Talk:Irreversible Damage/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12

Acknowledging that some call the book "transphobic" or "anti-trans"

It looks like at least 12 of our sources either call the book transphobic or anti-trans or state that someone else called the book transphobic or anti-trans. This seems like a significant piece of information readers might want to be aware of. I am not asking the article to call the book transphobic or anti-trans (although it is), but I am asking that it be mentioned that the book is sometimes referred to as transphobic or anti-trans by at least some sources. Talib1101 (talk) 02:51, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

This is the sort of label such that readers would be better served being told why each source considers the book bad rather than looking to work in a particular label. Certain ones that use it can have it be mentioned in the text near that source, but doing that too much is redundant and detailed explanation is better. Crossroads -talk- 06:51, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
How is it "transphobic" to want to prevent people who, if they medically transition will later wish they had not done so, from doing so? If the author truly hated these people, she wouldnt care if they rashly let themselves be permanently sterilised &c - i.e., harmed. Or do people who transition and then wish they had not, or detransition not count as "trans", and thus have no bearing on whether someone advocating for their well being is "anti-trans" or not? 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:6136:D2CD:D164:1BED (talk) 08:48, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
There is no evidence that the book is concerned primarily with people who will subsequently experience regret or will detransition. This is WP:OR without evidence. Newimpartial (talk) 12:41, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
Regardless of what you think of the book (and everyone's opinion here is irrelevant, of course), the word "transphobic" should appear in the "Reception" section, where appropriate. Anyone should feel free to add it to any of the relevant reviews. Korny O'Near (talk) 15:48, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
Per WP:INTEXT I think acknowledging the book has been called transphobic or anti-trans by some sources is DUE. Whether this is in the reception section, or the marketing and distribution section would depend on the context of the sources. I note that before this edit, the word anti-trans only appeared in the citations list (4 times). At present the word transphobic only appears in the citation list (8 times). As such I don't think it's undue to say, with appropriate attribution that some feel this book is both of those words. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:20, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
Yes, even WP:LABEL says we should cover these terms with attribution when they are widely used (which is certainly the case here.) It's a major strain of reception to the book and a major part of the reason why it is notable, so it should be at least mentioned in both the body and the lead. --Aquillion (talk) 17:23, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
It does indeed seem that the reception of the book, particularly the controversy and criticism for promoting anti-trans misinformation, is one of the most notable things about it. It would benefit the article to put information about it in the lead section. PBZE (talk) 19:19, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Is the extensive description of Shrier's arguments in the lead DUE?

Raising this question after re-reading the lead, I worry that by providing an unnecessarily extensive description of here arguments, rather than a one-sentence summary we might be giving her arguments too much of a platform in a way that is both unencyclopedic and potentially confusing to readers. What are y'all's thoughts on this? A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 19:30, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree. In particular, criticism and other reception of the book is not mentioned in the lead at all. PBZE (talk) 19:37, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
I tentatively agree. What content is being proposed for removal, if any? And what for addition? Certainly per WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY there's a substantial amount of content not being summarised in the lead, notably anything from the marketing and reception subsections is conspicuously absent. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:55, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
@A. C. Santacruz: Where would we move it? Background and publication history? Talib1101 (talk) 00:02, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
I am not aware that trying to avoid giving a "platform" is a policy-based concern. WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY shows that we should summarize the article, and part of that is the claims made by the author. The lead is actually fairly short, all things considered. Crossroads -talk- 00:43, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Agreed with Crossroads here. The entire first paragraph is about criticizing the book already. Including a paragraph about what the book is about is rather DUE for an article about the book. -Pengortm (talk) 02:49, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
The first paragraph is a factual description in wikivoice of the book and its subject matter. It says nothing about public opinion of the book, even though said public opinion takes up a good portion of the body. Thus, the lead does not adequately summarize the body. Reading the "summary" section, it's mostly primary sources. Normally, primary sources are original research; is it any different when summarizing a published work? PBZE (talk) 05:18, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
It is typical on Wikipedia when summarizing a book, movie, or other work to simply use the work itself as a source. There are no evaluative or interpretive claims made there, so it is in accord with WP:PRIMARY. Crossroads -talk- 23:48, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
I agree that the summary section and how it is sourced is largely fine, but a quick glance at Wikiarticles for other non-fiction books published in the same year and which have synopsis sections (Hoax (book), Compromised (book), A Promised Land, Revivalistics) contain a mixture of primary and secondary sources where appropriate. If there are secondary sources that attest to the summary or could extend it for us, we could use them.
However the point PBZE raised that the lead does not summarise the public opinion sections (marketing and reception) is also valid and unaddressed. The first paragraph of the lead does summarise the scientific counter-arguments to the book, however there is no mention at all of the steps taken by retailers surrounding the launch and post launch period. Neither is there any mention, positive or negative of the non-scientific reception of the book. Per LEADFOLLOWSBODY there should be some brief mention of all of this, as a potential third paragraph with or without reducing or rephrasing of the current lead. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:08, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
That sounds like a good idea; I'm going to be bold and take a crack at writing such a paragraph. Loki (talk) 01:34, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Reply

@Newimpartial: The diff you mentioned was added by an IP sock of LoganBlade and reverted later the same day by some other IP editor. The previous talk discussions involved the body of the article, not the first sentence of the lead. gnu57 15:20, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

The second statement is not entirely true. This discussion was exclusively about the mention in the body, but this one proposes inclusion in the lead. Newimpartial (talk) 16:00, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

In any case, the more relevant question is, is the status of Regnery as a niche, conservative publisher relevant for inclusion in the lead? I believe it is, because this contextual information is potentially very useful for those readers who rely on the lead for a balanced but brief explanation of the article's topic - but other views of course are welcome. Newimpartial (talk) 16:00, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

No, because we don't typically include a publisher's ideological leanings in the first sentence as far as I know. Crossroads -talk- 02:15, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
Doesn't that depend on what the Reliable Sources say? Newimpartial (talk) 02:17, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
no. Seems Undue to me. -Pengortm (talk) 14:44, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

American journalist in lead

@Paddykumar and 7szz: What reliable sources are there to support that Shrier is a journalist? And why is that due for inclusion in the lead? Paddykumar mentioned an award for journalism, which seems to be the Barbara Olson Award for Excellence and Independence in Journalism, for which I cannot find much if any reliable sourcing on, so much so that it's not even mentioned in the legacy section of Barbara Olson's wiki article. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:26, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

I added "American journalist" because that's what Shrier's Twitter bio says, it was my mistake and I thanked Sideswipe9th's reversion. I did it for adding context of the author but I'd rather be out of this conversation. 7szz (talk) 02:17, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
Abigail has written for the NYP and WSJ. She has won a journalism award, even if a non-notable one. One reason given for removing the term journalist is the view of GLAAD, which is not a disinterested party. Even if Abigail does not meet a particular criteria for journalist, the removal of the term seems very, very petty. Paddykumar (talk) 17:35, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
Her work for the WSJ and NYP is that of an opinion columnist, not a journalist.
The removal of the term is because it was only recently added, and doesn't seem to have consensus. And the closest I could find to consensus in the talk page, albeit after reverting was this discussion from March 2021 where consensus appears to be against calling her a journalist, and possibly for calling her a columnist.
So the question still is, what reliable sources are there to support Shrier as a journalist? And why is that due for inclusion in the lead? Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:41, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps, American newspaper columnist. Paddykumar (talk) 18:41, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
Maybe. But what reliable secondary sources do we have that describe Shrier as such? Half of this conversation is on what label could/should apply, but the other half is on whether or not that label is due for inclusion. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:59, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
Identifying Shrier as a journalist is a non-controversial, unexceptional fact about her occupation, and I agree with Paddykumar that removing the designation gives a strong appearance of pettiness. There is no authority that grants or revokes licenses to practice journalism. Shrier self-identifies as a journalist on her website, which is a reliable source for this limited purpose; see WP:SELFSOURCE. Nothing more is required. But if further reliable sources were needed: Shrier has been identified as a journalist by sources such as ABC News and The New York Times. As mainstream journalistic entities, with editors and fact checkers, they are reliable sources for a factual biographical statement that a person's occupation is "journalist". Lwarrenwiki (talk) 20:01, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
The very first exception to SELFSOURCE is that the claim is neither unduly self-serving nor exceptional. Given that this book endorses a controversial proposed diagnosis that is not recognised by any major medical body, attacks the standard gender-affirming care for trans and non-binary individuals, and is claiming that AFAB trans youth are subject to a social contagion, I'm of the opinion that any label like journalist, which lends an air of authority to the person making those statements, is unduly self-serving.
However, thank you for providing a reliable source that supports that claim. That helps with verifying the claim that she is a journalist. I'm still not convinced as to whether or not it is due to include it in the lead. I would be interested to hear from other editors why "journalist" is given more prominence over "author", as a quick Google News search returns approximately twice as many results for author than for journalist. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:28, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
The labels "journalist" and "author" are both neutral occupations, rather than labels that "lend an air of authority." There are (and always have been) muckraking journalists, and they are nevertheless journalists. There are (and always have been) lying and biased journalists, and they are nevertheless journalists. A plumber and a journalist may deal equally in raw sewage, but only the plumber needs to be licensed and certified to do so. In my view, this gives the plumber a considerably greater air of authority! Lwarrenwiki (talk) 21:12, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
I do not think journalist is a neutral occupation or term. There is a reason why we do not label individuals like Alex Jones a journalist, despite Jones self identifying as stating he is one, or as in the case of Andrew Breitbart, we require a citation from a reliable secondary source in the lead for it. In addition, your own opinions on journalism aside, there is in many countries regulations and oversight on journalists because of the power and effect their words can have on people and how they vote. As such I do not think it is controversial to say that labelling someone as a journalist lends an air of authority to their statements. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:38, 24 June 2022 (UTC) Tweaked language slightly without changing meaning as I wasn't happy with how that read. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:21, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
I concur. — Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 22:23, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
Why is it not Due though? I mean we put occupations in normally and if we have reliable sources saying that this is her occupation then what is the reason to omit it. Also the comparison to Alan Jones is irrelevant (I can't find a New York Times article saying he is a journalist). Aircorn (talk) 23:47, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
The relevance of Alex Jones is in response to Shrier self-identifies as a journalist on her website, which is a reliable source for this limited purpose; see WP:SELFSOURCE. Jones also states his occupation is a journalist, however we do not call him one in his article.
As for I mean we put occupations in normally and if we have reliable sources saying that this is her occupation then what is the reason to omit it. That is a question of WP:WEIGHT. Shrier is also described by reliable sources as an author, and a columnist. While we could mention all three, we also need to be mindful of WP:COATRACK, as while Shrier is the author of this book, this article is not a BLP on Shrier herself. So which of the three labels is the most prominent and relevant one to use?
Earlier I preformed a quick Google News search, which returned approximately 134 results for columnist, 663 results for journalist, and 1,160 results for author. While I've not exhaustively gone through each search, to exclude non-reliable sources, as a quick guide it seems that author is likely more due for inclusion than journalist. But that is also somewhat of a tautology as we're already saying that Shrier wrote the book in the same sentence. As such, while I think author is more appropriate than journalist, I do not think any label is really appropriate here. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:03, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
The self-source seems moot, yes, and "author" is redundant, so the next descriptor in line appears to be "journalist". The idea that calling someone a journalist confers inappropriate legitimacy is an idea I've heard before, but in that case as well, the term ended up in the article. There are all sorts of, say, professors out there whose views diverge from the mainstream of their field, even considerably, yet we still call them that, as that is their occupation. And just as professors may disagree on what is true, so may journalists. I think the term fits, and the sources from Lwarrenwiki can be cited for it. For those who dislike the label, in a way it clarifies that Shrier is not a professor or academic. Crossroads -talk- 00:30, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
The idea that calling someone a journalist confers inappropriate legitimacy is an idea I've heard before, but in that case as well, the term ended up in the article. I'd be interested to know what article that was in to fully understand the context of that consensus. However I've already cited the example of Andrew Brietbart, for whom the term requires a citation. If calling someone a journalist does not confer legitimacy, why then does Brietbart's article require a citation for that? Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:29, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
Whether we think journalism is or is not a "neutral occupation" or has "an air of authority" is irrelevent - our job as editors is to simply state facts from sources. Wisefroggy (talk) 06:41, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
In that case then, by virtue of use by our sources author would be the correct term to use, despite its redundancy, as it is the term most frequently used to describe Shrier in media sources. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:24, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
This is completely the wrong way to look at this. She is described as a journalist in the body so it is appropriate to say so in the lead. It is hard to judge your quick google search without links to it, but to do a comparison Matt Tracy, who we have described as a journalist in the article, has more google links as an author than journalist.[1][2]. (Yes that is a dirty search, but without looking at how you searched it s hard to do a comparison). We don't say author because journalist is a better descriptor and more useful conveyor of information and context. Same case for Shrier. We are here to provide relevant information, not to remove something because we disagree with them. Hell even disgraced scientists are still called scientists in our articles. Aircorn (talk) 23:13, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
User:sideswipe9thI'd be fine with "author" too; "author and journalist" applies to many people, and your review of google searches above shows many high-quality sources naming shrier both. My only hesistation with also calling her "author" is: a) the redundancy (as you point out), and, b) is this her first book?? If yes, then until this book, she was not notable as an author. Wisefroggy (talk) 00:32, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

"American journalist" is entirely appropriate; thanks to user:Lwarrenwiki, who provided excellent sources. Putting these two words in the lead is also entirely appropriate, given these facts: a) it is just two words, and, b) it is relevant, and b) it gives explanation to the reader who Shrier is. Removing "American journalist" is a disservice to the reader. Why are we even discussing this? Wisefroggy (talk) 06:33, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Probably because some of us think that the term "journalist" should be reserved for professional journalists. On the other hand, perhaps "American journalist" is a sufficient qualifier to preempt that impression. Newimpartial (talk) 11:16, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
I fail to see how being a philosopher by education and a freelance columnist makes her notable as a journalist. A columnist and a journalist are two different things that involve different levels of accountability and ethics. I'm opposed to watering down that difference because y'all see it as a neutral term or see author as redundant (see WP:ELVAR). — Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 11:30, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
User:newimpartial: Whether you or any of us think that she is a "professional journalist" (your exact words) is irrelevant. Our job as editors is to simply state what the sources state, namely: "journalist". Wisefroggy (talk) 19:55, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Don't think this one got noticed yet: The Torygraph also describes her as an "American journalist", a job title which does not, in my opinion, suggest any reliability whatsoever.  Tewdar  14:23, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Heh. The Telegraph is also decidedly non-neutral and has a strong anti-trans bias when it comes to any sort of reporting on transgender issues. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:23, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
Since you asked above, the article I was talking about was Andy Ngo. Now, given that the Andrew Breitbart article does call him a journalist, with citations, I think we can certainly do so here (with citations). Crossroads -talk- 04:48, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

4w.com

This site appears to be a haven for writers deplatformed by medium.com, not a publication in its own right. In the words of its About page, I realized that women needed a place where they could not only speak freely about issues like gender identity and male violence, but where they could also be compensated for their work.

Having an editor may be a necessary condition for exercising effective editorial control, but it is by no means sufficient. If you think this is actually a reliable source, Wisefroggy, I suggest you ask the WP:RSN what the community thinks. Newimpartial (talk) 23:27, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. According to an article in rabble.ca, as well as an editorial on 4w.pub by Fain the site was founded in response to her Medium account being suspended. This does not strike me as a reliable source by any definition of the term. Also, aside from that article by rabble, after a quick search I cannot find mention of 4w.pub on any reliable sources so it seems to be non-notable. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:35, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Use of phrase "referring to teenagers assigned female at birth"

There appears to be some minor edit-warring going on regarding the inclusion of the above phrase in the lead. I have deleted the phrase per WP:ONUS and WP:BURDEN until consensus is reached here. First, there are no sources given for the material, fulfilling the Wikipedia:Verifiability for immediate deletion. Second, none of us editors are mind readers, so we cannot, for certain, know what shrier was "referring to" - inclusion of this material would violate WP:ASSERT and WP:OR. Wisefroggy (talk) 07:05, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Maybe you should have looked at the previous discussion here on Talk before removing material that resulted from that discussion? Newimpartial (talk) 11:15, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
My preference is for the phase "teenage girls" rather than "teenagers assigned female at birth. 1 Shorter. 2 I believe AFAB is used by people on one side of the argument, so "teenage girls" is more neutral. Paddykumar (talk) 13:38, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
No, when referring to people who identify as trans, "teenage girls" is the misgendering phrase that is used by people on one side of the argument. AFAB is more neutral. Newimpartial (talk) 14:11, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
I disagree. If I am talking to a trans person directly, then the issue of misgendering may occur.
When describing a group of young females to a disinterested reader the possibility of the offence of misgendering falls away,
as that group is not being addressed directly.
The reader is being told about a group defined by their ages and biological sex: teenage girls.
"Teenage girls" is not used just by people on one side of the argument, but by most people. A girl is a young female person.
AFAB cannot be more neutral as it is only used those who know and accept the concept of gender identity. Paddykumar (talk) 15:18, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
Look, Shrier explains in the intro to her book that she is going to refer to younger (biological/natal females)/those assigned female at birth as "girls" regardless of their gender identity, which probably violates MOS:GENDERID or whatever it's called. So, to avoid this, we attribute a quote to Shrier, make it clear what she means, and everyone's moderately unhappy. Yay for us!  Tewdar  16:34, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
Paddykumar, if you think the concept of gender identity is something that most people do not know and accept then your views are WP:FRINGE and you probably should not allow them to influence any editing you do within the "gender and sexuality" area of Wikipedia's discretionary sanctions. Newimpartial (talk) 18:04, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
User:Newimperatial, accusing Paddykumar of being WP:FRINGE is not appropriate here. In any case, you still have not addressed one of the big issues: The phrase you wish to include has no sources, and on this alone, must be excluded. What say you? Wisefroggy (talk) 00:14, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
@Wisefroggy: please read the three archives I've linked below in their entirety as they explain the consensus building that lead to the current text. Also I must point out that use of AFAB is sourced in the article, per note 1. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:47, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
A cohort is being described by age range and biological sex: teenage girls is short and simple
Does the exclusion of AFAB create a misgendering?
No, because individual people who might be offended are not being described.
With regards my views, well seems like I'm guilty of wrongthink. "Your views are wp:fringe." In this instance, I am concerned with one phrase. Does the exclusion of AFAB impose my views or some bias on the article? No, "teenage girls" is free of bias. Paddykumar (talk) 00:59, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Referring to people who do not have the gender identity of "woman"/"girl" as "girls" is, in fact, misgendering - that act is never free or bias, as you believe, and editors have been blocked or banned from WP editing for misgendering other editors or BLP subjects. Nobody cares whether or not you are guilty of wrongthink, but prompting pointless Talk page discussions or editing articles in service of your WP:FRINGE POV is not considered constructive - and I have specified above (through quotation) precisely what you said in your previous comment that represents a FRINGE POV.
Wikipedia refers to living people by gender and not by biological sex - or rather, when we refer to sex, we use terms that quality sources use, such as sex assignment. If you don't agree with the broadly based community consensus on this, I'm sure you could find a user-generated encyclopedia that is more suited to your preferences. Newimpartial (talk) 01:17, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
1 Misgendering is an issue with regard to specific people. It does not apply to general cohort. Hence the point is irrelevant. I willingly accept that for say, Rachel Levine, she/her is reasonable, respectful, and appropriate. But Abigail's book is dealing with a cohort of many.
2 You care about my wrong think as you draw attention to it.
3 Other people are questioning the use of AFAB, not just me.
4 Neither my motivation nor my view on the subject in general is relevant as I am simply contrasting "teenagers assigned female at birth" with "teenage girls".
Teenage girls is shorter, is the sort of language most people use and is free of the language of either side.
5 My understanding is that a midwife does not "assign" sex but "observes and records".
Assignment is only in the case of a baby with anomalous genitalia. This is mentioned in the archive.
6 If I create PaddyWiki, would you like to contribute? Paddykumar (talk) 07:26, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Regarding "if you think the concept of gender identity is something that most people do not know and accept then your views are WP:FRINGE", I guess that depends on what you mean by "know and accept". With all the publicity the issue has received lately, probably a majority at least "know" about the concept, but whether they "accept" it (in terms of completely agreeing with it) is a much less settled issue. For instance, recent polling shows "that 47 percent of Americans favored “bathroom bills” that would require transgender people to use the bathroom of their sex assigned at birth, not their gender identity.1 Meanwhile, 52 percent of Americans said they were opposed to transgender boys’ participating in high school sports for their gender identity; 61 percent said the same of transgender girls." Thus, an absolute majority does not fully agree with the concept that gender identity overrules biological sex in all cases. That's hardly a "fringe" position. *Dan T.* (talk) 15:53, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
Well, depending on how one understands the concept that gender identity overrules biological sex in all cases, that could be FRINGE as well - I doubt many people would approach reproductive health exclusively on the basis of gender identity, for example. But as far as data about "what Americans believe", that is relevant for some purposes but not for others - if most Americans were opposed to ID documents where "X" is allowed in the field for legal gender, that in itself wouldn't make the documents any less valid from a legal standpoint. And we are talking about a country where 40% of the population believes that the earth was created less than 10,000 years ago, so we have to be careful in how we use survey data - relevant for opinions, sure, but not relevant for factual claims. Of course there are degrees of acceptance of trans identities, but data suggest that the existence of trans identities is denied by fewer Americans than deny, say, the reality of evolutionary biology. Newimpartial (talk) 16:07, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
Assigned female at birth has been discussed multiple times in the talk page archives:
At the risk of repeating what I've already said at length in Archive 7, Shrier unfortunately deliberately uses the term "teenage girls" to refer to all trans youth whose parents she interviewed in the book, irregardless of their gender identity. To use Shrier's preferred term is not a neutral action, because it also means that we in wikivoice are misgendering the same cohort of people that Shrier deliberately chose to misgender. The use of the term AFAB is neutral, as it does not misgender any of the trans youth in the book, all of whom Shrier did not interview as she only interviewed their parents, and is a term that is widely and nearly universally used by public health agencies across the world. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:22, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
User:sideswipe9th your entire paragraph here is opinion and WP:OR (examples of your exact words: "Shrier unfortunately.." unfortunately is opinion; "Shrier deliberately chose to misgender". How do you know it was "deliberate? (you can't, unless you can read minds); "nearly universally used by public health agencies" is blatanly WP:OR). All of this is opinion and WP:OR on your part, which is not allowed. Remember, as editors, it is our job to simply state what is in the sources. Wisefroggy (talk) 00:22, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
@Wisefroggy: How do you know it was "deliberate? I know it was deliberate because Shrier admits to choosing to use the term "teenage girls" when describing those AFAB youth in the book itself. "nearly universally used by public health agencies" is blatanly WP:OR No, that's demonstrated and sourced in Archive 7. All of this is opinion and WP:OR on your part, which is not allowed. None of this is OR, and has been adequately sourced in the past discussions I've linked directly above. Also it is a misconception that OR applies to Talk namespace, per the text at OR: This policy does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:43, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
The fact is that we have qualified sources referring to Shrier misgendering AFAB young people whom she discusses in her book. You can disagree with that view, I suppose, but it is certainly sourced and is not OR. In fact, qualified sourcing is absent for the contrary view (that Shrier is *not* misgendering people). Newimpartial (talk) 01:04, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
For what it's worth I'll re-submit my suggestions from that last discussion: "of the female sex". Or, "Shrier, who refers to children as "girls" based on sex rather than gender identity". Crossroads -talk- 04:44, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
And as I have suggested elsewhere, I don't see what female sex has to do with this topic. To be more precise: Shrier is talking about psychology and identity (gender), not reproductive biology (sex). Newimpartial (talk) 10:53, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
When these "AFAB" kids face "unwelcome physical changes and sexual attention", is that because of their physical body, or because of an inner psychological state? Crossroads -talk- 00:15, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
I'm not going to be tempted into OR here, and I'd suggest that you resist that temptation as well. But what seems clear in Shrier's writing is that the reactions these young people have to that attention is a matter of psychology and identity (gender).Newimpartial (talk 01:19, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Shrier uses the phrase "biologically female" in her book. Are we saying that "biologically female" can be reworded as "referring to teenagers assigned female at birth" without WP:OR? The provided citation, by the way, only uses "girls", and is certainly WP:OR...  Tewdar  09:10, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
I suppose we could use Gaycitynews, which explicitly makes the link...  Tewdar  09:29, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Nothing that can be sourced without SYNTH is OR. Newimpartial (talk) 10:53, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
(i) "Shrier is misgendering people" == not WP:OR, as long as we have a source for this
(ii) "When Shrier says girls, she means 'those assigned female at birth', because she says she means 'biologically female' when she refers to this cohort, and we are going to interpret 'biologically female' to mean 'AFAB'" == definitely blatant WP:OR, unless we have a reliable source for this interpretation
Anyway, GayCityNews actually does say this, so why not cite it, not synth it?  Tewdar  12:46, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
It's not SYNTH when you're only dealing with one source. This is a common sense interpretation of her words. Do you really, honestly think she means anything else? Elli (talk | contribs) 13:24, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Do you think that the terms "biologically female" and "assigned female at birth" are synonyms?  Tewdar  13:37, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
We have multiple sources stating that when Shrier says "girls", she is choosing to misgender AFAB people who do not identify as girls. These sources also state when Shrier says "girls" she is actually referring to AFAB people. Nobody needs to do any SYNTH here. Newimpartial (talk) 15:51, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Sure, I mean... this one supports this interpretation. What I'm saying is, if we did not have such a source, it would be OR. Again, why not simply add an inline citation, so that discussions like this don't get off the ground?  Tewdar  16:17, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps I'm missing something, or my eyes are glossing over it, but the text we're talking about is already cited? Tewdar could you please quote the sentence or sentence fragment where you'd insert the Eckhart citation? Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:23, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Sure, something like Shrier states that there was a "sudden, severe spike in transgender identification among adolescent girls" in the 2010s, referring to teenagers assigned female at birth.[9]GIRLS=AFABs Ref goes here. That would be satisfactory to me at least. And yes, we already use this source.  Tewdar  16:37, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
The current citation [9] is just Shrier's interview opinion column, which just uses 'girls'...  Tewdar  16:43, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Cool, I see that clearly now. Yeah I have no issues adding that citation there either in addition to the current one, or replacing it. There may also be value in adding it as part of the citations for She describes what she sees as difficulties facing teenagers who were assigned female at birth, whom she refers to as "girls" as well, potentially replacing citations 12 and 13 as while both of those sources use AFAB to accurately describe the individuals Shrier is writing about, they do not do so in a way that explains that Shrier was misusing "teenage girls" to refer to individuals who are/were trans and/or non-binary. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:11, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Sounds good. 😁👍  Tewdar  17:55, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
I'm busy at the moment with keeping an eye on another page that is seeing a flurry of activity today. In lieu of any objections, if you could make those edits it would help a lot :) Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:59, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Right, I think I did what you wanted. 👍  Tewdar  18:28, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Yup, looks good to me! Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:48, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
In her book, in the author's note section (http://ldysinger.stjohnsem.edu/@books1/Schrier_Transgender_Craze/Irreversible%20Damage_The%20Transgender%20craze_%20Abigail%20Shrier.pdf) - Page 12, she herself puts in a note to say that she is referring to "biologically female teens". As such, the wikipedia entry should be quoting her words of "biologically female teens" rather than swap it for a different term "assigned female at birth" which is our interpretation rather than what she herself means.
We should therefore switch the term "assigned female at birth" for "biological females" since these is the term she explicitly explained that she was using and referring to in her book. It is thus inaccurate to swap and change her words. 116.15.51.25 (talk) 05:08, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
By policy WP values WP:NPOV and defers to WP:SECONDARY, rather than PRIMARY sources. By using "assigned female at birth", we honor those principles; if we followed the author's usages, by contrast, we would violate the site-wide consensus embodied in MOS:DEADNAME. Newimpartial (talk) 05:20, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
I would argue that the term "biological female" is in fact a more appropriate term to use here for three reasons.
1) The author explains that she is referring to "biological females" explicitly in her book. We should respect the usage of this term since we are summarizing her book. (It is different if we are talking about woman/female more generally in other articles or context.)
2) "Biological female" is a scientific, unambiguous and well defined term. It is a fair and neutral term to use.
3) "Biological female" and "assigned female at birth" do not mean the same thing. A "biological female" could potentially be assigned as a "man" at birth. At the same time, a "biological male" could also be assigned as a "woman" at birth in some cases. Since they do not mean the same thing, we should stick to the term coined by the author ("biological female") for preciseness. (Again this is article is a summary of her book after all)
=======
With regards to the policy on deferring to Secondary rather than Primary sources, I believe the secondary source that you are referring to which lends support to the usage of the term "assigned female at birth" is the Eckhart article (https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/irreversible-damage-to-the-trans-community-a-critical-review-of-abigail-shriers-book-irreversible-damage-part-one/). However, if one were to read the article more carefully, one will see that Eckhart understood Schrier's book to be referring to "biological girls" as I quote: 'Throughout her book, Shrier refers to her subjects as “biological girls,”'. Eckhart however puts in a personal opinion that the book should be referring to individuals who are "assigned female at birth".
We should distinguish what Eckhart had understood from Schrier's book (i.e. that Schrier is referring to "biological girls") vs. Eckhart's personal opinion about Schrier's book (i.e. that individuals highlighted in Schrier's book should be considered individuals who are "assigned female at birth"). On this note, Eckhart's interpretation (that Schrier is referring to "biological girls") should be deemed the "Secondary Source", while Eckhart's personal opinion (that individuals highlighted in Schrier's book should instead be called "assigned female at birth") is in fact the "Primary Source" here.
At the same time, we can find another secondary source interpreting Schrier's book as referring to "biological females". This is A Pubmed article from Robert Withers (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7787368/). I quote:
"This should be a major concern given the recent upsurge in numbers of (predominantly biologically female) young people both identifying as trans (Tavistock GIDS 2018) and subsequently desisting from that identification (Entwistle 2020; Shrier 2020)."
=======
I think our job here is to accurately summarize what the book is talking about accurately and precisely. I therefore suggest that we just directly quote the book unambiguously. Specifically, we should change the phrase "difficulties facing teenagers who were assigned female at birth," to "difficulties facing teenagers who are 'biological females' (term coined by the author) (cite page 12 of Schrier)" so it will be unambiguous and precise. 116.15.51.25 (talk) 07:32, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Consensus certainly 'can' change, but it hasn't, yet. I don't see anything as well-established as the lede wording changing without an RfC. I also don't think that cherry-picking out of PUBMED is likely to convince anyone to use a phrase that very few qualified people see as being unambiguous and precise. The situation is pretty much exactly the contrary of what you describe. Newimpartial (talk) 11:05, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Does MOS:DEADNAME apply to a cohort of people who are anonymous? Paddykumar (talk) 12:37, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
My reference was not to the letter of DEADNAME, but rather to the sitewide consensus embedded in DEADNAME, which is not to misgender people. We have multiple RS indicating that Shrier is deliberately misgendering (some of) her interview subjects, and on Wikipedia we don't do that. (This happens to be the page-level consensus here as well). Newimpartial (talk) 12:46, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
Thank you. Is this sitewide consensus written up somewhere? Paddykumar (talk) 13:21, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
You could look at the more recent GENDERID discussions listed at MOS:IDINFO. Newimpartial (talk) 13:39, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
Sorry. In the discussion is there anything for a group of people who are all anonymous? I cannot see it. Thank you. Paddykumar (talk) 15:54, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
Only on this Talk page. I was referring to the sitewide consensus ... not to misgender people, which was also notably reflected in the result of this Arbitration enforcement discussion. Newimpartial (talk) 15:59, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
Firstly, perhaps a silly question, why is this about MISGENDERING people, when the issue is about biological sex. "Biological females" is being suggested, and this describes sex, not gender.
Secondly, I can understand the idea of not wishing to misgender identifiable people, as this might cause offence. But when the individuals in a group are not identifiable, why object to a term for that group based on sex?
Thirdly, I thought that at birth, sex was observed and recorded, not assigned. Paddykumar (talk) 21:11, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

You can think whatever you want, but the term preferred by the relevant WP:RS is "sex assignment".

And you seem to be missing the point of MOS:GENDERID (and the consensus behind it) - on WP, we refer to people based on (social) gender, not based on "biological sex". And you can read the reliable sources, both the secondary sources for this article and the resources cited at MOS:GENDERID, if you want to understand why object to a term for that group based on sex, particularly when the reason the author is studying the group in the first place is because of their gender identity.

Finally, I linked the ARE case above quite intentionally; the comments by the uninvolved Admin who made the decision show quite clearly how the community views language concerning trans people, both in article space and in Talk space. Newimpartial (talk) 21:34, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Courtesy diffs for reminding what was being disputed back in June: article body, lead.
The original dispute per the diffs was over misgendering, and avoiding misgendering the youth Shrier was writing about in Wikivoice. Shrier in the book describes those she is writing about as "girls" regardless of their gender identity. That is misgendering. As for why "biological females" is unacceptable, the GLAAD, Trans Journalists, and Radical Copyeditor style guides detail why that term is seen as inaccurate and frequently offensive when talking about trans people. While those guides are obviously not part of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, they are nonetheless helpful for explaining the broad strokes.
when the individuals in a group are not identifiable Some of the individuals in the book are identifiable, some directly and some indirectly. In chapter 4 Shrier deadnames an identifiable trans person shortly after naming that person's mother.
I thought that at birth, sex was observed and recorded, not assigned This is covered in the terminology section of Sex assignment#Terminology. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:49, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps I can make the general point that a new member in a group does not know all the rules.
Midwives observe and record sex.
I cannot see a WP rule that says misgendering applies to groups. Paddykumar (talk) 11:15, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
What you see as a WP rule, doesn't really matter, does it? The ARE result I linked above shows that it is an enforceable norm. Also, your personal beliefs about what midwives do are not relevant to Wikipedia. What matters is what reliable sources say. Newimpartial (talk) 11:42, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, for the benefit of the new user, where in the Arbitration Request Enforcement? Paddykumar (talk) 14:15, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
I was thinking in particular of the following statement by one of the admins, backed by another and evident in the decision:

The bothsidesism on display here is pure distraction. It is abundantly clear from the initial diffs that we have an editor who a) has a strongly held, minority view on gender; b) has proved themselves incapable of putting that aside and editing in the topic area without causing disruption; and c) made several comments that disparage trans people ("transwomen are male", "transmen are female", mockingly comparing trans identity to claiming to be an alien, etc.) in a way that, as Bilorv notes, is contrary to our new UCOC as well as the good old civility policy. I support banning Maneesh from all GENSEX topics, as a minimum sanction.

The comments referred to, about trans men supposedly being female, were equivalent to what you have maintained here. Newimpartial (talk) 14:56, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for that. I did not even know what ARE meant. Thought it was the word "are" written in uppercase!
I feel that there are two things here: Maneesh's attitude and secondly his views.
With regard to attitude he disparaged, mocked, lacked good old civility. Not good. I am all for politeness. Fine.
With regard to his views, "Transmen are men" is the claim that transmen should count as men on the basis of what they assert or declare.
"Transmen are female", is the claim that what transmen assert or declare is irrelevant and they are women.
The term "biological female" makes no claim about the validity of counting as men.
The term "biological men" makes no claim about the validity of counting as female.
The statement above seems good to me:
'2) "Biological female" is a scientific, unambiguous and well defined term. It is a fair and neutral term to use.' Paddykumar (talk) 07:57, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
You are quoting an IP editor's comment, which has no WEIGHT against page-level, much less community-level consensus. Newimpartial (talk) 10:41, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
No. I have taken the Arbitration Request Enforcement text that you have provided and argued that it does not apply. I simply stated I agree with unregistered editor who started this round of discussions who is further up the thread. You have not demonstrated consensus against "biological females". Paddykumar (talk) 11:29, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
If you can't read the ARE result for content, then you should simply accept the page-level consensus - which evidently hasn't changed. Newimpartial (talk) 11:58, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps you would kindly quote the relevant section of the Arbitration Request Enforcement text. Thank you. Paddykumar (talk) 13:27, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I will point one last time to the admin referring to "trans women are male" as a disparaging comment. On Wikipedia we simply do not refer to a group of trans peope on the basis of their Sex assignment; we use their Gender identity. And no, I will not kindly quote anything to WP:SATISFY you about that - it is a principle that is clear in the discussions that produced MOS:GENDERID, which are listed at MOS:IDINFO, and is also clearly expressed at the ARE I linked above. My sense is that we have now entered WP:SEALION territory and I have no intention to offer further documentation, no matter where you move the goalposts. Newimpartial (talk) 13:45, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

1 "Trans women are male" and "trans women are women" is are claims that can be agreed with or disagreed with.
Neither is equivalent to neutral terms like "biological females". Your example does not support your argument.
2 The readable principle/consensus about not referring to trans people on the basis of their biological sex but their gender identity is in respect of recognizable individual people. No evidence of anything appropriate to this case has been provided.
3 Even if there is a consensus on a wider ruling against the term "teenage girls" or "biological teenage girls", it is worth questioning. No offence is meant, and any offence would be mild or feigned and so such a supposed ruling would be petty. This policing of ordinary language feels intolerant. Paddykumar (talk) 07:08, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Lead wording

Positive reviews largely endorsed Shrier's thesis while much of the criticism was regarding the book's heavy use of anecdotes and other problems with its evidentiary basis. I wonder if this summary of reviews gives UNDUE weight to positive reviews and obfuscates the criticism by using more complex language than the description of positive reviews (i.e. "evidentiary basis"). Thoughts? — Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 06:24, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't really see it. It barely describes why the positive reviews were positive, just saying they agreed, which is hardly undue. I don't think "evidentiary basis" is complicated, just a way of concisely stating their criticism that they felt it to lack support of necessary evidence. This isn't to say it couldn't be worded better somehow but it seems fine to me. Crossroads -talk- 19:23, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

"not backed by credible scientific evidence"

This language is inaccurate. There is a study suggesting that rapid onset gender dysphoria is potentially caused by social contagion. There are studies that suggest it isn't. The science is brand new. All of the studies in this area are contested on both sides (Stephen Levine, a highly respected Psychiatrist disputes Jack Turban's neutrality https://www.nationalreview.com/news/advocate-rather-than-a-scientist-the-compromised-research-of-child-gender-transition-doctor-jack-turban/. If there is qualifying language inserted, it should be that "the science is not settled" or "there are conflicting studies." RaySmall88 (talk) 16:39, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Copying a comment from my talk page; I'd suggest starting by reading the two citations ([3], [4]) that are used as references for and is not backed by credible scientific evidence., neither of which are written by Turban. The second source in particular states There are no sound empirical studies of ROGD and it has not been subjected to rigorous peer-review processes that are standard for clinical science. and represents the consensus opinion of pretty much every major public health body and organisation in the US.
While Turban's work is the most recent publication on ROGD, it is not the only research that has been conducted into it. Focusing exclusively on Turban's research is not helpful. Aside from those two papers, there have to my knowledge, been no other independent studies done into ROGD. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:11, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
"There is a study" is not incompatible with "not backed by credible scientific evidence". The current language is appropriate. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 00:29, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
There is evidence, like these referral figures from the NHS GIDS. At some point researchers will summarize more data.
https://tavistockandportman.nhs.uk/about-us/news/stories/referrals-gender-identity-development-service-gids-level-2018-19/ Paddykumar (talk) 12:29, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Not “credible” is inaccurate. By definition that means that it is unconvincing. That’s not true and the citations don’t say that. The citation (which is a political statement by left leaning trade associations) says that empirical studies need to be completed. That’s not the same thing. Given the geographic differences and the unprecedented rise in number of trans kids, it remains a valid hypothesis in need of more research.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/10/science/transgender-teenagers-national-survey.html RaySmall88 (talk) 01:44, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

left leaning trade associations? There are many words I would use to describe the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the Society of Behavioral Medicine, the Association for Behavioral and Cognitive Therapies, the National Association of School Psychologists and the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, but "left leaning trade associations" is not one of them.
Also, the CAAPS statement, which is fully supported by its signatories, does not say that empirical studies need to be completed. It is actually much harsher with respect to ROGD as it says CAAPS supports eliminating the use of ROGD and similar concepts for clinical and diagnostic application given the lack of empirical support for its existence and its likelihood of contributing to harm and mental health burden. and that CAAPS also encourages further research that leads to evidence-based clinical guidelines for gender-affirming care that support child and adolescent gender identity development. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:57, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
@RaySmall88 on Wikipedia we deal with the consensus of reliable experts, not individual studies (unless they individually are notable, and even then not asserted as fact). The consensus of experts is that ROGD is not supported by credible evidence. Until and if that changes, we will describe it this way, as we are told to do in WP:FRINGE. See also: WP:MEDASSESS and WP:MEDSCI. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 04:10, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the APA is extremely left wing and it has been documented to impact the research of the organization.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/psychologists-looked-in-the-mirror-and-saw-a-bunch-of-liberals/ RaySmall88 (talk) 11:14, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not here to right great wrongs. I'm not sure "it has been documented to impact the research of the organization" is exactly right — what impact in particular such that we should entirely dismiss their outstanding expertise and proven methods? — Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 12:15, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
Your WP:OR and WP:SYNTH about what is or is not credible is not relevant to the content of this article. Newimpartial (talk) 14:12, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Unsourced and opinion material in Lead

The lead sentence currently states "... which endorses the contentious concept of rapid-onset gender dysphoria.". There are two issues: 1) The word "endorses" is not in any of the sources given. I propose to change to "discusses". The 2nd problem is the word "contentious", which is WP:OPINION; it is up to the reader to decide whether it is "contentious" or not. WP:BOLD and WP:VER require removal of unsourced and opine content. The material has been removed until sources can be added. Newimpartial please add your input here on the talkpage before re-adding unsourced material. Wisefroggy (talk) 04:31, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

I restored the consensus lead language and added a re-used citation to Eckert's SBM piece, which supports both "endorses" and "contentious". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:47, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Oppose "discusses" and removal of Eckert citation. I support the original wording ("endorses" and "contentious") as a valid WP:SUMMARY of the sources. The book endorses the concept as real, which is clear from the citation. The citation itself is perfect for this use, as sciencebasedmedicine is a WP:RS that is on WP:PARITY if not better than the original source and any contradicting sources. Such removals would be pushing a POV. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 11:19, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
The lead is clearly not written from a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view. This has been shown several times. The fact that her degrees from Columbia and Yale have been removed further demonstrates this. RaySmall88 (talk) 02:24, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
@RaySmall88 About the removal of Columbia, Oxford, and Yale: They were removed as the remaining Science-Based Medicine source only mentions the existence of her degrees, not where they were from: "[...] given that Shrier is a journalist with a Bachelor of Philosophy degree and a J.D. [...]" The editor adding the universities has the BURDEN to add the citations for it. LightNightLights (talk) 03:22, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
@LightNightLights I see that RaySmall88 is blocked now for various offences. Doug Weller talk 12:38, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria has an RFC

Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria has an RFC for whether to describe ROGD as pseudoscientific in the lead. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 20:48, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Shortened footnotes

Does anyone have a problem if I convert the page to Help:Shortened footnotes? Cuñado ☼ - Talk 06:38, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

I think sfn-ifying the citations to the book itself would be great. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 06:45, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
Since most sources are only cited once, I think it'd make the most sense to use Sfn for the book but leave the rest. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 09:59, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Thank you Cuñado for the sfn-ification. I followed it up with some parameter tweaks, and I also partially reverted to keep Shrier's other works as regular ref name citations. I feel like this leads to a better experience for the reader, but I'd be happy to talk it out more if needed. One downside of the new system is that we have only one reference in the References section, but I'm not sure there's a clean way to combine it all. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 07:33, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
I'm convinced that shortened footnotes is the way to go in most articles. I started converting the whole page but ran into a few undated sources and gave up cause it would be a more work. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 17:03, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Deletion of biography of author, Abigail Shrier

Pretty slick of whoever deleted the biography article of Abigail Shrier, author of this book. Now, all that remains is a redirect to this book. Will this happen rapidly to other writers that do not conform with trans ideology?Dogru144 (talk) 21:34, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Easy there. This article was that article, and instead of deletion, it was reworked to be about her book rather than herself (which it already mostly was anyway). Note the closure at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abigail Shrier. Crossroads -talk- 22:05, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
I agree that an article dedicated strictly to the author is not warranted. The majority of such an article would be about her book anyway, so it makes more sense to only have an article about her book. This is her first and only book, so if she releases more high-profile books in the future, then maybe there should be a separate article just for her. CarlSerafino (talk) 20:18, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Irreversible_Damage/Archive_11&oldid=1168015669"