Talk:Chloe Cole/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

"Anti-transgender activism"?

The lead and the infobox currently says that Cole is known for "anti-transgender activism" but is that accurate? My understanding is that she is against gender affirming medical care for children, not against transitioning in general. Is the label "anti-transgender activist" supported by any reliable sources? If not, doesn't this violate Wikipedia policy in some way? Round and rounder (talk) 19:54, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Round and rounder, is there better wording you would suggest. Only one source says it outright, so think more explanation would serve the reader. Slywriter (talk) 21:20, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't have a suggestion, but I think that calling her an "anti-transgender activist" is misleading and probably a violation of the rules for living people so it should be removed until a better description is agreed upon. I would have just changed it to "detransitioner" but this topic area is so politically charged that even straightforward changes seem to be met with hostility. Round and rounder (talk) 22:09, 18 February 2023 (UTC)Striking comment from LTA sock. Nil Einne (talk) 11:13, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Quick note, trans kids are not magically not trans people. Campaigning to forcibly detransition people and deny them access to transgender healthcare is indeed anti-trans activism, regardless of their age.

Speaking to sources:

• anti-trans activist[1]
• anti-trans activist[2]
• In addition to Walsh, speakers at the rally included GOP state politicians from Tennessee, who earlier this year passed multiple anti-trans bills (helping to perpetuate mental health crisis among trans youth in the state), and Blackburn, who used the confirmation hearing for Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson to push anti-trans talking points. Other speakers included Tulsi Gabbard, Dr. Colin Wright, and Chloe Cole.[3] Note, Cole has pushed for the same legislation as those politicians.
• Chloe Cole, an 18-year-old who detransitioned and whom the anti-trans movement has turned into a celebrity for their movement[4]
• He referenced Chloe Cole, a woman who got a mastectomy as a teenager when she believed herself to be a trans man. She has since become an anti-transgender advocate [5]
• We are having this rally out of compassion today, because we have seen what these surgeries and hormones are doing to individuals,” said Rutherford County Turning Point chapter president Hannah Faulkner. “We love you LGBTQ,” claimed Faulkner, who also said, “This is not an anti-trans rally because transgender does not exist.”[6] If you're speaking at a rally and the only defense to being called anti-trans is to say "transgender doesn't exist", that's not exactly a stunning defense...
• After nearly five hours of contentious presentations by six experts and dozens of testimonials, members of the boards cut the public comment period short after letting several anti-trans advocates speak out. ... Chloe Cole, an 18-year-old from California, was among the detransitioners who told of worsening mental health problems, complications after surgery and lax medical care during or following treatment.[7]

That's just a quick search. It expands once you factor in all the bills multiple reliable sources have said were anti-trans and noted that Cole supported. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 22:46, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

This is a good example of what I was talking about at ANI. You have cherry picked sources with a particular slant. In other cases, you have asociated statements said about others with Cole.

I knew nothing about this person until a few days ago. If she is on record as saying that no one should be allowed to transition, I haven't seen it. If she is suggesting that kids should be forcibly detransitioned, I haven't seen it.

If someone said gay children should not be allowed to marry, but gay adults can, is that homophobic? Round and rounder (talk) 23:06, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Round and rounder, you seem to be applying a personal standard for what should count as "anti-trans activism". I think we should follow the sources. And so far the reliably sourced "celebrity of the anti-trans movement" sounds like the most precisely accurate description thus far. Newimpartial (talk) 23:10, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

The actual quote from Xtra is "Chloe Cole, an 18-year-old who detransitioned and whom the anti-trans movement has turned into a celebrity for their movement..." if that's the source you mean. In any case, I think I'd best bow out of this discussion. If others don't have a problem with it, I'll go along with the consensus. Round and rounder (talk) 23:24, 18 February 2023 (UTC)Striking comment from LTA sock. Nil Einne (talk) 11:13, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

The first one doesn't support the claim even if we assume they are reliable for such a contentious claim. The second one does but we have to ask how much weight we would give such a clearly biased source. The quote provided in #3 doesn't call Cole anti-trans. The same is true of #4. #5 does but again, weight. #6 doesn't say Cole is an anti-trans activist. Transach synthesized the claim. #7 also doesn't support the claim. Springee (talk) 23:28, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

"The second one does but we have to ask how much weight we would give such a clearly biased source."

Wait, wait, wait, you're calling an LGBT news source a "clearly biased source" on the topic of whether someone is anti-trans or not? Is that seriously the position you want to be taking? Silverseren^C 00:34, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Spring, I didn't synthesize anything, just pointed out that if you're speaking at a rally where the organizer's best defense to being called "anti-trans" is flat out saying "transgender doesn't exist", that's patently absurd. It's like saying, "we're not homophobes, homosexual doesn't exist" - they're not explicitly saying they're homophobes, but their defense is so ridiculous it takes olympian-level mental gymnastics to conclude anything else. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 01:14, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Expanding and listing some more reliable sources mentioning her in the context of anti-trans legislation.

• Kansas, Missouri consider banning gender-affirming care amid wave of anti-trans bills ... [Cole has] have traveled nationally advocating for bans on gender affirming care. Cole is from California.[8]
• Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) held an anti-trans rally at the Capitol this week. A whopping 12 or so people attended and no major media outlets covered it. ... The rally was a veritable who’s who of contemporary transphobic trolls, including members of the book-banning “parents’ rights” group Moms for Liberty; members of the anti-LGBTQ conservative think tank Heritage Foundation; de-transitioned young adult right-wing media darling Chloe Cole;[9]
• Anti-trans bigots celebrate proposed Florida rule to bar gender-affirming care under Medicaid ... Under the proposed rule, the Medicaid program would not cover puberty-blocking medication, hormones and hormone “antagonists,” sex-reassignment surgeries and any “other procedures that alter primary or secondary sexual characteristics.” ... Friday’s hearing opened with testimony from Chloe Cole, who said she is a 17-year-old “de-transitioner” from California who underwent treatments, including surgery to remove her breasts, between the ages of 13 and 16. Cole said she supports the proposed rule.[10] Side note, saying poor trans adults, not just kids shouldn't get medical care, is blatantly anti-trans.
• Sens. Mike Thompson, R-Shawnee, and Mark Steffen, R-Hutchinson, are trying to criminalize hormone replacement therapy and gender reassignment surgery for transgender youth. Their bill, SB12, known as the Kansas child mutilation prevention act, would make it illegal for physicians to prescribe hormone replacement therapy or perform gender-reassignment surgeries for anyone under 21 ... He referenced Chloe Cole, a woman who got a mastectomy as a teenager when she believed herself to be a trans man. She has since become an anti-transgender advocate. [11]

Additionally, from this article's body (sources there): Greene did so in support of her attempt to pass the "Protect Children's Innocence Act", which would federally make it a felony to provide any gender-affirming care to a minor, give minors an avenue to sue such providers, prohibit the use of federal funds for such care in health insurance, deport undocumented immigrants who provide such care, and prohibit colleges and universities from offering instruction in gender-affirming care. Cole said that while she doesn't agree with everything any politician says or does, she finds the bill is a cause she can get behind. Cole spoke in support at a press conference Greene hosted for the bill.

So in short, not only has she protested against gender-affirming care for trans minors (which would still be anti-trans regardless), she's protested against it for adults and supported making it a felony to allow trans youth to transition. This whole discussion is silly, as saying trans kids shouldn't be allowed to transition is a WP:FRINGE position that is consistently and rightfully described in reliable sources as "anti-trans". That's not even mentioning how the whole "it's not anti-trans - think of the children!" shtick falls apart when you consider she has supported bills that would make it illegal to provide HRT to even adults (for the record, making it illegal to give a trans person HRT when they're already on it indeed "forced detransition"), make it harder for poor trans adults of any age to access such care, and prevent universities from even discussing such care. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 01:10, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

None of your new sources call her an anti-trans activist. You jump to conclusions then expect others to accept them. Sorry no. This is a BLP violation. Springee (talk) 12:27, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

I've been unable to find supporting reliability evidence for the inclusion of several of the sources cited here, at least on any Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard or otherwise. One of them is considered a tabloid, and the quality of journalism should be considered a political hit job. At this point, I'm incredibly jaded and have become so demoralized that I don't even want to take the time to aggregate or search deeper because I feel it's a lost cause. The entirety of Wikipedia has become a place for activism and outright slander, especially BLPs. I'm of the opinion that we should just let this happen, as it stands Wiki has become less and less reliable over time and finally people are starting to pay attention. Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:47, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

I didn't say they did, they mentioned her support for anti-trans legislation. You know what the neutral term for someone who campaigns for anti-trans legislation is? "anti-trans activist/campaigner"...

But for some more sources on why these bills she supports are unequivocally anti-trans, see the:

• ACLU
• various medical organizations such as the AAP, AMA, and many others, describing the bills as unequivocally harmful to trans people

@Springee, are you really going to suggest that fighting to stop even adults transitioning is not "anti-trans activism"? TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:27, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Please stop construction straw arguments. That is tendentious talk page behavior. If you are going to apply a contentious label you need to show it is widely used. Showing that occasional or sources with a strong POV use it isn't sufficient. Synthesizing it's use as you are arguing above is also not OK. Springee (talk) 18:05, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

To which sources are you attributing a strong POV? I am seeing an attempt to characterize sources through oblique insinuation, based on nothing but an editor's personal opinion. Newimpartial (talk) 18:07, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

The first two at the top of the section are clearly sources with a strong POV. You can argue they are still reliable but that doesn't negate the POV. Incidentally, when looking at sources that are generally neutral or engaged in simple reporting we don't see her called an anti-trans activist. Going beyond that, a number of Christian related news sites clearly don't call her that. If we are willing to accept the POV of one side I see no reason not to accept the POV of another side. Springee (talk) 21:36, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

With one side being actual LGBT news sources, which would be close to an authority on what would be considered anti-transgender actions and activities. And the other side you're referring to being religious news sites that have an anti-LGBT bias and no real authority on whether an action is anti-trans? Silverseren^C 21:45, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

If we are talking about automotive impact on the environment would you consider Car and Driver or Road and Track unbiased? They may be good sources but they are also close to the subject. The problem with their position of authority is they may decide someone who doesn't agree with their POV is anti-transgender while neutral third parties wouldn't agree. And if we are going to say how should a person be publically labeled then yes, I do think we should consider how multiple POVs describe her before we apply a contentious label. Springee (talk) 21:48, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

This comparison implies that there are legitimate stances against LGBT rights. There are not. Snokalok (talk) 10:05, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Springee, how would you summarize the ways the subject is labelled by sources that are generally neutral or engaged in simple reporting, and which sources would you use to back that up? Newimpartial (talk) 21:46, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Why don't you make a suggestion first. What sources would you consider to be natural to the topic? That is they don't have a bias for or against and are trying to just report the facts. Springee (talk) 21:50, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't really have an answer to that; I was basically calling your bluff. And while I'm not the biggest fan of Fox News, I do think the label they apply, "Conservative activist and detransitioner", is one worth considering, though it isn't mutually exclusive with other terms. Newimpartial (talk) 22:05, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Oh, so you are saying you don't know what a neutral source would be. What about these two? [12], [13]? Are they neutral? One is a public broadcasting station. Springee (talk) 22:06, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Springee, please WP:DROPTHESTICK. Numerous sources describe her as an anti-trans activist. Numerous sources note her campaigning for anti-trans bills as being what she is most notable for. The idea that fully criminalizing transgender healthcare, not even just with a bullshit "save the kids" argument but even for adults, is not anti-trans activism is a fully WP:FRINGE position. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 22:15, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Actually not that many sources describe her at anti-trans activist and if you are going to put that contentious LABEL in wiki-voice you need better sourcing. Remember BLP applies here. Springee (talk) 22:18, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

No, I'm saying I don't know how you would summarize the characterizations in what you see as neutral sources. The ksl source simply says an 18-year-old activist which, while accurate, isn't especially helpful. The spdb source doesn't give any characterization beyond "former trans kid" and observes that Cole has also spoken in support of similar bills in other states, i.e., laws to prevent transgender kids from getting gender-affirming treatment. So how would you summarize those? Newimpartial (talk) 22:16, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure she is a conservative activist so much as the conservatives seem willing to listen to her. Call that a pairing of common interest. She certainly is a detransitioner. It's probably best to say she speaks about against transitioning for minors and then list her stated concerns. They may or may not be valid but if she is worth writing a page about perhaps her concerns are also worth covering. Springee (talk) 22:13, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

WP:CIR, multiple sources have noted her campaigning against trans healthcare for adults as well as minors, stop trying to shift the frame of what she campaigns against. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 22:16, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Please FOC, if you want to talk about CIR do it at ANI. Springee (talk) 22:19, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

That is as may be, TheTranarchist, but I think her activism against gender-affirming treatment for minors is what has made the subject notable. That can't reasonably be taken to imply that she supports gender-affirming treatment for adults, btw, it simply emphasizes what she is actually known for.

Newimpartial (talk) 22:23, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to include a top-level statement about her being an activist against gender-affirming treatment for minors, which seems accurate, uncontroversial and neutral. Newimpartial (talk) 22:18, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

I would fully support that. Thank you for pulling us back and suggesting a compromise. Springee (talk) 22:20, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

I'd support Chloe Cole is an American anti-transgender activist and detransitioner. She is known for appearing on right-wing media and with conservative politicians in favor of legislation that would ban gender-affirming care for those under 21, criminalize those who provide it, prohibit federal funding or Medicaid for such care at any age, and ban lessons on it in universities.

My worry is that lead will be immediately contradicted by the body, which notes her campaigning against care for those under 21. For example, while it's technically true "minors can't drink in the US", the more encyclopedic summary is "those under 21 can't drink in the U.S", as the precise age limit matters. I find it better we summarize rather than take the average of her actions. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 22:35, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

I think you are exaggerating the relevance of the under 21 aspect. As far as I can tell, most of these proposals cover people under the age of 18, and I can't find any instances where Cole has objected to a bill for not going far enough by allowing treatment for those 18-20. I'm not suggesting that she supports gender-affirming treatment for adults, but it isn't obvious that she opposes it, whereas all sources agree that she opposes gender-affirming treatment for minors. Newimpartial (talk) 22:49, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Newimpartial here (sorry, that probably made you feel uncomfortable /hummor) Springee (talk) 22:51, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't support that as it has the same issues we have been arguing over. Also, the "known for appearing on" is not a good way to phrase things. It loads the language as if she is there because she's a conservative and it implies she is known for being a guest vs known for being an activist against gender affirming care for minors. It ideally would be good to say what her positions are assume she has some. Something like "Chloe Cole is an American teen detransitioner. She is known her activism against gender affirming care for minors." From there we can discuss her background and some of the bills she has been involved with. We should not take any specific bill she has supported as a whitnes and imply she supports all aspects of that bill. That would be OR. If we are going to say/imply what she supports we need to use her direct statements. The problem with bills is sometimes people accept what they can get rather than what they might ideally want. It's quite possible she is totally OK with various types of care for adults but her concern about harm to minors, presumably fearing others would end up in her position) drives her to accept the full bill. Put another way, if she supported a bill that narrowly covered only minors it would be incorrect to imply she insists on limiting care for adults. Springee (talk) 22:50, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

By the way, it is equally plausible that, as a born-again Christian and a conservative, she privately opposes all gender-affirming care but her speechwriters confine her comments to minors because that's what the communications consultants recommend. We presently just have no way to know. Newimpartial (talk) 22:54, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't think teen detransitioner as the primary descriptor in the first sentence hits the mark here. That feels a bit like characterizing Adolf Hitler (damn you, Godwin!) as a WWI veteran first. It's not wrong, but Cole is obviously not notable as a detransitioner (whom there are thousands of), but for everything that came since. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 10:08, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Just a note that the OP is a LTA sock. I've struck two terminal comments of theirs that didn't receive direct replies but left them in case editors had referred to them in later replies and I missed this. I left earlier comments that had been replied to intact although anyone else is free to strike them if they feel this would be better and they can be safely ignored in any case. Nil Einne (talk) 11:13, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

OP has since been banned.

Anyway, the reliable evidence supporting the term "anti trans activist" is overwhelming, the fact that we're giving this much time to a WP:FRINGE position otherwise is insane Snokalok (talk) 09:45, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

• Regardless of feelings about LA Blade and it's bias/advocacy/leaning, the source is reliable and verifiable for her own quote

  ...Trans men are not biological males, so definitionally, they are not men...

  . Their statement

  Cole’s choice of words, matching that of many anti-trans activists

  appears to be supported by other independent sources and only mitigated by Blaze later

  political pawns for anti trans forces

• Cullman Times has her saying

  ...classic false dichotomy regarding children with gender dysphoria.

• Reuters states

  Cole has begun speaking out publicly in support of measures to end gender-affirming care for minors, appearing often on conservative media and with politicians who back such bans.

• Nashville Scene states

  Cole now advocates against hormone treatments and surgery for minors.

• Milwaukee Journal Sentinel gives

  Cole travels the country speaking out against gender-affirming care...

  and that

  Cole recently spoke in favor of a bill proposed in Utah that would prohibit minors from undergoing "sex-transitioning procedures.

• LGBTQ nation itself calls her

  right wing media darling

  and isn't a good source for lede sentence and it's link on the quote is circular to LA Blade.
• Propose Chloe Cole is an American, known for opposing gender-affirming care for minors and supporting bans on such care after her own detransition. She has appeared with politicians supporting such bans in state legislatures and spoken on right-wing media. She is seen as an anti-trans activist.

If I missed a second source that is affirmative and clear about declaring her anti-trans, let me know as then the argument is stronger for it being on the first line. Otherwise, it should be in the second as opposition to gender care for minors is the more publicized position. Slywriter (talk) 07:43, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

This is a sound starting point. I agree with Springee and others above that 'anti-trans', apart from being sourced to partisan sources, is very uninformative, especially when linked to LGBT rights opposition, as it is now. We have no idea what her opinion is on LGB rights at all, nor any 'trans' measures apart from those relating to underage medical/surgical transitioning. I also question whether 'seen as an anti-trans activist' adds anything if we don't say who sees her that way (presumably not conservatives). Being quibbly, quite a few sources refer to her appearing on 'conservative', rather than 'right-wing' media, but why anyhow is that pertinent? Is there any reason to think that she hasn't spoken to whichever media were prepared to listen - including 'LA Blade'? Like the linkage to 'anti-trans', the linking to 'right-wing' media, seems to be mainly made by partisan sources. Pincrete (talk) 10:22, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

TheTranarchist, why did you restore "anti-trans activist" here [14]? The above discussion makes it clear that characterization does not have consensus. I think your other recent edits are also problematic but should be discussed in other sections. Springee (talk) 15:13, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

I was about to ask the same question. I also don't understand why we would use a generic description when we can use a specific one. The 'mission' Cole is on is to outlaw surgical and body altering chemical interventions for minors, and sources make that explicit. Whether one agrees or disagrees with her, we have a duty to be accurate about that. Even to the extent that gender-affirming care=surgery and chemicals, why not be specific about what is being proposed/opposed? Pincrete (talk) 15:27, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Anti-trans or Anti-transgender rights activist would be consistent with other articles describing people engaged in similar work. Additionally, there is an abundant, nearly endless for our purposes, supply of WP:SIRS sources available to choose from which describe the work she engages in using those words. I'm not sure if there is a decent reason to use such a WP:Vagueness descriptor when a concise more specific one is commonly used and available. Filiforme1312 (talk) 05:35, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Anti-transgender rights activist would be consistent with other articles describing people engaged in similar work, well that's precisely the point isn't it? What is her 'work'? And why would we use a (fairly crude) generic term to describe it if more nuanced and precise ones are available. AFAIK, the whole of her 'testimony' is against minors receiving surgery and beta blockers/hormones. She has said almost nothing about adults, nor less interventionist measures for minors, but implicit is that she considers adults able to make their own life decisions. Not everyone who thinks children and vehicle drivers should have restricted access to alcohol is automatically a 'prohibitionist', or 'anti-alcohol'. Not everyone who thinks that access to high powered lethal weapons should be controlled is a pacifist nor 'anti-gun'. Contentious, value-laden, labels about people need to be fully individually justified.Pincrete (talk) 09:38, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

She's fighting to ban what is overwhelmingly confirmed by the medical community as best practice healthcare for trans kids. You're describing gender affirming care as though it's the same as cosmetic plastic surgery, when actually the medical community as a whole treats it as closer to reconstructive or mitigative, and as fully medically necessary.

So yes, fighting to ban medically necessary care for a minority group, absolutely makes her against that minority group. Snokalok (talk) 09:48, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

What is considered 'best practice healthcare for trans kids' is less clearly established in many European countries. Many are known to be particularly hesitant about surgery and other 'medical' intervention. I believe I am right when I say that Holland and Sweden have better overall success rates than the US, despite greater caution. So 'best practice' is less agreed than you imply - apart from ignoring my main points of 'why would we use a crude description when a more precise one would do?' and 'why do sources only thinly describe her thus'? Pincrete (talk) 10:19, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Notably, neither Sweden or Holland have enacted total legal bans on gender-affirming care for minors. There is a difference between greater caution, and legislative interference completely banning what WP:MEDRS consider the best treatment... TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 13:02, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't think global differences in legislation and success rates are the best way to determine what the consensus on best practice in reliable sources is. Real life has too many complicating factors to consider. --Licks-rocks (talk) 10:05, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

The page is ostensibly about Cole. Only very tangentially about normal/best practice in US or elsewhere. Again we ignore 'why would we use a crude description when a more precise one would do?' and 'why do sources only thinly describe her thus' (as 'anti-trans') Pincrete (talk) 12:52, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

AFAIK, the whole of her 'testimony' is against minors receiving surgery and beta blockers/hormones. I Just want to point out that this isn't the case. Cole testified in Florida in favor of a bill that would remove medicaid coverage of trans healthcare for adults. She also was cited in a bill that would ban trans healthcare for adults ages 18-20. Her social media presence, which is a part of her activism, includes targeted harassment of trans adults and anti-trans views that are not exclusive to bans on healthcare for trans minors. If we are to exclude whats fairly standard mundane language, then we will need to find a new and different reason to do so. Filiforme1312 (talk) 11:08, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes you are correct, and it would have been more accurate if I had said "the whole of her 'testimony' is about minors receiving surgery and beta blockers/hormones - and most of it is against such medical intervention. Pincrete (talk) 12:13, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Source Review

Source list

LA Blade (SIRS): ant-trans activist and her regret has been seized upon by anti-trans forces all around the world, eager to retell and retweet her harrowing story.[15] San Francisco Chronicle (SIRS): something of a celebrity in the anti-trans movement and Cole has become a poster child for right-wing resistance to transgender care, making appearances on conservative media and offering testimony on transgender legislation in several states and The Washington, D.C.-based Human Rights Campaign, which advocates for the rights of LGBTQ+ people, is tracking a record 150 anti-trans bills across the country this year.n LGBTQ Nation: anti-trans activist [16] Kansas Reflector: an anti-transgender advocate.[17] WUSF public media: lists as one of several anti-trans advocates[18] Kansas City Star: states Kansas, Missouri consider banning gender-affirming care amid wave of anti-trans bills, notes Cole spoke in favor of the bill [[19]] LGBTQ Nation: Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) held an anti-trans rally at the Capitol this week ... The rally was a veritable who’s who of contemporary transphobic trolls, including ... de-transitioned young adult right-wing media darling Chloe Cole[20] Orlando Weekly: Anti-trans bigots celebrate proposed Florida rule to bar gender-affirming care under Medicaid ... Cole said she supports the proposed rule.[21] Wyoming Public Media: Lawmakers nix anti-trans "Chloe's Law" amid warnings of an insurance crisis ... Chloe Cole, a California teenager who has been traveling the country to support bills like the one in Wyoming. Cole has compared gender-affirming surgery to the medical experiments Nazis performed on their Jewish prisoners during the Holocaust.[22] Tennessee Lookout: U.S. Sen. Marsha Blackburn headlines anti-transgender rally in Nashville ... Also speaking were 18-year-old Chloe Cole[23] Nashville Scene: Anti-Trans Rally Led by Matt Walsh Brings Right-Wing Media Stars to Nashville ... Other speakers at Walsh’s event included ... self-proclaimed “former trans kid” Chloe Cole Daily KOS: Trump’s proposals to ban gender-affirming care for trans youths nationwide are part of a far-right genocidal erasure campaign against trans Americans instigated by the likes of Libs of TikTok, Matt Walsh, Gays Against Groomers, DeSantis spokespropagandist Christina Pushaw, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, anti-trans zealot Chris Elston (Billboard Chris), political detransitioner Chloe Cole, and their ilk[24] (per RSP) Reuters (SIRS): Cole has begun speaking out publicly in support of measures to end gender-affirming care for minors, appearing often on conservative media and with politicians who back such bans.[25] (did not mention "anti-trans") LGBTQ Nation: The rally, held at the city’s War Memorial Plaza on October 21, was organized by conservative podcaster and transphobe Matt Walsh. Walsh spoke at the event alongside Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), state lawmakers like state Sen. Jack Johnson (R) and state Rep. William Lamberth (R), former Rep. Tulsi Gabbard from Hawaii, a lawyer from the anti-LGBTQ hate group Alliance Defending Freedom, and other anti-trans activists. ... The rally also featured the following speakers: president of Convention of States Action Mark Meckler, founder of Trans Rational Educational Voices Scott Newgent, founding editor of Reality’s Last Stand Colin Wright, and 18-year-old de-transitioned, right-wing media darling Chloe Cole.[26] Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: Nationally, over 200 anti-trans bills have been introduced this year, according to the American Civil Liberties Union.[27]

TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:07, 27 February 2023 (UTC)TheTranarchist

In short, we have RS (including WP:SIRS sources) directly labeling her an anti-trans activist/advocate. We have sources saying she spoke at anti-trans rallies, sources saying she is a celebrity to the anti-trans movement, and more sources noting her campaigning for anti-trans legislation (which the ACLU and HRC also label as anti-trans legislation). Per others earlier, I support both being specific about what legislation she supports and using the description anti-trans activist. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:07, 27 February 2023 (UTC)TheTranarchist

Which of those sources directly call Cole an "anti-trans activist". Please include the full quote, not just a part. The problem right now is you are including sources that don't, per your quotes, support the claim. Take the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. How does this quote, "Nationally, over 200 anti-trans bills have been introduced this year...", the quote you provided as evidence, support that sources call Cole an "anti-trans activist"? The same is true of source 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, and 2. The others need more complete quotes to evaluate. We have no idea if this is a random list representing a range of views or just a keyword search. Many of the sources are minor or less than idea. Others simply don't support using the label. Springee (talk) 17:28, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

I've removed the term as this is a BLP and consensus is not established. WP:ONUS is on editor looking to include, not exclude. Slywriter (talk) 18:30, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

@Slywriter thank you, my apologies for not hashing it out here first. Could you comment on the newly compiled source list and weight of the descriptor? I know you were partial to including it at least on the second line, with it's placement on the first being contingent on the weight of reliable sources, particularity those directly calling her an anti-trans activist, of which there seem to be 3/4 (definitely 1, 3, 4, and perhaps 14, though @Springee disagrees) TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 19:11, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

• 1, 3, and 4, directly call her an anti-trans activist/advocate. 14 lists her as one. 1 and 2 also provide her WP:SIRS coverage, and should be weighted duly, as opposed to sources that give her a 1 line mention.
• 3, 4, 5 do not need more complete quotes to evaluate, but the articles are linked if you believe they do and want to offer some
• 6 describes a bill Cole supported as part of a wave of anti-trans bills
• 7, 10, and 11 say Cole was the speaker at an anti-trans rally (ie, her activism includes speaking at anti-trans rallies)
• 8 describes a bill Cole supported as supported by anti-trans bigots
• 9 describes "Chloe's Law" as anti-trans, of which Cole stated support this bill in any way I can
• 12 describes her activism as part of a far-right genocidal erasure campaign against trans Americans
• 13 is just to really drive the point home that RS overwhelming agree that she appears on right-wing media. But since it's relevant, it notes Alejandra Caraballo, a transgender woman, LGBTQ-rights advocate and clinical instructor at Harvard Law School’s Cyberlaw Clinic states those types of detransition stories are “outlier examples being used by many on the anti-trans side to undermine access to gender-affirming care. They aren’t representative of detransitioners on the whole.”
• 14 lists Cole among other anti-trans activists. present at an anti-trans rally
• 15, The MJS, states Panel of right-wing activists claim schools are 'sexually grooming' children by teaching gender identity, and The event comes at a time when Muskego-Norway, Germantown, Arrowhead and Waukesha school boards have enacted policies that prohibit staff from referring to students by their preferred name and/or pronouns without express parental permission. Nationally, over 200 anti-trans bills have been introduced this year, according to the American Civil Liberties Union. .. Accredited medical organizations such as the Columbia University Irving Medical Center, American Psychiatric Association and Yale School of Medicine support gender-affirming care for youth, meant to treat a diagnosable condition called gender dysphoria, which causes psychological distress from feeling one's biological sex does not match their gender identity. ... among the panelists was activist Chloe Cole, an 18-year-old from California who "destransitioned" at 16 years old. Cole travels the country speaking out against gender-affirming care - ie, describes her as a right-wing activist known for opposing gender-affirming care, which it notes medical consensus finds necessary to avoid causing trans kids psychological distress.

In general, in a discussion of whether "anti-trans activist" is an appropriate label, sources saying the person in question speaks at anti-trans rallies and supports anti-trans bills supports that claim. We are not solely looking for sources which call her an "anti-trans activist" (of which there are several, including WP:SIRS coverage), we are looking for sources that provide weight to that descriptor. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 19:05, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

I will assume that you are correct about 1,3 and 4 calling her an anti-trans activist. 5 is marginal since it refers to a group but when it names her it doesn't say "anti-trans activist". If you are going to apply a contentious label it needs to be clearly applied. This fits into the category of compatible with but not direct. 6 as you say describes a bill. Unless Cole=the bill, this doesn't support the label. 7, 10 and 11 fail for the same reason as 6. Participating in a rally that is called anti-trans doesn't mean the label was applied to her. You are using SYNTH to presume that anyone speaking at a rally that was called "anti-trans" by sources that may or may not be objective or specific in the use of the term should themselves be viewed as anti-trans. That is not acceptable sourcing for a contentious label. 8 is a non-starter. Cole could be supported by Nazis, Stalin and Mao all at the same time. That doesn't mean we apply fascist to her. 9 Chloe's law is not a person. Cole is a person. Chloe's law != Cole. I hope that difference is obvious. 12. Daily KOS is not an acceptable source. Beyond being an obviously crap source (we haven't asked about the quality of the other sources), calling the general activism she is associated with anti-trans doesn't mean you can apply the label to her. 13 is again a stretch to justify text you want to include rather than an obvious summary of the source. 14 the quote you provided doesn't show what you claim. Note: "The rally also featured the following speakers:...". That is where it mentions Cole. Note that I would be very reluctant to accept LGBTQ Nation's labeling of a person they see as the opposition. While we might accept their statements of fact, subjective labels are another matter. Lat leaves us with 15 which again doesn't say Cole is anti-trans. You have to stretch to apply a generalized label to each panel member and even there it doesn't support anti-trans. As a follow up to all this, how did you find these sources? Did you do a keyword search including the disputed label? I ask because above I listed an assortment of sources that I found with a simple news search only for Cole's name. The sources are presented in the order I found them off the first two pages of articles (excluding clearly unacceptable sources). Note that most don't call her anti-trans. If we are going to apply a contentious label it needs to be clearly and commonly used even when we aren't searching for it. That doesn't appear to be the case here. Springee (talk) 19:27, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

For 1, 3, and 4, no need to assume, that's what the link is for...

For 5, this is a silly argument. Sources are not in the habit of stating say "XYZ advocates including XYZ advocate 1, XYZ advocate 2, XYZ advocate 3", explicitly repeating "XYZ advocate" for each person in the list which they already said is composed of "XYZ advocates".

6 describes a bill, which Cole has supported, as "anti-trans". This is like saying, "just because a person supported a bill opposing gay marriage, that doesn't mean they oppose gay marriage, since the person is not a bill... "

7, 10, and 11 are acceptable for the same reason as 6. For example, arguing whether "this person opposes XYZ" belongs in the lead, a source that says this person supported bills opposing XYZ or spoke at rallies opposing XYZ is not discountable because it didn't say "generally, this person opposes XYZ". Read WP:NOTSYNTH, and WP:SYNTH for that matter

8 describes supporters of a bill as anti-trans bigots, and notes Cole supported that bill. I don't see how that's a non-starter

9 see 6

12 I'll strike the Daily KOS from the list per RSP

13, like I stated, was more to show that even WP:SIRS supportive of her note she appears on right-wing media. But I'll strike that as we're focused on her anti-trans activism

14 states Walsh spoke at the event alongside Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), state lawmakers like state Sen. Jack Johnson (R) and state Rep. William Lamberth (R), former Rep. Tulsi Gabbard from Hawaii, a lawyer from the anti-LGBTQ hate group Alliance Defending Freedom, and other anti-trans activists The source then describes the activities of Walsh, Johnson, and Gabbard. It characterizes those not specifically named on that list as "anti-trans activists", and after discussing those on the list, refers to the other speakers present (AKA other anti-trans activists), including Cole. Wrt I would be very reluctant to accept LGBTQ Nation's labeling of a person they see as the opposition - as others have explained earlier, your personal opinion that LGBT sources are too biased to be trusted for commentary on LGBT issues has no place here

15 calls her a right-wing activist, refers to "anti-trans bills" that are being passed, notes how they are considered to be harmful to trans people by WP:MEDRS, and notes that Cole supports them.

In regards to how I got the sources, I keyword searched "anti-trans" AND "Chloe Cole", since this is a discussion of whether "anti-trans activist" applies. Frankly, if I extended the search to "transphobic" OR "harmful to trans people" and etc, the evidence would be even more overwhelming.

AFAICT, you only listed 2 sources, neither of which say she's not an anti-trans advocate. The first doesn't provide Cole WP:SIGCOV, it just notes she supported the bill, of which notably also says The South Dakota State Medical Association said the bill will cause physicians to compromise their medical judgement for what treatment is in the best interest of patients. "Access to care for transgender people is an important means of improving health outcomes. Receiving care is linked to reductions in the rate of suicide attempts, decreased rates of depression and anxiety, and decreased substance use in transgender people," said Lucio Margallo, president of SDSMA. "These positive health effects extend to children and adolescents as well.". The second does not provide WP:SIGCOV, it calls her an activist without specifying for what. Additionally, it quotes medical experts saying that the hardline ban on gender-affirming care for minors which she supports would be detrimental to the health of transgender minors. IE, neither of the sources you gave as examples give WP:SIGCOV or contradict the label "anti-trans activist", and both reference medical professionals/WP:MEDRS stating that the bans on care she's supporting are not evidence-based and would be detrimental to the health of trans youth. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 20:17, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

"I keyword searched "anti-trans" AND "Chloe Cole"" That explains a lot. You set out to prove what you wanted to prove yet even then you aren't proving it. Remember to add that label per LABEL the standard isn't "well sources don't prove it wrong". It's that sources commonly describe her as such. Springee (talk) 20:24, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

What is this argument even supposed to be? You set out to prove what you wanted to prove - that's the whole bloody point and somewhat WP:BLUESKY. Are you really taking issue with me creating a list of sources that describe her as "anti-trans" or state she attended "anti-trans" rallies or supported "anti-trans legislation" to show it's widespread use, by searching "anti-trans", because I didn't list every single source that's ever mentioned her for you?

WP:LABEL state unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, which I just listed examples of. Anti-trans activist is also not inherently Value-laden and in fact quite neutral, as people can support or disapprove of "anti-trans activism" without disagreeing that's what it is. WP:BLPSTYLE, which it links to, states Summarize how actions and achievements are characterized by reliable sources (emphasis mine, since you seem to think RS describing her actions as "anti-trans" don't count...)

And that was a wonderful way to skirt past the fact the two sources you offered as counter-evidence didn't provide WP:SIGCOV and in fact both mentioned medical experts saying the bills she supported were harmful to trans youth... TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 20:55, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

When applying a contentious label you need to show that it's commonly applied (perhaps you should take this question to BLPN). That is, if I pick some random source that are likely to apply that label to the subject. For instance, if the NYT called her a "trend setting teen" (example only) would you suggest we use such a label because a RS applied it? Of course not. You could rightly point out that the label was used only once even if the one source was strong. In a case like this we can find some sources that use the label. How do you decide when something moves from "we can find it with a keyword search" to "widely applied"? This is particularly true if a source gets a fair number of name hits. It may be commonly applied by sources that include the keyword "anti-trans activist". However, we would need to show that it's commonly applied among a broad range of sources, not just ones that have the keyword. That is why you need to search without the keyword and see how often the label comes up organically. You did a selective search, that doesn't prove "widely"... especially when less than half of your sources actually apply the label. Again, if you think this is wrong, raise the question at BLPN. Springee (talk) 21:34, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Let's see what happens when one doesn't put their hand on the scale and just searches "Chloe Cole", oh look the first nine sources (12 but let's ignore daily caller, daily signal and Daily Mail) do not describe her as anti trans or even come close to using those words.

NBC Bay Area, Fox News, the horror but also a valid source,NYPost, yet seems pretty straightforward reporting, Catholic News Agency,Chronicle, Fox News via Yahoo, and [KATV]. So let's hear more about how that label is clear and easily applied despite 12 sources to 1 using it in a simple review of a Google search. Slywriter (talk) 21:55, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

• WP:FOXNEWS: There is consensus that Fox News is generally reliable for news coverage on topics other than politics and science.
• WP:NYPOST: There is consensus that the New York Post is generally unreliable for factual reporting especially with regard to politics
• The CNA is discussed in a section below, where past RSN discussions have found it unsuitable for anything controversial.
• NBC bay area doesn't provide Cole's activism WP:SIGCOV, but it states The American Medical Association also has a clear stance on gender affirming care for children, urging governors to oppose any legislation interfering with a family’s decision and said it could have “tragic health consequences.”
• KATV states A well-known "detransitioner" is suing doctors for allegedly "blindly ramrodding" her through the gender transition process, giving her puberty blockers, hormones and a mastectomy without first obtaining proper informed consent. Chloe Cole, a California teen who once identified as transgender and ultimately underwent several gender change therapies, has become a household name among those discussing the harms of transgender ideology and activism.

I think this further strengthens the case for "anti-trans activist" if anything. Of the first 12 sources you found, only 3 were reliable. The Chronicle provides WP:SIRS coverage of her work and says she is a celebrity in the anti-trans movement and Cole has become a poster child for right-wing resistance to transgender care, making appearances on conservative media and offering testimony on transgender legislation in several states. NBC Bay Area doesn't provide WP:SIGCOV of Cole's activism herself (though it does of her case) but it does describe a WP:MEDRS stating that the kind of legislation she backs is considered harmful to trans youth. KATV doesn't provide WP:SIGCOV coverage of Cole's activism (though it does of her case), and even then states she's become a household name among those discussing the harms of transgender ideology and activism - plainly stating that she is a household name for those who consider "transgender ideology" (a rebranding of gender ideology) and transgender "activism" harmful.

Additionally, we should make a SIGCOV table to assess the sources and determine their weight, since hopefully we can all agree an article on her and her history of activism should be weighted more than a one-line mention of her.

P.S. Slywriter, could you fix the links you provided? A few are broken. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 22:46, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Coming here from WP:BLPN, I'm not seeing much reason why "Anti-trans activist" should be used. It could be done - it's not an entirely unreasonable description - but it just seems like an unnecessarily contentious and uninformative way to describe her (and probably not completely WP:NPOV as from my own brief search most sources didn't explicitly describe her like that). Although Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch does not explicitly say you couldn't describe someone that way, the general guidance it gives - Be cautious with expressions that may introduce bias, lack precision, or include offensive terms. Use clear, direct language. Let facts alone do the talking lends some support for an alternative description which could probably still convey roughly the same thing, but in a less contentious and more informative way

I think it could be included in the lede attributed in some manner eg. "Media outlets such as X and Y have described her as an anti-trans activist or advocate". I don't see an issue with that Tristario (talk) 23:13, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

@Tristario I could support "has been described as an anti-trans activist", though I think we have enough we don't need to specify each one and can just cite the statement to them. However, I think that it might be simpler and cut the gordian knot to say Cole is known for supporting anti-trans legislation that would legally prohibit the provision of gender-affirming care to minors, since regardless of how sources characterize her herself, they strongly support characterizing the legislation as anti-trans. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 23:30, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm not knowledgeable enough about this Cole and this subject to say what the best description is, but that would be an improvement at least. It still doesn't seem that clear to me though - what makes legislation anti-trans? That could mean a lot of different things, and it's a potentially subjective phrase. Eg. Are the bills doing other things that are anti-trans besides prohibiting gender-affirming care for minors? If so, then preferably those should just be summarized and that should be clearer. If that's all the bills are doing and that's why they're considered anti-trans - then it'd be better to just describe what the bills do and then say that Cole or the bills have been (widely) described as anti-trans (or something roughly like that - that wording could probably be improved)

In regards to the sourcing - WP:HEADLINES should be kept in mind, it seems some sources say anti-trans in the headline, but are more specific in the body of the article, and we should be following what they do in the body of the article. Tristario (talk) 00:09, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Also, I just performed a google news search for "Chloe Cole" and got different results. Considering the first 12: 1) Fox (1), 2) Chronicle (1), 3) NBC Bay Area, 4) Fox (2), 5) Chronicle (2), 6) Wyoming Public Media, 7) State of Reform, 8) KCUR, 9) National Review, 10) The Missouri Times, 11) KTVB, and 12) the Epoch Times.

We can start by discounting 1, 4, 9, and 12. I've no clue as to the reliability of 7.

• 2 and 3 were covered above
• 5 is a podcast titled The anti-trans culture war hits the Bay Area which says The case, brought by an 18-year-old who says she's de-transitioned since receiving gender-affirming care from Kaiser, is part of a backlash against transgender rights that's playing out in California's courts
• 6 describes "Chloe's law" as an "anti-trans" bill" and states Chloe Cole, a California teenager who has been traveling the country to support bills like the [anti-trans] one in Wyoming.
• 8 states Cole testified in favor of a bill banning gender-affirming care for minors, and notes that an ACLU spokesperson said “People will die. Families will suffer,” and quotes other medical experts criticizing the bill for the harm it will cause trans youth
• 9) For a start WP:NATIONALREVIEW, but it doesn't provide Cole WP:SIGCOV, just saying she's planning to sue Kaiser and states Chloe Cole, for example, says she was put onto the tran assembly line at twelve, given puberty blockers after her parents where threatened by doctors that she would commit suicide, and had a double mastectomy at age 15.
• 10 doesn't describe Cole at all, just notes her support of the SAFE act (the ridiculously anti-trans one though it doesn't use the word), notes she said she regretted treatment, and that neither her nor the other detransitioner mentioned ever recieved care in Missouri.
• 11 states In support of Rep. Skaug's bill, detransitioned speaker Chloe Cole accepted an invitation from the Idaho Freedom Foundation - a self-described conservative think tank - to speak Thursday at the Idaho statehouse. and Cole's experience received sympathy from Preston Thomson. He is the father of a 16-year-old transgender girl. The Thomson's live in Idaho; however, their experience with gender transition runs contrary to that of Cole. "If someone is trying to push [gender-affirming surgery] on [Chloe Cole], that is deplorable," Thomson said. "I don't know any parent, or very few even trans kids, who are trying to jump to a surgical intervention rout. We did not have pressure from the medical community at all." ... Under Rep. Skaug's bill, Lynn would not be able to receive her puberty blockers or hormone treatment. It would be a major step backwards for her mental health and well-being, according to the family. It also states in reference to the bill However, LGBTQ+ youth have consistently had a greater risk for depression and suicide. According to The Trevor Project, a national nonprofit, states its mission is; “To end suicide among lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer and questioning young people.” The project estimates that over 9,000 LGBTQ+ youth seriously consider suicide annually. ... Additionally, the National Institute of Health compiled 27 studies and found of the nearly 8,000 patients who did have gender affirming surgeries - both male and female - 77 had regrets.

So by my count, the first 12 results show that she has been described as "anti-trans" and is known for pushing "anti-trans" legislation, which leading health and human rights bodies have stated are detrimental to transgender youth. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 23:24, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

You're absolutely right in all of this. Fighting to ban medically necessary care for a minority group, is anti-that group. This shouldn't be hard, and the idea that LGBT news sources are in any way biased only works if one thinks that opponents of LGBT rights have any valid points, which they objectively don't. Snokalok (talk) 10:11, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Many LGBT news sources are biased, just as many (socially) conservative and/or religious sources are biased, albeit in opposite ways. Being aware of that isn't disregarding either, and neither 'camp' of course has 'medical' or expert credibility in their own right. Pincrete (talk) 10:36, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

The issue is you're putting them on equal footing. The neutral point between "no bigotry" and "yes bigotry" is not "some amount of bigotry", it's "no bigotry". In this case, the LGBT sources represent "no bigotry", while the right wing sources represent "yes". Snokalok (talk) 11:35, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm putting them on an equal footing to the extent that they both tend to share the beliefs of their 'target audience' ie are equally pre-disposed to adopt particular 'positions' - ie bias. But that doesn't make either inherently unreliable, certainly not as to their views. My own views differ from either and are less 'absolute' than either, so I don't think all (social) conservatives are bigots, nor that all LGBT sources are inherently the opposite. This whole topic area is plagued IMO by black/white divides - off wiki as much as on. Pincrete (talk) 12:14, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

A target news audience can easily be predisposed to adopt racist beliefs as well (as we've seen happen throughout history), that doesn't mean we should give racism an equal platform with not-racism. When we put our neutral point somewhere between Tucker Carlson saying LGBT people want to rape your daughter and LGBT people themselves asking to be allowed to exist in peace, then where does that our neutral point? We shouldn't change our idea of neutral just because the fascists became more fascist. Snokalok (talk) 12:54, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

A targeted activist audience can easily be predisposed to assume all who oppose their POV are doing so in bad faith. That doesn't mean we should give bias equal platform with impartial sources. Springee (talk) 12:58, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

WP:BIASED makes it clear that bias is allowed in sources and sometimes biased sources are the best possible source. Though not explicitly stated, I'd assume that taking a non neutral stance on WP:FRINGE views, as the LGBTQ sources provided do, is well within WP:RS. Filiforme1312 (talk) 11:55, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

When making subjective claims about a BLP subject biased sources are often not good. Springee (talk) 12:31, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

I think a good comparison to ask ourselves is, if an activist who frequently marched with Proud Boys and advocated for a return to segregation called themselves a "race realist", and only left wing sources called them a racist, would we call them a "race realist" or would we just state the obvious and call them a racist? Snokalok (talk) 12:46, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

I think you are inventing an example rather than looking at the facts at hand. Springee (talk) 12:53, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Not really, it's pretty comparable. The article subject marches with Proud Boys, and advocates for bans on what every major medical association agrees is medically necessary care for a specific minority group. It's not unreasonable to state that that makes her activism anti-that minority group. Snokalok (talk) 12:56, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

You are making a bunch of claims but not supporting them. Your opinion is fine but this is why we have NPOV policies. Springee (talk) 12:59, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Then allow me to grab you some sources.

[28] American Medical Association

[29] American Psychological Association

[30] American Academy of Pediatrics, American College of Physicians, American College of Obstetricians and Gynos, American Osteopathic Association, and American Psychiatric Association

[31] Endocrine Society

[32] British Medical Association]

[33] World Professional Association of Transgender Health

Would you like me to continue?

This is not a biased point of view, this is the WP:MEDRS standard, and the fact that Cole is advocating against what countless medical orgs agree is necessary care for trans people, makes her an anti-trans advocate. Snokalok (talk) 13:13, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

I asked for the research papers (in particular review papers). That the laws as passed are bad (I'm not a fan of any such absolute laws) is not the same as showing data that supports a position. Springee (talk) 19:11, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

You asked for support to my claims. My claims were that every major medical association agrees that it's necessary care, and that Cole marches with Proud Boys. Both have been substantiated (I can grab more medical orgs if you want). Snokalok (talk) 00:25, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

article subject marches with Proud Boys - covered by sources

advocates for bans on what every major medical association agrees is medically necessary care for a specific minority group - covered by sources

You are making a bunch of claims but not supporting them. - they are stating fully verifiable information

Your opinion is fine but this is why we have NPOV policies. - right back at you

That being said, the racist - race realist dichotomy works better with gender-critical - anti-trans, though AFAICT nobody's ever bothered describing her as gender-critical TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 13:18, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Oh and here's the proud boys source [34] Snokalok (talk) 13:21, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm having trouble understanding what about "anti-trans" is subjective. Its the common verbiage for this type of political engagement. Much like pro-life and pro-choice, people involved in those forms of activism have their critiques of the terms. I have my own terms I would employ in my writing instead of anti-trans, that come from a place of support for trans rights, but it is still the common neutral descriptor and feels like a good fit here.

I'm having trouble finding WP:BLPRS regarding bias in sources, but am open to it being a looser best practice or explicitly stated elsewhere. If there is concern over LGBT sources, it could easily be addressed with any of the many sources provided by TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ or others not yet mentioned here. Since the term is in such wide use, I'm certain myself or others could identify sources which address your concerns. Filiforme1312 (talk) 13:10, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

To that point, RS that aren't LGBT focused regularly call her legislation "anti-trans", her rallies "anti-trans", and note that there is an overwhelming consensus among reputable medical organizations that the legislation she pushes is detrimental to trans kids. Even then, there is actually no issue with using LGBT sources, though some insist they should be discounted... TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 13:23, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

neither 'camp' of course has 'medical' or expert credibility in their own right. - so what about the WP:MEDRS sources such as the American Medical Association saying such bans are harmful to trans kids? Or organizations such as the HRC and ACLU? TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 12:54, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Tangent about whether the ACPeds is WP:FRINGE

Neither LGBT nor conservative sources have medical or expert credibility in their own right, I thought was fairly self-explanatory. Medical experts obviously have expertise on medical matters - but even that is not universally accepted iro trans treatments. You yourself sought to discount the views of a qualified endocronologist because he belonged to the 'wrong' medical association. But even so, it takes quite a number of leaps of logic to get from AMA thinks treatment delays can be harmful to Cole=anti-trans activist. It's WP:SYNTH at best IMO. Pincrete (talk) 14:21, 28 February 2023 (UTC) It is pretty universally accepted, it is not just the AMA, but dozens upon dozens of other medical organizations, who unequivocally say that the bans Cloe supports will have detrimental effects on trans kids... Also, I sought to discount the views of a qualified endocronologist because he belonged to the 'wrong' medical association? Are we referring to the same person here? A singular individual, Laidlaw, who was only quoted in an unreliable source, and belong to the American College of Pediatricians, a WP:FRINGE organization that advocates conversion therapy and was created because they believe that gay couples should not be able to adopt kids? How the hell does that outweight the positions of dozens of actually credible medical organizations? TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 14:50, 28 February 2023 (UTC) Not universally accepted]. Wikipedia is more than the US, so kindly keep you what's the hells to yourself and stop actively seeking to paint an BLP in a negative light to fit your personal agenda. Slywriter (talk) 16:10, 28 February 2023 (UTC) Are you arguing that the American College of Pediatricians is not WP:FRINGE? Also, where in the source linked (which is not a systematic review) does it anywhere state that all gender-affirming care for minors should be completely legally prohibited? Or state a country has enacted such policies? The source itself state The discourse is polarised in the US. Conservative politicians, pundits, and social media influencers accuse providers of pushing “gender ideology” and even “child abuse,” lobbying for laws banning medical transition for minors. Progressives argue that denying access to care is a transphobic violation of human rights. There’s little dispute within the medical community that children in distress need care None of the countries mentioned in that article have fully legally prohibited gender-affirming care for minors - there is a huge difference between the extra gatekeeping they support and full legal prohibition Cole and other conservatives do. Stop actively seeking to paint an BLP in a negative light to fit your personal agenda - stop actively seeking to whitewash a BLP and misreading sources to fit WP:FRINGE apologia. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:42, 28 February 2023 (UTC) Laidlaw is a member of what the enwiki community considers to be a WP:FRINGE advocacy group. Laidlaw's individual perspective does not outweigh the mainstream medical view on transgender healthcare, which is that gender affirming care is the correct way to support trans people of all ages, and is supported by all of the organisations that both TheTranarchist and Snokalok have listed earlier in this discussion. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:00, 28 February 2023 (UTC) I never suggested Laidlaw as an authority on ANYTHING except his own views and basic medical understanding consistent with his profession (M.D.) - and never suggested using him or the publication as a source AT ALL. You dismissed Laidlaw as not being reliable iro him having verified Cole's medical history - what she was prescribed and when, ie you thought he was incapable either of being honest or of understanding basic medical records that probably any first year medical student could understand. Pincrete (talk) 00:09, 1 March 2023 (UTC) Pincrete are you sure that you're responding to the correct person when you said you thought he was incapable either of being honest or of understanding basic medical records that probably any first year medical student could understand? As I don't believe I've said words to that effect anywhere in this discussion. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:34, 1 March 2023 (UTC) Not you, TTA, further up. Pincrete (talk) 12:16, 2 March 2023 (UTC) Is Laidlow incorrect in stating other countries are reevaluating the care? If the BMJ suddenly not a reliable source? And yes, I see the intent but notice that the article lacks the term, fringe except with attribution near the end. I don't care to use Laidlow as a source but when positions are stated as being universal, yet a reliable source published content showing that other countries are re-evaluating, terms like universal don't cover it. There's plenty to say about the subject without applying a label that is more expansive than how unbiased reliable sources have covered them. Slywriter (talk) 18:56, 28 February 2023 (UTC) Seriously? I guess we can't consider a source reliable now unless there is a Wikipedia article about it containing the words "generally reliable for factual reporting". That's just not how editorial discretion works here. As shown in the thread linked by Sideswipe9th, consensus among wikipedians is clearly that this is a fringe political organization. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 19:06, 28 February 2023 (UTC) Are other countries outright legally banning all forms of gender-affirming care for minors? If not, it's irrelevant. The BMJ article is not a secondary source, it is a primary one (see WP:MEDRS) and even then it does not once recommend that gender-affirming care should be legally banned or reference a country that has done so. It states that such bans are something conservatives are lobbying for, and then says there’s little dispute within the medical community that children in distress need care, giving examples of countries that have made such care somewhat harder to access, but not outright legally banned it. Even if we discount the ridiculous argument that LGBT sources are too biased to comment on LGBT issues, other sources have frequently stated 1) Cole speaks at "anti-trans rallies" 2) Cole supports "anti-trans legislation" and 3) reputable medical and human rights organizations have stated the bans she is supporting will be detrimental to the health of trans minors. Additionally, if we put aside the BS "think of the children" argument, how exactly is campaigning for Medicaid to not cover trans healthcare even for adults not "anti-trans"? TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 19:07, 28 February 2023 (UTC) What is the question we are discussing :) ? Springee (talk) 19:14, 28 February 2023 (UTC) You're right, when we're debating how FRINGE ACPeds is we've lost all track of the question. @Maddy from Celeste @Sideswipe9th could you comment on whether the sourcing supports "anti-trans activist"? TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 19:22, 28 February 2023 (UTC) Remember that we need to sources to say it, not just be compatible with the label. We are dealing with a BLP label so Synth is not acceptable. Springee (talk) 19:51, 28 February 2023 (UTC) Sources do (and yes, LGBT publications count). Please read WP:SYNTH and WP:NOTSYNTH. If sources say a person is an anti-LGBT activist, and other reliable sources consistently say they hold "anti-LGBT rallies" and support "anti-LGBT legislation", that does add weight to the descriptor. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 20:09, 28 February 2023 (UTC) You are selectively ignoring the part about "widely used". You haven't shown the label is applied to her widely, especially outside of activist type sources. This is a BLP so we err on the side of caution. Applying a broad yet vaguely defined label is not caution. Springee (talk) 20:13, 28 February 2023 (UTC) Thanks for the link, where Wikipedia does not call them fringe. As to the rest, consensus seems against your label, so guess my position isn't white washing after all but good try. Slywriter (talk) 17:39, 28 February 2023 (UTC) It's important to remember that the enwiki community has a different definition of fringe than our sources generally do. The community consensus on ACPeds is that it is a FRINGE organisation, though we clearly do not call it that in the main space. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:46, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Whether Blade would withstand WP:BLPN scrutiny is debatable especially when higher quality sources like Retuers have avoided the term. SF Chronicle supports nothing. LGBTNation is same issue as blade. Kansas Reflector appears to be a glorified blogs journalist have complete editorial control per their own ethics statement, so unusable in a BLP. WUSF certainly says several anti trans but it fails to actually identify her as one. KC Star, WP:SYNTH. Orlando Weekly guilt by association, WP:SYNTH. Wyoming Public Media supports Day ng anti gender affirming care but not anti trans. Tennessee Lookout, if they dont't explicitly call her anti-trans, then how can we? Same for Nashville Scene... These are all WP:SYNTH and WP:OR where they match an expected worldview, come close enough to saying it, so a false belief arises that we can skip the ambiguity and just say it. Daily KOS explicitly avoids saying it and Reuters says "anti gender affirming care" so again no right for us to make the leap This is a a BLP. Need high quality sourcing to define someone's views without equivocation or attribution and frankly the Blade and LGBTNation are not those sources. And yes, sources need to say it. Synonyms and interpretations run the risk of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR, as objectively she is "anti gender affirming care to minors". Any statement beyond that is wordsmithing to fit the subject into a more restrictive and inflammatory definition and wrong. 19:43, 27 February 2023 (UTC) … … Timestamped, but left unsigned by Slywriter … This note added by Pincrete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slywriter (talk • contribs) 19:43, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

[outdent attempt no. 2] In my opinion, based on the sources here, anti-trans is supported. I also think that it is maybe the best concise descriptor for the subject's activities. I wouldn't call it essential to describe her as such – a combination of other terms to similar effect is also reasonable and fine by me – but that is where my preference lies. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 19:29, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Hmm, yet let's see Reuters makes clear the lack of science behind the recommendations. As does the Swedish National Health Board. So no, she isn't anti-trans for having gone through surgery and having concerns and sharing those concerns. Write what she has said and supported, which is focused on minors and gender-affirming care. And sideswipe, they are too biased to take a label they apply to a person with little support and use it without attribution in the lede as a defining characteristic of the person. A label which appears to even lack a clear definition to apply as ADL's definition would not apply, also hard to apply transphobic as no hate is shown (only perceived) or shall we use the vague and useless wikictionary definition of "against trans people". Sorry, but a term that doesn't have clear meaning and can be misunderstood by readers based on their own belief of the words meaning shouldn't be used to describe a BLP, when specifics are available. Concise is not an excuse to be inaccurate.Slywriter (talk) 19:50, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

@Slywriter, the idea that gender-affirming care for minors should be made illegal is wholly WP:FRINGE. Reuters is not a WP:MEDRS source, and even then it quotes/references many medical experts and reputable medical organizations saying such care is necessary. The National Review is also not a WP:MEDRS source, and the Swedish National Health Board added more gatekeeping, they did not legally ban all gender-affirming care for minors. We'll take it to RSN if we have too, but LGBT news sources are not too biased for the label anti-trans/anti-LGBT, if anything they're more reliable. The ADL defines anti-trans as The marginalization and/or oppression of people who are transgender and/or nonbinary (identifying as neither a man nor a woman) based on the belief that cisgender (gender identity that corresponds with the sex one was assigned at birth) is the norm. - the government stepping in to ban what medical consensus finds best for trans minors absolutely fits that description. As does banning medicare for trans adults, IE, treating the healthcare needs of transgender people differently than the general population... TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 20:06, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

and yet she has expressed no belief that 'cisgender is the norm'. So, the ADL definition fails. As to the rest, again all of that can be covered without a simplistic label of "anti-trans" in the lede. And no, an LGBT source labeling someone "Anti Trans" is not a better source. Not when other reliable sources avoid using the term.Slywriter (talk) 20:49, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Ah yes, for a definition to apply the person must explicitly state it in the exact same wording... Unless she is campaigning for cisgender minors to not be able to make any health decisions, or for cisgender adults to not receive Medicaid for care deemed medically necessary, she is targeting transgender people in a way she doesn't target cisgender people. Her campaigning against the right of minors to transition is by default supporting the idea that cisgender is the norm, since she believes that minors should be forced to go through cisgender puberty (ie considering it normal) and campaigns against their right to go through a transgender one (ie considering it abnormal). LGBT sources may not be better, but they are not a worse source as you seem to believe (especially when they are WP:SIRS), and regardless, other reliable sources do use the term "anti-trans" to refer to her rallies and the legislation she pushes. This is getting ridiculous... TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 22:23, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

I have a sneaking suspicion this discussion may be going around in circles. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 23:15, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

And sideswipe, they are too biased to take a label they apply to a person with little support and use it without attribution in the lede as a defining characteristic of the person. Slywriter could you please rephrase and clarify what you meant here? I've re-read my previous comments, and the context to which they were replying and I don't see how this point relates to what I previously said. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:05, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Upon my own review, no idea. Going to guess I misattributed a statement to you while scrolling in edit mode. Struck your name from above. Slywriter (talk) 00:45, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm still not sure what the rest of the sentence is in reference to, even devoid of it being a reply to me but thanks for doing this. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:32, 1 March 2023 (UTC)