Talk:Irreversible Damage

Big ol' bundle o' refs

I enjoyed reading, very much, the essay User:GreenMeansGo/Bee About. I don't strenuously object to dropping the large list of quality references that discuss the lack of evidence for and acceptance of ROGD—specifically, the ones that don't also mention Irreversible Damage. I do worry that dropping the refs only hurts the readers, who would otherwise be presented with high-quality sources that are relevant to the claim. We do have a reliable source that connects the book with the claim, so the other sources could be seen as supplements. We could even make this explicit in the ref bundle with something like "for more info on ROGD see: (list of supplementary refs)". I'm interested to know how other editors feel. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:18, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Additional context should go on Rapid-onset gender dysphoria controversy and readers who are interested can look there, and find content specifically about ROGD, using sources that are about ROGD. We shouldn't be going to The Grapes of Wrath and adding a bunch of sources about The Depression or The Dustbowl. Those are their own complex subjects that warrant, and have their own articles. The article about the book is about the book. GMG^talk 13:48, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

I have other thoughts that I might say later. For now, I must point out that if part of the reasoning here (valid or not) is "we don't need to mention details about ROGD [e.g. the sentence which had a bundle of references] in the Irreversible Damage article", then the "contentious" descriptor also needs to be discussed. LightNightLights ^(talk) 14:00, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Sure. I'm not against that. But WP editors in their individual capacity don't rebut the premise of a book. That's what the sources do. It's their job to reach up and out and connect the dots. GMG^talk 14:08, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't think that's the reasoning here, and GMG can correct me if I'm wrong. I think it's just "let's stick to what sources about the book have to say". The sources cited for "contentious" are about the book. We can talk about whether "contentious" is the best term to summarize them, but we'd get into the territory covered by the last RfC (a "no consensus" close, so certainly no reason to start a new discussion). Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:23, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Basically. For all we ought to care, reliable sources could say the book tastes great roasted on medium heat with rosemary and paired with red wine. We just don't get to say that using a source that's about wine pairings and not about the book. GMG^talk 14:39, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Nonsense. Who roasts things on "medium heat" as opposed to a set temperature? Any such sources should be considered unreliable. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:44, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

I...don't actually know whether rosemary pairs well with red wine. I'm from bourbon country. GMG^talk 14:47, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

I must say, it is a little bit ridiculous that there is a comparison being made between "sources about crayons in a 'coloring books' article" (to borrow from the mentioned U:GMG/BA) and "sources about ROGD in a 'book that is about and that endorses ROGD' article". LightNightLights ^(talk) 15:02, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes. It's intentionally a ridiculous comparison to illustrate a principle, just like my above reference to eating the book. If we want to add that content, then go forth and find sources about the subject of the article. GMG^talk 15:09, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Partly due to that last edit's summary putting words into my mouth, I'll desist from this discussion (with reservations). LightNightLights ^(talk) 15:49, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

I mean...I apologize if I gave offense. That wasn't my intention. I'm part of that old crusty group that's hung around for a while, and a silly sense of humor can be helpful in preventing burnout. I've written a few articles on books, and truth-be-told, they tend to get a short burst of attention and then left alone for many years. I'm happy to work with you on it, but I do think it's important that we hold ourselves to a high standard. GMG^talk 16:06, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

ROGD in the body

Can we add the following to the Background section? Much of this content has been in the lead for a long time without corresponding content in the body.

The contentious concept of rapid-onset gender dysphoria, which Irreversible Damage endorses, was first proposed in a 2018 paper by Lisa Littman. ROGD is not recognized as a medical diagnosis by any major professional institution and is not backed by credible scientific evidence.

References

Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:57, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me. Loki (talk) 20:46, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

This analysis and history lesson isnt related to the book --FMSky (talk) 21:22, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

It's mentioned in the book itself and by reliable sources covering the book. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:51, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

It is not neutral or accurate to say that ROGD is "not backed by credible scientific evidence". I documented above on this talk page what the sources actually say. You are cherry-picking a source. Besides that, it's not about the subject of this article. That debate can happen at the linked page. Just say that the book supports the idea. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 22:28, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

You presented some evidence above, and multiple editors tried to point out the errors. We have your disputed primary source analysis clashing with the statements of reliable secondary sources. The very short statement about ROGD, a focus of both the book and coverage of the book, is very due here. Not mentioning the mainstream view would be an NPOV violation. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:34, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting sources. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 22:37, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Please don't accuse editors of misrepresenting sources, especially when they do not appear to be misrepresenting sources. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:53, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

All the sources and evidence “supporting” the concept of ROGD are incredibly biased, coming from transgendertrend.com and similar sites. She only interviewed the so-called ROGD kids’ parents, who already believed their kids had ROGD. In conclusion it is quite safe to say ROGD is not backed by any real sources. Jacksfilms enthusiast (talk) 18:41, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm still not quite sure why content on ROGD was removed from the lead given how much of the book's premise it is based on, as well as the resulting criticisms of the book, but yes we should at minimum be mentioning this in the article's body if we weren't already. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:56, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

It wasn't removed from the lead, but the two bits about ROGD were split apart. I'd favor some reassembly. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:10, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Huh, for some reason I thought the outcome of the Big ol' bundle o' refs discussion was that it was removed from the lead. Otherwise yes, I would suggest that we should keep the two bits of text on ROGD together. When this was discussed back in August 2022, the two bits were kept together in order to comply with WP:FRINGE and WP:MEDSCI. I don't really see any arguments here, or in the discussion from January as to why this wouldn't still be the case. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:28, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

For the record, I'm agnostic to content, not to standards. GMG^talk 01:37, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

• Considering it's one of the critical topics of the book, it's rather weird it wasn't in the body before this. Your summary and sources, especially since they are sources on the book itself and not separately on ROGD, seem good for that. I have no idea what Cuñado is talking about above. All of the high level sources and scientific commentary on the subject of ROGD, including in that article proper, are very clear on it being an unsubstantiated and refuted hypothesis verging on outright pseudoscience (particularly in its usage in popular culture separate from scientific evidence). Silverseren^C 02:07, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

  Agree entirely with Silverseren. Red Fiona (talk) 10:42, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

• FYI, I posted about this at the NPOV noticeboard about 12 hours ago. The thread is WP:NPOVN#Irreversible Damage. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:18, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, this passage is reasonable and is clearly what the sources relevant to the book say. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 15:12, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Above in #Lead description I described the issue in detail, and I'd be happy to repeat the arguments and sources here if needed. The issue is pretty straightforward and the activists that came here to trash the author are misrepresenting sources and violating NPOV pretty openly, regardless of what the chat sounds like. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 18:54, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

I see you're once again calling people who disagree with you "activists", further showcasing that you shouldn't be editing in this topic area at all. Silverseren^C 19:06, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm not calling people who disagree with me activists, I'm calling people who are openly violating core content policies, "with a specific ideological, religious, political, national or other agenda" who are putting "the goal of promoting their views above that of improving the encyclopedia", activists. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 20:07, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Cuñado, if you have behavioral issues to discuss, ANI is thataway ––>. I'm sure you will have no trouble convincing the community if there is indeed tendentious editing going on here as you claim. However for the time being there does appear to be a rough consensus for FFF's addition. I'm persuaded as well, especially since WP:FRINGE requires us to identify fringe beliefs wherever we discuss them in article space. That guideline trumps other competing concerns such as e.g. WP:COATRACK, which is after all only an essay. Generalrelative (talk) 21:08, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Generalrelative I think you're missing the point of the content dispute. The source you inserted is a self-described blog to support a statement that a theory is not backed by any "credible scientific evidence". The actual statements from the original researcher and medical organizations are more along the lines of "there is not enough evidence to endorse it and it needs further study".

Sources on ROGD

Littman's original article: "Emerging hypotheses include the possibility of a potential new subcategory of gender dysphoria (referred to as rapid-onset gender dysphoria) that has not yet been clinically validated and the possibility of social influences and maladaptive coping mechanisms. Parent-child conflict may also explain some of the findings. More research that includes data collection from AYAs, parents, clinicians and third party informants is needed to further explore the roles of social influence, maladaptive coping mechanisms, parental approaches, and family dynamics in the development and duration of gender dysphoria in adolescents and young adults." When the article was revised, the same conclusion reads: "ROGD appears to represent an entity that is distinct from the gender dysphoria observed in individuals who have previously been described as transgender. The worsening of mental wellbeing and parent-child relationships and behaviors that isolate AYAs from their parents, families, non-transgender friends and mainstream sources of information are particularly concerning. More research is needed to better understand this phenomenon, its implications and scope." The WPATH statement: "a proposed clinical phenomenon that may or may not warrant further peer-reviewed scientific investigation... WPATH asserts that knowledge of the factors contributing to gender identity development in adolescence is still evolving and not yet fully understood by scientists, clinicians, community members, and other stakeholders in equal measure... WPATH encourages continued scientific exploration within a culture of academic freedom, not censorship." The AusPATH statement: "“ROGD” is an acronym describing a proposed phenomenon, with insufficient peer-reviewed scientific evidence to support its implementation and/or use within clinical, community, social and legal settings... AusPATH encourages continued scientific exploration within a culture of academic freedom, not censorship. The Bauer article: "We did not find support within a clinical population for a new etiologic phenomenon of rapid onset gender dysphoria during adolescence... Similar analyses should be replicated using additional clinical and community data sources.

The statement you re-inserted into the article is someone's misrepresentation of the status of ROGD, published on a blog. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 01:32, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

published on a blog Nope. Per WP:SBM, Science-Based Medicine is a generally reliable source, with a credible editorial board and a robust set of editorial guidelines.

You've been a bit selective with your eliding in your quotations.

• The WPATH statement also states The term “Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria (ROGD)” is not a medical entity recognized by any major professional association, nor is it listed as a subtype or classification in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) or International Classification of Diseases (ICD).
• The AusPATH statement likewise contains The term “Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria (ROGD)” is not a diagnosis or health condition recognised by any major professional association, nor is it listed as a subtype or classification in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) or International Classification of Diseases (ICD).
• And the Bauer article states This putative phenomenon was posited based on survey data from a convenience sample of parents recruited from websites, and may represent the perceptions or experiences of those parents, rather than of adolescents, particularly those who may enter into clinical care.

When we look at what the WPATH and AusPATH statements actually say, it's pretty clear. ROGD is not a recognised diagnosis by any major medical organisation. As for the lack of credible scientific evidence, the CAAPS position statement published in 2021 stated There are no sound empirical studies of ROGD and it has not been subjected to rigorous peer-review processes that are standard for clinical science. In the time since that statement was published, there have been three papers published; the November 2021 paper by Bauer (quoted above), an August 2022 paper by Turban et. al, and a March 2023 paper by Turban et. al. All three have found evidence that runs counter to the ROGD hypothesis. And to my knowledge, to date there have been no researchers independent of Littman who have found any evidence in support of the theory. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:03, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

And this is all plainly exhibited in our ROGD article. Cuñado seems to very much be promoting a WP:FRINGE position here. Silverseren^C 04:06, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for pulling this together Sideswipe9th. I'll add that calling for more research (or "scientific exploration") shouldn't be read as any kind of endorsement. It's some of the most boilerplate language there is in science/medicine. We have an article on the cliché. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:13, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I think that text was a good and necessary addition. When the main thing the book is about is X (as discussed by RS), and the main thing about X is that it's not credible/credited (as discussed by RS), and RS about the book point that out, it'd frankly be undue (arguably profringe) for the article to leave it out. If anything, the current wording is a bit too wishy-washy and could stand to be even more to the point. -sche (talk) 15:42, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks -sche. I'm in agreement with you about how we're characterizing ROGD. We had a RfC about the wording a year and a half ago that ended in no consensus. I'm not sure that enough has changed since then to try again, but I'm not opposed. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:06, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

You're pretty much just describing textbook SYNTH. We don't go to Animal Farm and include a bunch of otherwise unrelated sources about husbandry, to make sure readers have the broader context of why Boxer is being carted away to be turned into glue. Context about slaughtering horses to make glue should go on the main article for Adhesive.

If sources about the book cover it, then we use the sources covering it in the context of the book. The only reason we're having this discussion is because it feels politically timely and topical in popular culture in a way that horses and glue don't. But it doesn't matter. It's the same principle. If we're using sources generally and not sources about the subject of the article, then that is our own original research. GMG^talk 10:51, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

And I'm not sure it's worth mentioning, because it's been a staple of this talk page, but I still very much get the impression that I'm the only one here who actually read the daggum book. GMG^talk 10:57, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Re If sources about the book cover it, then we use the sources covering it in the context of the book. So we're in agreement that the added text about the book, which is cited to references about the book, is good? As I said, we include it if [...] RS about the book do, and the RS cited above do. -sche (talk) 12:58, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure what specific text you are referring to. I've been off working on a bunch of random stuff and arguing with a COI account for a logistics company. But in general yes, as I said above, I'm agnostic to content, not to standards. Using sources not about the subject is original research. If it's relevant, we are not the ones who decide that, the sources are. Ours is to simply follow their lead. GMG^talk 13:49, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

The debate here is not whether ROGD is credible or not, it's whether that statement belongs in the first paragraph of this article, which is about a book. The first sentence already describes ROGD as "controversial" and links to the ROGD article which contains criticisms. The second sentence is unnecessary and is hurting NPOV. Fnordware (talk) 16:49, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

The second sentence is required by WP:NPOV (and the WP:FRINGE guideline which builds on it). Anytime we mention ROGD we need to make clear to the reader that it is not an accepted medical diagnosis. In this case that's the first paragraph. Failing to do so would be WP:FALSEBALANCE. Generalrelative (talk) 17:05, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

No we do not. A simple mention of ROGD is not an endorsement of it, does not require a rebuttal. It is already described as "controversial" which is an accurate and neutral description. Fnordware (talk) 06:10, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers: would you care to respond to the very reasonable objections expressed here? Zacwill (talk) 15:19, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

I think my position here is pretty clear, as it was in prior discussions here and here (among other prior discussions). I'd rather not just trade assertions without engaging in discussion about actual sources. Are there new ones that might shift the consensus here? Is there a new argument to be made about the existing sources? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:26, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

As Fnordware said above, we're not talking about the reliability of the statement – we're talking about whether it belongs in the first paragraph of the article. The sources are irrelevant. Zacwill (talk) 15:40, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

I may have misinterpreted Fnordware's "A simple mention of ROGD is not an endorsement of it, does not require a rebuttal." I understood that to mean he was in fact questioning the reliability of the statement. Are you concerned primarily with placement in the first paragraph? Your edits removed it from the lead entirely. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:01, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it belongs in the lead at all. It's enough to note that the concept of ROGD is "controversial" and then include more detailed commentary in the body of the article. Note that the statement I removed also appears more or less verbatim in the Background section. Zacwill (talk) 16:59, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Zacwill, you are correct, and I think there is consensus to change it. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 20:31, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

There was never consensus to change it and I can't believe you're still beating this dead horse a year later. Silverseren^C 21:06, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Maybe I should have said, there is not consensus to keep it. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 15:54, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

The lead line is a shortened version of the relevant body content, which is as it should be. I don't think noting that ROGD is "controversial" is sufficient; I think it's especially important to pair biomedical-adjacent, fringe-adjacent ideas in conjunction with the mainstream view. Also, MOS:CONTROVERSIAL gives some reasons why "controversial" is not preferred as a stand-alone descriptor. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:56, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

revert

How, exactly, are you justifying this revert? Cuñado ☼ - Talk 19:16, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

As I said in the edit summary, per the rough consensus in this section. There is a rough consensus for the version that Firefanglefeathers drafted, which I restored. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:37, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Cuñado, don't you have the framing backward? What justification would you put forward for your bold edit? At a glance, it looks like you replaced the content we (roughly) agreed upon above with content that is cited to sources that are not about the book. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:40, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I have reverted your change. It seems that there is a loose consensus that the tag is unwarranted. If you disagree, then please work with the other editors to arrive at a new consensus. Thank you. Hist9600 (talk) 00:46, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Organization of Reception section

I have a few comments on how the reception section is currently lacking in terms of organization. This is a common feature of reception sections of non-fiction books, so I don't know that I have perfect solutions, but perhaps together we can work out something.

The lead paragraph's tallying up of positive vs negative reviews from different sources does not strike me as particularly useful information, and means that the first paragraph is mostly taken up with a list of publications and reviewer names. Those reviewer names are then restated in full one after the other as their comments are summarized across the following paragraphs, mostly without another reference to the publication they are from. This requires the reader do frequent referencing of that first paragraph to keep in context the publication venue, which if it is important information to include in the first place, is an inelegant way to present it. This structure also creates a readability problem with Wikilinks. Most of the reviewers are wikilinked at their first mention in the lead paragraph, when, I would assume, most readers are going to want to be looking for more information about the reviewer when they are actually engaging with that reviewers comments, which occurs over several paragraphs below. As it currently is written, several of those writers are re-linked when when their comments are presented, but that isn't good linking practice, so it would be preferable to find a different solution.

The paragraphs themselves are not totally clear to me at first glance; they are currently structured around grouping together the positive/mixed/negative reviews but could probably benefit from topic/summary sentences to make that clearer, or could instead be structured around particular comments made in reviews and commentaries. I would be in favour of reorganizing the paragraphs around aspects of the book that have been commented on (the overall argument, the sourcing, the presentation, the metacritique by reviewers of other reviews). That final paragraph, on the controversy around Hall's reviews probably should stay more or less as it is, because it presents a particular publication conversation that is prompted by Hall's review of the book; but given that there is a significant metacommentary within other reviews, perhaps those comments could be integrated or put adjacent to the paragraph on Hall's review.

Also, it is not totally clear to me why the comments from The Economist is presented in a strange way. The magazine including the book in its best books of 2020 should probably be in that lead paragraph if that will continue to be a tally of positive/negative reviews, and the lack of a credited author from The Economist's longer piece (is it an unsigned editorial?) makes the adjacency of the best books and the comments read awkwardly.

This section page has been subject to a degree of edit warring recently, so I wanted to ask for comments before I made some of these changes. Thank you for reading. Handpigdad (talk) 01:29, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Author Link

The author has a Wikipedia page, which should be linked to in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.187.120.202 (talk) 06:48, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done, thanks! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:09, 11 April 2024 (UTC)