quotes into concise encyclopedic prose to address potential copyright concerns. Your proposed format works for me. Colaheed777 (talk) 08:35, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Looking at the report more deeply, it largely only flags it because of the frequent use of standardized terminology and phrasing. Not worth a rewrite Snokalok (talk) 22:34, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

I so appreciate @Colaheed777 jumping in with an offer to guide a major revision. But immediately, those invested in WP:BIAS of this article are jumping in, and terms like “unscientific” are immediately up with folks looking to find a way for their inclusion.

“Major rewrite” to me means starting at first principals, with a standardized structure and intro, and writing style that is fact only (without the digs), and consistent with other advocacy organizations in this area… on both sides.

For comparative examples of structure, style and form of advocacy orgs on the other side of this debate see International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association, Stonewall (charity), Mermaids (charity) (which extraordinarily is missing anything about numerous controversies), World Professional Association for Transgender Health.

IMHO when an article like this has been written as an obvious hit job, the rewrite should be total and the original writers taken off the case. Someone with no skin in the game, and proven track record of encyclopedic writing should be delegated.

allowing the original writers to squat this article and revert every edit should have consequences those users, to deter this behavior.

It’s no wonder so few people want to get involved in WP editing anymore! Jennpublic (talk) 18:48, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

ROGD "discredited" in lede

This overly-strong wording has been reinstated numerous times in the last few days, based on a single primary source that does not use the word "discredited". This is more than just paraphrasing, and into WP:OR.

The wiki article on ROGD describes the theory as "controversial". This is sufficient. Void if removed (talk) 17:39, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

I dunno if I would go so far as to say that it's WP:OR. Discredited does seem like a reasonable if very strong summary of the independent literature on the hypothesis. No studies independent of Littman have actually found any evidence to support it. And like the other studies, the full text of the cited source does state that it's findings do not support the hypothesis. At some point, unless something changes, we will have to start using language similar to this to describe the hypothesis.

But, the edits were originally made by an editor who has since been CU blocked as one of our LTAs. I'll restore controversial for now, but this seems like something that'll be raised again at the ROGD page, at the very least this is another study to include in that article's text. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:00, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

“Discredited” is more than loaded. The use of this kind of terminology is further evidence of bias in this article.

ROGD is not a hypothesis but a descriptor of a specific subset of GD presentation being seen in schools and Gender Identity clinics. It NAMES a phenomenon that has driven a ~4000% increase in teen girls presenting for treatment who identifying as boys. https://amp.theguardian.com/society/2022/nov/24/an-explosion-what-is-behind-the-rise-in-girls-questioning-their-gender-identity

Since it is a descriptor of an actual phenomenon it cannot be “discredited”

what is up for debate is the REASON teen girls are presenting with an ROGD pathology. For that research is needed, and has not been done.

researchers researching the ROGD phenomenon would then posit various hypotheses and ways to test them. Those can then be proven/disproven.

Hypotheses could include social contaigeon OR a new presentation among girls who suffered sexual abuse OR growing awareness of FTM gender identity OR chemicals in the water OR increased unrealistic pressure on girls to conform to reactionary sex based stereotypes OR a pubescent hormonal phenomenon hitherto unrecognized… those would be the hypotheses to “discredit”

the fact of girls who displayed no tendency for gender nonconformity or gender dysphoria or body dysmorphia until puberty is not “discredited”. It has been observed and documented. ROGD is a proposed name and proposed diagnostic cluster. Jennpublic (talk) 00:17, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

"Discredited" is more in line with medical consensus Snokalok (talk) 22:31, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

To elaborate, you may believe in ROGD. The field of medicine, overwhelmingly does not. Wikipedia reflects medical consensus. Snokalok (talk) 03:23, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

I support "discredited" over "controversial", since there's basically zero supporting evidence for it at this point. Loki (talk) 20:03, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Did you read The Guardian article I cited? Do you understand that The Guardian, like the New York Times, is considered a reliable source in its reporting? It reports on the FACT of the exponential rise in trans-presenting natal female teens, the lack of consensus on cause, the problems clinicians and the NHS face in untangling what is going on. The rise in trans identifying teen natal females IS NOT discredited. The NHS Cass report takes it very seriously.

what exactly are you saying is “discredited”? Please read full article (which is not an editorial piece) before responding. I will also post you the link to the Cass Report which is an official UK govt report. Jennpublic (talk) 23:31, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

BMJ article on the subject of evidence base

Thismight provide some useful background and help with framing this article appropriately. Do have a read. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 07:12, 21 May 2023 (UTC)