Talk:Rapid-onset gender dysphoria controversy

Possible bias

The article could benefit from separating the description of the ROGD topic from the controversy over its validity and acceptance. I think the initial description of the theory of ROGD could adopt a neutral tone. Criticism of the topic could then come in a separate section. Also a separate section describing the history of the term, separate from the description of the term, would help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Milkchaser (talk • contribs) 15:12, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

We do, however, need to follow the reliable sources and this is not the approach that they take to the topic. If anything, I find that this version of the lede - which I just tweaked - still describes ROGD as more of a fleshed-out, plausible scientific hypothesis than do any of the RS on the topic, including the primary sources by the concept's originator (in scholarly discourse, setting aside its prehistory on the interwebs). Newimpartial (talk) 14:28, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Milkchaser, I think separating it would be a bad idea because it is not supported by Wikipedia's policy (in particular, WP:DUEWEIGHT). The controversy over its validity and the associated storm of commentary in media and academia is pretty much the entire story about ROGD. Maybe somewhere deep down, there's a tiny, uncontroversial kernel somewhere dealing strictly with the science, perhaps; let's say, the original publication in PLOS One. However, had there been no controversy, there is virtually zero chance that this paper would ever have achieved a level of WP:Notability enabling it to have an article on Wikipedia. No controversy, no article, period.

To get a feeling for the level of notability of articles on PLOS One, let's look at just the 92 articles published at PLOS One on 16 August 2018, the day Littman's paper appeared there. Day-of-pub can be seen as a proxy for a random selection of papers that include Littman's paper:

Engagement values for papers published on PLOS One on 16 August 2018

Here are all original research articles published on the PLOS One platform on 16 August 2018 (92 papers; limited to original research papers). With 92 original papers published that day, that amounts to about one every fifteen minutes. Papers published just before, and just after Littman's, are a pretty good proxy for an unbiased sample of papers at PLOS. Here is a link to Littman's paper in the context of the articles published before after it, and here they are in a list along with basic engagement stats: Spectral effects of light-emitting diodes on plant growth, visual color quality, and photosynthetic photon efficacy: White versus blue plus red radiation Views: 13908 • Citations: 45 • Saves: 0 • Shares: 0 Lung cancer in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis Views: 7079 • Citations: 46 • Saves: 38 • Shares: 1 GRASShopPER—An algorithm for de novo assembly based on GPU alignments Views: 3957 • Citations: 3 • Saves: 36 • Shares: 20 Predicting segregation of multiple fruit-quality traits by using accumulated phenotypic records in citrus breeding Views: 1720 • Citations: 5 • Saves: 0 • Shares: 0 Identifying feasible operating regimes for early T-cell recognition: The speed, energy, accuracy trade-off in kinetic proofreading and adaptive sorting Views: 1461 • Citations: 12 • Saves: 22 • Shares: 4 Parent reports of adolescents and young adults perceived to show signs of a rapid onset of gender dysphoria Views: 460611 • Citations: 130 • Saves: 287 • Shares: 3201 Mottling score and skin temperature in septic shock: Relation and impact on prognosis in ICU Views: 3496 • Citations: 13 • Saves: 60 • Shares: 1 Is guideline-adherent prescribing associated with quality of life in patients with type 2 diabetes? Views: 1078 • Citations: 3 • Saves: 0 • Shares: 0 In vivo distribution of U87MG cells injected into the lateral ventricle of rats with spinal cord injury Views: 1397 • Citations: 5 • Saves: 13 • Shares: 2 PPARγ is reduced in the airways of non-CF bronchiectasis subjects and is inversely correlated with the presence of Pseudomonas aeruginosa Views: 1071 • Citations: 1 • Saves: 12 • Shares: 1 Cross-country information transmissions and the role of commodity markets: A multichannel Markov switching approach Views: 816 • Citations: 0 • Saves: 0 • Shares: 0 As a control query, on whether "gender"-related articles spikes the engagement, here are the ten articles from August 2018 with gender in the title. Except for the Littman article, engagement values are similar to those listed above.

This kind of engagement indicates one of two things: either it is the most seminal paper in the field of gender in a generation and one of the most important in any field, or it is the result of controversy that blew up beyond its narrow field within academia, into the popular press and the domain of culture wars. An examination of secondary sources in the article should be sufficient to clarify that point.

None of those other articles listed above have a Wikipedia article about them, and there is zero chance that that they ever will. The same thing would have been true of Littman's paper, *but for* the controversy. In this Wikipedia article, the controversy *is* the story; without it, there is no story. That's what this article is about, based on the overwhelming majority of reliable sources about it; that's what the title is, per WP:AT, and that's what the defining sentence says. The tone of the article is already neutral, because it properly reflects the sources written about it (or, as Newimpartial said, it probably tilts unduly in favor of ROGD as a hypothesis). Until the weight of reporting on this topic changes, per WP:DUE, that's what the article should reflect. Mathglot (talk) 22:23, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

I do agree with @Mathglot. There is no ROGD topic without the controversy. They cannot be separated and the only way to describe ROGD is as a medical scandal. Calling it a controversy instead of scandal is very polite, maybe to polite. Pretending there is a way of talking about it without mentioning the fact it´s not proper research is not possible. Godfellow (talk) 23:30, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree with @milkchaser and disagree with the follow-on comments above. ROGD need not be proven, or even a matter of scholarly orthodoxy, to pass WP:GNG. I do not agree that it is fails WP:Due either; it is quite clear that there is fairly widespread public knowledge of the theory as a means of explaining the racial increase is reported gender dysphoria. There is a high level of reportage on the subject of ROGD. Crucially, there is great public interest in the possible reasons for the increase in gender dysphoria and there can be little reasonable doubt that the theory would attract much interest (and pass WP:GNG) even if it were not contentious. As it stands, this article is muddled from the start because the lead is political. It seeks to reduce the status of ROGD by denying its instrinsic notability. This is an error and weakens the article. The article fails WP:NPOV from the start. As @milkchaser notes, there should be a neutral introduction at the lead; the lead should be much shorter than it presently is; the controversy should be referred to in the lead; the controversy should then be referred to in the main body (preferably not in its own section as this is generally lazy/bad practice). Any views, other editors? Emmentalist (talk) 16:27, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

@Emmentalist: I'll make a fuller reply later, however this edit is substantially the same as this edit, which I had already reverted per NPOV. Emmentalist will you please self-revert unless and until a consensus forms surrounding your change? Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:42, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

It's been reverted (not by me). The reasoning is terribly weak; it's nonsense to argue that ROGD would not be notable if it were not contentious. It's a theory which has had wide exposure in the media and that continues today. The first sentence of the lead is a dog's breakfast. I'm afraid the revert looks to me like politics. I have no interest in that. I'll reflect on what to do next. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 22:11, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Emmentalist said,

As it stands, this article is muddled from the start because the lead is political. It seeks to reduce the status of ROGD by denying its instrinsic notability.

The lead is not "political". Nor does it seek to "reduce the status of ROGD" by denying notability. Taking the second point first: if editors here denied its notability, it would very likely be nominated for deletion or merging, but nobody is proposing that, so your argument appears to be a strawman. Any assertion that "the lead is political" and that the article is "muddled" because of it, is merely your unsupported opinion. In fact, content in the lead about the lack of support for ROGD among major professional and academic organizations is very well sourced, and the lead closely follows the preponderance of secondary sources, including both majority, and opposing minority viewpoints, and is compliant with both WP:DUE and WP:NPOV.

Your claims of "political" reasons for the status of the lead, and assertions of "denying notability" are groundless. If you have a particular beef with specific wording in the article, feel free to make a bold edit, as you have, or to propose alternate wording here so other editors can discuss your ideas. But merely making sweeping critical statements based on your personal opinion without concrete proposals for improvement is not a path to improving the article.

I am sympathetic to your argument for shortening the lead. I would approach this not by deleting content, but by refactoring the lead by moving certain information from the lead into the body of the article, and I'm happy to discuss that with anyone who has specific ideas about that. Mathglot (talk) 01:21, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Your reply makes little sense, I'm afraid. The title, first sentence and many of the comments above reflect a view that ROGD is not notable of itself. You write yourself; "the controversy *is* the story; without it, there is no story". Godfellow (talk)agrees; There is no ROGD topic without the controversy". Your are both denying that ROGD is notable of itself. However, ROGD is of itself the specific subject of many articles in non-deprecated sources, including scholarly papers. There is no doubt controversy around it, but this does not in any way detract from its notability as per WP:GNG. Inserting the word 'controversy' into the title and article changes both from being about ROGD to being about controversy per se. I do not doubt that you feel you are editing in good faith, but your edit is perverse and, to my mind, can only be explained by political intent. That harms the article. Finally, perhaps you have not thought through your comments, but you say I have not made a concrete proposal but also recognise that in fact I actually made the edit. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 07:20, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

You are treading very close to WP:NPA here. I suggest you step away for a bit. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:59, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Not at all. I think the best thing for now is to flag a NPOV dispute then take it from there. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 15:58, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Mathglot has already said pretty much all I was going to say. There have been no studies independent of Littman's that have replicated their findings, and all independent studies have into it have found no evidence in support of the proposed theory. Conversely the correction that was found necessary after the journal's re-review of Littman's paper, the near unanimous condemnation of the theory and Littman's research due to severe methodological flaaws by mainstream medical organisations and academics, and its propagation by fringe organisations like ACPeds and right-wing/conservative media sources like Fox News, are the primary topic here.

Adding a NPOV tag at this time would be disruptive. The neutrality of this article has been discussed many times since the article's creation, and every time the consensus has been that we are handling this article correctly. I would strongly urge that you review the past discussions in the talk page archives on this point. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:10, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Just as a postscript, since you've repeated your pervious assertions about notability of the topic sans controversy: it's no longer practical to attempt to assess the notability of the ROGD topic during the brief interval after publication and before the media storm exploded; nor does it matter now, even if you could. What is perfectly clear from a search in books, scholar, or the web is that the overwhelmingly vast proportion of secondary sources deal with the controversy engendered by the publication of the article, and the political and cultural reaction on all sides and not narrowly to the theory. Even if you could, somehow, view ROGD's early, atomic notability, it wouldn't matter, because WP:AT policy guides what the title should be, and it's clear what the majority of sources say; likewise, WP:PAGEDECIDE is policy also, and in my read of it requires that we keep whatever content that is available about the theory in this one article, as it is as impossible to separate now from the controversy as it is to unscramble an omelet. This argues in favor of the current title, and a single article, which is the much-discussed status quo. Mathglot (talk) 16:38, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Courtesy note, Emmentalist has now posted about this issue at NPOVN. Editors may wish to contribute to this discussion there. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:05, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 April 2023

Please change “anti-trans” to “gender critical”. Anti-trans is an inflammatory term that is highly subjective and used to sabotage and undermine proponents of gender critical thinking. 119.17.144.4 (talk) 01:53, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done We have to follow the sources and write in plain English that our readers can understand. We should avoid obfuscatory euphemisms such as "gender critical" as this would impede our readers understanding. There is nothing inflammatory about any of this. --DanielRigal (talk) 02:05, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 May 2023

Change "In a formal comment published by PLOS One at the conclusion of its review, academic editor and professor of social psychology Angelo Brandelli Costa wrote"

to "In a formal comment published by PLOS One at the conclusion of its review, PLOS One Psychology Section Editor and professor of social psychology Angelo Brandelli Costa wrote" Angelobrcosta (talk) 18:50, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm assuming, given your user name, that this is you? A red link is basically an invitation to create an article on the topic in question, in this case you. But a quick Google search didn't seem to indicate that you meet our notability criteria (i.e. neither WP:GNG nor WP:PROF). Unless you can point us toward a few instances of significant, independent coverage in reliable, secondary source, it doesn't seem the name should be red linked. Generalrelative (talk) 20:01, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Here some links:

https://www.pucrs.br/en/blog/pucrs-professor-receives-international-recognition/

https://www.pucrs.br/en/blog/pucrs-professor-awarded-association-for-psychological-sciences-rising-star-designation/

https://www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/careers-up-close-angelo-brandelli-costa

https://theintercept.com/equipe/angelo-brandelli-costa/

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/section-editors

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0742-8152

https://www.apa.org/international/networks/global-psychology-alliance/learning-leadership-institute

https://www.sbponline.org.br/2022/03/association-for-psychological-science-publica-artigo-sobre-angelo-brandelli-costa Angelobrcosta (talk) 22:42, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for providing these links, but unfortunately they do not establish notability since none of them are significant, independent coverage in reliable, secondary sources (note that each of those words in blue links to a guideline or policy; click to learn more). In particular, most of them are neither independent nor secondary. And we would need multiple such sources to establish notability per WP:GNG. Cheers, Generalrelative (talk) 23:23, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

I just want to point that all of the links that I gave you, besides orcid, refers to independent, reliable, and secondary sources not related to me according with your own criteria. But I respect your opinion. Angelobrcosta (talk) 22:09, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

NPOV dispute

[See also, 'Possible bias' section above]

Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria (ROGD) is an academic theory which has been the source of much discourse since 2018. It was proposed by a qualified academic in a scholarly journal of repute and is a considered a theory of note by many scholars in the field. It has been the subject of many articles in non-deprecated sources; this has led it to be widely discussed amongst non-academics and in the media. There has been a particular upsurge in such discussion following a recent paper by a well-known scholar in the field. A simple Google then Google Scholar search yields much evidence of all of this. The ROGD theory is controversial, not yet proven to a clinical level (it may indeed be refuted at some point) and is manifestly not a matter of orthodoxy within the relevant fields. It is, however, a substantive and serious theory receiving much legitimate consideration and leading much public debate. Public discourse around the theory routinely segues into areas influenced by ideology. Some editors here, acting in good faith but also in error, have in my view taken the article outwith the boundaries of WP:NPOV by claiming that the theory itself does not conform to WP:GNG and instead stressing the controversy. This is clearly an incorrect claim. ROGD is both WP:GNG and WP:V. It is not WP:UNDUE; to label is as such would disqualify all prominent new theories from Wikipedia articles. Moreover, the theory has received much coverage and the WP:DUE calculus is about public profile and not academic opinion. The entire article is imbalanced and this starts from the title and the first sentence. I sought to improve the first sentence

This article was created with first sentence which began; "Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria (ROGD) is "a provisional label" that has been used to characterize "a new subgroup of adolescents,...". This first sentence was clear and accurate. It is now; "Controversy surrounds the concept of rapid-onset gender dysphoria (ROGD), proposed as a subtype of gender dysphoria...". This new introductory sentence is very clumsy and needs improving, however it also seeks (along with the title) to replace the ROGD theory as the primary subject of the article with the controversy as the primary subject. This would not matter if there were another ROGD article, but some editors here argue that ROGD fails WP:GNG and in the event that (another) one is created should be merged into this article. I sought to improve the first sentence and my edit has been reverted.

The remainder of the lead is far too long. The rest of the article emphasises how ROGD is controversial and is not about ROGD itself. This is legitimate for an article about a controversy if it passes WP:GNG, but not about ROGD. The article needs a great deal of work.

The solution, in my view, is to keep this article and not create a new ROGD one but recognise that it is substantively about ROGD; albeit with a significant section to cover its controversial nature. The word 'controversy' should be removed from the title of the article and the original first sentence reinstated. The lead should then be reduced and more work can then be carried out on the main body. The second best solution would be to create a new ROGD article with a link to this one, but not to merge the two. In this event, the new ROGD article should simply describe the theory and its origin; it should mention but not discuss the controversy at length, and instead link to the 'controversy' article. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 16:43, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

As you say in your "See also" at the top, this appears to be a continuation of the § Possible bias section, and is not really a separate discussion topic. And in fact, you repeat most or all of your previous points from that section here, which are all opinions unsupported by evidence, and they have already been responded to above, and refuted with policy/guideline links, diffs, and links to available sourcing, so I see no need to continually respond to the same questions over and over when consensus is already clear from evidence already given. If you wish to bring new arguments to bear, or new evidence, I'm sure you'll get good feedback, but I see no need to respond to previously discussed topics at the present time. As to your repetition of the opinion that the lead is too long, I repeat my offer to work with you on that. I see nothing else that needs a response here, and am content to let this discussion die. Mathglot (talk) 17:12, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Two quick points, @Mathglot. First, I've followed the WP:NPOV dispute procedure. That entails a new section entitled 'NPOV dispute'; presumably because it is easier for people who come to the discussion from the NPOV dispute discussion page to orientate. Second, I have referred to a simple Google and Google Scholar searches which provide ample evidence in respect of my argument: I could instead provide links here but unless I did so in a very large number of cases I would likely be accused of cherry picking. Again, for people new to the discussion, it is for them to make their own judgement based on the obvious results of such easy and simple searches. Emmentalist (talk) 21:04, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

You have every right to so so; I'll watch with interest. Mathglot (talk) 21:20, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Bailey article retraction

I am not sure whether this belongs in the article but J. Michael Bailey has just had a paper about "ROGD" retracted for failing to get adequate consent from the participants.

• https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-023-02635-1

The specific paper is not mentioned in the article so maybe this is more for his article than this one. Nonetheless I thought I should mention it here. DanielRigal (talk) 19:52, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

@DanielRigal: Thanks; I noticed it too, and was similarly unsure, but I think your conclusion is probably the right one. I've taken the liberty to expand the section title to clarify the topic; without it, it raised a question in my mind whether an editor here was retracting something they had said earlier. Feel free to revert to original title, if you disagree. Mathglot (talk) 20:59, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

On second look, maybe it should be included here. I was going to go update the Bailey article with something about it and be done with it, so I did a search to see if I could get a secondary report, instead of the Springer (primary) source. Somewhat to my surprise for a retraction only published three days ago, there are already quite a few secondary sources about it, and much of the reaction perfectly echoes the atmosphere of controversy that is the subject of this article. Given that, I think we should include it somewhere. Mathglot (talk) 21:08, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Original Bailey article is here; official retraction here. Medscape's article on the retraction is here, and also summarizes the Bailey article. The summary makes it sound like an attempt to duplicate the Littman study; however, the methdology, if Medscape's reporting is accurate, seems to have exactly the same type of problems that the original Littman paper was criticized for: "The [Bailey] paper reported the results of a survey of parents who contacted the website ParentsofROGDKids.com, with which the first author is affiliated." The Medscape article goes on to say that "Soon after publication, the paper attracted criticism that its method of gathering study participants was biased, and that the authors ignored information that didn't support the theory of ROGD." The retraction was due to "concerns about lack of informed consent", according to one of the paper's authors. Mathglot (talk) 21:38, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Related question (about pseudonymous authors) added to WT:MED. Mathglot (talk) 23:00, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

So I learned of this myself yesterday. When I searched at the time, while there were sources discussing the retraction, very few of them are actually those we consider to be reliable, and those that were reliable seemed to be clearly marked opinion articles and not any actual reporting. Even today, I'm not really seeing anything usable other than the Medscape article Mathglot has linked. At this time, I'm not sure if we can cover the retraction on either article without at least one or two more reliable sources covering this per WP:DUE.

However if there is sourcing, and others can link to it so we can analyse, a brief note on this might be warranted. Though whatever we write we should be careful not to fulfil Bailey's desire for a Streisand effect reaction to this. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:11, 19 June 2023 (UTC)