Jump to content

Talk:Rapid-onset gender dysphoria controversy/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 8

RFC: Should the websites she surveyed be described as "anti-trans" in the lead?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is a majority of users who agree the label should be used to describe the mentioned websites in the lede, with discussions happening before, during, and after the original closure of this RfC. Those in favor have presented several reliable sources, of differing qualities, that mention either one or all of those sites as being "gender critical" or similar (such as "anti-transgender bias"). Participants also mentioned the importance of using this label due to the fact some of the issues raised about the study are related to the point of view of these websites.

Editors that opposed the label have raised a variety of issues, beginning with verifiability and WP:NPOV, claiming the sources presented are not enough to justify the label being suggested. Another point discussed was the idea that, since some of the sources shown are unrelated to the subject (i.e. not about the research), this could be seen as WP:SYNTH. Further discussion, as well as editing of the article, appears to have solved the verifiability and synth issues, there still remains the issue of WP:LABEL.

The strength and amount of sources presented by supporters show that there is a consensus to add the label to the lede of the article. A discussion that happened after the initial closure focused on the LABEL topic and showed some consensus towards having enough high-quality sources to justify using the label without attribution, though editors are encouraged to keep discussing the subject to see whether attribution is needed or not. (non-admin closure) Isabelle 🔔 01:16, 27 January 2022 (UTC)


Previous RFC close on 29 Dec (reopened on 10 Jan due to concerns the original RFC didn't run long enough, see below)
There is strong consensus that the websites 4thWaveNow, Transgender Trend, and Youth TransCritical Professionals should be labeled as "anti-trans" (or other similar wordings), within the lead section of this article or otherwise. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 20:09, 29 December 2021 (UTC)}}
A. C. Santacruz closed the discussion at the time/date listed above. I reopened the RfC on 10 January with this edit, in which I also collapsed this closing comment. Firefangledfeathers 18:10, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Should the websites used by Littman to recruit parents (4thWaveNow, Transgender Trend, and Youth TransCritical Professionals) be labeled "anti-trans" in the lead section? Firefangledfeathers restarted 18:09, 10 January 2022 (UTC), originally opened 08:01, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

EDIT: In case it wasn't clear, I support adding "anti-trans", but frankly I oppose the creation of this RFC. This was never intended to be an RFC, and as you can see in my original statement below, my whole intention of creating this section was to argue that consensus was already plenty clear. Loki (talk) 23:59, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

We've already established consensus for this above I think, but moving it down here so we have it more explicitly.

In addition to the several sources mentioned above for this fact, I honestly think that for 2/3 of the websites in question it is WP:BLUESKY. It's literally called "Youth Trans Critical Professionals"; who could possibly argue that such a site is anything but "anti-trans" with a straight face? They're saying they're anti-trans! It's right there in their name! (And similar for "Transgender Trend"; while it takes maybe a tiny bit more context to understand that one, they're saying that being transgender is the trend, thus they are anti-transgender.) Loki (talk) 00:11, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

I see no such consensus established. The label wasn't even discussed. WP:NOTBLUE, and the meaning of "Transgender Trend" is open to interpretation - they don't necessarily think that being trans in itself is a trend if they are speaking of what they consider to be people falsely believing they are trans if they are not. I am not really familiar with the group though, so I don't know what their beliefs are for sure. However, we are supposed to describe things the way WP:Secondary sources do, not pick a label we like and then justify it with 'it's literally in the name!'. Crossroads -talk- 00:18, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
The consensus in question is Aquillion, Newimpartial, Bodney, SreySros, NorthBySouthBaranof, and now me, vs just you. (Also just for the sake of it, I do want to ask the people who weighed in the discussion above but did not register an opinion on this particular question: Silver_seren and Mathglot.) Loki (talk) 00:28, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
I'm in agreement with you that the websites in question are specifically direct in their names and their about pages. They're not wanting to hide that stance, since it is the point of the websites/forums in general. Hence why the sub-title for 4thwavenow is "A community of people who question the medicalization of gender-atypical youth". SilverserenC 00:32, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
Not a single one of them says anything above about labeling the sites as "anti-trans" in the article text. That was never discussed or attempted before today. Feel free to quote where I missed it. It is of course possible that some of them will now agree with the idea, but that is not the same as an existing consensus. Crossroads -talk- 00:41, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
Bodney I'm inferring from their support of a previous edit which describes the websites similarly, but for the others:
Newimpartial: I support adding a characterization of the websites from recruitment took place in the lede, as I regard the recruitment bias as in some ways a more fundamental issue with the Littman paper than the reliance on parents' self report
Aquillion: Here is another source that may be relevant, which notes that "The sites where Littman advertised the study are critical of gender affirmative care for trans youth and promote skepticism regarding young people’s trans identities." We are already citing it once in the article, but only briefly and lumped in with other sources; it's also a decent source on the sites Littman used, since as far as I can tell it's (at a glance) one of the higher-quality ones discussing it. At the very least I don't think it would make sense to omit this omission in the original paper... Loki (talk) 00:48, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
SreySros: Oh nice, that's a useful source. I think we should cite that, along with the Wadman and Ashley sources to have a unified description of the sites both in the lead section and in the body (not necessarily the exact same description, we should probably go into more detail in the body) – something a bit cleaner than the clumsy "A described the first two as "X", and the third as "Y". B described the first as "Z", and the latter two as "W"" construction that we have now.
NBSB: This means that the study explicitly targeted people who a priori believed ROGD is a real thing, and that even if it was linked somewhere other than the three listed sites, there wouldn't be a meaningful difference in the sample because the author only wanted responses from people who think their child is experiencing ROGD. ... Utterly and completely invalid for any other purpose, including to claim that ROGD even exists. And that's why all the major mental health and sexuality organizations rejected it offhand. (Admittedly, this one also requires some inference, but I don't think it requires much inference to say that if you argue at length that a detail is relevant in a discussion about whether it should be in the lead, you support it being in the lead.) Loki (talk) 00:48, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
These are all arguments for describing the websites in some way, but none specify "anti-trans". And other terms like 'opposing gender affirmative care' are not equal in meaning. Do not claim people said something they didn't say. Crossroads -talk- 01:00, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
Given that one of the sources, Ashley outright states Littman's paper was based on surveys from anti-trans websites, and there are other reliable sources independent of the discussion on ROGD stating they are anti-trans it is a fair term to use. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:25, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
I am not seeing reliable sources argue that these are anti-trans webpages. They are certainly not webpages that fit within certain dominant ways of talking about being trans, but this is not the same thing as being anti-trans. If we can build up reliable sources as saying these are anti-trans in the body than perhaps this should be summarized in the lead--but this has not been done yet. Also, number of editors does not, and should not, decide what stays in a an article, but the strength of arguments based on reliable sources.- Pengortm (talk) 00:36, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
While it's true that consensus is not a vote, the number of editors on each side does matter. There is no objective way to determine the strength of arguments, and so Wikipedia's decision making processes have always involved some amount of deferring to the majority, especially if that majority is very large relative to the opposition, as it is here. It has never been the case that a single editor or two editors can block seven other editors from a preferred change by screaming "no consensus". Loki (talk) 00:42, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
The academic papers in response to Littman's specifically note that the three websites are anti-trans. That has been actively discussed in sections above. And if you want more news-based sources on that, you have:
"Anti-trans pressure group Transgender Trend has complained that somebody bought its domain name and directed it to a pro-transgender charity"
"Responding to the BBC coverage, ‘4thWaveNow’, another well-known anti-trans group, said"
"Dr Littman’s participants in the study were recruited from three blogs; 4thWave Now, Transgender Trend, and Youth Trans Critical Professionals, all known to have an anti-transgender bias"
But, like I said, the academic study responses already noted all this. SilverserenC 00:46, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
Sources on Transgender Trend being an anti-trans webpage/group. Two are primary of which one is a social media post, two are secondary of which one is media and the other a journal paper.
This is from a quick 5 minute Google search. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:53, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for this. I am not certain that these are reliable sources. In any case, it seems this should be built up based on reliable sources in the body of the article and then summarized in the lead after this. Readers should not have to dive into long talk pages to see the sourcing. -Pengortm (talk) 21:59, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
  • I explicitly support describing the websites in question as "anti-trans." This is not even a debatable question. Is anyone honestly going to argue that a group called "Youth Trans Critical Professionals" is not anti-trans? 4thWaveNow explicitly states The purpose of this site is to give voice to an alternative to the dominant trans-activist and medical paradigm currently being touted by the media. Transgender Trend states We are an organisation of parents, professionals and academics based in the UK who are concerned about the current trend to diagnose children as transgender, including the unprecedented number of teenage girls suddenly self-identifying as ‘trans’ (Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria or ROGD). No one is "concerned" about something if they don't think that thing is bad or wrong in some way. The rhetoric on these sites is clearly intended to create doubt or fear about transgender people - for example, Transgender Trend feeds the anti-transgender bathroom hysteria: We also want to provide information on legislation regarding the use of public toilets, bathrooms and changing rooms for parents who are concerned about the child protection and safeguarding issues this raises. You can't honestly raise the bathroom bill moral panic and not be described as "anti-trans." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:19, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes, they are anti-trans - just to be clear: these are all in fact correctly termed "anti-trans" websites. I remember looking for the most directly sourced language on this, and anti-transgender bias from inews is probably the most succinct statement made directly in a publisher's editorial voice. Regardless of the phrase used, the sites are all clearly anti-trans and are described as such (in various specific language) in all quality sources on this topic (setting aside Littman's paper, of course, which did not name them in the initial version and which used MANDY language about them in the revised version). Newimpartial (talk) 01:20, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Strong support describing the websites in question as "anti-trans". No doubt reliable sources do, and NPOV does not mean censor bad things. This appears to be a WP:ONEAGAINSTMANY dispute. ––FormalDude talk 01:25, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Support describing the websites as "anti-trans". Despite not being involved in the prior discussion, this is an accurate label to use based on reliable sources, both media and scholarly. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:27, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
  • I also explicitly SUPPORT describing the web source used as "anti-trans". Littman explicitly and purposefully targetted trans sceptical & critical parents & web meeting places. (LOL 5th or 6th Attempt to squeeze my contribution in) ~ BOD ~ TALK 01:30, 25 December 2021 (UTC) Add: The "targeted"websites used in the flawed ROGD 'study' are by their own self descriptions and by reliable sources can be described as anti-trans (whether individually and/or grouped collectively). ~ BOD ~ TALK 12:23, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose because I don't think this is a good summary of the secondary sources, which even when highly critical often use other terms that are not equivalent. Also, the correction states, It has come to light that a link to the recruitment information and research survey was posted on a private Facebook group perceived to have a pro-gender-affirming perspective during the first week of the recruitment period (via snowball sampling). This private Facebook group is called “Parents of Transgender Children” and has more than 8,000 members. Likely some secondary sources cover this too, and the Science secondary source does note she asked for the study to be passed on. Crossroads -talk- 02:16, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
    Firstly we go by what she actually used and secondly she was still targeting sites where parents already believed their children had experienced ROGD and thus were trans denying, trans dismissing and anti trans venues. It is a good clear, concise and accurate summary for the Lead. ~ BOD ~ TALK 12:58, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment - Have an RFC on the matter. GoodDay (talk) 02:46, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Support, obviously; it's a concise summary of what the sources say and is a common enough descriptor for the group that it seems hard to argue that it is controversial. --Aquillion (talk) 04:08, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Support For a one-word summary, it's accurate and supportable. Of course, there might be differences in doctrine among them, but that's a matter of detail which seems beside the point in the present context. XOR'easter (talk) 04:53, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Support. Yes, anti-trans seems a concise summary of the reliable sourcing we have describing the sites, both from scientific publications and news sources. The one-word description is (obviously) not specific enough for the body, in which we should elaborate on the user populations, behaviors and missions of the sites according to the sourcing we have. But for the lead, it's crucial that we communicate this characteristic of the sample population, as it's essential to understanding the controversy (which is, after all, the subject of this article). Srey Srostalk 05:22, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
    I've done a quick search and tried to collate the RS support for the wording in one place, given that the RfC is now open again and it's a bit much for people to have to read through the entire multi-section discussion (3500+ words) on this page:
    • The three websites as a group
      1. The Sociological Review (Ashley) ([1]): ...based on parental reports sampled from transantagonistic websites
      2. iNews ([2]): Dr Littman’s participants in the study were recruited from three blogs... all known to have an anti-transgender bias
      3. Buzzfeed News ([3]): ...those three websites are known for their trans-critical views.
    • Transgender Trend
      1. PinkNews ([4]): Anti-trans pressure group Transgender Trend has complained...
      2. International Journal of Sociology ([5]): Mentions the site as an example of the anti-transgender movement in the United Kingdom. Lobby groups who campaign against trans rights are usually at pains to stress their support for trans people. One such group claims... whereas others such as Transgender Trend allege...
    • 4thWaveNow (sources found by Aquillion below)
      1. PinkNews ([6]): ‘4thWaveNow’, another well-known anti-trans group, said...
      2. European Journal of English Studies ([7]): ...one of the most worrying conservative narratives that feminism currently has to face is the accusation of its having developed and spread a so-called ‘gender ideology’... Accusations of gender ideology, which have spread rapidly through Latin-America and Europe are anti-feminist and anti-trans in their intentions.... Some, e.g., “a community of people who question the medicalization of gender-atypical youth” also conflate queer theory with so-called “gender ideology” and refer to a “postmodern influenced gender ideology, a subset of ‘queer theory’,” which they also call “genderism” or “gender theory” (See 4thWaveNow 2019, retrieved on June 12th)
      3. The Sociological Review (Pearce et. al.) ([8]) When discussing the political landscape of anti-trans politics, the paper uses 4thWaveNow as an example to point to a significant upsurge in public anti-trans sentiment in the UK. Increasingly, they argue that such developments result from what they call ‘gender ideology’ (see e.g. 4thWaveNow, 2019)... The language of ‘gender ideology’ originates in anti-feminist and anti-trans discourses among right-wing Christians, with the Catholic Church acting as a major nucleating agent. In the last decade the concept has been increasingly adopted by far-right organisations and politicians in numerous American, European and African states.
    I've likely missed a few (or more), so let me know if I've missed any other examples and I'll add them here. Srey Srostalk 21:32, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment "The websites in question" is likely completely clear to those of you who have been following this page. But one purpose of an RfC is to get input from uninvolved editors. To this end, it would help to prominently state which websites you are asking about. Adoring nanny (talk) 10:23, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Support - it seems pretty clear that, between other sources and their own self descriptions, that these sites are describable as anti-trans. Remagoxer (talk) 12:06, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Strong support. (I'm not sure whether this is the RFC, or if that is going to be done separately, but as responses are gathering here I'll add mine here too.) Obviously, those websites are all anti-trans. One of them says so in its own freely chosen name and the others have made unambiguous statements to this effect. (See comment by NorthBySouthBaranof above.) Given how direct they are about this, I suspect that they might even be insulted if we didn't say that they are anti-trans. Anyway, we have more than sufficient valid sources to say this. It is not controversial. I am more than a little bemused that this question even needs asking, never-mind in an elaborate RFC. So that just leaves the issue of whether it needs saying in the introduction. I think it does. It is one of the key facts about what the ROGD Controversy is and the introduction has to summarise the whole article. If people read only the introduction then they should get a basic view of what the topic is and isn't. While the introduction is a little long, I don't think we are bloating it out by retaining this one very short phrase which is important for a correct understanding of the nature of the topic of this article. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:38, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
I have no objection to the RFC being reopened for the benefit of anybody who missed out due to the holidays but I stand by my assessment above. I really don't see a live issue here. We have the sources. These organisations are openly and proudly anti-trans. I suspect that they would be mortified if we suggested otherwise. It is right to give everybody a chance to have their say but I can't see this ending any other way than it did previously. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:29, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
It's not my RFC. FormalDude added the RFC tag. I didn't even want it to be an RFC, I thought the consensus was pretty clear without having to go thru a formal process. Loki (talk) 23:59, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
I agree, but since someone was going to protest on the fact that there was never a formal rfc, I'd rather just get it over with. ––FormalDude talk 00:04, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
My apologies, Loki. If either you or FormalDude want to tweak the opener or signature, be my guest. Firefangledfeathers 00:22, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
Uncalled for. I only ever reverted the descriptor once, and that was after another editor did so. That same editor made a critical comment early on. And Wikipedia is not some totalitarian state where thoughtful dissent is "intransigent". I didn't even start this RfC. Crossroads -talk- 06:14, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
    • Since the RfC is open again, I suppose I should take this opportunity to point out that Sennalen's claim above in their vote is just blatantly incorrect, as anyone reading even just the beginning of the RfC could see. For example: Dr Littman’s participants in the study were recruited from three blogs; 4thWave Now, Transgender Trend, and Youth Trans Critical Professionals, all known to have an anti-transgender bias (Source). so their vote/reasoning should be disregarded by the closer. SilverserenC 18:37, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
      I agree. After reading more sources, I changed my mind, but the RfC had closed by that point. Sennalen (talk) 18:40, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
      The clamor to label strikes me as participating in the dispute more than describing it. Other phrasing would be better, but "anti-trans" is sufficiently sourced. Sennalen (talk) 18:47, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support. If "anti-trans" was somehow a precise, well-defined, and very specific term, like "anti-matter", then calls for sources that are equally very specific would be justified, but "anti-trans" is a general term, just meaning not aligned with the concept of transgender, more like "anti-communist" and such. The sources provided are more than sufficient for summarizing the websites as "anti-trans". --A D Monroe III(talk) 23:13, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support. Accurate, well sourced, and a consensus already existed. Agree with LokiTheLiar, though, that there was no need for an RfC. Despite the clamours of certain parties who love their drama, a RfC is not the answer to every disagreement, and one should rarely be the first option chosen. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 10:16, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The term "anti-transgender," as applied to a person or a group (rather than labeling a policy), is a value-laden and controversial WP:LABEL, used pejoratively to discredit the targets. I believe it would also be inadvisable per WP:BLPGROUP, in this case. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 21:18, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
    • BLPGROUP says, The extent to which the BLP policy applies to edits about groups is complex and must be judged on a case-by-case basis.... When in doubt, make sure you are using high-quality sources. I think that is exactly what we are doing here. There is also no established precedent (say on WT:WTW) that LABEL applies to "anti-trans" - that is the position held by one group of editors, in a dispute with another group of editors. Newimpartial (talk) 21:41, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
      • Given an absence of consensus that LABEL does not apply to "anti-trans", then surely the principle of WP:BLP and WP:NPOV would be to err on the side of caution and leave it off. Crossroads -talk- 06:55, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
        • So now, not only does "consensus" mean whatever is convenient for you in a particular dispute (typically you plus one editor agreeing with you, but a much larger proportion and number of editors if they disagree with you), but now also non-consensus means a consensus to do what you want because of some reverse onus is other. There is a case study of some kind to be done here, I'm sure. Newimpartial (talk) 14:44, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
    Lwarrenwiki, in the case of anti-trans being a controversial label, you are assuming a precedent or consensus that does not exist from what I know, and based on the number of editors supporting using that label here, is unlikely to exist. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 22:03, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

How sources about ROGD describe the three websites as a group

If anyone knows of other sources please let me know. Same for if I missed pertinent parts of the quoted sources. I aim to collect here sources that are about ROGD and describe the sites Littman primarily surveyed. We should be relying on how these secondary sources describe them rather than picking a term and looking for support post facto, or taking a term used to describe one or two and extending it to all 3.

  • She recruited the parents from three websites where she had seen parents describe sudden transgender transitions in their adolescents—4thWaveNow, Transgender Trend, and Youth TransCritical Professionals. The first two are gathering places for parents concerned by their children’s exploration of a transgender identity. (The third website is closed to nonmembers.)...She encouraged wide distribution of the survey beyond the websites where she launched it, she told ScienceInsider in an email, and that she plans to interview youth in follow-up work. Science, News section
  • The first recorded use of ‘rapid-onset gender dysphoria’ was 2 July 2016 in a post on the blog 4thWaveNow, which is dedicated to opposing gender-affirmative care for trans youth. The post invited parents of children who evidenced ‘a sudden or rapid development of gender dysphoria beginning between the ages of 10 and 21’ to participate in a study by Lisa Littman, then an adjunct assistant professor of preventive medicine at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York (4thWaveNow, 2016). The study also recruited participants via Transgender Trend and Youth Trans Critical Professionals, organisations dedicated to opposing ‘trans ideology’, giving rise to serious concerns about sampling bias (Restar, 2020) The Sociological Review
  • The sites where Littman advertised the study are critical of gender affirmative care for trans youth and promote skepticism regarding young people’s trans identities. Youth TransCritical Professionals is a private site depicted as “concerned about the current trend to quickly diagnose and affirm young people as transgender, often setting them down a path toward medical transition.” Transgender Trend describes itself as a group of “parents questioning the trans narrative.” The site claims to be “for anyone,” including feminists, gays and lesbians, who contest “new policies and legislation based on subjective ideas of “gender” rather than the biological reality of sex.” 4thWaveNow, whose home page quotes Adrienne Rich, self-describes as a “community of parents & others concerned about the medicalization of gender-atypical youth and rapid-onset gender dysphoria (ROGD).” Sexualities
  • Lisa Littman, M.D., and MPA and a researcher at Brown University, conducted a study surveying the experiences of parents involved in one of four online communities for parents of transgender children or "gender skeptical" parents and children. Psychology Today

Crossroads -talk- 02:08, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

I object to the premise. If different sources individually identify each of the three sites as "anti-trans" or similar phrasing, it is perfectly acceptable for us to collectively identify the sites as "anti-trans." We do not need to rely solely on sources discussing all three. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:22, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
When writing articles we normally rely on sources about the topic of the article. Why aren't those sources good enough? Crossroads -talk- 02:33, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
There is no requirement that we use only "sources about the topic of the article," particularly to support statements about something other than the topic of the article - and the topic of this article is not the three websites in question. But it is, of course, relevant to this article that the three websites are repeatedly described by sources as being anti-trans. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:12, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
That carries a high risk of WP:SYNTH. How else would one decide what statements about something mentioned in the article are relevant to the main topic? It opens the door to possibly cherry-picking sources that say what has already been decided on that may not be representative. Crossroads -talk- 05:38, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
SYNTH is only prohibited if it is original synthesis. Otherwise, synthesis is literally what encyclopedia writing is about. Taking three different sources that individually say three different sites are anti-trans and combining them to say the sites are collectively anti-trans... is not original synthesis - it's just encyclopedia writing. There is no novel conclusion nor contained in any of the sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 11:06, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
NorthBySouthBaranof, are there any RS contextualizing these websites with how ROGD is involved? If not, then I share the SYNTH concern. CutePeach (talk) 18:27, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
Crossroads please Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. There is a very clear consensus directly above to classify the websites as "anti-trans". This is hair-splitting and multiple categories of tendentious. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:26, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
Listing sources for an explicitly open-ended purpose and inviting others to contribute is the opposite of tendentious. And the discussion on "anti-trans" started less than 3 hours ago, so it's a little soon to declare it settled. Crossroads -talk- 02:40, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
This conversation started out with an editor, Loki, pointing out the very clear consensus against you. So don't lie, please. ––FormalDude talk 06:29, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
And as I have said, no consensus existed at that time since adding "anti-trans" had never been done or mentioned before then. Not me who was lying. Crossroads -talk- 07:07, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
And as everyone else had said;: yes, a consensus did exist. That's why you were reverted after all. ––FormalDude talk 09:08, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Have an RFC on the topic. GoodDay (talk) 02:47, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

The proper place to start is not "Can the sites used in the study be described as anti-trans?" (subject to verifiability, balance of reliable sources, etc.). The questions to start with are "Can site {NAME}, which was used in the study, be described as anti-trans?" (subject to etc.) for each of the sites. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 03:15, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

GoodDay, someone else should start the RfC. You can see how I've been attacked here just for starting this section. Crossroads -talk- 05:38, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
Crossroads, you're not being attacked here. You're being disagreed with. That disagreement appears to be on both content-specific and meta levels simultaneously. But conflict is not abuse, which is a principle I believe you know well. Personally, I've learned a great deal from your example in the past, so please take this as a good faith reflection from someone who respects you. Generalrelative (talk) 18:59, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
I respect you too, and I certainly agree that conflict is not an attack, but to be clear, I didn't mean everyone who disagreed with me. I had especially in mind a particular comment where I was accused of tendentiousness for quoting sources. Crossroads -talk- 04:15, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

How about an RFC

Greater input from outsiders, would not be a bad idea. What say you all? GoodDay (talk) 06:16, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

We already have people weighing in on support and oppose in the section above. If you really want an RfC, you can just slap the template on that discussion. It would be a lot simpler. SilverserenC 06:24, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
Rare to slap a RFC tag on a discussion that's already in progress. But, if there's no major objections, I'll do it. For the moment, I'll wait 'here' for more input, just in case there 'are' major objections to it. GoodDay (talk) 06:28, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
If it goes to a probably unnecessary RFC I agree with NorthBySouthBaranof and ArglebargleIV The question should not be a fixed together question like "Are the three websites used in the study about ROGD described as anti-trans as a group?" We do not need to rely on secondary sources that discuss all three websites together. Three or more separate questions should be asked e.g. "Can site {NAME}, which was used in the study, be described as anti-trans?" (subject to etc.) for each of the sites. ~ BOD ~ TALK 11:19, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
It's already been begun, by another editor. GoodDay (talk) 14:40, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
Even tho it's already been started, I'd like to object to it. RfCs are good for discovering whether there is a consensus when it's ambiguous. They are not useful when there is already a clear consensus and just one or two editors are WP:STONEWALLing. In those situations, they just slow the consensus-supported change down significantly, effectively supporting the tendentious editors at the expense of everyone else. Loki (talk) 19:50, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

What does "being anti trans" actually mean? Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:04, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Well, for example, it means promoting a moral panic which demonizes transgender people as sexual predators for the dangerous act of... using public toilets. Which Transgender Trend explicitly does, by stating that there are "child protection and safeguarding issues" with trans people using bathrooms. Clearly false and clearly anti-trans. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:18, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
Why were sex segregated toilets introduced in the first place? Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:29, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
Not here to debate your feels. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:45, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
I thought it meant people who didn't believe in the existence of trans gender. GoodDay (talk) 14:40, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
NorthBySouthBaranofjust gave an clear example of that, of a website used as a basis of this flawed study(?) that used an anti trans trope (Trans people are somehow a danger to children, heck they might brainwash or molest them) Anti trans can describe many negative attitudes towards transgenderism and trans people including sources that are gathering places for parents that reject the possibility that their children might be trans but are convinced that their children have been wrongly persuaded by their peers or social media or evil trans elves or aliens or whatever baseless theory we can think of. ~ BOD ~ TALK 15:06, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Comment - Skeptical as I generally am about the fact-value distinction, I do think it illuminates something here - RfCs have potential for gaining triangulation on questions of policy/community values, but as far as gathering and assessing RS evidence ("fact") is concerned, I don't find that they work particularly well. Newimpartial (talk) 14:48, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Going by the current trend, it appears it's going to be a rubber stamp. GoodDay (talk) 15:31, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
is social contagion a thing for eating disorders or teenage pregnancy? If so, then I think it'd be germane to do a study on whether it exists in other aspects of mental health or life decisions as well. Such as dysphoria, smoking, acquisition of motorcars and so on. Whether the study is of particularly high quality is of course another thing entirely... Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:24, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

As I haven't participated in this discussion, I'd be glad to close it in a few days. Firefangledfeathers I assume you added the RfC tag, but as far as I can see the relevant WPs have not been notified of this discussion. Please go ahead and do so, and I'll proceed to close in 48 hours unless someone objects. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 22:53, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

@A. C. Santacruz: Done
Notified: Wikipedia:WikiProject Gender studies, Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies, Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine. Firefangledfeathers 23:23, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
Firefangledfeathers 23:23, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
This just opened 2 days ago; it is far too early to close. It should run at least a week, and I would prefer the whole month as is typical. The descriptor is in the article already, so it isn't like the currently majority "include" side loses anything by waiting. Which reminds me:
Note to closer: the pre-RfC status quo of the article did not contain the descriptor, in case it ends up being a "no consensus". Crossroads -talk- 04:36, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
Crossroads there is no obligation to go through the whole 30 days if consensus is clear enough (WP:SNOWBALL). That's why I said I'll wait 48 hours after the projects are notified, in order to see if there's very clear consensus or if I should wait a bit more. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 10:05, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

I can't help noticing that, while there has been some lively metadiscussion about the rights and wrongs of the RfC itself in various sections, with a few people clarifying their existing positions, there has been very little in the way of actual new !votes or !vote changes since it was reopened. Only one new !vote has been added to the support/oppose list, and that is another "support". One user has struck out their opposing !vote.

I have no objection to keeping it open a little longer if anybody needs a bit more time to craft the perfect !vote statement that will cause the scales to fall from our eyes and make us all rush to change our !votes but it is looking more and more as if the consensus remains where it was before and, if anything, is further solidifying for the support position. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:27, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree. While I disagree with the reasons for re-opening the RFC as I feel like a SNOW close was appropriate even given the holiday period, re-opening it hasn't resulted in any meaningful change. I'd suggest letting it run until Friday/Saturday/Sunday, before closing again. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:03, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Why are Support voters so eager for this thing to be closed? Absolutely nothing is lost by keeping it open for a normal time length. The text is in the article already, and if they are so confident they will prevail, then why not let the list of supporters grow stronger? Why the rush to cut off opportunities for comment? Crossroads -talk- 19:57, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
I certainly wasn't arguing for another potentially premature close. I was just noting how utterly unavailing reopening it has been, so far, and lamenting that much of the opposing discussion has been focused on attacking the basis of the RfC instead of actually participating in it. I am genuinely surprised that there hasn't been a single new "oppose" !vote. For avoidance of any doubt, I fully support keeping it open for the usual period so that everybody has a chance to say their piece and so that nobody can cry foul when it is closed. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:17, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Miller, Edie (5 November 2018-11-05). "Why Is British Media So Transphobic?". The Outline. Archived from the original on 19 October 2019. Retrieved 3 May 2019. The truth is, while the British conservative right would almost certainly be more than happy to whip up a frenzy of transphobia, they simply haven't needed to, because some sections of the left over here are doing their hate-peddling for them. The most vocal source of this hatred has emerged, sadly, from within circles of radical feminists. British feminism has an increasingly notorious TERF problem. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  2. ^ Dalbey, Alex (12 August 2018). "TERF wars: Why trans-exclusionary radical feminists have no place in feminism". Daily Dot. Archived from the original on 28 January 2019. Retrieved 27 January 2019.
  3. ^ Dastagir, Alia (16 March 2017). "A feminist glossary because we didn't all major in gender studies". USA Today. Archived from the original on 20 July 2019. Retrieved 24 April 2019. TERF: The acronym for 'trans exclusionary radical feminists,' referring to feminists who are transphobic.
  4. ^ Cite error: The named reference Lewis 2019 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  5. ^ "SNP MP criticised for calling trans campaigners at Edinburgh Pride 'misogynistic'". indy100. 24 June 2019. Archived from the original on 14 November 2019. Retrieved 26 June 2019.
  6. ^ Bollinger, Alex (19 December 2018). "Famous lesbian site taken over by anti-trans 'feminists'. Now lesbian media is standing up". www.lgbtqnation.com. Archived from the original on 5 June 2019. Retrieved 5 June 2019.
  7. ^ Cite error: The named reference Flaherty 2018 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  8. ^ O'Connell, Jennifer (26 January 2019). "Transgender for beginners: Trans, terf, cis and safe spaces". The Irish Times. Archived from the original on 26 January 2019. Retrieved 24 April 20194. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |access-date= (help)
  9. ^ Wordsworth, Dot (2018-05-05). "Terf wars and the ludicrous lexicon of feminist theory". The Spectator. Archived from the original on 9 September 2018. Retrieved 22 September 2018.

A "consensus" that goes against Wikipedia principles and policies is not a legitimate consensus

WRONGVENUE
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Re: 14:35, 8 January 2022 revision of {{POV-statement|date=January 2022}} template. The single cited source states: "To maximize the chances of finding cases meeting eligibility criteria, the three websites (4thwavenow, transgender trend, and youthtranscriticalprofessionals) were selected for targeted recruitment." But nowhere in the source are the three websites described as "anti-transgender".

The statement in the lead that these websites are "anti-transgender" is a POV, which defies WP:NPOV and WP:VERIFY because there are no reliable sources to back it up. Wikipedia principles and policies are explicit:

WP:5P2 – "We strive for articles in an impartial tone that document and explain major points of view, giving due weight for their prominence. We avoid advocacy, and we characterize information and issues rather than debate them. In some areas there may be just one well-recognized point of view; in others, we describe multiple points of view, presenting each accurately and in context rather than as "the truth" or "the best view". All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, authoritative sources, especially when the topic is controversial ... Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong on Wikipedia."

WP:NPOV – "NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. It is also one of Wikipedia's three core content policies; ... This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus."

WP:V – "verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of editors. Even if you are sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. This principle was previously expressed on this policy page as "the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth". ...All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists, and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed."

The support for keeping a declaration in the lead may outnumber those who oppose it -- but if it does not comply with Wikipedia policies, it cannot remain in the article. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 07:06, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

@Pyxis Solitary: This is not the appropriate venue to voice these concerns. Per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE, you should take it up with the closer and if needed Administrators' Noticeboard. ––FormalDude talk 07:19, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
@FormalDude, Pyxis Solitary, and A. C. Santacruz: while I recognise this is the wrong venue for a closure review, I wonder perhaps if we could address what appears by my reading to be a content sourcing problem here without needing to escalate it?
If I'm reading the collapsed section above, would I be correct in saying that the thrust of your argument Pyxis is is that calling the three websites in question anti-trans is currently unsubstantiated by the sources in the article? If so, then would adding such sourcing via inline citations resolve the complaint?
We have in the RFC responses above a number of sources that individually call each of those websites anti-trans (see comments by Silver Seren, NorthBySouthBaranof, and myself). NewImpartial also linked this [‎https://inews.co.uk/news/uk/rapid-onset-gender-dysphoria-jk-rowling-trans-row-twitter-explained-444931 iNews] piece which explicitly states Dr Littman’s participants in the study were recruited from three blogs; 4thWave Now, Transgender Trend, and Youth Trans Critical Professionals, all known to have an anti-transgender bias, which sheds doubt on the findings.
Of course if that's not satisfactory, if I've misinterpreted your complaint, or if you want to proceed with a closure review then by all means do so. I'm just trying to resolve this issue without needing to escalate it. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:43, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
"would I be correct in saying that the thrust of your argument Pyxis is is that calling the three websites in question anti-trans is currently unsubstantiated by the sources in the article?"
As I wrote above, to comply with the requirements of
  • WP:5P2 ("We strive for articles in an impartial tone...All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, authoritative sources, especially when the topic is controversial ... Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong on Wikipedia."),
  • WP:NPOV ("This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus."), and
  • WP:V ("any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed.")
there must be reliable sources included which support the declaration that the websites are considered "anti-transgender". Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 10:07, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Pyxis Solitary you mean in the article? But that would just be an issue of transferring the sources presented within the RfC into the article via in-line citations. That's not a reason to challenge a close, as you can just add the citations yourself. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 10:12, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
I made this edit: 09:41, 8 January 2022. It was reverted: 14:35, 8 January 2022. I was not involved in the RfC ... nor did I know about it beforehand.
However, you posted a comment in the RfC on 22:53, 27 December 2021 and 10:05, 28 December 2021. The editors who should be adding reliable sources to the article now are the same editors who ignored WP:5P2, WP:NPOV, and WP:V while they were leaving their mark in the RfC. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 11:37, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Pyxis Solitary please give some more explanation about why you are linking my comments, as you aren't really making a point with them. I will respond on two issues. Firstly, I did in fact close the thread (approx.) 48 hours after Firefangledfeathers notified the relevant WikiProjects, as I asked them to. I did not give much credence to Crossroad's request to keep it open as they very often have (in my subjective opinion) WP:ONEAGAINSTMANY behaviour in the gender and sex topic. This is certainly my mistake, and I strongly apologize for not assuming good faith in that instance, as the procedural concerns are certainly well-founded (see my new comment below).
On the second account, do not assume editors are willingly ignoring wiki guidelines. It is certainly the case that you disagree in how both of you interpret the guidelines, but assuming that they are completely incorrect and you have better understanding of them is an unfounded accusation and only serves to provoke others. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 12:04, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
"you disagree in how both of you interpret the guidelines, but assuming that they are completely incorrect and you have better understanding of them is an unfounded accusation and only serves to provoke others." – The guidelines are "completely incorrect"? Are you saying that the clear-cut, straightforward, texts of WP:5P2, WP:NPOV, and WP:V are incorrect?
"an unfounded accusation and only serves to provoke others." – You can give a temporary pass to editors who are new to Wikipedia and, as such, aren't fully informed about its core principles and policies, but there are people who participated in this RfC who have been Wikipedia editors for a long time and there is no excuse for their engaging in this RfC (or any other) while also ignoring the above-referenced principle and policies. WP:NPOV, alone, is a bedrock of Wikipedia, and whether some editors like it or not, "This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus ". If people do not understand that this is an unequivocal policy, then they do not comprehend the purpose of Wikipedia and they need to abstain from an RfC like this one. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 03:31, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
​You misunderstand. Correct me if I'm wrong, A. C. Santacruz, but I am almost completely certain that the pronoun they in the sentence you quoted refers to the editors you accuse of ignoring policy, i.e. ...assuming that [the editors who disagree with you] are completely incorrect and you have better understanding of [the guidelines than they do] is an unfounded accusation and only serves to provoke others. And I can assure you that the arguments being made in the RFC (above on this page) are not "let's disregard the five pillars because we think they're optional" – on the contrary, many reliable sources have been presented (several are currently cited inline in the article) to support the proposed wording. Srey Srostalk 04:16, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
The only thing I might "misunderstand" is why you stuck your nose in this. A. C. Santacruz can speak for herself. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 04:24, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
I agree with SreySros' reading. It was abundantly clear to me that when Santacruz used they, they were referring to other editors who disagreed with your (Pyxis) interpretation of guidelines. You might want to step away from the keyboard for a short period Pyxis, as you're clearing biting multiple editors (Santacruz and SreySros) and this is a discretionary sanctions topic area. WP:Civility applies here more than elsewhere. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:31, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Pyxis Solitary, SreySros's summary was correct. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 08:00, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
(1) The use of "they" could be taken as referring to the principles and policies — or — a group of persons. I would have been precise about what it was intended to mean, but that's just me and how I compose words. But I accept the clarification of what "they" meant.
(2) After I provided the reasons why the "anti transgender" declaration in the lead needed reliable sources, additional RS was added in the lead ... but ... [a] the Florence Ashley source does not address any of the websites; [b] the Sanja Bojanic source mentions 4thWaveNow but doesn't define it as "anti-transgender" (no utterance about the other two websites); and [c] the Jasmine Andersson (inews) source describes 4thWaveNow as a "gender-critical blog", and says it, Transgender Trend and Youth Trans Critical Professionals are "known to have an anti-transgender bias" but doesn't specifically explain what she (the writer) means by this. The RS needs to be better than these three sources that were used as citations if a Wikipedia article is going to characterize the three websites as "anti-transgender". Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 09:28, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Regarding your claims about the sources:
  • You write: "the Florence Ashley source does not address any of the websites". The paper states: Littman’s study was based on parental reports sampled from transantagonistic websites, a significant limitation which was severely downplayed prior to post-publication review.
  • You write: "the Sanja Bojanic source mentions 4thWaveNow but doesn't define it as 'anti-transgender' (no utterance about the other two websites)". You're correct that this source does only explicitly mention 4thWaveNow. I included this source to try to avoid contention given the discussion below. The source reads: ...one of the most worrying conservative narratives that feminism currently has to face is the accusation of its having developed and spread a so-called ‘gender ideology’... Accusations of gender ideology, which have spread rapidly through Latin-America and Europe are anti-feminist and anti-trans in their intentions. ... Some, e.g., “a community of people who question the medicalization of gender-atypical youth” also conflate queer theory with so-called “gender ideology” and refer to a “postmodern influenced gender ideology, a subset of ‘queer theory’,” which they also call “genderism” or “gender theory” (See 4thWaveNow 2019, retrieved on June 12th), mentioning 4thWaveNow as an example of organizations pushing an anti-trans "gender ideology" narrative and an overall example of global backlash against feminist praxis and theory. Granted, the third ellipsis in that quote does span a paragraph, so I guess there could be room for interpretation there but my reading of this source seems to be shared by Aquillion and Santacruz. Regardless, the Pearce et. al. piece in The Sociological Review is even more explicit in categorizing 4thWaveNow as anti-trans.
  • I'm not entirely sure what you are arguing for when you say "[iNews] describes 4thWaveNow as a 'gender-critical blog', and says [the three websites] are 'known to have an anti-transgender bias' but doesn't specifically explain what she (the writer) means by this." Are you saying that "sites known to have an anti-transgender bias" cannot be accurately paraphrased as "anti-transgender sites"? I'm not sure I see why that would be.
When inserting sources from the RFC, I tried to resist the urge to overcite, and I think that the sources currently inline-cited are more than enough to support the text. However, there are several more sources that have been presented above in the RFC to support the wording: [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]. Specific quotes from and analyses of these sources are available above in the RFC (if you haven't read the discussion already, I would recommend it), and I've tried to collate them here. Would including any or all of these sources be enough to satisfy you that the wording is supported by reliable sources? If so, we can just insert those and resolve this dispute.
I believe this is the same question that A. C. Santacruz and Sideswipe9th were asking above, but you haven't really responded to it, so hopefully I've formulated it in a way that's clearer. Srey Srostalk 19:02, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
The problem, as I see it, is personal interpretation. What one person might deduce from these sources is not necessarily the same as what someone else might. The Ashley and Andersson sources do not provide readers with reasons for why they have concluded that the websites are "transantagonistic" (Ashley) and having "an anti-transgender bias" (Andersson). Question: from what did Ashley form her opinion about them? And the first question that came to my mind when I read Andersson's statement was "on what does she base saying that they have an anti-transgender bias?" (Are readers supposed to take her word for it ... and that's it?) As sources go, Andersson's is not high-quality.
Regarding the five links you provided: medical and health-related subjects merit high quality sources, and for this reason I wouldn't rely on BuzzFeed opinions and PinkNews incendiary articles. I read the McLean (tandfonline.com) article: it mentions Transgender Trend and what it published regarding it is (1) a TT quote: "transgender people deserve the same civil and human rights as all of us and should not face discrimination… we are not afraid of, or prejudiced against, transgender people in any way’ (TT 2020)"; and (2) about TT being: "concerned about the ‘teaching of unscientific “innate gender identity” ideology to children’ (TT 2020)." Based on what it published, I am not persuaded to assume that Transgender Trend is "anti-transgender". Also, McLean does not mention 4thWaveNow and Youth Trans Critical Professionals. The Pearce (sagepub.com) article ties 4thWaveNow (in generality) to "gender critical", and describes it as a "trans-exclusionary feminist website" and a "campaign group". Pearce does not mention Transgender Trend or Youth Trans Critical Professionals.
Research about ROGD is in its infancy stage right now and there will surely be more studies as time passes. But for the moment, to define the three websites as being "anti-transgender" there needs to be more than relying on assumptions made from what is missing in all these sources (i.e. specific details that demonstrate how one or all three websites are against transgender, a.k.a. "anti-transgender"). Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 11:25, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
That's not how this works: if reliable sources describe the sites as anti-trans – and you seem to concede that they do – you can't discount the sources because you personally don't find them convincing. You write: The Ashley and Andersson sources do not provide readers with reasons for why they have concluded that the websites are [anti-trans]... Are readers supposed to take her word for it ... and that's it? Yes. It would be completely inappropriate for us as Wikipedia editors to decide that, for instance, a paper published in a major, reputable peer-reviewed academic journal is not trustworthy because we don't think the paper provided enough specific details that demonstrate its point.
Regardless, it seems your concerns amount to a simple content dispute rather than a grand policy-interpretation one so they would be better placed in the RFC above now that it's open again. Srey Srostalk 18:35, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
The only source that uses the term "anti-transgender" for all three websites is the Jasmine Andersson (inews) source. I'm a stickler for matching text with what is published in a cited source and, as such, the Andersson citation should be located after the terminology. The sentence can also be rewritten to more accurately comply with the variations found in the sources that have been discussed here: "three websites that have been described as being anti-transgender." This composition makes use of the terminology their voice, not Wikipedia's. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 07:30, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
@Pyxis Solitary: why you stuck your nose in this It's an RfC, which is an open invitation for any and every Wikipedian to stick their nose in. The only people not permitted to do so are those who are either blocked or under a relevant topic ban. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:57, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
This RfC is about the lead of this article and the categorizing of three websites as "anti-transgender". This RfC is about a topic. This RfC is not about an editor's response and a dialog between two editors. The distinction, I can only hope, should be understood. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 11:25, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Reopening the RfC?

  • Pyxis Solitary has raised procedural concerns with the early closure of the RfC. I strongly welcome discussion on this topic, and certainly have no issue re-opening the RfC due to 2 concerns:
    The RfC lasted less than a week.
    The RfC happened during the holiday season for a large proportion of the en wiki community.
  • Thus, it is likely that the consensus above (either in result or in strength) does not accurately reflect the community's consensus on the issue. Feel free to discuss below if you support or oppose the reopening of the RfC, and how best to do so (such as starting a new one below).A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 12:08, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
As I tried to tell you above, but which you waved away, this RfC ran for far too short a time. It's even worse that it was during the holidays when many editors are away. It was cut off before many editors not already at this article would have had a chance to comment and possibly sway it away from the result at that time. And now I expect that some editors who already commented will oppose reopening since they got the result they wanted. You should revert your closure now rather than spend more time asking the already involved editors here because it is highly likely to be overturned if taken to WP:AN, which is what Pyxis Solitary should do. And that is especially the case because you are highly WP:INVOLVED in this very specific topic, having commented at another RfC about how to describe ROGD. Swooping in to close this RfC extremely early, while we now have editors like Pyxis Solitary, Mathglot, and Lwarrenwiki showing up and criticizing the result because they missed it, is not a good look. Crossroads -talk- 15:41, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
I disagree on being involved on the RfC, as whether a theory is fringe is quite a different question to whether a political label applies to certain websites.
In any case, as I have indicated above, I have no issue with undoing the closure and so see taking the issue to WP:AN an unnecessary drama. How may I do so, Crossroads? I assume there are certain ways to do so that would mess with the RfC ids. Additionally, I imagine re-notifying the relevant WikiProjects is also necessary. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 16:09, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
What would be done is remove the closure template, re-add a RFC template in the same categories as the one removed, and either delete your closure statement or move it down and add an addendum that this was an old closure which you decided to undo. I think it creates a new RfC ID with a new date, but I don't think that is avoidable or a serious issue. The incoming links go to the heading, so they should all still work. Crossroads -talk- 17:17, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, Crossroads. I'll get to that in a bit :) A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 17:49, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
I saw A. C. Santacruz's comment on their user talk page requesting assistance with this reopening, and I enacted it before reading these comments. My understanding of the process matches Crossroads, and I implemented those steps (except I collapsed the closing comment at the top instead of moving/deleting it). If there are any other procedures to be followed, or if anyone feels I was too bold, I am likely to be unbothered to see my actions tweaked or even reversed. Firefangledfeathers 18:12, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for reopening it, and thanks for being willing to let it be reopened. Crossroads -talk- 18:18, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Much appreciated Firefangledfeathers. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 18:41, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

4th Wave Now – anti-trans?

The group underlying the website 4th Wave Now cannot be described as anti-trans, in my opinion. If I had to briefly describe their views, I'd say they they advise a go-slow approach with minor children, and are opposed to what they see as an overeager medical/psychological rush to diagnose minor children as trans and then treat them medically and psychologically. Unlike true anti-trans groups whose views are strictly based on advocacy and not on any actual medical or psychological basis, 4th Wave's opinions and explanations are science-based, and within the bounds of normal debate on a young and still evolving field.

Here are some of their positions, from their FAQ:

  • "We oppose any form of therapy that seeks to change a child’s sexual orientation. And we oppose any form of therapy that pushes a child to conform to sex role stereotypes."

In the next breath, they go on to explain why they are nevertheless opposed to some legislation seeking to ban conversion therapy, because it "often conflates sexual orientation and gender identity as a single issue". The extended explanation that follows shows a nuanced understanding of the issues involved, and they come down much more on a "wait-and-see" attitude regarding transition, than some groups who are more willing to treat minor children medically and surgically. Here are some additional points, in Q&A format (brief excerpts):

  • "Do you oppose providing medical transition even to individuals over the age of 18?"
    A "In our society, individuals who are 18 years or older have the legal right to medically transition if they so choose. We do not seek to change this. We believe that adults should have autonomy over their lives."
  • "Does 4thWaveNow partner with conservative organizations?"
    • A: "No."
  • "Are parents who... allow their children to medically transition... bad parents?"
    • A: "No."
  • "Is it your belief that all transgender people should return to living as their natal sex?"
    • A: "No."

Their main objective appears to be promoting the go-slow approach with respect to transitioning of minor children. From their self-described "mission":

  • "The mission of 4thWaveNow is to provide a forum for an alternative understanding of how to support children and young people who desire to transition. We believe the medical and psychological establishments are making a grave mistake by rushing to diagnose young people as transgender and then to promote their medical transition."

This is a defensible position medically that not everyone would agree with, but clearly plenty of medical professionals do. (Plenty disagree, too, and I'm not quantifying the disagreement, but it's not entirely lopsided in either direction.) You could say that 4th Wave are "conservative" with respect to minor children transitioning, especially when this is compared with some who are prepared to go forward with surgical youth transition, but I believe the latter are a minority among health professionals.

In my opinion, this group cannot be described as a "anti-trans". But in the end, my opinion about whether they can, or cannot be described as "anti-trans" is worthless; we need to see what the reliable sources say about it. Boston Review describes them as "self-described left-leaning liberals" in their article Science Won’t Settle Trans Rights. As far as labeling, they could perhaps be described as "conservative" with respect to the parents and health care teams of Jazz Jennings or Kim Petras, but would no doubt be described as far-left (if not worse) by any actual anti-trans groups (such as ACPeds).

Clearly the Littman issue is what brought 4th Wave Now to whatever prominence they now have outside their own circle, and the gross methodological failures of the Littman study probably shone [what we might judge as] a negative light upon them from the outset. (I have to admit, I pigeon-holed them as hateful, trans-hating neanderthals at first.) However, with additional scrutiny, I changed my opinion after delving a bit further. At the moment, there is not a great deal of independent material about them that I can find, and until there is, we should not apply a label to this group which is not justified by the same criteria of WP:Verifiability that we would apply to any other group. In an ironic mirror of 4th Wave Now's view of medical transition of minor children as a rush to judgment, there has been, in my opinion, a rush to judgment among editors of this article regarding 4th Wave Now (I don't exclude myself from that).

For the moment, until there is reliable evidence to the contrary, we should rely on WP:SELFSOURCE, and what little is out there now. Labeling someone or something as "anti-trans" requires evidence (some might say "extraordinary evidence"); and when there are as many clear and unambiguous statements about 4th Wave Now being "anti-trans" as there are, say, for ACPeds, then I will be in favor of labeling them as such. But there are not now, and in my opinion, until there are, we are violating WP:V by making that claim in WP:WikiVoice with nothing to back it up other than the opinions of Wikipedia editors. To the extent that their spokespersons and authors of their mission statement are alive, this may also be a violation of WP:BLP. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 23:17, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

We literally just concluded an RfC up above on this. Are you trying to relitigate it again? SilverserenC 23:21, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
And, as noted in the RfC, we do have sources that describe 4th Wave Now (and the other sites) as anti-trans. Examples:
"Responding to the BBC coverage, ‘4thWaveNow’, another well-known anti-trans group, said" - Source
"But the term rapid onset gender dysphoria (ROGD) first came into mention by academic Lisa Littman on gender-critical blog 4thWaveNow in 2016...Dr Littman’s participants in the study were recruited from three blogs; 4thWave Now, Transgender Trend, and Youth Trans Critical Professionals, all known to have an anti-transgender bias" - Source
So, again, what's wrong with how the RfC concluded? SilverserenC 23:26, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
I'm divided between you and Silverseren's sources. I appreciate you bringing this up again, Mathglot. RfCs aren't final and you've provided strong evidence that the anti-trans label is too harsh on 4th wave. However, I'll wait and see what other sources come up in the discussion. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 23:31, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
What is the strong evidence? A group can self-describe however they want, but that doesn't make that self-description accurate. SilverserenC 23:36, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
(edit conflict × 2) I guess I missed the Rfc. I'm not "trying" to do anything. I'm pointing out an assertion currently in the article that does not meet Wikipedia's requirements for WP:Verifiability. If that means another Rfc is needed, then so be it; but I'm pretty busy in other areas right now, and I won't be the one to start it. If someone wants to start one, I'll participate if pinged, but otherwise I probably won't. I haven't read the Rfc, but if it was about 4th Wave Now and labeled it anti-trans, then that is unjustifiable, in my opinion, based on my understanding of the requirements of verifiability policy, and the lack of support for that in reliable, independent secondary, published sources.
I got an ec: re Pinknews, see RSN. Re iNews: never heard of them, but not yet covered in RSN, so I guess nobody else has, either. Is this *really* supported by independent sources? How about, Reuters, BBC, The Guardian, NY Times, The Times, The Economist, Financial Times, WSJ, Christian Science Monitor, Bloomberg?
And another ec; sorry can't respond to that right now. Mathglot (talk) 23:44, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
So, you didn't read the RfC that is still on this talk page above. But are single-handedly claiming everyone involved in the RfC is wrong? SilverserenC 23:54, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Mathglot's is not the most adroit announcement of a one-against-many "muh readin of polici" crusade I've seen recently - but we must all have our bad days, I suppose. Newimpartial (talk) 00:09, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Correct, I didn't. In my OP, I point out what I feel is a discrepancy between a contentious label in the article, and the requirements of WP:Verifiability policy to support it. A term like anti-trans is loaded language. The Manual of style has this to say about contentious labels:

Value-laden labels may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution.

I just don't see that the term is "widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject", and is thus best avoided, until it is. I didn't say anything at all about the Rfc, nor did I make any claim about everyone or about anyone, and I'm not now. I'm addressing the content of the article, period. Given what appears to be attempts to switch the discussion to one about personalities or motivations, I think I will bow out now, as anything further I might add would probably be a repetition of what's already been said, or a response to something that isn't about improving the article. Best, Mathglot (talk) 00:20, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
While I'm not sure that "anti-trans" is necessarily the best term to communicate that the site in question is the opposite of trans-positive, I am also unconvinced that "anti-trans" is covered by MOS:LABEL - not all antis are. Newimpartial (talk) 02:58, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Addressing one of the source concerns, as I feel others are doing a better job of discussing the content. iNews is the website for i (newspaper). It started off as a sibling to The Independent though has changed ownership a couple of times since. Though owned by DMGT it has somewhat more of a solid editorial reputation for accuracy than the Daily Mail. Otherwise you are correct that it hasn't been discussed at RSN. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:15, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
  • "Anti-trans" summarizes generally described in high-quality sources; I definitely don't think the questionnaire you published is reflected there, and it would have much more serious WP:ABOUTSELF problems if we relied on it (since it is obviously self-serving.) For some examples:
  • This[1] source mentions it as an example of a larger backlash against feminism Within the context of backlashes against feminist theory and praxis, one of the most worrying conservative narratives that feminism currently has to face is the accusation of its having developed and spread a so-called ‘gender ideology’ ... Accusations of gender ideology, which have spread rapidly through Latin-America (Careaga-Pérez 2016) and Europe (Kuhar and Paternotte 2017) are anti-feminist and anti-trans in their intentions. ... Some, e.g., “a community of people who question the medicalization of gender-atypical youth” also conflate queer theory with so-called “gender ideology” and refer to a “postmodern influenced gender ideology, a subset of ‘queer theory’,” which they also call “genderism” or “gender theory” (See 4thWaveNow 2019, retrieved on June 12th).
  • This source[2] discusses them in this context of the political landscape of anti-trans politics and a significant upsurge in public anti-trans sentiment in the UK: Accusations of gender ideology, which have spread rapidly through Latin--America (Careaga-Pérez 2016) and Europe (Kuhar and Paternotte 2017) are antifeminist and anti-trans in their intentions. ... In addition to attacking trans people’s right to access public toilets in line with their sex/gender presentation, ‘gender critical’ feminists have criticised social developments such as LGBTIQ-inclusive school education and positive media representations of trans people. Increasingly, they argue that such developments result from what they call ‘gender ideology’ (see e.g. 4thWaveNow, 2019).
  • Here[3], they are used as an example of anti-trans sentiment among opposition to GRA reform: Now that the gendered social context (into which the GRA reform consultation was introduced) has been established, the specific group and ideological position from which the majority of opposition to reform appeared to come can be considered. The most vocal opponents of GRA reform are anti-trans feminist groups, often called ‘Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists’, or TERFs. ... Thus we can see that the TERF anti-trans position is based not just on theory or ideology, but also in an emotional response to anxiety about exploitation by men and the continuation or even expansion of the threat women face from misogyny (Kalayji, 2018). ... This understanding, that TERFs view the idea of being trans as non-sensical, and as simply a ploy used to take advantage of women’s liberation movements, may help to explain the apparent lack of sensitivity or compassion with which these groups often deny the negative effects of transphobia and difficulties trans people face, for example questioning the accuracy of trans suicide attempt statistics, including those for children and youth (4thwavenow, 2015; Transgender Trend, 2017)
I also strenuously disagree with your assertion that describing a group as anti-trans is WP:EXCEPTIONAL; these sources all indicate that it is a common term used in academia to refer to broad societal trends and movements, especially the ones 4thWaveNow is prominent in (and where it tends to receive coverage.) It is no different than categorizing a group as being on the right or on the left, or by its position on capitalism or similar topics; the term obviously does not mean that all groups described in that way deny trans people exist or wish to annihilate them or somesuch, it simply describes their position on laws and societal changes related to trans issues in a neutral fashion. That's why academic sources use it straightforwardly as fact in the text, whereas the the more euphemistic terms used by groups to describe themselves or their opponents are used more cautiously - similar to "anti/pro-abortion" vs. "pro-choice" / "pro-life." Many anti-abortion groups would object that they are not anti-abortion in all cases, and most pro-abortion groups would say that they, obviously, not universally in favor of abortions for all pregnant people in all cases, but it's still the more neutral term in that it straightforwardly identifies the crux of dispute and where they stand on it. --Aquillion (talk) 00:34, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
I think Aquillion's sources and argument are strong enough that we can consider this discussion more or less closed. I strongly warn editors looking at this that disagree with my RfC closure above not to take this as an opportunity to rekindle a dead fire unnecessarily. On the other hand, I remind editors to assume good faith on the side of Mathglot. On a related note, I additionally strongly encourage Silverseren to bring iNews to RSN. Knowledge on the reliability of UK publications is something I expect to be highly relevant in the following years within the gender topic in Wikipedia, and having a discussion there now before an unknown drama hits the talk pages will be useful to prevent disruption. I am sadly completely unfamiliar with the source myself and thus don't feel prepared to start the RSN thread. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 00:28, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
I support User:Mathglot's position. Note that MOS:LABEL expressly cites "transphobic" as one example of a contentious or value-laden label. For exactly the same reasons, MOS:LABEL clearly applies to the term "anti-trans". Lwarrenwiki (talk) 03:25, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
That position seems to assume that "transphobic" and "anti-gay" are equivalent in the sense to which MOS:LABEL applies, which is rather the thing to be demonstrated. LABEL does not apply to all "anti-" terms. Newimpartial (talk) 19:43, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
FWIW I chose "anti-trans" and not "transphobic" specifically because of MOS:LABEL. I disagree that they are equivalent. I think that the websites in question would object to being characterized as "transphobic" (although they are) but at least two of them clearly self-identify as "anti-trans". That it appears to be pejorative to you indicates you support trans rights; they don't so they don't see it as a problem. Loki (talk) 00:17, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
I'm also opposed to re-litigating the above RfC. I don't think anything Mathglot has said is even near sufficient to bother relitigating not just a strong consensus but a whole closed RfC. Also I don't find Mathglot's sources at all convincing, even apart from the many contradictory sources, for three reasons.
  • Number 1 is that in the context of the other two choices, Littman clearly chose them because she felt they would be anti-trans on this particular issue. If your three sources are X, "Transgender Trend", and an organization that calls itself "trans critical" in its own name, that's strong evidence that at least the person who chose the sources considers X to be anti-trans.
  • Number 2 is that their denials of anti-trans sentiment read very WP:MANDY to me, the equivalent of Focus on the Family claiming they're not anti-gay. Like that essay says, organizations are not automatically reliable sources about themselves; certainly not more than other, actually reliable, sources. In my view, if an organization says "we're not anti-trans but we oppose legislation against conversion therapy because it prevents us from trying to convince kids they're not trans", that is sufficient to declare them "anti-trans" by itself.
  • And number 3 is that 4thWaveNow in this context is an internet forum, and so their official denials of anti-trans sentiment are even more WP:MANDY than usual. (As an analogy, if Jimmy Wales were to say that Wikipedia supports Bitcoin, it wouldn't make one ounce of difference to what we actually do here.) Loki (talk) 00:17, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
Also I note that Mathglot is not quoting lines from the FAQ like:
  • Transitioning is very different from coming out as gay or lesbian. A person who discovers she is lesbian does not have to take off-label synthetic hormones for the rest of her life. She doesn’t have to have surgery to remove her breasts or to construct something that resembles a penis (i.e. they're describing FtM surgery as "something that resembles a penis")
  • [...] trans activist groups like WPATH [...] (i.e. they're calling the largest group of experts on trans medicine "activists")
  • (Do you oppose providing medical transition even to individuals over the age of 18?) [after the part Mathglot quoted:] However, several decades of neuroscientific research have established that the higher functions of the human brain do not reach maturity until around the age of 25; referred to as “executive function,” this includes impulse control, awareness of future consequences, planning, organized decision making, and the capacity to self-reflect . We do believe that healthcare providers owe it to individuals who are less than 25 years of age to carefully assess and counsel them before providing cross-sex hormones and surgery, both of which entail irreversible changes and significant long-term health risks. (i.e. they actually do oppose transition in adults)
  • (What do you say to all the parents who are allowing their children to medically transition? Are they bad parents?) Of course not! They’re trying to do the right thing for their children just as we are. In fact, many of them are desperately sad and anxious about allowing their children’s medical transition, but too many therapists and other authority figures have drilled into them the terrifying idea that allowing their children to transition is the only way to prevent probable suicide (i.e. anyone who allows their child to transition has been tricked into this position)
Again, this comes off very much like Focus on the Family trying to claim they're not anti-gay to me. This is not a source I would use to claim this group is *not* anti-trans at all. I could easily see using it as evidence that they *are* anti-trans. Loki (talk) 00:27, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

But Aquillion's sources don't actually say anti-trans, that appears to be the opinion of some, maybe most, heck—maybe even all editors here, but that is essentially irrelevant with respect to portraying this website with a Neutral Point of View, which is a policy requirement that supersedes our own opinions. The reality is, that we must summarize what the reliable sources have to say about 4th Wave Now, and we are not to substitute our opinions for what the preponderance of reliable sources say, and they do not say that 4th Wave is anti-trans or transphobic. If they did, somebody would've quoted a few dozen sources by now, and ended the matter. Mathglot (talk) 10:59, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

To quote NorthBySouthBaranof's contribution to the RfC: 4thWaveNow explicitly states "The purpose of this site is to give voice to an alternative to the dominant trans-activist and medical paradigm currently being touted by the media.". That is all we need. They are self-identifying as anti-trans. I don't see any argument against this that wouldn't be obtuse hair splitting along the lines of trying to make a distinction between a racist organisations and a "race realist" organisation.
Anyway, if you don't accept the result of the RfC then that is probably not something we can resolve here as the consensus here is clear. I think you will need to escalate that to the appropriate noticeboard so that it can be resolved. In the meantime, please do not override the results of the RfC with what you think is more correct. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:30, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
No, that, is NBSB saying "they are self-identifying as anti-trans" when they do not self-identify as anti-trans. I.e, we are going by what a Wikipedia editor says, rather than what reliable sources say. This is the very definition of non-neutral point of view, and no Rfc can overturn that. You would have to go to WT:NPOV and change the policy first. There is no need to escalate to a noticeboard to maintain neutrality in the article; on the contrary: you would have to escalate (somewhere) to prevent any editor from maintaining neutrality at the article. Has nothing to do with what I think is more correct; it has to do with Wikipedia editors not replacing the views of the majority of sources at the article. Mathglot (talk) 18:16, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
We have explicitly shown multiple sources above describing the websites as anti-trans. That is what the RfC was based on discussing and evaluating. Please stop POV editing against the consensus of said RfC. SilverserenC 18:23, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Silver seren this revert is contrary to NPOV. You have not shown that the majority of websites describe *4th Wave Now* (which is what this discussion section is about) is anti-trans, there are a maximum of maybe two or three that do, and they are weak sources on this point; the vast majority do not. This is contrary to NPOV, which is policy, and pillar #2 of the WP:Five Pillars. I'm afraid an Rfc containing assertions by editors not backed up by the sources does not override NPOV; it is the other way round. Please either undo your revert immediately, or demonstrate that the preponderance of sources commonly describe 4th Wave Now as "anti-trans". Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 19:14, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
And sources both from academic studies and news articles have been shown in both this section above and in the RfC. But you are purposefully ignoring them because they debunk your POV stance. No, I will not revert. SilverserenC 19:17, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Mathglot, the RfC considered the sources and achieved consensus that the sites should be labelled anti-trans. The question of POV/NPOV was explicitly considered by RfC contributors in making this determination. You evidently disagree with the RfC contributors about this, but your venues for redress do not include edit-warring against the RfC result based on your own personal conviction about NPOV. You must WP:AGF that when others say they have taken NPOV into account, they actually have, rather than engaging in a crusade based on the presumption that you are the only one editing based on the 5P. Newimpartial (talk) 19:23, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Mathglot, this is a fairly simple issue. The consensus formed on this page is that there is sufficient sourcing to use the term anti-transgender to describe the three sites in question, in line with WP:V, WP:NPOV, etc. You seem to disagree with this consensus. That's okay – you're welcome to believe whatever you like. What you aren't allowed to do, however, is continue to restore your preferred version when consensus against these edits is clear. You write: Please either undo your revert immediately, or demonstrate that the preponderance of sources commonly describe 4th Wave Now as "anti-trans". That's not how this works. Nobody is obligated to change your mind, and if you think the consensus formed here is mistaken the onus is on you to convince the community of that. (edit conflict) Srey Srostalk 19:53, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
We're quite clearly in WP:ONEAGAINSTMANY territory. Mathglot if you continue to edit-war against explicit RFC consensus, the next step will be requesting that you be topic-banned under Arbitration Enforcement sanctions. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:56, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Mathglot, I am a little confused by you saying "No, that, is NBSB saying "they are self-identifying as anti-trans" when they do not self-identify as anti-trans.". Are you claiming that NBSB is misquoting them or are you denying that the quoted text is an identification as anti-trans? If the former, then you are mistaken. They use the exact phrase quoted "The purpose of this site is to give voice to an alternative to the dominant trans-activist and medical paradigm currently being touted by the media." on the very front page of their own website: https://4thwavenow.com/. If the later, then this is exactly the sort of obtuse hair spitting that would seek to draw a distinction between racism and "race realism". They do not use the specific phrase "anti-trans" but they unambiguously declare themselves as anti-trans in that quote. We are not obliged to pretend that we lack basic reading comprehension, far less ignore other sources that we have. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:20, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
No, they very clearly do not, and it is you—a Wikipedia editor—who are making that interpretation, not the sources. When you say, "they unambiguously declare themselves as anti-trans" no, once again, they do not. Reading comprehension has nothing to do with it. *You*, as a Wikipedia editor, are claiming they say that, when they do not. But that is original research. There's no way around this; if you had evidence that they are anti-trans, you or someone would present it. Other than the link from PinkNews, which is a generally reliable source for news, and one other so-so source, no one has. The claim that the majority of sources would label 4th Wave Now as anti-trans simply is false; they do not. The current state of the article is a violation of WP:NPOV and it cannot remain this way without proper sourcing. Please add sources that make this claim, and stop relying on circumlocutions about hair-splitting, and irrelevant comments about racism that have nothing to do with this article. I assume such sources would have been added ages and ages ago if they existed, as it would have been so much easier and avoid the walls of text all over this page, and it would shut down this abasurd back-and-forth to no end. If you had sources, you'd place them there because that would make your case and end this. The fact that you are talking to me instead of simply doing that just proves to me that you don't have the sources to back your assertion. Per WP:NPOV this must be backed up, or removed. It really is that simple. Just go do it, instead of complaining to me about hair-splitting, race, and what-have-you. Mathglot (talk) 20:47, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Mathglot, the evaluation of the site has been backed up, for which see the sources previously presented. No editor is obliged to WP:SATISFY you that you are misinterpreting these sources - which is what you are in fact doing here. Edit-warring in service of your subjective understanding of the situation is not doing you any favors, and I suggest that you take a break from that. Newimpartial (talk) 20:54, 28 January 2022 (UTC)


References

  1. ^ Bojanic, Sanja; Abadía, Mónica Cano; Moro, Valentina (4 May 2021). "Feminist responses to populist politics". European Journal of English Studies. 25 (2): 113–132. doi:10.1080/13825577.2021.1946741. ISSN 1382-5577.
  2. ^ Pearce, Ruth; Erikainen, Sonja; Vincent, Ben (1 July 2020). "TERF wars: An introduction". The Sociological Review. 68 (4): 677–698. doi:10.1177/0038026120934713. ISSN 0038-0261.
  3. ^ Armitage, Luke (20 September 2020). "Explaining backlash to trans and non-binary genders in the context of UK Gender Recognition Act reform". Journal of the International Network for Sexual Ethics & Politics. 8 (SI): 5–6. doi:10.3224/insep.si2020.02.

arbitrary break (4wn)

I have a handful more sources to add to the list if that helps assuage your concerns @Mathglot:. This is a mixture of media and scholarly sources.

Does this address any of your concerns? Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:15, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

@Sideswipe9th: thanks very much for doing the work involved in putting this together. I will get back to you when I can, hopefully soon. Meanwhile, this section was getting long so I added an arbitrary break above; if you feel like outdenting (or don't object if I do) then we can move your comment flush left within this subsection. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 01:11, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
Go ahead and make it flush. Just keep the bullet points nested for ease of reading :) Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:19, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
"Politicalresearch.org" seems to be a political advocacy site, not an RS. Julia Serano's Medium post is a blog, not an RS. The Advocate's article is a WP:BIASEDSOURCE requiring attribution - they are condemning a 60 Minutes piece (i.e. condemning the mainstream media, where have I heard that before?) that interviewed mainstream professionals in trans medicine who are themselves trans, like Erica Anderson and Marci Bowers, as well as detransitioners. The rest use "gender critical" or "TERF", which are different terms. One may believe that such groups are ipso facto anti-trans, but drawing that conclusion requires WP:SYNTH.
The claim that the site's own words (as presented at least) condemn them as anti-trans is plainly not directly supported by their words, and the comparison to "race realism" tells us nothing more than that an editor asserts they are alike. We know that a site self-describing as race realist is racist because numerous academic RS describe "race realism" as equivalent to racism. We don't have that for this description, which is quite vague.
I understand Mathglot's frustration with this article. If Mathglot wishes to pursue this matter, they are free to ping me per WP:APPNOTE. Personally, I won't be spearheading that, as I have better things to do than waste more time when clearly nobody is going to change their mind, and with an RfC already down. Ultimately our policies are only as enforceable as the editors wielding them, I guess. Crossroads -talk- 06:28, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
Political Research Associates is a non-profit that studies and investigates right wing extremism and white supremacism. They are not a political advocacy site and are an RS in their research. Julia Serano is a reliable source, so is an RS no matter where the subject is posted. And, no, both "gender critical" and "TERF" mean anti-trans. They have always meant that and RS DO say that TERF and gender critical are terms that mean anti-transgender views. And you are fully aware of that. SilverserenC 14:12, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Time to close the RfC?

There hasn't been any further input on it in over 10 days. Seems like time to solicit an admin to re-close it. SilverserenC 17:00, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Yup, I'd agree. My opinion on that hasn't really changed since 12 January. Do a request for closure. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:53, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

-sche has requested the closure at WP:CR, so I'll be going over the multiple discussions on this talk page and other relevant pages. Although I don't see myself as involved, I'd understand if a participant would rather someone else close it. If that's the case, ping me here or leave a message at my talk page and I will let someone else close the discussion. Thank you. Isabelle 🔔 16:56, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

4thWaveNow.com down and out or temporary problem?

So I thought I should look at the website in question, 4thWaveNow.com, but I cannot access it using Chrome (Windows PC) or Safari (iPhone) [ ERR_CONNECTION_CLOSED ]. Temporary problem or galaxy-wide conspiracy to destroy 4th waves?! :^O Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 02:55, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

It worked for me a few days ago and it is working for me again now. I guess it was just a temporary technical glitch or maintenance that passed too quickly for anybody even to get a conspiratorial hashtag trending on Twitter. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:23, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
LOL! Yes, it is working for me too. :-) Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 04:07, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Not a "controversy"

Controversy implies there are two sides, both of which have equal merit. That is not the case here. Academics in the field manifestly reject this fringe theory, and just manage to fall short of calling it "pseudoscientific". Wikipedia doesn't have articles on a "Flat Earth controversy" or "Vaccine hesitancy controversy" or "climate skepticism controversy" because there are no such controversies. There's a broad consensus by academics in the field, and regardless of what fringe quacks pushing politically motivated nonsense say, or how numerous they are, or how many republican lawmakers make laws based on their fringe quackery to disenfranchise disadvantaged communities, their nonsense will never be on the same level as objective reality. ROGD is a fringe theory - not a "controversial" one. 46.97.170.139 (talk) 09:41, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I tentatively agree. As reference points for the examples you've named, the corresponding Wikiarticles are Flat Earth, Modern flat Earth beliefs, Vaccine hesitancy, and Climate change denial. So what then would you suggest renaming the article to? Just "Rapid-onset gender dysphoria"? Or something else? Adjusting the language of the first sentence of the lead will be easier if there's a firm idea of what the article name could change to. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:13, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
I would be strongly against just "Rapid-onset gender dysphoria". Having an article with the name of a fake thing can unintentionally serve to make the fake thing look more real. Even if the article clearly says that the fake thing is fake anybody who sees the name of the article linked but doesn't click on it might get the wrong idea. I like the naming of Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory and I'd like this article to go the same way as that eventually but, of course, that can't happen unless/until we have sufficient valid sources to support it. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:22, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
The titles "climate change denial" and "flat earth beliefs" already imply that they are fake, and "vaccine hesitancy" is something I always had a problem with. Overall, I agree with DanielRigal. I would personally recommend "Rapid-onset gender dysphoria (pseudoscience)" or "Rapid-onset gender dysphoria (conspiracy theory)", if not for the above discussion concluding that due to contrived technicalities, the subject cannot be called a pseudoscience in wikivoice, even though that is obviously what it is. 46.97.170.139 (talk) 09:03, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
The current name is good and is correct because the main topic is the controversy that arose from the publication of the paper. Parentheticals in titles are for disambiguation (which is unnecessary here), not proclamations of falsity. "Conspiracy theory" does not fit because a claim of conspiracy has never been made and that is distinct from criticized scientific hypotheses. As for "vaccine hesitancy", I think that title exists because not all failure to get vaccinated is because of actively opposing vaccines, but often due to vague distrust, apathy, and the like resulting in not taking action to get vaccinated. Countering all that takes different strategies depending on what the causes are. Crossroads -talk- 05:29, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
I am an expert in the study of disinformation and conspiracy theories. In my opinion, this is a genuine case of scientific controversy, not a case of disinformation.
Your article misses a very important source: Littman's 2021 article:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-021-02163-w
In this study of 100 detransitioners, Littman found further evidence for the hypothesis that RODG affects some individuals.
Another very important source is Littman's letter to the editor of "The Journal of Pediatrics":
https://www.jpeds.com/article/S0022-3476(22)00183-4/fulltext
In this letter, Littman criticises Bauer's study, which adopted an incorrect definition of RODG. The study did not "relate the timing of the onset of gender dysphoria with that of puberty. Given the range of participant ages, it could be that a significant majority of study participants in both the study and comparison groups should be categorized as ROGD, undercutting the study's ability to provide any meaningful information about ROGD."
You should also look at other sources, such as this article published by Cambridge University Press:
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/bjpsych-bulletin/article/freedom-to-think-the-need-for-thorough-assessment-and-treatment-of-gender-dysphoric-children/F4B7F5CAFC0D0BE9FF3C7886BA6E904B Skryba2000 (talk) 17:33, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
These are all low-quality sources published by highly controversial figures. Please don't employ FALSEBALANCE between mainstream and WP:FRINGE perspectives. Newimpartial (talk) 17:39, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Do you mean that an article on ROGD should not quote publications by the authoress of this concept?
Or, that Cambridge University Press is a low quality source? 83.31.115.201 (talk) 19:17, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Littman is not a reliable source:
  • Dr Littman’s participants in the study were recruited from three blogs; 4thWave Now, Transgender Trend, and Youth Trans Critical Professionals, all known to have an anti-transgender bias, which sheds doubt on the findings.[14] — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:00, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Littman’s new study is done on a sample of detransitioned persons, correcting this methodological weakness. 83.31.115.201 (talk) 19:13, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
I wouldn't call the weaknesses "corrected". Recruitment information with a link to the survey was posted on blogs that covered detransition topics and shared in a private online detransition forum, in a closed detransition Facebook group, and on Tumblr, Twitter, and Reddit. Still sounds like rather biased sampling, to me. Newimpartial (talk) 19:20, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
How else would you recruit detransitioners, then?
Besides - the reviewers of the article did not see this as a weakness, since the article was accepted for publication. 83.31.115.201 (talk) 19:35, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
The first study also made it through peer review, didn't it? That didn't turn out well. Newimpartial (talk) 19:59, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Now you sound like a science denier.
The original study was not just peer-reviewed. It was post-reviewed after publication, which is extremely rare, and found to be scientifically sound. You can read about this procedure here:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/rabble-rouser/201903/rapid-onset-gender-dysphoria
Moreover, the original study also recruited participants from a private Facebook group called “Parents of Transgender Children” that had more than 8,000 members. 83.31.115.201 (talk) 20:24, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
The perspective you are expressing here is a FRINGE POV not shared by the preponderance of WP:MEDRS sourcing or by the position statements of major professional organizations in the field. This is all amply documented in previous discussions. 20:50, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
It seems to me that you are calling everything that does not agree with your point of view ″FRINGE POV″. How does that agree with Wikipedia′s policies of neutral POV? 22:55, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
The fact that the study specifically samples detransitioners is in itself evidence of bias. Detransitioning is very rare, compared to the overall number of transgender peope who transitioned, but their numbers are blown out of proportion by people with a right wing, anti-transgender political agenda.. Imagine doing a study on rhinoplasty and specifically sampling former patients whoás surgeries have been botched, to prove a point. This methodology does not stand up to scrutiny. 46.97.170.139 (talk) 09:30, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
That's a very interesting point.
If the hypothesis that we are considering would be something like: "ROGD is common, it can happen to 1 out of 3 of persons with gender dysphoria", then I would say that you are completely right.
But, the hypothesis that Littman is investigating in her research isn't like this. Rather, it says: "ROGD occurs in some cases".
When investigating such a hypothesis, you can look in the most likely sources where you can find a confirmation. So, it seems OK to me to look at detransitioners. This is also logically consistent with the hypothesis: if ROGD occurred, it means that the cause of the gender transition is not real gender dysphoria, but for example trauma, or a mental illness. If this cause is then resolved, the transitioned person is likely to detransition.
So, IMO, Littman's research so far has proven that ROGD can occur in some cases. The research says nothing, however, about how frequent ROGD is in a total population of persons with gender dysphoria. Skryba2000 (talk) 14:20, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

We can't state in Wikipedia's voice that ROGD can occur in some cases, since the consensus among relevant MEDRS sources is that ROGD does not exist. Even Littman no longer supports the prior version of her ROGD "hypothesis". Your proposed article text is actually POV sophistry, I'm afraid. Newimpartial (talk) 14:26, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

In the new article, which you admit you haven't read, Littman states that she found evidence that supports the ROGD hypothesis. What you are talking about is the correction to the original article that was 4 years ago.
We should state in the article that Littman claims in her new paper that ROGD occurs in some cases. And that other medical sources do not agree with her. That would be a neutral, comprehensive coverage of the state of knowledge on this topic. Skryba2000 (talk) 14:40, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
That would be WP:FALSEBALANCE. As to the possility that Littman has found support in her new study (which I have read) for the ROGD hypothesis from 2018, please see my comments in the appropriate section, below. Newimpartial (talk) 15:05, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Littman's research so far has proven that ROGD can occur in some cases
This is an incorrect conclusion. All it shows is that people detransition. It does not show that ROGD is real. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:57, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rapid-onset_gender_dysphoria_controversy/Archive_3&oldid=1114975478"