Talk:Irreversible Damage

Discussion of contents of "Irreversible Damage"

There is an ongoing edit war to remove or change the meaning of descriptions of the content of "Irreversible Damage". Any changes should be reverted unless a consensus has first been reached here (WP:BRD). Bravetheif (talk) 06:24, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

The book cannot be accurately represented without also including a discussion of it's contents. It should either be left with discussion of it's content or it should be made a single line statement. Including mention of it's accolades and alleged censorship, without also discussing it's content does not give a WP:NPOV. The scientific basis of the book (as discussed in chapter 2), the 2018 Littman study, is not considered credible and does not support the current scientific understanding of gender (WP:TINFOILHAT). Furthermore, many of the claims made by the book are misleading or false. Bravetheif (talk) 06:37, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

@Bravetheif: You are the only one edit-warring: [2]. 13 reverts in the last 24 hours by my count! I have already reported your conduct to the BLP noticeboard. If an admin from there does not block you, then I will immediately report you to WP:AN/3. You edits are wholly comprised of non-WP:RSs & WP:OR. This is a major WP:BLP violation. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 07:01, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

@Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d: Reverting content that deletes or alters large portions of an article is inline with WP:BRD. WP:BLP involves removing content that is not provably true, it doesn't mean removing all negative statements. The statements removed were cited and the unreliable sources were removed, it was not WP:OR or WP:SYNTH Bravetheif (talk) 07:15, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

@Bravetheif: Users deleted large parts of your edits because they were poorly sourced or comprised of OR. For instance, I see you used this academic paper as a source: [3]. Very good, that's seems like a high-quality, peer-reviewed source. The only problem is that it makes no mention of Shrier or her book. The paper does not analyze the book in anyway. This is called Original Research, which includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented. In other words, you combined your own personal knowledge of the book, with the information from the source in an effort to "debunk" the book--this is not allowed. You used other academic papers that also had no mention of Shrier or the book. Additionally, you used sources such as Medium and Slowly Boiled Frog. These sources are called self-published sources and they are written by absolutely anyone. These types of sources violate WP:BLPSPS. I could go on, but I have better stuff to do at the moment. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 07:54, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

@Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d: The entire second chapter of Shrier's book is a discussion of Lisa Littman's research. It directly cites it as its scientific basis. My aim was to summarise the position the book was taking, but doing so uncritically creates a POV in favour of the book. So a discussion of the scientific credibility of that position is relevant. Futhermore, the Psychology Today article does directly reference the book and the fringeness of ROGD. As for the other sources, Julia Serano (the medium writer) is not "absolutely anyone"; she has a PHD in biochemistry and has written books relevant to this subject. I also already said I missed the Slowly Boiled Frog citation, I intended to remove it. Bravetheif (talk) 08:07, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

@Bravetheif: It should be added that the author of the PsychologyToday article is himself a controversial researcher with a number of financial conflicts of interests which he does not mention in his research papers. It would be prudent to either remove the statements backed by this reference alone, or to accurately describe the conflict of interest inherent in the source. As you've mentioned all statements based on blog articles also need to go, in line with WP:BLPSPS. ParisDakarPeräjärvi (talk) 23:17, 9 December 2020 (UTC) — ParisDakarPeräjärvi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

@Bravetheif: I don't care how many Ph.d's she has, this article MUST adhere to WP:BLP policies. Per WP:RSP, Medium is an unreliable source and "should never be used as a secondary source for living persons". Additionally, you still don't understand WP:OR. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 23:24, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

@Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d: It is not being used as a source for a living person, it's being used to substantiate the statements about the credibility of ROGD. It pretty clearly meets the standard for WP:SPS in that case. Looking at the examples and definition of WP:SYNTH, the statements do not meet that definition either. Summarising the book, and then proceeding to expand on the scientific basis of that summary is not the same as connecting two unrelated pieces of information with a conclusion. Bravetheif (talk) 00:48, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

@Bravetheif: A SPS can never be included into a BLP (unless written by the author of the BLP). Furthermore, you just admitted to Original Research. For argument's sake, let's say the Medium source was not a SPS, and, instead, it was written in the New York Times. In that case, it would still not be allowed to be included in this article. Because the source does not directly evaluate the author or her work. You're the one who says the book contains arguments on ROGD--not the source. I have no idea if the book even contains arguments on ROGD--because the source does not state so. In other words, we can't use you as a source: this is Original Research. Perhaps I'm not the best at explaining this... Please, I urge you to seek assistance at WP:HELPDESK & WP:TEA. They should be able to answer all your questions. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 01:26, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

@ParisDakarPeräjärvi: Turban is a well regarded figure in transgender research, and the source used in the article (like all my sources discussing a living person) clearly meet WP:BLP. He is a notorious figure due to the high profile of his research. With how controversial transgender medicine is as a whole, it's expected that it would also reflect on him. Three letters to the editor, one of which supports conversion therapy, and an out-of-context financial statement with no direct bearing to the source in question is not enough to discredit Turban's writing as a whole. Bravetheif (talk) 00:48, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

@Bravetheif: Turban is by no means a well regarded figure. As for his COIs, you can have a look at his November presentations for the WPATH symposium. I do not have a link for it, which is why I did not include it at first. Now that WPATH is cracking down a bit on conflicts of interests, he appears to have realized that he has had five different revenue streams that directly conflict with his research work and that maybe, just maybe, getting $15k from a company producing puberty blockers while writing papers about puberty blockers is something worth mentioning. In addition, the accusation is that research is being "omitted" is something Turban backs up with a number of papers that were published AFTER the book itself was published. In addition, he suggests research based on old criteria is irrelevant, something that would be worthwhile if there was any research whatsoever on the outcomes given the current criteria. These are very dishonest arguments from Jack - I would argue something that discredits this article overall - and even in its most uncharitable reading it could never be described as "omitted". ParisDakarPeräjärvi (talk) 01:28, 10 December 2020 (UTC) — ParisDakarPeräjärvi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

@ParisDakarPeräjärvi: Turban's opinion on puberty blockers lines up with the current scientific consensus in the field. A large part of Bigg's critique relies on the fact that some of the respondents would have never had access to puberty blockers, but I fail to see how that is actually relevant. The study was not one of access to puberty blockers, but of it's relation to suicidal ideation. For the purpose of the analysis, not having puberty blockers and not having access to puberty blockers are the same. Furthermore, in his article, Turban is not claiming that research based on the DSM-IV definition of GID is broadly irrelevant, he's claiming specifically that research on youth detransitioning that was conducted with the old definition is not trustworthy. His reason for doing so is sound, and is supported by the fact they narrowed the definition in the DSM-V. Also, he's not saying the research he has listed is being "omitted", he literally states they're for further reading: "I've listed several in the references for those interested in reading more." None of these are dishonest arguments. I have relented with the other issues and will be reducing my statements about the book to adhere to the strictest interpretation of WP:BLP, but that source meets the standard. Bravetheif (talk) 02:37, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

@Bravetheif: As you will no doubt be aware that there is no medical (nor social or legal) consensus , this is in fact a hotly debated topic, one where public investigations into the matter (UK, Finland, Sweden) accurately conclude that the evidence base simply isn't there, and that the treatment is experimental in nature. With the NHS finding itself in trouble and changing their description to include that "Little is known about the long-term side effects of hormone or puberty blockers in children with gender dysphoria." There is no consensus. Further, if Turban wants to make the argument that the diagnostic changes (which coincides with a ten, twenty or, in some places, forty-fold increase in cases) would result in a lower net rate of desistance, that's speculative, but that still doesn't change the fact that there is no research available to omit here. That phrasing needs to go.ParisDakarPeräjärvi (talk) 06:40, 10 December 2020 (UTC) — ParisDakarPeräjärvi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

@ParisDakarPeräjärvi: I don't even know what a "legal" or "social" consensus is, I have never even heard of one and I do not see how it would even be relevant to this discussion. As Turban points out in the article, most reputable and related scientific bodies support gender-affirming medical care, including the use of puberty blockers.. The Mayo Clinic and other national healthcare systems also support their use. Speculating that the NHS changed the description because they found themselves in (legal?) trouble is not productive. I could just as much argue that they changed the language after facing media pressure from uninformed groups. Bringing in wider debate about the controversial nature of trans research is not relevant, and it's especially rich on the article about the woman who's book is largely based on a fringe theory supported by a single discredited study. Additionally, please cite a (reputable) source that can directly link the definition change in the DSM-5 to a forty-fold increase in cases. Because I don't see how a more restrictive diagnosis would itself create a forty-fold increase in cases.. The fact that Shrier failed to mention that the change in definition likely affected the rates somewhat, something her own source says, is omitting evidence. She also omits evidence showing trans children are more stigmatized than LGB children to support her own theory to the contrary. That is omitting evidence. The fact she ignored evidence demonstrating that gender-affirming medical care improves mental health outcomes is also omitting evidence. Bravetheif (talk) 08:15, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

@Bravetheif: Obviously an organization like WPATH who heavily misrepresents the knowledge about the long term effects of puberty suppression can not be described as "reputable". You could no doubt argue that "the NHS changed the language after facing media pressure from uninformed groups", although you would of course be presenting a losing argument there as the situation involved expert witnesses, extensive investigation and of course a full opportunity for the clinic to present any and all research it wished to present in order to not lose the legal battle. Which they did, and it amounted to very little. As for the DSM changes, I did not say there was a "direct link", I suggested that the coinciding demographic change would likely override any positives from the - on paper - stricter definition. In addition, you say there is no discussion of the impact of the changes, which is simply false when reading the book. You also continue to describe a currently standing (with zero substantive changes) peer-reviewed paper as "discredited", which is simply incorrect. You may certainly call it controversial, but it is not discredited by any means. You bring up areas the book barely touches upon and say it omits evidence in those areas, which makes no sense to me. Adding unsupported claims and arguing against a straw-book is not helpful here.ParisDakarPeräjärvi (talk) 09:08, 10 December 2020 (UTC) — ParisDakarPeräjärvi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

@ParisDakarPeräjärvi: Obviously an organization like WPATH who heavily misrepresents the knowledge about the long term effects of puberty suppression can not be described as "reputable" You also ignore that the other organisations Turban & I cited. Well done misrepresenting the NHS case though, which was not, as you imply, about the efficacy of puberty blockers, rather it was about the ability for under 16s to give "informed consent" given that their long term effects have not been thoroughly studied. Not that a legal case has any bearing on whether or not a treatment works. Now for the claim that the definition change contributed to a dramatic increase in diagnosis; ok, so there is no direct link. You're just speculating. Great, but not a reason to remove the Turban article. As for the Littman study, it has been discredited. It's conclusion is not mainstream and it lacks the evidence to support such a fringe view (making it WP:FRINGE), and it has been repeatedly criticised. It in fact was withdrawn, corrected, and the journal published an apology. It is also the only study that advances that theory. That meets the definition of "discredited". The fact she focused heavily on that, disregarding the far more mainstream theories points to the fact she is cherrypicking sources. As for the remainder, it doesn't matter how little a portion of the book it makes up, what matters is that she came to those conclusions by ignoring the evidence and consensus that stated the opposite. That is lying by omission and, since Turban directly addresses that fact, it meets the strict standards for WP:BLP Bravetheif (talk) 09:47, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

References

Sources and Source Issues in this article.

Alright, this has been painful to read through and even more painful to examine. There are precious few valid sources involved here, and plenty that offer nothing usable within wikipedia policy.

1. Turban, Jack (2020-06-12). "New Book "Irreversible Damage" Is Full of Misinformation". Psychology Today. Retrieved 2020-08-12.

Jack Turban is, in fact, a well respected expert in these topics [4]. Acceptable use of self-published works "2. The author is an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications..." The Psychology Today publication, while it is listed as a "blog" under the PT website, should be valid with attribution under WP:USESPS.

1. https://www.economist.com/united-states/2020/11/28/a-book-on-transitioning-girls-is-denounced-as-transphobic

This, on the other hand, is egregiously against policy. Not only is it an opinion column, it isn't even bylined. Worse still, it appears to be a reprinting from a non-WP:RS source elsewhere (published two days earlier: https://timesnest.com/miss-gender-a-book-on-transitioning-girls-is-denounced-as-transphobic-united-states/ https://timesnest.com/about-us/).

Similarly bad, non-RS sources include "Christian Post" entries, including an opinion column masquerading as a "book review"; A "Hillsdale Collegian" pseudo-review opinion column from the "culture" section; and various other opinion columns that add nothing of relevance (Ben Shapiro for instance is not an expert on transgender issues in any way, shape, or form).

As a broader problem, it appears that the article fails to demonstrate Shrier's notability under Wikipedia:Notability guidelines, save for having published this book (which means the policy Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#People_notable_for_only_one_event precludes this article). If not for page protection, I'd nominate it under Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion, and I make the request that @Oshwah: who protected the article consider doing so. IHateAccounts (talk) 04:50, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank-you to Oshwah for assisting with the formatting: the nomination has now been filed at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Abigail_Shrier. IHateAccounts (talk) 19:45, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Misgendering a transgender suicide victim

• Special:Diff/993171749

@Bravetheif: While I am sympathetic to your position, I am afraid that edit is not suitable for inclusion in this article. We need a WP:SECONDARY source for that (especially because we are dealing with a WP:BLP). –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 06:40, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

@MJL: What if the language was changed to "Shrier has a history of criticising the movement to refer people by their gender identity rather than biological sex", with the supporting citations. Bravetheif (talk) 08:05, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

@MJL: @Bravetheif: Though I still think this article doesn't establish Shrier's notability, here's an article covering the book and some controversy it generated for Target. https://www.gaycitynews.com/bigots-swarm-twitter-as-target-flip-flops-on-transphobic-book/ IHateAccounts (talk) 15:06, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

@IHateAccounts: Thank you for the source, I will remove the part about Leelah Alcorn but keep the part about Shrier misgendering subjects of discussion. I do agree however, this article is not notable enough and should be deleted. Bravetheif (talk) 23:51, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

@Bravetheif and IHateAccounts: If the Alcorn mentions are removed, then that is fine with me. That was what crossed a bright line for me. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 23:59, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

References

Reliability of GCN

Please see: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § Gay City News. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 22:26, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Including Economist opinion piece

@Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d: @IHateAccounts:, please discuss here about whether or not the Economist piece should be quoted. Bravetheif (talk) 06:36, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

@Bravetheif: I really appreciate that you are posting this, but these two users should not in any way interact with one another. That they are doing so now is rather upsetting for me. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 07:08, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

@MJL: Fair enough, I see your point Bravetheif (talk) 07:57, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Sorry Bravetheif (and MJL). I didnt meant to edit war. This article really should have passed AfD. What's the point of just renaming it? There's probably even less sources that just cover the book. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 08:08, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

@Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d: It seems the consensus reached on AfD was that the article should be renamed and refocused on her book. I personally don't think there are enough independent sources to cover either subject properly, most sources I've seen are opinion articles or self-published Bravetheif (talk) 08:20, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

@Bravetheif: Exactly. Almost all the sources are opinion pieces, or sources that give basic biographical info. Anyway, can we reinsert the Economist piece? It's one of the only reliable articles we have at the moment. Definitely more so than that opinion article from Men's Health, or the Vice article (which isnt a RS). Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 08:44, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

@Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d: I don't really have a dog in this specific fight. Taking a quick look, it appears The Economist is in fact the original author of the article, as the bottom of the TimesNest article links to them. It thus seems permissible, providing it is attributed like it was previously (I'm not sure if IHateAccounts has other objections though, so my opinion may change!) Bravetheif (talk) 09:12, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

@Bravetheif: That's exactly what I noticed too. It appears they use something called the Trust Project to circulate the same article. Even so, I don't see how "TimesNest" wouldn't be a RS either. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 09:21, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

@Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d: If it was a direct citation to an article written and hosted by TimesNest, I would err towards considering it a non-RS. TimesNest does not appear to have an editorial team and their articles have no by-lines, making it WP:QUESTIONABLE. It seems every article is written/edited by "srikishan87", making it a WP:SPS. On a more subjective measure, the site just doesn't pass the sniff test. It feels like a content farm, and they haven't even fully modified the wordpress template they're using (the "follow us" links on this 404 page links to the "Facebook" Facebook page and the theme marketplace's youtube channel). Bravetheif (talk) 09:35, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

@Bravetheif: Even so, this article was not written by TimesNest. Besides being written in such a professional manner, TimesNest links to the Economist at the end (and not the other way around). I don't think the Economist would publish such an unknown source. Also, at the bottom for both articles it reads: "This article appeared in the United States section of the print edition under the headline 'Miss gender.'" TimesNest does not have a print edition, so this does not make sense. However, I found the article written in the Nov.28th edition of the Economist entitled: How resilient is democracy? [5]. The article is, indeed, called "Miss gender," and it's one of the first articles listed in that edition. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 10:03, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

@Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d: Which is why I think the source is permissible. My point was I wouldn't consider hypothetical content published originally and exclusively by TimesNest to be reliable. Bravetheif (talk) 10:26, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

@Bravetheif: Good point. I have no idea why TimesNest didn't attribute it to the Economist. Seems like a possible copy-right vio. Anyway, this would fall under WP:RSEDITORIAL, where we would just have to simply attribute it to the Economist, correct? Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 10:34, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

@Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d: That is my understanding of RSEDITORIAL Bravetheif (talk) 10:43, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

@Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d: TimesNest is a WordPress blog. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:16, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

@MJL: ABOUTSELF applies--jk. It was written by the Economist and merely reprinted in TimesNest. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 20:50, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

@Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d: This was a response to Even so, I don't see how "TimesNest" wouldn't be a RS either. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:54, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

@MJL: I already had a discussion about this with Bravethief. But I always appreciate your knowledge and wisdom, MJL! Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 21:49, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

References

The Mexican standoff

@Bravetheif, Crossroads, and IHateAccounts: That's basically where we are at. Okay, so let's break up the disagreements into a few distinct parts... –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:22, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Jack Turban in the lead

• Special:Diff/996023481

Now, I am for calling the claims of the book, in the lead, fringe because Rapid onset gender dysphoria is easily considered fringe. If attributing Turban is what gets us there, then that is fine with me. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:22, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

• Include, Repeating from above: Jack Turban is, in fact, a well respected expert in these topics [6]. Acceptable use of self-published works "2. The author is an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications..." The Psychology Today publication, while it is listed as a "blog" under the PT website, should be valid with attribution under WP:USESPS.— Preceding unsigned comment added by IHateAccounts (talk • contribs) 03:28, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

• Include; I agree Bravetheif (talk) 03:37, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
• Exclude. Emphasizing what Turban said is cherry-picking and hence WP:UNDUE. Other experts on gender dysphoria, such as Ken Zucker and Ray Blanchard, commended the book. [7] The expert body WPATH described ROGD as unproven and said it may or may not warrant further investigation. [8] It is against the NPOV policy for editors to emphasize Turban's view over that of all these other experts. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:40, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

"Blanchard's findings and research have been rejected by the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH), the largest association of medical professionals who provide care for transgender people, as lacking empirical evidence.[15][16]" I submit that it's you who's cherry picking. IHateAccounts (talk) 03:45, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

@IHateAccounts: Let's not get into who is cherry picking here. We're here to come to a WP:Consensus. (edit conflict) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:54, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

It isn't clear what you're quoting, but if it is what I think it is, that has nothing to do with the ROGD hypothesis. Blanchard has published many papers on the topic of gender dysphoria in peer-reviewed journals over decades. Some of his findings became more widely accepted than others. He still counts as an expert in the topic, and on this matter neither him nor WPATH agree that it can be called "fringe". Crossroads ^-talk- 04:04, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

They appear to be quoting Ray Blanchard. I believe the point they are making is that Blanchard is not considered a credible researcher in the field. Bravetheif (talk) 07:34, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

You can bring in as many experts as you like, that doesn't change the fact that there is only a single study supporting ROGD, and that that study has been widely criticised. Until more studies conclusive studies have supported it, ROGD remains a fringe theory. Bravetheif (talk) 03:54, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Not just one study. For example, this paper says, authors of case histories and a parent-report study warrant that gender identity development is diverse, and a new developmental pathway is proposed involving youth with postpuberty adolescent-onset transgender histories.6–8, citing 3 papers. Your conclusion that it is a "fringe theory" is your own original research. We go by the WP:Due weight of reliable sources and WP:Scholarship. None of the relevant experts are calling it a fringe theory except for Turban. That is why labeling it as fringe is undue. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:04, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Of those sources, only one is a study of ROGD! Ref 6 makes no mention of ROGD, and Ref 8 is a commentary on multiple studies including the Littman one. The book is not generally supporting alternate theories of gender identity, it specifically supports ROGD. Bravetheif (talk) 04:14, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

It shows that ROGD is "unproven", not "fringe", according to the scholarly literature. It is under investigation. Nobody calls it fringe except for Turban, and that in a low-quality outlet. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:53, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

@Crossroads: "The term "fringe science" covers everything from novel hypotheses which can be tested by means of the scientific method to wild ad hoc hypotheses and mumbo jumbo". It is fringe science, and it has been refuted by more people than Turban. Bravetheif (talk) 06:13, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

That quote about fringe science is out of context; there is more to the definition than that. Only two of those sources are published scholarship, and one is from sociology, which is the wrong academic field (it should be psychology or psychiatry when it comes to medical matters like this). And I don't see where they call it "fringe". That label needs to be both sourced and due. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:48, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

The claim that the book is based on "fringe" research has been sourced: the Turban article. No original research or synthesis is required to make that claim in the main article. This discussion is entirely to determine if the label is due, and in doing so it is permissible to make original logical inferences; WP:NOR does not apply to discussions. While the sources I cited do not explicitly call ROGD "fringe", they clearly do not consider it reputable or mainstream, making it fringe. As for the sources themselves, ROGD is also a sociological theory, so the Florence source is perfectly fine. Julia Serano is a respected authority on the topic and her article has been cited by multiple reliable scientific and non-scientific sources (including the Buzzfeed News article). Buzzfeed News, while not a scientific source, is considered generally reliable according to WP:RSP and provides a decent summary of scientific thought on the matter. Furthermore, as MJL has already pointed out, there are more than enough independent scientific sources to substantiate that withholding gender affirming care from trans teenagers is fringe. Bravetheif (talk) 07:29, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Even disregarding the ROGD debate, the book makes claims against gender affirming care for trans individuals goes against a pretty strong scientific consensus.^{[9][10][11][12][13]} Turban's highlights this in his article, and this criticism should not be ignored. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:26, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

What Turban says on that matter can be in the body so long as it specifically described and attributed to him, but the fact remains that Zucker and Blanchard did commend the book, so it's still cherry picking to put Turban's view in the lead. On top of that, some editors have expressed doubts about the reliability of Psychology Today and thus what it says about the book. [14][15] Whatever the book says about transition seems to follow directly on its views on ROGD. And there is debate among clinicians about the implications of that sort of presentation of gender dysphoria. [16] However, authors of case histories and a parent-report study warrant that gender identity development is diverse, and a new developmental pathway is proposed involving youth with postpuberty adolescent-onset transgender histories.6–8 These youth did not yet participate in the early evaluation studies.5,9 This raises the question whether the positive outcomes of early medical interventions also apply to adolescents who more recently present in overwhelming large numbers for transgender care, including those that come at an older age, possibly without a childhood history of GI. It also asks for caution because some case histories illustrate the complexities that may be associated with later-presenting transgender adolescents and describe that some eventually detransition....Prospective longer-term follow-up studies of clinical samples like the study of Sorbara et al1 are needed to inform clinicians so that an individualized approach can be offered that differentiates who will benefit from medical gender affirmation and for whom (additional) mental health support might be more appropriate. This paper is only 2 months old. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:53, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

@Crossroads: Where did Blanchard and Zucker commend the book? Did they do so in a published opinion piece, via Twitter, or somewhere else?
I feel like we can disregard the 2010 discussion of Psychology Today, but I understand the 2018 conversation still has some weight. However, we do have to keep in mind that many editors were narrowly focussing on its reliability in regards to Religiosity and intelligence and not this field.
My point is with this book is that is completely against any form of gender-affirming care (which is something that even your cited author has shown support for [17]). Compare with: [18][19]. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:00, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

@MJL: There's some more background on the people Crossroads is digging up to label as "expert" supporters in an opinion column by Heidi Beedle [20]:

"Reviewers also include Kenneth Zucker, fired by Toronto’s Centre for Addiction and Mental Health for espousing conversion therapy; Ray Blanchard, who developed the debunked theory of autogynephilia, which essentially suggests that trans women are sexual deviants; and Michael Bailey, author of The Man Who Would Be Queen, the 2003 version of Shrier’s book."

A further look at both Zucker's and Blanchard's bios seems to confirm that their positions today on gender issues are WP:FRINGE level. IHateAccounts (talk) 21:59, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Opinion pieces are not reliable sources. See WP:RSOPINION. Neither Shrier's opinion columns nor this one can be taken as an accurate picture of scientific understanding in this area. MJL, my source for what those researchers said is here. Are we really sure it's against gender-affirming care generally? We would need a definitely reliable source in that regard. It seems to be focused on "ROGD". Crossroads ^-talk- 23:15, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

@Crossroads: I mean, I don't know what the book says exactly since I haven't read it, but Shrier has critised it here, and Zucker (who was interviewed for the book) said he was not a fan if it according to the National Review. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 23:58, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Also, as Srey Sros noted below, the Blanchard and Zucker endorsements are a part of the promotional material for the book. That's significantly different than writing an article-length review of the book's contentions. Can we even be sure they read the final published product? Not really.. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:06, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

• Include. I'm not involved in this standoff, as it were, but I thought I'd offer my thoughts. There are two main components to this dispute as far as I can tell.

1. The first is fairly simple: Turban is clearly an established expert on the topic, and the source meets criteria for inclusion.

2. The second is about whether or not the views and practices advocated by the book are considered fringe. There's been a bit of confusion as to what we are determining: whether the book's content is fringe versus whether Littman's "ROGD" theory is fringe. I'm confident that both very solidly qualify as fringe, but Turban's criticism, at least in this article, is aimed not at Littman's theory but at Shrier's book. This is an important distinction to make. Fringe theories are not necessarily wrong. Fringe theories are those that significantly deviate from mainstream views or scientific consensus. If Irreversible Damage doesn't fit that definition, I don't know what does. As I imagine we're all aware, and as MJL (and Turban himself) pointed out above, there is a very strong medical consensus in favor of gender-affirming care, from which Shrier's book departs very significantly.

But really, only the first discussion is relevant. It is not our place as editors to decide which views are fringe and which are not, or to sort through scientific papers and synthesize their content. Wikipedia should not be an uncritical mouthpiece for fringe theories, nor should it be a RationalWiki-style WP:SYNTH debunking article. Our job, and our only job, is to report concisely what the reliable sources say about a topic, proportionally to the notability of given aspects and viewpoints. It doesn't matter which scientists support Littman's "ROGD" and which reject it. Turban's article is one of the top Google results for Irreversible Damage. His article seems to be one of the most notable things that happened to the book, aside from Target pulling it from stores. As for whether Zucker's and Blanchard's support of the book is equally notable, unless there's some source I'm missing, that seems pretty clear. The only evidence of support I can find of support from either of them is on the jacket of the book, which is promotional material and not even close to be RS. Srey Sros^talk 07:21, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

• Exclude as currently proposed in the diff. Of course the controversy should be noted and Turban is referenced in the article which seems fine, but unclear why this opinion should be given so much prominence in the lead.-Pengortm (talk) 17:33, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

AFAICT Turban's article is by far the most notable and perhaps the only RS commentary on the book from an expert in the relevant field. Especially given that the book makes medical arguments and recommendations, to me it seems necessary to feature his remarks in the lead. Srey Sros^talk 19:03, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Does it? Do any reliable sources say it makes treatment recommendations? Crossroads ^-talk- 23:15, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Literally above you linked to an editorial review page containing dehumanizing, horrific language towards trans individuals, language like "a terrible new plague that endangers our children—‘rapid-onset gender dysphoria.’ This book explains what it is, how it has spread, and what we can do about it", "a monstrous ideological fad that has already ruined countless children’s lives", " how transgender extremists have brainwashed not just these young women, but large portions of the country", and "the ‘transgender craze,’... This book deftly arms the reader with tools for both recognizing and resisting, and will prove important for parents, health care professionals, and policy makers alike." How you are arguing the content of the book afterwards is beyond me. IHateAccounts (talk) 00:52, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm assuming you haven't read the book, because it is blindingly clear from the text that she is making claims (and yes, recommendations), related to trangender medicine and treatment for GD. Aside from the quotes provided by IHateAccounts above, here are a few particularly clear excerpts. All emphasis is mine.

• From the book's blurb, describing the book practically as a how-to to "untrans" your kid: Abigail Shrier’s essential book will help you understand what the trans craze is and how you can inoculate your child against it—or how to retrieve her from this dangerous path.
• From Chapter 2 of the book, a sentence both making claims (incorrect ones, but that's beside the point) about what doctors are doing and opining on what they should do: Instead of immediately accommodating every adolescent’s demands for hormones and surgeries, doctors ought to be working to understand what else might be wrong. At best, doctors’ treatments are ineffective; at worst, doctors are administering needless hormonal treatments and irreversible surgeries on patients likely to regret them.
• From Chapter 9 of the book, an excerpt where Shrier is providing her own lurid assessment of the risks related to treatment for trans youth (an assessment that significantly deviates from current standards of care, at that): The dangers are legion. The safeguards absent. Perhaps the greatest risk of all for the adolescent girl who grasps at this identity out of the blue, like it is the inflatable ring she hopes will save her, is also in some ways the most devastating: that she’ll wake up one morning with no breasts and no uterus and think, I was only sixteen at the time. A kid. Why didn’t anyone stop me?

I'd like to note that WP:OR does not apply to our own editorial discretion. We do not need an RS to make the judgement that this book deals with medical matters. If we did we couldn't apply WP:MEDRS to anything without an independent source saying that it provides biomedical information. Hopefully these examples illustrate my point. Srey Sros^talk 01:13, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Bravetheif pointed Chapter 6 as an example of this. They're right, that is probably the best example. I don't know how I missed that when paging through for quotes. I would think it difficult to read through that chapter and come away with the conclusion that Shrier is not making any claims about medicine, but if anyone does I'd be interested to hear why they think so. Srey Sros^talk 02:20, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

@Crossroads: Chapter 6 "The Shrinks" is dedicated to making the case against providing gender affirming care to transgender youths. That is a treatment recommendation. From your other comments, you appear to have not only have read this book but personally own a copy, so I would appreciate it if you would stop being so obtuse about its contents. Bravetheif (talk) 01:23, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

@Bravetheif: we could do better than to call another editor's behavior obtuse on an article talk page, please. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:58, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

@MJL: I apologise, you're right Bravetheif (talk) 02:04, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

I have not bought or read this book. I know how heated these topics can be and I am trying to make sure it stays fair (rather than coming off as one-sided and turning away people who should hear the other side because it looks to them like a hatchet job). Crossroads ^-talk- 04:28, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Trying to include known WP:FRINGE individuals or viewpoints (such as Blanchard and Zucker's theories that try to paint LGBT individuals as sexual deviants), and denying that the book crosses the line into treatment recommendations, seems more like bothsidesism, "a media bias in which journalists present an issue as being more balanced between opposing viewpoints than the evidence supports", which is definitely something that violates WP:NPOV. IHateAccounts (talk) 18:30, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

• Include From other comments in this thread it seems the the book is based on fringe science - FrogInACar — Preceding undated comment added 03:06, 27 December 2020‎ (UTC)
• Exclude The lead should be a summary of the body text. It's inappropriate to shoehorn POV labels into the lead that aren't found in the body. Turban's viewpoint doesn't represent the academic consensus; some of his claims (for instance, about desistance statistics) are contested or poorly supported. gnu57 16:30, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
• Include I think SreySros' summary pretty much captures the situation, and I concur with the conclusion. XOR'easter (talk) 16:30, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Citing PragerU

• Special:Diff/995995538

PragerU is not really a publisher, in my view. We already have a cite to Newsweek, so why retain the weaker cite to a glorified YouTube video? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:22, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

The PragerU video also lists Shrier as a "presenter" but does not give her authorship credit for the script so it's not WP:ABOUTSELF even before we get to the fact that most of what she's talking about, isn't about herself but is rather her making claims about others. IHateAccounts (talk) 03:29, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

• Exclude; So I have already had a discussion with @IHateAccounts: (as to not repeatedly revert edits) on their talk page. Although I don't think the source is WP:MANDY, you both bring up good points and I agree with your assessment. Bravetheif (talk) 03:37, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
• Exclude; there is never a reason to cite "PragerU" for anything, they are unreliable and undue. Really, all coverage of Shrier's opinions needs to be from WP:Secondary sources, not from whatever tidbits editors try to hunt down. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:40, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
• Exclude: this YouTube video is not a good WP:SPS—I can't think of a single fact we can draw from it that couldn't be sourced better or wouldn't be undue. — Bilorv (talk) 19:46, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
• Exclude per Bilorv. With enough work, one could perhaps imagine a circumstance where citing PragerU would be acceptable, but that's getting into the "well, technically, that happening wouldn't violate the laws of physics" level of possibility. Shrier's opinions should be cited to secondary sources, so that we have some indication that the opinion is worth reporting on. XOR'easter (talk) 16:34, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Ty Turner response

• Special:Diff/996024407

Now, this is really two questions: should we include Ty Turner's response to the book in the article or no? If so, how should we include it (via prose or external link template)? I honestly don't have an opinion on this one and was only trying to establish a compromise with my recent edit. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:22, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

• Exclude; YouTubers are unreliable and undue. Inclusion of his opinion requires a reliable secondary source. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:40, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
• Include; I think including the Ty Turner response, providing it is attributed, is warranted. He was directly discussed in the book and is a public figure. Although I think the Leelah Alcorn line should be kept (Special:Diff/996017447), if a consensus is reached that that statement is too contentious I suggest it be dropped but the first sentence kept. Bravetheif (talk) 03:45, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

• @Bravetheif: We already discussed the Leelah Alcorn line, and we seemed to have been in agreement then about removing it. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:52, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

  @MJL: In this case the statement is directly attributed to Ty Turner, rather than presented as a statement of fact. He dedicates a reasonable portion of the video to the book's treatment and misgendering of Leelah Alcorn. If that still crosses a line for you than I will relent Bravetheif (talk) 04:05, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

  @Bravetheif: Crossroads is right, YouTube is not a reliable source. I would be extremely uncomfortable making this highly contentious claim, even if attributed, when all we have is a user generated source to back it up. Having Turner's response be mentioned is one thing, but mentioning details like that are another. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:18, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

  Ty Turner is only mentioned on two neighboring pages of the book. [21] What about other YouTubers and researchers mentioned in the book, some at greater length? Will they get their self-published sources inserted into the article too? The best thing is to exclude all sources below a reasonable cutoff of reliability. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:50, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

  Most other people discussed as "influencers" in the book made a conscious decision not to read or comment on the book. If they had commented I don't see why they should be excluded either. If there are a bunch of reactions from people discussed in the book, then the section should be restructured to summarise their sentiments. Like IHateAccounts said, it is WP:ABOUTSELF and WP:DUE Bravetheif (talk) 06:32, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

  Merely asserting DUE does not make it so. WP:DUE is explicitly about viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources; a YouTube upload is neither published nor reliable. ABOUTSELF is about such sources being permissible in certain cases; it is not an argument for using such sources. And it states that such uses would be usually in articles about themselves or their activities; this article is not about Turner and the book that it is about barely mentions him. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:39, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

  I was trying to reference IHateAccount's argument that it's DUE, not just assert it. Bravetheif (talk) 06:46, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

• Include: Turner, as a public figure deliberately targeted in the book, made a video in response and the video is WP:ABOUTSELF and WP:DUE. IHateAccounts (talk) 03:46, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
• Comment: How is Turner a public figure? Is he WP:Notable? Not that I can see. YouTubers aren't inherently public figures. "He was mentioned in the book" is not an argument for inclusion per our policies and guidelines. YouTube is not an RS and he was not covered on any secondary source, so is undue. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:07, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

  This secondary source considers him not just a public figure, but an influencer. Bravetheif (talk) 06:39, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

  Yes, that's the book he was mentioned in. I'm talking about his reaction to that very book not having gotten secondary coverage. He's not WP:Notable. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:42, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

  You asked how he was a public figure. The book clearly considers him one. We're also not writing a Wikipedia article about him, so WP:Notable isn't really relevant here. Bravetheif (talk) 06:46, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

• ExcludeInclude: Not seeing evidence of Turner being a prominent enough public figure or having particular expertise that they should be cited.-Pengortm (talk) 17:40, 25 December 2020 (UTC) Update: seeing the below, I changed my mind (thanks) although continue to think that this should be given limited prominence and as the article grows potentially should be excluded in favor of more substantial reviews.-Pengortm (talk) 22:09, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

@Pengortm: and @Crossroads: Ty Turner was a finalist in the 2020 12th Shorty Awards [22], and has also been covered by Men's Health [23]. Definitely notable and a public figure, even if - at only 20 years old - he has not built up a "someone has written a wikipedia article" resume yet. IHateAccounts (talk) 19:42, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

• Question. I understand the arguement quite well for why Ty Turner should not be included in prose, but why should we not link to his video response as an external link? The link would probably fall within WP:ELMAYBE. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:36, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

  Per WP:ELNO point 11. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:16, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

• Include Book obviously considers him a notable figure, its reasonable to include his response - FrogInACar — Preceding undated comment added 03:06, 27 December 2020‎ (UTC)
• Very weak and qualified include I weakly support mentioning the fact that Turner was bothered by the coverage of him in the book. However, the book's coverage of him is actually quite minor and insubstantial. The book mentions lots of other people as well, and it would be impractical to track down and include all of their responses. I do see the point that Turner is a relatively prominent commentator, even if not yet Wikipedia-notable. But I don't think that we should include general book review-type content sourced to a youtube video. Cheers, gnu57 16:30, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
• Exclude: Wikipedia has no "right of response". This is a YouTube WP:SPS by a non-professional and so is no more due than any YouTube book review. Whether the figure is notable or not does not change things. This would be an inappropriate external link to include anywhere in the article. — Bilorv (talk) 19:46, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

References

Singular they

Special:Diff/996527851

@Pengortm: We are clearly in some disagreement about how the WSJ article should be summarized (and discussing through edits is not ideal :P). I agree with your general reading, that she is criticising "the government enforced use of gender pronouns and other vocabulary", however I think we should also include that she is criticising the adoption of the singular they. Paragraph 5 describes the use of singular they as For those with a religious conviction that sex is both biological and binary, God’s purposeful creation, denial of this involves sacrilege no less than bowing to idols in the town square. While not the main point of the article, it appears to be the point most cited. As such I think it should also be mentioned alongside the main summary. Bravetheif (talk) 03:58, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for taking this to the talk page. It is not clear from the WSJ article if Shrier is arguing that the passage you posted is her opinion, or the opinion of some whose constitutional rights she is arguing should be respected. Since it seems other sources are mis/over-interpreting her, Wikipedia should not be following these. This is especially important here on BLP grounds. If you have other sources of her more clearly arguing against the singular they, than I agree this should be included--but it needs to be her arguing this-not someone saying she argued this in a source where this is not the case. -Pengortm (talk) 05:50, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

@Pengortm: That seems reasonable. I will look for a better source Bravetheif (talk) 06:15, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

References

Revert

@IHateAccounts: please clarify the reasons for your revert here. Book reception sections typically begin with summaries of the reviews. It is inevitable that a book will receive more attention from people generally in agreement with the author--e.g., a work of Marxist history is likely to be reviewed by other Marxists, and a work of Calvinist theology is likely to be reviewed by other Calvinists. You claimed in your edit summary that I was over-emphasising the opinions of the alt-right fringe. Which of the sources that I added deserves this descriptor? Commentary is a respected neocon magazine. The National Review is a mainstream conservative publication. The Economist is neoliberal. Feminist Current is a radical feminist website. The Daily Dot is a left-leaning internet culture website. Them is a LGBT-focused publication. Were there any elements of my edit to which you would not object? I can't imagine, for instance, that "Target pulled and later reinstated the book from their stores" is preferable to "Target pulled the book from their stores and later reinstated it"--but I've been reverted both times I've tried to make that change. Cheers, gnu57 19:31, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

For starters, "The book has proven controversial for its views about transgender issues" is the WP:DUE summary of coverage and should lead the section. Also, your edit buried Jack Turban - the only actual expert in transgender mental health to review the book - in the middle of a paragraph, easily missed. "The National Review is a mainstream conservative publication" is a questionable claim at best; I would categorize them alt-lite if not alt-right, especially in the past two decades with the death of Buckley and the rise of contributors such as Victor Davis Hanson. There are similar issues for Commentary under the "leadership" (if it can even be called that) of John Podhoretz. It would be best if you can provide a list of your proposed sources and which category they fall into here for examination. IHateAccounts (talk) 19:43, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Biased and opinionated sources are acceptable for statements of attributed opinion. Book reviews are always a matter of opinion. WP:NPOV calls for presenting all significant viewpoints impartially, not for excluding the misguided or offensive ones. Commentary and the National Review are major US conservative publications; Naomi Schaefer Riley is a notable journalist and cultural commentator. Your revert removed an expanded summary of Turban's comments. I would be happy to place the mention of Turban at the beginning or end of a paragraph, or wherever else you like. Cheers, gnu57 20:55, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

In general more mainstream, well known and substantial sources should go ahead of those that are less so (regardless of editors opinions on these sources). I think this revert should be reverted. -Pengortm (talk) 21:57, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

@Genericusername57: Turban is the only reaction listed with authoritative experience in the subject area. While I certainly understand (and generally support) placing official book reviews at the beginning of the section, in this case I think the opinions of an LGBTQ youth psychiatrist is more warranted for top billing than a review by The Economist or Feminist Current. Beyond that, I have no real opinion on how the content should be ordered. Bravetheif (talk) 22:00, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Good point--I think Turban can go first--but the other ordering is off and putting more minor sources ahead of more major ones.-Pengortm (talk) 22:17, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Second sentence on rapid onset gender dysphoria

The second sentence of the article "The book has been controversial for its views on transgender identity and its support of the unproven[1][2] and contentious[3] hypothesis of rapid onset gender dysphoria.[4][5]:ch 2" seems undue. A single source (PinkNews) critiques the author's past writing on rapid onset gender dysphoria. Yes, the book has controversial opinions on trans issues and this probably should be noted in the lead (summarizing the body)--however this single source and reducing this to rapid onset gender dysphoria seems wrong and potentially to be original research. Additionally, I think we should have a better summary of the books contents which goes before the sentence noting the controversy. I tried to accomplish both of these things, but had my edits reverted with little explanation. -Pengortm (talk) 22:04, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

I see that some work has been done to update and improve this sentence and its sourcing. This is appreciated, but I think should be incorporated first into the body of the article and then summarized. As written currently there is a real disconnect between the body and lead.-Pengortm (talk) 22:21, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

@Pengortm: Could you link to a diff with your proposed change? From my own reading of the book, it is entirely based on the theory of ROGD and how social media supposedly contributes to that. Considering that the lead seems fairly reasonable. Bravetheif (talk) 22:22, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

I am not saying your reading of the book is wrong--but Wikipedia requires that this be firmly established from secondary sources. ROGD is literally not mentioned at all in the body of the article. I suggest we move the ROGD bit to the body--then look at the body and try to summarize it in the lead. Certainly the controversy surrounding this book should be summarized--but we should establish what the book is about first and then summarize the article. Here are some of my earlier diffs on this: [24] and [25].-Pengortm (talk) 00:22, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

@Pengortm: I have restructured the lead to attempt to incorporate your changes. Considering the better citations regarding the books basis on ROGD (which for clarity's sake I added after you started this discussion), I left that part in the lead. Bravetheif (talk) 08:54, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

@Pengortm: I agree with you that the body could benefit from more discussion of Littman's "ROGD" theory and the criticism and controversy around it, but to me it seems uncontroversial and reliably sourced that the book is based on that theory and has become controversial both for the views expressed in the text and for its support of Littman and her theory. The sourcing for the sentence you are talking about includes this and this, both of which discuss the controversy in terms of her support of the theory. Srey Sros^talk 00:45, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

When I first suggested the change there was only one source. I'll try to find time to review them both soon. Regardless, continues to read as odd to have information in the lead which is not elaborated on in the body. Thanks-Pengortm (talk) 01:35, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

@Pengortm: Please, please respect other editors in these discussions. Repeatedly trying to insert your preferred versions to the page without reaching consensus is not helping. IHateAccounts (talk) 01:40, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Feminist Current

In the "Reception" section of this article, a Feminist Current review of the book is cited and summarised. After taking a look over their site, I don't think they are a WP:RS nor do I think their inclusion in this article is WP:DUE. They do not appear to be a generally noteworthy publication, and their journalistic standards are, in my frank opinion, lacking. Furthermore, it does not appear the author of the review is particularly noteworthy or relevant either; this is her only article for the publication and I cannot find any other experience that justifies her inclusion beyond a vague notion that she's a feminist. Bravetheif (talk) 04:30, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree that this doesn't seem due. The publication doesn't seem noteworthy, the author ("Megan Mackin") certainly isn't, and her viewpoint (that Shrier is right, but that she was too kind to trans people) is definitely not a significant viewpoint (see WP:FALSEBALANCE). If it was significant, we would be able to find another, reliable, source advocating it. Any content sourced to this site should be removed from the article. Srey Sros^talk 05:06, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Feminist Current is one of the major gender-critical/TERF outlets (4W.pub is another). I thought that the differences of opinion between Mackin and Shrier were interesting, but I don't feel too strongly about keeping or ditching the review; Feminist Current certainly doesn't have the publishing record or reach of The Economist or Commentary. Cheers, gnu57 16:35, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

References

User:ParisDakarPeräjärvi

@ParisDakarPeräjärvi: Stop edit-warring the lead! The Turban article substantiates the claim that calling to withhold treatment is fringe, and that Shrier is doing so. A consensus on this matter has already been reached here: Talk:Irreversible_Damage#Jack_Turban_in_the_lead Bravetheif (talk) 07:33, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

@Bravetheif: The Talk page you linked does not contain discussion about this. But if you are okay with it, simply adding the fact that only a minority receive this treatment (meaning other options are not "fringe" but rather the majority) is sufficient for me.ParisDakarPeräjärvi (talk) 07:40, 29 December 2020 (UTC)— ParisDakarPeräjärvi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

@ParisDakarPeräjärvi: It is explicitly about including Turban's claims in the lead, specifically his claim that the book is advocating for the withholding of gender-affirming care and that that treatment (or lack of it) is fringe. The fact that most children do not receive gender affirming care is not relevant to this issue. Bravetheif (talk) 07:42, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

@Bravetheif: Is this a joke? "The fact that the treatment is not fringe is not relevant to whether the treatment is fringe"? I'm fairly sure something was lost in communication here, could you reword this?ParisDakarPeräjärvi (talk) 07:48, 29 December 2020 (UTC)— ParisDakarPeräjärvi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

@ParisDakarPeräjärvi: Two different meanings of fringe. "Fringe" as in "fringe science", and "fringe" as in "uncommon". If what you say is true, then children receiving gender affirming medical care is fringe as in uncommon. However consensus is still held that it is an acceptable treatment, and thus Shrier's rejection of it is fringe. Bravetheif (talk) 08:01, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

@Bravetheif: There are many countries that simply don't offer medical affirmation, and those who do only do so for a small minority. This is not fringe in either definition. Even the sources Jack Turban claims, like The Endocrine Society guidelines, clearly show that this treatment is based exclusively on low quality evidence and is, by definition, experimental. Regardless, there was no consensus about this in the Talk page, so please stop edit-warring against any consensus.ParisDakarPeräjärvi (talk) 08:08, 29 December 2020 (UTC)— ParisDakarPeräjärvi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

@ParisDakarPeräjärvi: What other countries think about trans people is immaterial to this matter. They are not medical bodies and are, by their very nature, extremely political. All that matters is what the major relevant medical bodies consider, which in this case is that gender-affirming medical care is an acceptable treatment for trans children.

The discussion I already linked is a consensus on using fringe in the lead. The subject Turban was describing as "fringe" was Shrier's opinions withholding treatment. If you wish to contribute, then do so, but until then the consensus on the matter appears to be to include it. Bravetheif (talk) 08:15, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

@Bravetheif: Ridiculous statement - state-backed and independent medical bodies all agree the scientific basis is very weak, including the societies that endorse this treatment in Jacks blog post. The Talk page discussion is clearly on ROGD, not on the unsubstantiated claim that the book makes medical recommendations. You should not try to sneak it in under false premises, that'll definitely go against wikipedia policies.ParisDakarPeräjärvi (talk) 08:23, 29 December 2020 (UTC)— ParisDakarPeräjärvi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

@ParisDakarPeräjärvi: Regardless of what you think about the quality of evidence supporting treatment is, the fact remains that it is accepted by most major and relevant medical bodies. The discussion on the talk page is about whether including Turban's description in the lead is WP:DUE. In doing so editors, myself included, examined the whole book and it's basis. A consensus was reached on including Turban in the, so I added it; along with the context of what he was specifically calling "fringe". That is not me "sneaking it in under false premises", and I would appreciate it if you would keep out the epithets in future discussion Bravetheif (talk) 08:36, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

@Bravetheif:It's not what "I" think. Every single institution and scientific review agrees here, including Jacks own sources. His article is self-refuting in this sense. A consensus for including the article for the claim "Jack doesn't like the book" is quite different from using a throwaway line in it that is refuted by his own citations. Regardless, you need to ensure it is made clear that the "fringeiness" expressed by Jack is not actually mirrored by the scientific literature or, upon closer inspection - read the guideline, respected medical institutions.ParisDakarPeräjärvi (talk) 08:44, 29 December 2020 (UTC)— ParisDakarPeräjärvi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

@ParisDakarPeräjärvi: To quote the title of the discussion Jack turban in the lead. To quote the next line from MJL Now, I am for calling the claims of the book, in the lead, fringe... The consensus by editors was to include. The medical associations Turban cited accepted gender-affirming care for transgender youths, making the rejection of it by Shrier fringe. The source you have cited agrees with Turban, that care should be provided to youths (which for reference means 15-24). Bravetheif (talk) 08:53, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

@Bravetheif:To twist that statement into supporting your edit you would need to show that the book claims that the book itself advocates for fringe treatments. It does not follow. The source I have cited disagrees with Turban in that it clearly acknowledges the evidence base as low quality. Medical treatments that are not actually evidence-based are by definition controversial. Please read the actual document.ParisDakarPeräjärvi (talk) 09:00, 29 December 2020 (UTC)— ParisDakarPeräjärvi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

@ParisDakarPeräjärvi: What do you mean by show that the book claims that the book itself advocates for fringe treatments? I don't think I understand what you mean. Overall, it seems you disagree with the consensus above rather than with Bravetheif's implementation of it. If you have ideas or arguments against that consensus, it would be better to discuss them above in the proper section than to do so here. Srey Sros^talk 09:06, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

@SreySros: The consensus was to call "the claims in the book" fringe, based on its statements about ROGD. This is being expanded to include its statements about other things, and finally to things that it doesn't say, but are guilty by association. This creates the absurd scenario where the treatment that a vast majority receive is being called "fringe", because Abigail Shrier said she thought some other treatment was bad. This is so far from the Talk consensus that making a claim that it's part of it makes no sense. If someone wants to add something new outside of the consensus, it's up to them to add it to that discussion.ParisDakarPeräjärvi (talk) 09:21, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

@ParisDakarPeräjärvi: Stop misrepresenting the position. No one is calling not receiving gender-affirming care fringe. If a doctor does not believe it is warrented, there is nothing wrong with her not recommending it. What I, and the Turban article, are calling "fringe" is the outright rejection of that form of care Bravetheif (talk) 09:57, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

@Bravetheif:The literal phrase you've inserted is "withholding gender-affirming medical care for transgender youth, a fringe treatment". Something a) the book does not do, and b) clearly suggests that the norm is actually fringe. You've made it clear in other pages on Wikipedia that you have a clear goal in mind for this page which does not actually regard any external source, and now you're saying that verbatim quoting you is misrepresenting your position. I've asked you to clarify this in the text to avoid confusing the reader about what the common treatment path actually is.ParisDakarPeräjärvi (talk) 15:26, 29 December 2020 (UTC)— ParisDakarPeräjärvi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

@ParisDakarPeräjärvi: Your behaviour in this thread is borderline WP:HA. Please stop. My personal image of what this article should be is not relevant to this discussion; all that is relevant is the consensus of other editors and whether the content added is due and supported. I could just as easily say that you have a clear agenda, but I'm not. I would appreciate you doing the same for me.

The book clearly advocates against providing gender affirming care. To quote you, it "shit-talks" it (Special:Diff/996934963). Whether or not most people receive this treatment is immaterial to the fact that this is a fringe position. Few children receive surgery, but generally campaigning against child surgery is also a fringe position. It doesn't need to be qualified with "well most kids don't get surgery", because that is not what is at issue. In fact doing so would be a WP:FALSEBALANCE. Bravetheif (talk) 00:23, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

@ParisDakarPeräjärvi: I already have a source making the analysis that the book is advocating for fringe treatments: the Turban article. Furthermore, the source you cited very clearly supports gender-affirming care for transgender youths (see section 1.2). Please quote or reference the section that contradicts that Bravetheif (talk) 09:46, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

@Bravetheif:The claim being made is that by definition, rejecting something which is based exclusively on low quality evidence is not controversial. I've clarified this twice. If you need further explanation of the scientific process, please ask specific questions.ParisDakarPeräjärvi (talk) 15:26, 29 December 2020 (UTC)— ParisDakarPeräjärvi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

References

Canvassing/NotABallot box wording

Thanks @IHateAccounts for noticing the offwiki canvassing, and for adding the {{Not a ballot}} box; it can't hurt. I altered the wording a bit to read better, especially for new users, but there was one thing I wanted to ask you about. The tweet you linked seemed to be from an individual unaffiliated with Shrier, although it was a reply to one of her tweets. Is there something I'm missing (a retweet? a like?) from Shrier? If not, perhaps we should word the box text as just "someone asked you to" or the like, as not to accuse the author of asking people to change the article if she hasn't. Srey Sros^talk 09:32, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

@SreySros: I have tried to collect them, but it appears some tweets are being deleted and now deadlink ((Redacted)). An account "Gigilarue" also tried to edit this page on December 9th as well [26]. IHateAccounts (talk) 16:50, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

@SreySros: I have been informed that providing external links to specific twitter accounts is frowned upon per the WP:OUTING policy and that is the reason that part of my comment above was redacted. Suffice to say, it appears that external links that I mention having been deleted above come from twitter accounts that have some involvement in/with advertising campaigns for the book, and could likely cause WP:COI concerns for edits made here by them or on their WP:CANVASSED behalf. IHateAccounts (talk) 19:17, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

@IHateAccounts: Ah, if the accounts are affiliated with ad campaigns for the book that makes sense. Thanks. Srey Sros^talk 21:10, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

I have to object to the way @Crossroads: keeps trying to even mess with the wording of the notification. This WP:POVPUSH behavior is getting quite ridiculous. IHateAccounts (talk) 14:52, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

@IHateAccounts: Has the author herself been encouraging people to become involved with the Wikipedia article about the book? The link in the {{notaballot}} template shows some other person replying to the author, so Crossroads' concern seems reasonable to me. Frankly I don't think the exact wording of the template really matters that much–as long as it conveys that pile-on voting without policy-backed arguments isn't helpful, where the person was canvassed from and by whom is somewhat inconsequential. I actually didn't even know you could pass a parameter in to specify where the canvassing might be coming from until I saw it done on this page, I usually just slap it on talk pages without any modification. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:14, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: To clarify per the question from SreySros as well: the author "liked" other replies to her, now deleted from twitter sometime after I put up the initial NotABallot notice, that were from an account connected to an advertising campaign for the book as I noted above. IHateAccounts (talk) 16:31, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I see. I have to agree that that's not sufficient for us to accuse the author of encouraging Wikipedia disruption; the template should stay as it is. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:10, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions, temporary full protection

This page is subject to discretionary sanctions. I've temporarily fully protected the article for two days because of edit-warring. —valereee (talk) 13:17, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Protection has expired, please ping if it needs to be reinstated for longer. —valereee (talk) 21:08, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

New review in The Times (of London)

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/irreversible-damage-by-abigail-shrier-review-resisting-the-transgender-craze-8mzrt3gk9 (paywalled, unfortunately) *Dan T.* (talk) 20:34, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Where is the content?

Has this page been vandalized? There is no section describing what the book is actually about, but there is an extremely long controversy section. What's going on here? Miserlou (talk) 08:06, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

@Miserlou: Articles are a work in progress. You are always free to contribute (WP:SOFIXIT). –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 14:21, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Misgendering throughout the article

The article says things like playing a driving role in girls' decision to identify as transgender and (now) The girls Shrier describes in the book showed no discomfort in their female bodies until they reached puberty (the one that caught my attention). So these comments are about trans men i.e. boys? We can't misgender people in Wikipedia's words. See MOS:GENDERID's Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the pronouns, possessive adjectives, and gendered nouns [...] that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification. Given that the "girls" named in the book presumably mostly or entirely identify as male to date, including Turner who is mentioned by name as part of the book, this is a serious BLP concern. Even anonymous or generic description of trans men as "girls" is an assumption that Shrier is correct (violating WP:NPOV). This is particularly important as the topic must abide by WP:FRINGE as it is largely about a misinterpretation of the hypothesis (not theory) rapid onset gender dysphoria. — Bilorv (talk) 21:48, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

 Partly done I've addressed where this is happening in wikivoice, and in one direct quote that was easily paraphrased, but there are still two direct quotes from Shrier that refer to AFAB individuals as "girls". I wanted to wait to get some more input on whether they ought to be removed or paraphrased, or left in place as direct quotes, before making further changes. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:02, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I can see no evidence of what gender-terms these "girls" (Shrier's word) wish to be used in reference to them. It's arrogance and bigoted wrong to "presumably" (Bilorv's word) assume their gender as boys, transmen or whatever other Original Research the editor above is proposing. And may be misgendering in itself. Is there a Reliable Source to what these "girls" in the book, now collectively wish to referred to? CatCafe (talk) 00:25, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

It appears CatCafe is determined to edit-war misgendering into the article. :( IHateAccounts (talk) 02:04, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

The "What’s ailing these girls?” bit is direct text from the source. We don't have to like or agree with the source, but the current including "girls" better conveys the (perhaps deeply misguided) sense of the source's meaning. If we have other sources critiquing this particular source, possible they should be included, but we should not be re-writing the review to make it say what we wish it said. -Pengortm (talk) 02:12, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't think the paraphrased text conveys the meaning any worse; in context, I'd say that the paraphrased sentence flows a little better than the version with the longer direct quote. XOR'easter (talk) 02:15, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The edit summary doesn't make much sense to me, I'm afraid. Paraphrasing is standard practice, not OR. The phrasing the demographic profiled in the book is plainly descriptive and utterly noncommittal about how the individuals so profiled self-identify. XOR'easter (talk) 02:14, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

@CatCafe: Did you actually look at my change? I did not specify the gender of the people Shrier is writing about, I left it only to what is sourced. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:13, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

The book itself describes these children as identifying as male, and this is documented in the sources discussing the book. I agree that it would be better to have an independent source relate their identities, but I don't think that taking Shrier at her word that these children identify as male counts as WP:OR. I feel like the safest decision and the one which is clearest to the reader is to be clear that the children discussed in the book are AFAB, but then refer to them using either gender neutral or male language and pronouns (I don't specifically recall if the children discussed are all male, or if some are nonbinary). Regarding the quotes, I think the best way to proceed is to paraphrase when possible. This is good practice in general (see WP:QUOTEFARM), and here it has the additional benefit of keeping the article's language more in line with policy. Overusing quotes misgendering and/or deadnaming trans people could be seen as trying to weasel out of MOS:GENDERID. As a side note, @CatCafe: it's probably best not to call other editor's reading of policy as arrogant or bigoted. Srey Sros^talk 02:43, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

- Whether we agree with the ROGD or not, the fact is the book is about ROGD, and as the source from Turner says: "The girls she describes... show no discomfort in their female bodies until puberty". So yes it is accurate to say that the "girls" are AFAB as editor SreySros correctly states, but it is also accurate to say that these "girls" were also once girls. So when Shrier or the sources use the term "girls" they do so as a historical fact of the group as a whole - it's accurate, not offensive as it's not singling a person out - and I don't see why quotes saying this need to be whitewashed.

- Additionally, I do not see any evidence to what these people as a collective wish to be gendered as now - maybe as boys, trans men, gender-fluid, two-spirit etc. - or indeed girls if they have detransitioned back to girls/women today - who knows. And for me to 'presume' (as other editors do) what gender wikivoice should refer to them as, would be clear arrogance IMHO. CatCafe (talk) 05:49, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

You seem to be angry at me for something that I didn't say. If you re-read my comment you'll notice that I specifically refrained from suggesting an alternate wording such as using the term trans men in the article. GorillaWarfare additionally avoided using that term in the article. And I didn't give an opinion on whether ROGD is true or not (which would be an opinion), but the stage at which it is and isn't accepted in the relevant academic field (a fact). So it's not clear who is being "arrogant" here. And yet the book (I don't know if you've read it; I'll concede that I haven't) seems to be quite clearly referring to AFAB people who identify as male at some point in their lives, so "girls" violates MOS:GENDERID. Particularly as many individuals are named in the book. You say I do not see any evidence to what these people as a collective wish to be gendered as now - maybe as boys, trans men, gender-fluid, two-spirit etc. Well exactly! This is my point as well. Where I don't follow is that you say you don't 'presume' (as other editors do) what gender wikivoice should refer to them as. But you support the current description as "girls", do you not? This is what you've reverted to reinstate. So that is an expressed opinion on wikivoice gender. Meanwhile, I expressly refrained from suggesting what gender wikivoice should refer to them as.

Unfortunately, common language does not work the way you are saying. If I come out as gay at the age of 15, there's no "historical fact" of me being straight up to that date and gay from then on. There is a historical fact of me not publicly identifying as gay before that date. But we can see that it would not be right to refer to me as straight before that date or call me "historically straight" or refer to groups of people like me as "straight people", even in a historical context. The same applies to gender self-identification. With respect to that, I could read your comment as a suggestion to use "assigned female at birth children" in place of where the article uses "girls", and I'd be willing to agree with that as a sensible suggestion. — Bilorv (talk) 11:37, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

A lot of waffle Bilory, avoiding that you made the presumptuous statements: "So these comments are about trans men i.e. boys" and "Given that the "girls" named in the book presumably mostly or entirely identify as male to date". These statements are outrageous and you have no right to presume any gender-fluid persons' gender without them articulating it, whatever righteousness you believe you hold. So yes, you're out-of-line and have no idea of how to unequivocally respect gender-questioning people with the refrain and unwavering respect they deserve. I'm just going with the sources by reverting edits back to the original. Gender assumptions like yours may be dangerous, so yes, presumptuous comments such as yours in the current gender debate will make people angry. Also FYI gender-identity and same-sex-attraction are not comparable things and parallels can't be drawn as you did above - you should read up on the differences. CatCafe (talk) 11:57, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

• As an example, this sentence in the lead should stay as is: In the book Shrier accuses social media of playing a driving role in girls' decisions to identify as transgender... "Shrier accuses" is WP:In-text attribution, so it's fine. The book is specifically about what she calls "girls"; trying to expunge every use of the word and replace it with "youths" or similar is completely misleading and thus false. As for quotes, well, if reviewers are choosing to say "girls", should we really hide that? MOS:GENDERID has to do with specific identifiable people that our text talks about. If a statement is a quote, has attribution, and is about the book's idea in a vague general sense, there isn't a need to rewrite that. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:38, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

  @Crossroads: I'd like to hear the rest of your reasoning here because this isn't it in full. I'm sure we would both oppose the sentence In the book, Icke accuses the Jewish lizards who run the government of propelling the world into global fascism. The reason is that it doesn't matter that we're referencing a specific person's views—it is still a tacit assumption of the premise (Jewish lizards run the government) to write such a sentence. This isn't an attempt to compare Icke and Shrier, but to illustrate how the syntax of the sentence makes an assumption you have not yet explained. We can use the words that the author uses, sure, but then we need to consider where it is necessary to demarcate the terms as such: for instance, In the book Shrier accuses social media of playing a driving in what she sees as girls deciding to identify as transgender. This sentence doesn't assume anything of Shrier, but it does now imply that "what she sees" may be contested. So to use this sentence we'd need a compelling case that Shrier's views are contested. Luckily, it seems that the current version of the article (in particular the highest-quality sources it gives) does make a case for that. So that might be a fruitful wording to discuss further. And to be clear: nothing I've referred to in my comments so far is meant to apply to direct quotes, which would need much more subtle arguments about what is and isn't implied by our editorial choice of which words to begin them on and how to incorporate them within sentences. — Bilorv (talk) 11:37, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Bilorv, more waffle from you discussing the 'Jews' - I'm not surprised! Also not interested in being exposed to you telling us about the theory of "Jewish lizards who run the government of propelling the world into global fascism" that you feel is so important to republish here for our illumination. Your 'Jewish' addition to this debate is ridiculous and really not needed here. CatCafe (talk) 12:16, 14 January 2021 (UTC)