Talk:Standards of Care for the Health of Transgender and Gender Diverse People

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ken Arromdee (talk | contribs) at 20:40, 7 November 2022 (→‎Threaded discussion). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 January 2021 and 16 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): EmKayEdits.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:08, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Removed unsourced material

I removed A dramatic elevation in surgical and post-surgical risks as well as an increased possibility of post-surgical dissatisfaction is often the exchange for lower costs and fewer pre-surgical requirements such as weight limits[citation needed]. because a) it's unsourced b) it's a damaging lie about trans people. It's an old canard on the level of the Protocols of Zion lie about Jews. c) it's language is inflammatory. If such a claim is to be made 'dramaticly' needs defined.


Undid OR contribution

Undid change of wording from 'change sex' to 'change gender'. Most trans people feel they remain the gender they've always been, they are merely making their body conform to it. Editor claims in edit comment that no government accepts hormonal change as sex change, but this is not true in my experience (state of California will), and Wikipedia is not place to publish OR. Anniepoo (talk) 19:45, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Intended Edits

I plan to expand more on the information covered in the 7th edition of the SOC as well as on the protocol for children and adolescents. I am also going to find sources for the end of the article and the section on criticism from intersex individuals.

EmKayEdits (talk) 16:25, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Time to update

With version 8 now published, information pertaining to versions 6 and 7 should be moved to specific sections and de-emphasized and the current status should be described in greater detail. CyreJ (talk) 09:35, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

'Version' or 'edition'?

I'm unsure which one to use. It currently reads 'version' with this edit that I made (WPATH uses 'version'; it was the more common wording when I made the edit), but I've seen sources describe it as 'version' and 'edition'. I also haven't been able to find WP guidelines disambiguating the two. LightNightLights (talk) 02:51, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the following two searches, you should use version by 2 – 1:
Hope this helps. Mathglot (talk) 06:47, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What does the 'NEAR' keyword do in Google? I'm not able to find any documentation about searching based on proximity other than 'AROUND(x)'. LightNightLights (talk) 08:04, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My edit got reverted for a reason that is false

Sideswipe9th claimed that my edit was unsourced and "didn't seem to be true". The article said that the Eunuch thing was controversial, and I explained why it was controversial. Namely, that it linked to child castration porn. I did forget to add a second source, but I just checked and the archived Economist article also had that information in it. There are now two reliable sources for the claim. We shall see if it gets reverted again. Benevolent Prawn (talk) 17:35, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Eunuchs

Should the article mention the controversy over the Eunuch chapter in SOC8? gnu57 16:51, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Opinions

  • Yes, include The controversy has been covered by news sources including Neue Zürcher Zeitung, the Economist, the Telegraph, and the Times. MEDRS sourcing is required only for biomedical information, not for describing a social controversy. gnu57 16:51, 2 November 2022 (UTC) ETA: Here are two more reliable sources: The Scotsman, LBC gnu57 11:18, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Since when would LBC be considered a "reliable source"? And The Scotsman doesn't support any of the salacious content from your preferred article version, does it? Newimpartial (talk) 11:28, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Please keep threaded discussion in the designated section. I have replied below. gnu57 12:03, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, exclude until better sourcing is found - so far we have The Times, The Telegraph and The Economist - all decidedly BIASEDSOURCES - and a Swiss source that, as far as I can tell, can't be used to support any of the content that Genericusername57 and Benevolent Prawn are shoehorning into this article. If the sourcing improves significantly, sure it could become DUE, but it certainly isn't now. Newimpartial (talk) 17:03, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, because British newspapers in general are less reliable on trans issues. I've been meaning to start some kind of discussion over at RSN about this, because the sources for things like the Lily Cade article or Guardian America rebuking its British counterpart are quite strong. But for just these specific sources, I would point out that one of the executives at the Economist is Helen Joyce, who believes all trans people are a "huge problem to a sane world" according to our own article on her. The Telegraph, besides its absolutely wild misrepresentation of the most widespread protocol used by professionals working with transgender or gender-variant people according to this very article as "secret" and "controversial", has a documented history of misrepresenting trans issues. Like, these sources are just no good. They're bad. They're not reliable in the least. We're in Fox News or worse territory here. Loki (talk) 17:38, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes of course, coverage is significant and reliable.--Ortizesp (talk) 18:03, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, coverage by many mainstream sources and major newspapers recognized by the community as reliable for facts warrants inclusion. Favoritism for a particular nation's media - although I've seen trans-focused outlets complain about the New York Times, The Atlantic, etc., so who knows what the difference even is - is not a sufficient justification for overriding generally-reliable sources. Also, it's not just the British media - is the Swiss media supposed to be in on the anti-trans conspiracy too? Crossroads -talk- 00:32, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Your assertion that The Telegraph, The Times and The Economist are recognized by the community as reliable for facts in the domain of transgender issues is sadly unsupported by evidence. Repeating something over and over again does not make it true. And the Swiss source makes a statement attributed to "media sources", not the statement of supposed fact that was being shoehorned into the article. Newimpartial (talk) 00:36, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    They are recognized as generally reliable yes, and your assertions over and over again that this topic should be carved out because of a supposed bias (when biased sources can still be reliable for facts anyway and this is never applied to sources with obvious opposing bias like PinkNews) does not negate this. As for NZZ, the RfC didn't ask about attribution; rather two editors were removing it entirely rather than adding attribution, if that were the concern. Crossroads -talk- 00:55, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    PinkNews simply does not engage in the kind of politically motivated campaigning for trans rights that The Times and The Telegraph conduct against trans rights. They just don't, and if they did one would expect that some high-quality or academic sources would have picked up on it by now the way they have picked up on the campaigning by the mainstream anti-trans broadsheets.
    Your constant chorus of "but what about PinkNews" is the same red herring it has always been, even back in the day when you thought you could convince people that PinkNews was unrelaible because it understood Gay icons better than you do. Newimpartial (talk) 01:14, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, as I said in my edit summary, including it is WP:UNDUE. When looking at the three English language sources, all of which are negatively biased in this content area, the criticism seems to come from three fringe anti-trans organisations; For Women Scotland, Genspect, SEGM. The Economist in their coverage is actually being somewhat sneaky, as they quote both Genspect and SEGM twice. Once from Genspect founder Stella O'Malley, and once from Genspect contributor and SEGM board member and clinical advisor Julia Mason (Genspect, SEGM). Given that there are only three anti-trans organisations providing this "social controversy", I believe UNDUE point three apples, which states: If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true, or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article.
    As for the Swiss/German Neue Zürcher Zeitung source, I've ran it through machine translation (DeepL and Google Translate) and have a concern that this is an op-ed (and so subject to WP:RSOPINION), and not factual reporting. When I find translated quotations like In the future, will there also be "eunuch" on questionnaires or in job advertisements in addition to the categories male, female, diverse? (first paragraph), If you go to the website of the Eunuch Archives, you can easily get to the chatroom #Lobby. There, users have names like [usernames snipped] as an inspection reveals. Now that sounds less like a harmless online support group. (eleventh paragraph), and The very idea that a child might consider himself or herself a eunuch is likely to sound disconcerting to alarming to most ears. On social networks like Twitter, the aspect is causing an outcry. (fourteenth paragraph). While I can't rule out this being a machine translation artefact, I am understandably suspicious that this is an op-ed and not factual reporting. Is there anyone here fluent and confident enough in German to verify if the machine translation is accurate? Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:10, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. The sources are top-quality. No evidence has been presented that they are systematically biased but even if they were it wouldn't matter per WP:BIASED. Alaexis¿question? 07:04, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. The Times, Telegraph, and Economist are not reliable sources on the topic of trans issues. While we can use biased sources to a degree on Wikipedia, we should not let their editorial decisions determine ours—just like we don't cram articles on American Democratic politicians full of every supposed scandal Fox News has implicated them in, even though Fox News is a reliable source for most topics. If someone wants to refute the assertion that these sources are unreliable, they can start by showing that other tertiary sources consider them reliable in this topic area. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 08:00, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • No per my comment below. WP:PROPORTION requires us to consider the "body of reliable, published material on the subject". If only/mostly publications with a trans-hostile editiorial stance or journalists with a trans-hostile agenda (such as opposing the Gender Recognition Act changes in Scotland, which the LBC article should be viewd in the context of) but it is ignored by other news sources as a nothingburger, then we should ignore it too. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Bias in sources advises us "This does not mean any biased source must be used; it may well serve an article better to exclude the material altogether." Most of the sources are not directly commenting on WPATH guidelines, but on publication by National Gender Identity Clinical Network for Scotland that was retracted. They are mentioning this solely because Scotland has been a focus of attention wrt Gender Recognition Act changes. The Times article isn't even journalism but merely and explicitly getting a story second hand from The Telegraph. -- Colin°Talk 16:49, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, include. When something has been covered in the Times, the Telegraph, the Economist and by LBC, then it is significant. Sweet6970 (talk) 19:41, 3 November 2022 (UTC) And the Scotsman. Sweet6970 (talk) 19:43, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    So essentially your view is that any four WP:BIASEDSOURCES on trans issues are enough to guarantee inclusion, so long as those sources are right-wing? I will have to remember that principle going forward. Newimpartial (talk) 00:00, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No, that's not my view. Sweet6970 (talk) 09:54, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • No This seems like coverage meant to create a controversy where there is none. Something on the level of tabloid journalism (which is rather disappointing for papers like The Economist to be conducting), but I don't see DUE being met here. This information doesn't seem relevant enough to include and the way it's attempting to be included in the article appears to be trying to amplify the controversy part of it. Which is inappropriate for any Wikipedia article. SilverserenC 20:23, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes These sources are not far to the right at all. If you think they are, I'd like to know what you think of as a centrist source. Does anyone seriously doubt, based on the evidence, that Standards of Care linked to the Eunuch Archive to support its claim? Does anyone seriously doubt that the Eunuch Archive is in large part a child castration fetish website? Does anyone seriously doubt that the seemingly convivial relationship between the Eunuch Archive and WPATH would cause a controversy? NHS Scotland apologized. Do you think that they were tricked into apologizing for something they never did? Do you think they never apologized and that the news sites invented the apology out of whole cloth? Doesn't it seem like something that provokes an official public apology is usually important enough to be included on this wikipedia page, not even about the organization itself, but about this one specific document? How is this not a real controversy? Aside from claiming that these sources are unfit, what features does a controversy have that this incident lacks? Because The Times, the Economist, and the Telegraph are all in green on Wikipedia's perennial sources page as of this writing, indicating that they are considered generally reliable. If you want to lead a campaign to say that they should be listed as "generally reliable except for on trans issues" then go ahead and lead that campaign, but they are not in fact so listed, and I would say that the perennial sources document is a more authoritative document then any argument had here. None of these questions are rhetorical by the way, feel free to answer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benevolent Prawn (talk • contribs) 00:17, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • No opinion Whole article will be out of balance because little has been done to summarize most SOC8 content or commentary (yes also by me after I started those headings, you could say WP:SOFIXIT). Should it ideally include one or a few sentences about this eunuch issue? Maybe, maybe not. But it certainly shouldn't dominate a description of SOC8, which is inevitable when there's not much else. Any outcome of this decision can't look good in the current context. Due weight is relative; I suggest energy is better spent on figuring out what the big picture is before it makes sense to debate how/whether this fits in. CyreJ (talk) 16:55, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes being written about in mainstream high-quality RSs (Neue Zürcher Zeitung, the Economist, the Telegraph, and the Times) including 2 newspapers of record clearly shows that it is DUE to include it.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 19:02, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. Many of the sources that have been presented above don't even focus on WPATH and instead only mention it in passing as part of a tangentially-connected controversy at the NHS. The sources also tend to all be WP:BIASED in a single direction; while we can use biased sources, it is undue to construct a section entirely out of them or to give their opinions excessive weight on an article about a broad topic like this. --Aquillion (talk) 05:18, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Threaded discussion

  • @Newimpartial: In the NZZ article, please see the section "Eunuch Archives als Tummelfeld für Pädosexuelle?". The most relevant parts are

    Die SOC8 beziehen sich mehrfach auf das 1998 gegründete Eunuch Archive, das weltweit über 130 000 registrierte Mitglieder zählt [...] In verschiedenen Recherchen wurde nachgewiesen, dass sich im geschützten Bereich des Archivs eine grosse Anzahl von Geschichten befindet, die direkt mit dem sadistischen sexuellen Missbrauch von Kindern zu tun haben. [...] Das Dokument enthielt laut Medienberichten einen direkten Link zu den Eunuch Archives , «die grafische und sexuell eindeutige fiktive Beschreibungen von Kinder-Eunuchen enthalten».

    gnu57 17:21, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that gives you one RS making the connection to the web link - except that 《laut Medienberichten》 makes the Swiss source an attributed statement, which is not what you have added to the article based on the BIASEDSOURCES. Anyway, given the overall mass of coverage about WPATH over the years, do you mind explaining to me how this meager sourcing makes your proposed inclusion DUE? Newimpartial (talk) 17:27, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Newimpartial: I have provided 4 top-tier, mainstream RS. Could you please strike out your incorrect comment above (...a Swiss source that, as far as I can tell, can't be used to support any of the content...)? gnu57 17:38, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Since the source attributes the claim to "media sources", and your proposed text makes an assertion in Wikicoice, I'm afraid I can't do what you ask. Newimpartial (talk) 17:43, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, if you can't be bothered to read the discussions on-wiki and the academic and other high-quality sources that have been presented previously, pointing to the biases in three of your "top-tier" RS when it comes to "transgender issues", then I'm not sure what more I could do to help you. Newimpartial (talk) 17:47, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Re diff and diff: I didn't write any of the disputed content. My one recent edit to the article was this revert; the text there is supported by the two sources cited, The Economist and LBC. If you would prefer that we cite the NZZ, feel free to propose wording in line with it.
    Re diff: I have read many of your comments criticising the Times and the Telegraph but remain unconvinced. If you would like a general reevaluation of their reliability, please use the reliable sources noticeboard.gnu57 17:54, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The day for that reevaluation will undoubtedly come, but in the mean time, "remaining unconvinced" of their biases when presented with academic and other high quality sources documenting those biases is not exactly a good look, IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 18:02, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I have replied on your talk page (diff) so as not to derail the discussion here. gnu57 20:17, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I asked above in my !vote, and I'll ask again here. Is there a full non-machine translation of the NZZ article available anywhere? I preformed a machine translation on it earlier using DeepL and Google Translate, and the content I got back makes me question if the NZZ article you're relying on is actually an op-ed. I've included some translated quotes above, but the language used seems more like it is trying to persuade the reader about a specific point of view, instead of informing the reader about factual content. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:05, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm undecided on whether this should be included, but if yes, the criticism should be attributed (e.g. was criticized by representatives of Genspect and For Women Scotland), rather than a vague was controversial. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 17:33, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Newimpartial: Is there something wrong with the LBC? Isn't it a mainstream news organisation? The Scotsman article states: The paper also provided a direct link to a website that included graphic and sexually explicit fictional descriptions of child eunuchs. Regarding your preferred article version, please recall that I didn't write any of the content under dispute. gnu57 12:03, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No, LBC isn't a mainstream news organisation. And this may be a language issue, but sexually explicit is not a synonym for sexualized. Newimpartial (talk) 12:11, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I have asked about LBC at RSN. If you'd rather we say "sexually explicit" descriptions of children, rather than "sexualised", that is fine with me--I have no preference one way or the other. gnu57 13:44, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we have to be very careful to judge DUE based on journalism from newspapers with an established trans-hostile editorial stance. The Telegraph (along with the Daily Mail) publish trans-negative stories every day, sometimes more often. If "was once published in the Telegraph" was a basis for inclusion on trans issues, our trans content would be overwhelmingly filled with the views of gender critical authors and campaign groups and negative case histories about trans people doing werid stuff. It isn't like it is balanced out by other establishment media; the more reputable ones just ignore this crap. Yesterday's telegraph has four trans stories:
Is someone going to go to Daniel Radcliffe and note that he's "the world’s most ungrateful man"? Or edit Scots law to note the "history" being made by a trans person committing a crime. Or edit Nicola Sturgeon to say she's been "captured by extremists"? Or edit Ofcom to note that they are ensuring the lefty BBC and Channel 4 aren't being overrun by trans people. Because taking a naive "If it's in the Telegraph it must be important" attitude to trans issues, would have you making such controversial edits every single day. -- Colin°Talk 12:18, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I concur. The question for me is not whether or not the sources are reliable, it's whether or not the content is DUE.
Unfortunately all of the English language sources thus far quote from some combination of the same three fringe anti-trans organisations; For Women Scotland, Genspect, and SEGM. All three organisations by their history and activities are demonstrably biased against trans healthcare, particularly gender affirming care, and trans rights. These organisations regularly attack groups, organisations, and agencies like WPATH because of their opposing stances. To put it charitably, this seems like an attempt at throwing everything controversial against the wall and seeing what sticks, and a manufactured controversy within the press.
I say manufactured controversy within the press, because no-one here has provided any sources that substantiate there being an academic dispute within the eunuch chapter of the 8th edition standards of care. I've attempted to search for academic sources on this, but as the SoC was only published a little under two months ago, there doesn't seem to be any. Maybe that will change in another 3 to 6 months, or maybe this will be forgotten. Outside of The Telegraph and Daily Mail producting stories on this two weeks ago, and The Economist's story in September, all other content on this seems to have been published in June. As such there doesn't seem to be any real sustained coverage of this. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:22, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is any controversy that doesn't have an academic component a manufactured controversy? What makes it a manufactured controversy and not a real controversy? In other words, what would make it a real controversy? Benevolent Prawn (talk) 00:24, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I just checked and it seems like the term "manufactured controversy" only applies to factual disputes. Would you say that this dispute is factual, normative, or an even split of both? I'd say that it's mostly normative. Even if it were purely factual, why not include the controversy on the page? This isn't really a case where we need an academic to come along and say whether WPATH's actions were Morally Right, in which case there would be Officially No Controversy, or Morally Wrong, in which case there would be An Offical Scientific Controversy. Because this is mostly a moral controversy. Like... to give an extreme example, if there was some statement in the Standards of Care about how it was okay steal from your patients or whatever, that would generate a moral controversy, whether academics got involved or not. Or, to give a more closely aligned but still very unrealistic demonstrative example, if WPATH said that Burn Victim was a gender identity, and linked to Arson Fetish sites, that would result in a moral controversy. Even if many academics took WPATH's side, it would still be a moral controversy. Whereas if WPATH said that smoking causes lung cancer, and the vast majority of academics took their side, that might result in a "Manufactured" (not scare quotes, just regular quotes) factual controversy if others disputed the ill-effect of smoking. Which still might be reported on by Wikipedia in some capacity.Benevolent Prawn (talk) 00:39, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To the extent that it is a factual dispute, it seems like a very different kind of factual dispute then questions like "Do cigarettes cause lung cancer" or "Do fluorocarbons deplete the ozone layer". To the extent that I'm not sure the same principles apply.Benevolent Prawn (talk) 00:58, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"All three organisations by their history and activities are demonstrably biased against trans healthcare"... If something is controversial, most organizations that have chosen to speak out about the controversy at all will have a stance on the controversial issue. The idea that we should consider the sources biased and unsuitable as reference because they have a stance is bizarre. Ken Arromdee (talk) 20:38, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Standards_of_Care_for_the_Health_of_Transgender_and_Gender_Diverse_People&oldid=1120593524"