Talk:Rapid-onset gender dysphoria controversy/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 8

Dr Littman's new (2021) article

The article is currently lacking a reference to Dr Littman's new publication:

Littman, L. Individuals Treated for Gender Dysphoria with Medical and/or Surgical Transition Who Subsequently Detransitioned: A Survey of 100 Detransitioners. Arch Sex Behav 50, 3353–3369 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-021-02163-w

I propose that we should add a section to the Wikipedia article about this publication.

Please keep in mind that we are talking about a peer-reviewed publication in a reputable scientific journal, published by a medical doctor and scientist. Please keep a neutral point of view and do not try to disparage this publication as ″fringe″.

The article has several hypotheses and makes many observations. Here's an executive summary: 1) the study involved 101 individuals who were recruited ″in a private online detransition forum, in a closed detransition Facebook group, and on Tumblr, Twitter, and Reddit. Recruitment information was also shared on the professional listservs for the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, the American Psychological Association Section 44, and the SEXNET listserv (which is a listserv of sex researchers and clinicians) and the professionals on the listservs were asked to share recruitment information with anyone they knew who might be eligible. Efforts were made to reach out to communities with varied views about the use of medical and surgical transition and recruitment information stated that participation was sought from individuals regardless of whether their transition experiences were positive, negative or neutral. Potential participants were invited to share recruitment information with any potentially eligible person or community with potentially eligible people.″

A majority (almost 70%) of participants were female. A majority (over 60%) were Americans.

2) the main conclusions relevant to the ROGD hypothesis can be found in Table 7 (″Self-appraisal of past transgender identification″).

To give a summary of these findings, let me try to restate the ROGD hypothesis: psychosocial factors (such as trauma, mental health conditions, maladaptive coping mechanisms, internalized homophobia, and social influence) can cause or contribute to the development of gender dysphoria in some individuals, and this occurs at puberty or later (hence the term ″Rapid″ in the acronym. Littman now often uses the term ″Late Onset″ instead).

Table 7 summarizes the responses of survey participants who detransitioned and were asked about their appraisal of their past transgender identification. ″The statements most frequently selected included: “I thought gender dysphoria was the best explanation for what I was feeling” (57.0%), “My gender dysphoria was similar to the gender dysphoria of those who remain transitioned” (42.0%), “What I thought were feelings of being transgender actually were the result of trauma” (36.0%), “What I thought were feelings of being transgender actually were the result of a mental health condition” (36.0%).″ Note that almost two times more female than male participants chose the last two responses.

The last two responses directly support the ROGD hypothesis. As for social influence, another response is ″Someone else told me that the feelings I was having meant that I was transgender and I believed them″ and was selected by over 30% of respondents.

I hope that this suffices to give an executive overview of the paper - but please, read the paper before responding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skryba2000 (talk • contribs) 07:05, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

You have been told in no uncertain terms that Dr Littman is NOT a reliable source. 46.97.170.139 (talk) 09:36, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Well, you can't just ignore a scientific, peer-reviewed publication, just because you don't like the author or because the research results offend you. You also don't get to divide authors of scientific articles into the good guys and the bad girls (in this case). If you do that, you end up doing nothing but censorship.

On the contrary - you should keep a neutral POV and just consider the relevance of this source for the article. And Littman's new paper is highly relevant. Skryba2000 (talk) 14:02, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Is there anything in the 2021 paper that actually supports the hypothesis, though? It looks like just another convenience sample from the internet set to confirm the researcher's bias. Newimpartial (talk) 14:05, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Skyrba, you seem to have put quite a bit of WP:OR into establishing this newer paper as somehow related to this article, but I just don't see its relevance. You are aware, I hope, that this was a convenience sample of 101 detransitioners, and that ROGD fanfic makes claims much more sweeping than "detransitioners exist". Newimpartial (talk) 12:46, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Here's another quote from the new paper (wish you would've read it, though):

"The data in this study strengthen, with first-hand accounts, the rapid-onset gender dysphoria (ROGD) hypotheses which, briefly stated, are that psychosocial factors (such as trauma, mental health conditions, maladaptive coping mechanisms, internalized homophobia, and social influence) can cause or contribute to the development of gender dysphoria in some individuals (Littman, 2018)"

This should convince why this paper is relevant to this Wikipedia article.

As to WP:OR: you are confused. Finding an external source and linking it to an article is not original research; it's what Wikipedia is all about. Skryba2000 (talk) 13:58, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Does Littman actually provide the supporting evidence she promises there? Newimpartial (talk) 14:02, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Did you read the paper? Skryba2000 (talk) 14:04, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

I started at the beginning and read as much as I could stomach. I am under no obligation to WP:SATISFY you on this matter. Newimpartial (talk) 14:07, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

If you don't read the paper you have to take my word for it - there is evidence in these interviews that supports the hypothesis. I just about summarized it in the executive summary in the OP. Skryba2000 (talk) 14:13, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm afraid your "summary" - especially the two paragraphs before the conclusion of your OP - reads as original interpretation. Does Littman actually make the argument you sketch out as you "summarize"? Newimpartial (talk) 14:20, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Well yes, she does.

And no, I did not make any interpretation. I just pointed out the parts of her research (evidence for cases of detransitioners who consider that the cause of their gender dysphoria was trauma or mental illness) that direclty support the ROGD hypothesis.

And yes, she makes the point too, in the paper. Do you want me to quote the whole paper here piece by piece? Skryba2000 (talk) 14:27, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Well, as far as I can tell from going through the paper again, your summary is making claims about Table 7, in particular, that Littman herself does not make. I also note that while Littman does refer to the "ROGD hypotheses" in this paper, the supposed content for those hypotheses differs markedly from the original 2018 study, so it is not possible to assess any potential relationship between the findings of this study and the previous one. Newimpartial (talk) 15:03, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for reading the paper! Now we can discuss ;]

In my summary about Table 7, I quoted what Littman wrote in the paper. Where did I go wrong, in your opinion?

Even so - that's besides the point. What's important is what is in the paper. You claim that the hypothesis differs from her 2018 study. Let's check.

New paper (Littman, 2021):

"the rapid-onset gender dysphoria (ROGD) hypotheses which, briefly stated, are that psychosocial factors (such as trauma, mental health conditions, maladaptive coping mechanisms, internalized homophobia, and social influence) can cause or contribute to the development of gender dysphoria in some individuals (Littman, 2018). Littman also postulated that certain beliefs could be spread by peer contagion, including the belief that a wide range of symptoms should be interpreted as gender dysphoria (and proof of being transgender) and the belief that transition is the only solution to relieve distress."

Old paper (Littman, 2018):

"The purpose of this descriptive, exploratory research is to (1) collect data about parents’ observations, experiences, and perspectives about their AYA children showing signs of a rapid onset of gender dysphoria that began during or after puberty, and (2) develop hypotheses about factors that may contribute to the onset and/or expression of gender dysphoria among this demographic group."

In another part of the paper:

"The AYAs who were the focus of this study had many comorbidities and vulnerabilities predating the onset of their gender dysphoria, including psychiatric disorders, neurodevelopmental disabilities, trauma, non-suicidal self-injury (NSSI), and difficulties coping with strong or negative emotions (Table 4). The majority (62.5%) of AYAs had one or more diagnoses of a psychiatric disorder or neurodevelopmental disability preceding the onset of gender dysphoria (range of the number of pre-existing diagnoses 0–7). Many (48.4%) had experienced a traumatic or stressful event prior to the onset of their gender dysphoria." (AYA stands for Adolescent Young Adult.)

In the conclusion:

"Emerging hypotheses include the possibility of a potential new subcategory of gender dysphoria (referred to as rapid-onset gender dysphoria) that has not yet been clinically validated and the possibility of social influences and maladaptive coping mechanisms contributing to the development of gender dysphoria. "

So, I think you are partially right - in her original paper, Littman didn't formulate the EOGD hypothesis as clearly as in the new paper. Still, there are no contradictions - rather, the formulation in the second paper is more specific than in the first one. Skryba2000 (talk) 16:34, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm not convinced you are reading the two papers correctly. The first hypothesis mentioned from the first paper is the possibility of a potential new subcategory of gender dysphoria (referred to as rapid-onset gender dysphoria) that has not yet been clinically validated. Strictly speaking, this is the "ROGD hypothesis" while the second is a social influence hypothesis that may or may not be associated with "rapid onset".

The more recent paper may have something to say about the second hypothesis, but the subcategory of gender dysphoria appears to have been DOA and the design of the second study would not have been able to validate or disvalidate the hypothesis. Newimpartial (talk) 18:30, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

This is getting a bit into tl;dr territory so let's try to get to the main issue here. We should not be making our own WP:OR decisions on what this paper is about or of its significance. If we have good RS coverage describing it as a relaunch of the (seemingly dead) ROGD hypothesis then it is on-topic for the article and it should be included in the article. It can't have made much impact in this respect so I'm thinking of one or two sentences maximum. Anything more would be over-coverage and might read like schadenfreude anyway. If we do not have RS coverage linking this to ROGD then this can be assumed to be some other matter, off-topic for this article, and should be omitted. The fact that ROGD is mentioned in the paper is not enough. We need reliable independent coverage linking them. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:33, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Pls see my comment above, where I discuss how the ROGD hypothesis was stated in Littman's first and second paper. They are clearly linked, not just because the papers have the same author, or that the second paper quotes the first one. Skryba2000 (talk) 16:38, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

As I said, the fact that ROGD is mentioned in the paper is not enough. We need reliable independent coverage linking them. The onus is on those who wish to include it to provide those sources. Telling us to "read the paper" is wasting everybody's time because the primary source can not give us what we need here. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:40, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Honestly - I do not understand what you expect from me. Am I supposed to find a source that will confirm that another source is on the same subject as the article?

IMHO, we are supposed to read the sources we are quoting in the article, and decide whether they are relevant, or not. How are we supposed to quote a source if we do not read it? Skryba2000 (talk) 17:19, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

If a paper is published and it makes no waves in secondary sources then Wikipedia doesn't really care that it exists. This is a notability issue. If you can't find RS sources for the notability or relevance of this paper then we have to assume that it is not notable or relevant. Assuming that you want to promote Litman's views, which seems to be the case, I assume that you would not want us to write something like "In 2021 Litman wrote another article about trans people. Unlike the previous article, this failed to spark controversy and received no scholarly attention."? Do you see why it is better to leave it out if there is no good reason to include it? --DanielRigal (talk) 17:59, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

So that's what you meant.

Well, Littman's new paper has 11 citations on Google scholar, which is about 10 per year.

That's not as much as the previous paper, but it isn't little, either. Skryba2000 (talk) 18:23, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Her previous paper had about 15 citations per year on average, and about 40 per year after the controversy broke out. Skryba2000 (talk) 18:26, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Only 5 of those citations are actually journal articles themselves. One of the others is a podcast. That's basically zilch for a socially-controversial medical topic. XOR'easter (talk) 18:42, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

The Bauer et al. article only has 6 citations (two of which are letters to the editor, and two from this lot), and everybody wants to keep that one in...  Tewdar  19:16, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

There's a difference between a primary source that introduces a new idea and the secondary sources that evaluate it; neglecting that distinction, one could recursively remove everything by saying that the commentary on the commentary has not received sufficient commentary.... I should clarify that I don't think GS citation counts are the be-all and end-all for making decisions upon; they are very good at providing an illusion of objectivity when all they really give is, well, a number. It's a proxy for gauging the more important yet elusive issue, "Has there been significant discussion of the new idea?" In deciding wiki-notability for academic biographies, they are only one tool for evaluating one criterion, and as deletion discussions have made clear over the years, even then they have to be judged on a field-by-field basis, with careful attention paid to what type of publication is being cited. XOR'easter (talk) 20:27, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Bauer et al. 2021 is a WP:PRIMARY source (which I have not suggested removing), which is testing someone else's WP:FRINGE hypothesis.  Tewdar  20:35, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

If it's testing someone else's hypothesis, it's not the primary source for that hypothesis, but instead represents discussion about that hypothesis. That brings different factors into play when considering whether and how to write about it. Accordingly, comparing its GS citation count to that of an article of another kind in order to deem the latter number either too big or too small just doesn't seem a meaningful evaluation to me. XOR'easter (talk) 20:48, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Yeah... since we're citing WP:PRIMARY studies anyway, probably in violation of the spirit of MEDRS, I fail to see why we're not including a PRIMARY by the proposer of the original hypothesis who claims that the new study lends weight to that hypothesis, regardless of the number of citations.  Tewdar  20:56, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

High quality primary studies. A survey of redditors on a known anti-trans subreddit is not high quality. Snokalok (talk) 19:53, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Well, it passed the Archives of Sexual Behavior peer-review process, so your (incomplete) assessment of the methodological shortcomings of this new article can be safely disregarded as WP:OR. If you have any links to actual expert commentary criticising the new paper I'd be glad to read it.  Tewdar  10:20, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

See, it looks like "high-quality primary study" = "stuff that trashes ROGD", whereas "low-quality primary study" = "stuff that supports ROGD", at least to the majority of clientèle here - which is one good reason why we should use secondary sources, so that they can determine what is high/low quality for us, instead of performing our own amateur reviews of primary studies.  Tewdar  10:39, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Tewdar, you seem to be assuming that editors here are unable to read methodology sections of papers on their merits, which is not a "good look". Your argument here implies that for the brief moment after the publication of Littman's first study and before the criticism of it was also published, we were obliged to accept it as quality albeit primary MEDRS because it had passed peer review. This is bullshit. Of course we rely on MEDRS reviews for authoritative judgements on these matters, but the judgements we rely on also include those of professional associations, etc., and editors are not expected to be agnostic between the scholarship lauded by mainstream experts in the field and horseshit based on online surveys advertised on Reddit. Newimpartial (talk) 12:41, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

No, my argument here is that editors are trying to include cherry-picked primary sources which they like, neglecting to include primary sources which they do not like, criticising primary sources that 'the enemy' have included, praising primary sources that their friends have included, and in all instances failing to accurately summarise the primary sources by leaving out critical details and misrepresenting their findings, thus rendering their contributions utterly misleading and worthless.  Tewdar  12:55, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Also yes, I do not believe editors should be judging methodology sections of papers. That's called OR, and it is what we should be using secondary sources to do.  Tewdar  12:57, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Nailed it. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:46, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Finally please point out where Bauer et al. has been lauded by mainstream experts in the field? (peer-reviewed, obvs)  Tewdar  13:00, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Re: leaving out critical details and misrepresenting their findings, thus rendering their contributions utterly misleading and worthless - that sounds like a pretty serious accusation to direct at other editors. Do you have diffs to bakx that up, or are you just casting WP:ASPERSIONs? Newimpartial (talk) 13:18, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes of course I could provide diffs. Here's a recent example of leaving out critical details.  Tewdar  13:34, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Here's one of you re-adding the same content, minus some critical details.  Tewdar  13:37, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

What critical details do you feel these edits are leaving out? You seem to be using terms in unfamiliar ways - the findings of dated and misleading scholarship isn't what anyone means by critical detsils, I would have hoped. Newimpartial (talk) 13:55, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

(Sigh) There are critical details which the editor(s) is leaving out of the description of the cohort transgender and nonbinary youths, for example. It does not accurately describe the study group, and hence is misleading.  Tewdar  14:01, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Obviously it may be difficult for non-experts to accurately summarise primary medical studies...  Tewdar  14:04, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Are you saying that the fact that the young people had transitioned socially should have been mentioned? Or something else? Newimpartial (talk) 14:11, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, something like that. Even the Article Summary tells us that This article examines the frequency of retransition and current gender identity amongst youth who identified as binary transgender children earlier in childhood, which is more accurate. If I left out such details on an article about 8,000 year old skeletons someone would probably complain. And rightly so.  Tewdar  14:18, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Here's another example... oh, "oops!" - the editor seems to have missed out the next bit of the abstract, which says Certainty in this conclusion is limited by high risk of bias in study designs, small sample sizes, and confounding with other interventions. We could not draw any conclusions about death by suicide. No doubt fixing this omission will be top priority, eh?  Tewdar  15:41, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with that summary - there isn't any suggestion of certainty, nor any mention of death by suicide. Newimpartial (talk) 16:51, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with that summary - of course there is a problem with the summary! If Baker et al. see fit to include disclaimers about high risk of bias, small sample sizes, and confounding with other interventions, in the effing abstract, no less, then it is absolutely essential that we include these qualifying remarks! Or else we're just including the good bits, leaving out the neutral or bad bits, and omitting any mention that we shouldn't have much confidence in any of these conclusions! And this is a review article - gawd help us!  Tewdar  16:57, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Anyway, it is unnecessary duplication, so I deleted it from the article.  Tewdar  17:16, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

That's reasonable. I didn't notice that the passage duplicated information already in the article, but to be fair, I haven't edited that section for some time. The caveat in the status quo version seems unduly mealey-mouthed to me now, but I might have signed off on it at some point to help close some previous POV-based dispute. Newimpartial (talk) 17:57, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Mealey-mouthed? Shall I add the bits about high risk of bias, small sample sizes, and confounding with other interventions to the paragraph?  Tewdar  18:19, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Good disclaimers, like the ones in Baker's paper, clarify for readers the limitations of the findings of a study. Bad disclaimers, like the one currently in the WP article, cast doubt on whether scholarship has reached any conclusions, in instances when it has reached (appropriately modest) findings. Newimpartial (talk) 18:25, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Okay, I changed it. Perhaps you can sprinkle some magic eloquence on it?  Tewdar  18:38, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Cherry-pick caveats, eh? 😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡 Which caveats do you think I should have also included?  Tewdar  18:46, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm guessing it will take you a while to read the entire paper to try and find something I may have missed, so I am going to purchase some ice cream.  Tewdar  19:00, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Full disclosure: navigating between one arricle's Talk page and another article's text, where the provided diff is in mobile format and therefore useless for me for source verification, has put me in a bitchy mood. Not your fault, but still a thing.

I don't find it accurate to paraphrase "The strength of evidence for these conclusions is low" as "the authors note their low confidence in their conclusions", or to elaborate "the high risk of bias in study design" as "the high risk of bias in the design of the reviewed studies" - as if it applied to the reviewed studies in general - when Table one reports a varying risk of bias for each study. While "The strength of the evidence was low due to methodological limitations" isn't great, either, since the result for the reader seems to me to differ in rhetorical effect from the authors' chosen conclusion:

Despite the limitations of the available evidence, however, our review indicates that gender-affirming hormone therapy is likely associated with improvements in QOL, depression, and anxiety. No studies showed that hormone therapy harms mental health or quality of life among transgender people. These benefits make hormone therapy an essential component of care that promotes the health and well-being of transgender people.

It seems to me that that this is the impression we should leave with our readers, while appropriately attributing it to the authors rather than using wikivoice (of course). That was the one thing I liked about your edit: you took the caveats out of wikivoice (but then presented them as though the authors weren't convinced by their own findings, which was not the case). I hope you enjoyed your ice cream more than I enjoyed re-reading the paper. :p Newimpartial (talk) 19:10, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

The authors chose to summarise, in the abstract, the (combined) risk of bias in the studies (plural) as "high". This is hardly cherry-picking, even if you didn't like my (or the authors') summary.

I find that "The strength of evidence for these conclusions is low" can be accurately summarised as "the authors note their low confidence in their conclusions". Perhaps you disagree, but again, hardly "cherry-picking".

"The strength of the evidence was low due to methodological limitations",(which was already present, as you know) while perhaps "mealy-mouthed" is a reasonable summary of "The strength of evidence for this conclusion is low due to concerns about study designs, small sample sizes, and confounding", which is direct from the paper.

Your final quote contains mainly what is already in the article. However, I agree that These benefits make hormone therapy an essential component of care that promotes the health and well-being of transgender people would make a worthwhile addition to the summary.

All in all I find the accusation of "cherry-picking" some text was here that would probably get me banned to be unfounded. And my ice-cream was very nice, thank you.  Tewdar  20:00, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Well, you more-or-less asked me to explain why I preferred one compromise to another, so I did. If nuances like the distinction between "the high risk of bias in study design" and "the high risk of bias in the design of the reviewed studies" (such definite articles), or between "the (low) strength of evidence" and "their low confidence" (sometimes getting rid of someone else's use of passive voice changes the meaning) - if that explanation isn't satisfying for you, well, that's prose, isn't it? As far as "cherry-picking" goes, I use it as essentially a metaphor for selective presentation, though I suppose it could be read more harshly than I intend. Newimpartial (talk) 20:14, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Why not improve, augment, and clarify, instead of revert, revert, revert?  Tewdar  20:18, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Because it takes a lot more spoons to identify why something is worse than to notice that it is worse. If it had not been for all the angry emojis, I might not have bothered. Newimpartial (talk) 20:23, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

One reason for not including it might be that the "proposed of the original hypothesis" isn't actually testing the original hypothesis, but rather doing something quite different. So the second study would have to stand on its own merits/reception. Newimpartial (talk) 21:26, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

I've actually changed my mind. All WP:PRIMARY sources making biomedical claims should be excluded from this article and all similar articles, in my opinion.  Tewdar  08:58, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

The feasibility of retaining this article without referencing the study that set off the controversy in the first place seems a bit dicey. Newimpartial (talk) 12:57, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure who that is, but I'm reasonably confident that the primary study kicked off enough hoo-ha that we can probably get away with not citing Littman's article itself. Only 6 of the citations are to the primary study, and it's mainly only used to quote mine a fringe hypothesis anyway.  Tewdar  18:51, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

I just fixed the signature issue with that last reply, answer was in the edit history :) Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:36, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

• Also, per WP:SCHOLARSHIP it's generally inappropriate to rely on isolated studies, especially when it comes to medical fields. Especially when dealing with a controversial figure whose views are, yes, largely considered fringe within the field, it's best to wait for independent and less WP:BIASed sources covering or reproducing her research in order to provide interpretation and analysis, rather than citing it as a primary source. Given how out-there her theories are, it should be extremely obvious if this paper the a dramatic impact on their reception that she seems to believe it should. --Aquillion (talk) 16:43, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

  To coin a phrase, true dat. XOR'easter (talk) 18:39, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

• What do people make of the responses to the Bauer et al. study by Sinai and Littman? WP:UNDUE, I suppose?  Tewdar  18:39, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Letters to the Editor fall at the very bottom of MEDRS. Newimpartial (talk) 18:48, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
    • Still better than a CNN review of a WP:PRIMARY source, I expect.  Tewdar  18:52, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
      • Which, as one may note, I removed from the article's sourcing. Newimpartial (talk) 19:07, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
        • One did indeed note that. Well done you! 😁👍  Tewdar  19:10, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
  • And the response to this, of course...  Tewdar  18:50, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Small addition regarding the WPATH SoC8 Working Group professional commentary

Please bear with me, I realize this is a controversial topic and I'm a newer editor so my proposed edit may not be perfectly drafted.

In the new NYTimes article there is a relevant section regarding ROGD, "Leibowitz and his co-authors ... wrote in their December draft chapter [of the WPATH SoC8], part of the rise in trans identification among teenagers could be a result of what they called 'social influence,' absorbed online or peer to peer. The draft mentioned the very small group of people who detransition (stop identifying as transgender), saying that some of them 'have described how social influence was relevant in their experience of their gender during adolescence.'"

I was thinking it would be useful to add a few sentences regarding this. I believe this meets the WP:RS, WP:DUE, WP:NPOV, and WP:REL bars to be included in this page. I will explain each of my points in detail.

• WP:RS: Besides being published in the NYTimes, the opinion is directly attributed to the WPATH SoC8 working group on Assessment, Support and Therapeutic Approaches for Adolescents with Gender Variance/Dysphoria chapter.. Specifically, the name mentioned (Scott Leibowitz) is the co-chair of that working group. Some more information on Scott Leibowitz can be found here.
• WP:DUE: I think that this meets WP:DUE due to the individuals quoted. Although this is a minority view, I think the ability to name 'prominent adherents,' lends weight to this position.
• WP:NPOV: I think this statement helps improve the neutrality of the article. As far as I can tell, there isn't much of the article giving professional support for ROGD, thus the fact that this commentary lends some amount of credence helps the article more neutral. I don't believe this falls into WP:FALSEBALANCE due to the professional credentials of the quoted authors which are impressive.
• WP:REL: I think this is relevant as it is 'once removed,' from ROGD thus giving it a medium relevance level. As mentioned in the ROGD article, "Littman, then an adjunct assistant professor at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, became interested in the possible role of social contagion in gender dysphoria among young people." Although ROGD is not directly mentioned, the intersection between the proposing author's interest in 'social contagion' of gender dysphoria and the concerns regarding the same given by the SoC8 working group makes this a 'once removed,' relevant professional commentary. This is why I have taken such care to examine and present the WP:RS, WP:DUE, and WP:NPOV of this proposed addition.

Given the above, I would like to add a few sentences regarding this article presenting this professional commentary. What are your thoughts on this? I will think of a proposed draft of the addition. Theheezy (talk) 16:07, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Since the source in question doesn't actually appear to mention ROGD, I don't think it is relevant to this article - it isn't intended to he a WP:COATRACK for all "social influence" hypotheses. Newimpartial (talk) 16:16, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I disagree. I don't believe this is WP:COATRACK. Again, the article reads, "rapid-onset gender dysphoria (ROGD), proposed to be a subtype of gender dysphoria caused by peer influence and social contagion."

Several portions in the NYTimes article are talking about manifestation of GD in teens due to these exact factors, "Leibowitz and his co-authors thought that the timing of the rise in trans-identified teenagers, as well as research from Britain and Australia, suggested that the increased visibility of trans people in entertainment and the media had played a major — and positive — role in reducing stigma and helping many kids express themselves in ways they would have previously kept buried. At the same time, the authors acknowledged that they weren’t sure that visibility was the only factor at play. As they wrote in their December draft chapter, part of the rise in trans identification among teenagers could be a result of what they called “social influence,” absorbed online or peer to peer. The draft mentioned the very small group of people who detransition (stop identifying as transgender), saying that some of them 'have described how social influence was relevant in their experience of their gender during adolescence.' In adolescence, peers and culture often affect how kids see themselves and who they want to be. "

Furthermore, another main point of ROGD, as per the article, "Littman speculated that rapid onset of gender dysphoria could be a "social coping mechanism" for other disorders, such as depression and anxiety caused by adolescent trauma." This highly overlaps with some more text in the article, "To make matters more complicated, as a group, the young people coming to gender clinics have high rates of autism, depression, anxiety and eating or attention-deficit disorders. Many of them are also transgender, but these other issues can complicate determining a clear course of treatment. Without stating them outright, the draft raises tricky questions: Could some of the teenagers coming out as trans today be different from the adults who transitioned in previous generations? For them the benefits are well established and the rate of regret is very low. How many young people, especially those struggling with serious mental-health issues, might be trying to shed aspects of themselves they dislike?"

I think this portion of the article is highly related to the ROGD topic, although it is not directly mentioned in the article. I assert that this is WP:REL, once removed, and is published in a reliable source with strong authorship. Theheezy (talk) 17:04, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

How do you propose to establish that this is the same subtype of gender dysphoria, without performing WP:SYNTH or other original interpretation of the sources. So far, your argument here appears to be entirely SYNTH/OR: you seem to be triangulating by raising parallels around peer influence and mental health issues, but that is still COATRACKing IMO. Also, it seems WP:EXTRAORDINARY to claim that, after WPATH having taken the position essentially that ROGD doesn't exist, that the draft chapter from December is correctly understood as bringing in ROGD through the back door. Newimpartial (talk) 17:14, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

This debate is moot.

As far as I understand it's okay to talk about topic B if topic A and topic B are well connected. Again, if you notice the overlap between ROGD article, and the NYTimes article goes something like this...

ROGD is the hypothesis that GD can be caused by D, E, and F. Meanwhile the NYTimes article says that the authors of SoC8 are concerned about GD being caused by D, E, and F. What would be WP:COATRACK would be if I were to propose adding information on D, E, and F which is completely separate and unrelated from GD. Again, strictly speaking, talking about D, E, F is permitted by WP:REL but under a higher bar of scrutiny, which is why I put stringent evaluation criteria on other aspects of the source and did qualify my assertions.

The position of SoC8 working group is indeed (I think) nuanced on this topic. As @Crossroads pointed out in his excerpt from the draft, this exact issue is on the radar of clinicians. Of course, we cannot read this draft ourselves as it is unavailable, but I have no reason to assume bad faith on Crossroads' excerpt. The bigger concern is WP:SYNTH as we may influence the reader to believe a higher support for ROGD by the SoC8 working group exists than it does.

I think its best to wait until the final copy (i.e., not a draft) of SoC8 is published to see what can be added to this article. However, we should not take the position that nuance cannot exist. Theheezy (talk) 14:32, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

I would simply like to point out what I have pointed out before - namely, that not everything that has been cited by someone to Littman (even by Littman to Littman) is within the scope of this article. As I pointed out last year, The topic here is not... "ROGD and anything else about which Littman is cited by other authors". Newimpartial (talk) 16:03, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

I have to agree with Newimpartial. Just because articles mention possible other social factors influencing the rise of trans youth, it does not follow that these are all examples of ROGD. They might be more appropriate in a broad article about transitioning, but ROGD is a much more narrow topic. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:03, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Something about this sourced to SOC8 could be added when SOC8 comes out and we confirm the final version still cites Littman - thus showing relevance. We would of course stick closely to what SOC8 says to avoid SYNTH. The draft version did cite Littman, which I quoted in a previous discussion on another page: it is critical to consider the societal changes that have occurred over time in relation to transgender people. Given the increase in visibility of transgender and gender diverse identities, it is important to understand how increased awareness may impact gender development in different ways (Kornienko et al., 2016)....Another phenomenon is adolescents seeking care who have not apparently experienced and/or expressed gender diversity during their childhood years. One researcher attempted to study and describe a specific form of later-presenting gender diversity experience (Littman, 2018 [the ROGD paper]); however, the study contained significant methodological challenges which must be considered as context for the findings: 1) the study surveyed parents and not youth perspectives, and 2) recruitment included parents from community settings in which treatments for gender dysphoria are often characterized as pathological or undesired. The phenomenon of social influence on gender is salient, however, as some who have changed their thoughts about their own gender identity have described how social influence was relevant in their experience of their gender during adolescence (Vandenbussche, 2021). For a select subgroup of young people, in the context of exploration, social influence on gender may be a relevant issue and an important differential. This phenomenon is neither new nor surprising for health professionals working with adolescents; however, caution must be taken to avoid assuming these phenomena prematurely in an individual adolescent, as well as from datasets that may have been ascertained with potential sampling bias (WPATH, 2018). Unfortunately, the link to the draft no longer works. Crossroads ^-talk- 01:09, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

The NY Times piece doesn't mention ROGD by name, nor can I see linked in any of the inline hyperlinks, but the citation in the draft WPATH 8 SoC that the NY Times is referring to is to Littman's August 2018 paper. Of course whether or not that is in the final version of the SoC remains to be seen. Regardless it does seem rather synthy though to make this link explicit when the NY Times did not, especially so as citing the draft SoC chapter is impossible for verification purposes. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:21, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Noticed the NYT piece when it came out and its possible relevance to this article, and yes, it would be SYNTH to add it. Mathglot (talk) 02:34, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi all, thanks for the feedback. I agree that WP:SYNTH is a problem here. Theheezy (talk) 12:56, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Pediatric and Adolescent Gender Dysphoria (GD) Working Group

We're currently devoting an entire paragraph to this group, cited solely to themselves as a primary source; in particular, we have no secondary sources for the claim that they're composed of professionals or to any of the things they've stated. A Google search turns up essentially nothing but this page, so, to be specific, I do not think the claim that they are composed of professionals passes WP:V, nor does anything cited directly to them pass WP:DUE (it is essentially cited to a random website with no indication that there's any significance to them or that they have any sort of fact-checking and editorial controls.) When I removed it, it was restored with a note that it is mentioned in [1], but that is a passing parenthetical mention that doesn't support any of the things we currently say (the sole mention there is in parenthesis saying that ROGD has seen an uptake among clinicians associated with the corrective approach, which aims at reducing the likelihood of youth growing up trans and has been likened to conversion therapy (Pediatric and Adolescent Gender Dysphoria Working Group, n.d.; Temple Newhook et al., 2018, p. 220; Zucker et al., 2012). While the corrective approach long focused on pre-pubescent children whose gender identity is claimed to be malleable, ROGD theory offers an excuse to extend the corrective approach to teenagers and young adults. Attempts to change gender identity and/or promote identification with sex assigned at birth has been widely opposed by professional associations (Ashley, n.d.; Coleman et al., 2012; UKCP et al., 2017).) That reference is not even cited in the paragraph in question. And we certainly couldn't use it for that text, since it's insufficient to cite a paragraph of that nature; if we relied on that source then what we said about the group would have to reflect the secondary source, including eg. the fact that they support an approach that has been likened to conversion therapy - citing it but removing that context would be misusing it as a source. But I don't think it's worth saying anything at all, based on the current sources. If this group is significant enough to be worth devoting a paragraph to their opinions, based solely on their website as a WP:PRIMARY source for what they believe, then it should be easy to find secondary sources covering their views in more depth than this. --Aquillion (talk) 21:23, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Note that the same arguments are at least equally applicable to the GDA group described in the preceding paragraph. For example, see the archived talk page discussions here and here. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 21:32, 9 June 2022 (UTC) Lwarrenwiki (talk) 21:32, 9 June 2022 (UTC) (rev. 21:37, 9 June 2022 (UTC))

I agree that due weight is relative and would have no particular problem removing both; at the very least I can't find much coverage of the GDA group's letter. And both are completely undue to give the same weight we give eg. WPATH. It may also be worth looking for more higher-profile groups whose responses have actual secondary coverage. eg. compare how easy it was for me to find additional secondary sources on WPATH to the other two. --Aquillion (talk) 21:45, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Then, for NPOV, I'll remove that latter obscure group as well. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:27, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

We do not treat FRINGE and mainstream professional pronouncements the same. I have re-added the GDA group and added a couple of RS giving WEIGHT to its commentary. Also, I don't find any basis in the archived discussions for the removal of the GDA group's criticism. Newimpartial (talk) 17:17, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

The GDA's "open letter to Psychology Today" is self-published on GDA's own website. It's a letter to the editor of Psychology Today, a letter that didn't even get published in Psychology Today. It's hard to see how the weight of the GDA's open letter comes close to the weight of, say, a position paper from WPATH. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 19:37, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

That is as it may be, but the letter was cited by at least one national standards group (CPATH) and in at least one peer-reviewed article: citations which I included. Newimpartial (talk) 19:59, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

I disagree, this is still not sufficient for inclusion. --StellarNerd (talk) 20:04, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

That's nice, but this paragraph has been in all stable versions of this article for years. You will need consensus to remove it, I'm afraid. Newimpartial (talk) 20:12, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

It is for exactly that reason, then, that we should revert the deletion of the paragraph about the GD Working Group. These two working groups stand or fall together. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 20:15, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

This discussion is consensus. I agree with Lwarrenwiki that both working groups should fall together from the article. --StellarNerd (talk) 20:19, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

@StellarNerd: In fact, my preference is that they both should stand. But I don't object to the apparent consensus that they both fall together. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 20:25, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Apologies for misunderstanding your position, and I've reversed my edit. However, I it is my opinion they should both be removed. The GDA group content is using a French radio programme from Canada of all places. With gender dysphoria being such an important issue, you would expect usual sources in the English language to cover the topic. --StellarNerd (talk) 20:31, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

The WP:NONENG policy allows us to cite and use non-English reliable sources in articles as part of verifiability. We have many articles on enwiki that are sourced entirely to non-English sources without issue. As such I do not see any issues in using that source simply because it is French language. Also it's not a radio program. That's the website for Ici Radio-Canada Télé's news and current affairs coverage, a French language TV station operated by the CBC. As a source, it is akin to BBC News Online. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:41, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree that the French-language source is perfectly fine. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 21:04, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

There is consensus to remove the FRINGE position, and no consensus to remove the mainstream position. This can change, but it hasn't yet, and an editor or two chanting "this is consensus!" and "tit for tat!" isn't relevant to forming a new consensus. The argument that we have to include both or neither is WP:FALSEBALANCE - one is a mainstream position backed by mainstream professional bodies, and the other isn't. Newimpartial (talk) 20:52, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

@StellarNerd: As far as I'm concerned, there was no need to reverse your deletion of the paragraph about the GDA Working Group's letter to the editor. There was (and is) clear consensus to delete it, in the present discussion, with only one editor dissenting. I agree with the majority that it should be deleted. (My position, in more detail, includes an exception: the GDA paragraph should be deleted, unless and until the other paragraph is restored for WP:BALANCE. I don't believe this to be a case of WP:FALSEBALANCE at all.) There are more than enough good reasons to delete the GDA paragraph. For example, as someone recently wrote, "Letters to the Editor fall at the very bottom of MEDRS". Being self-published, rather than published as a letter in the criticized journal, should be more than enough to knock a letter to the editor down below the very bottom. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 21:04, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the only editors who have expressed a preference to remove the GDA working group paragraph are StellarNerd and Crossroads. That does not mean that there is now consensus for removal (in spite of the odd way Crossroads sometimes has of determining consensus, seemingly as any discussion where one other editor agrees with him).

And as far as my comment about MEDRS goes, I am not saying that the letter should be included because it is the best available source - the CPATH and Ashley sources that cite it are better sources, in themselves. I favor its inclusion because it articulates well the mainstream position for which it is referenced in these other sources. Newimpartial (talk) 21:12, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

I count four editors in the consensus for deletion: StellarNerd, Crossroads, myself, and Aquilion (who, as stated here, "would have no particular problem removing both"). Lwarrenwiki (talk) 21:25, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Juat to be clear: neither you nor Aquilion have expressed a preference for removal. Newimpartial (talk) 21:29, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

And my apologies for duplicating your comment - I have no idea how that happened, or why I couldn't see that it had happened, after it had happened. Newimpartial (talk) 21:48, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

I can't speak for Aquilion. I joined the consensus for removal when I wrote, "I agree with the majority that it should be deleted."

And of course, I understand that this may seem to contradict my previous statement, "In fact, my preference is that they both should stand", and you would be perfectly justified if you found that confusing. Here's my explanation: I've accepted that it is unlikely that both paragraphs will stand. Having taken it as a given that both paragraphs will not stand together, and in light of that foregone conclusion, I joined the then-emerging consensus by stating that "I agree with the majority that [the GDA paragraph] should be deleted." I hope that makes it clear. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 22:11, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that is now clear. It does not, however, establish consensus. Newimpartial (talk) 23:09, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

It's still 3 vs 1 in favor of removal, with Aquillion's answer previously read by me as favoring removal as well, although theirs was more contingent on lack of secondary sources and might not apply anymore. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:46, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

I have read Sideswipe9th's comments, above, as opposing removal. Newimpartial (talk) 11:13, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

For nostalgia, and as a striking example of genuine WP:CIVILITY that I remember as one of my best experiences on Wikipedia: take a look at what reaching a consensus looked like in July 2019. It was an actual mutual agreement among hotly opposed editors, after a month of talk page arguments under various headings (see 1, 2). Finally, around the middle of this archived talk page discussion, we recognized that a consensus had been achieved in favor of including the paragraphs on both working groups. Because of that process, in which editors were able to compromise on reasonable revisions rather than bulk deletions, it turned out to be a long-enduring consensus. (Consensus here.) Lwarrenwiki (talk) 14:54, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

And against nostalgia, I would point out that no matter how CIVIL these 2019 discussions may have been, subsequent developments have changed the BALANCE of the sourcing in one direction, rather than the other, so arguments that might have seemed valid in 2019 may now represent WP:FALSEBALANCE. Newimpartial (talk) 15:12, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

On the meta-argument, I don't see why two working groups have to "stand or fall together"; the available documentation on each should be judged on its own merits. Regarding the Gender Dysphoria Affirmative Working Group (GDA) specifically, I could see a case for condensing the paragraph on it, since we have secondary sources on their letter's existence but they do not go much into depth about its contents, and our paragraph summarizing those contents mostly repeats criticisms made in the previous section. XOR'easter (talk) 19:19, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

That approach seems reasonable. Newimpartial (talk) 19:33, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Yup, that seems sensible and logical. Works for me. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:42, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, each should of course be judged on its own merits. The PAGD paragraph had strikingly poor sourcing (as it stood, sourced only to the PAGD, it was obviously unusable). The GDA has somewhat better sourcing, though not great, and it could stand to be given less weight/space; one draft idea for condensing the GDA para (trying to retain what seem to be the key points the secondary sources are about) would be:

• The Gender Dysphoria Affirmative Working Group (GDA) of 44 professionals in transgender health wrote an open letter to Psychology Today citing previously published criticism of the study stating it had multiple biases and flaws in methodology, as it drew its subjects from "websites openly hostile to transgender youth" and based its conclusions on the beliefs of parents who presupposed the existence of ROGD. Noting Littman had not interviewed the teens, the GDA stated onset may only have been "rapid" from parents' point of view because teens often delay coming out.

-sche (talk) 21:00, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

I like this revision. Loki (talk) 19:36, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm also for condensing the GDA paragraph and removing the PAGD paragraph. The PAGD paragraph is sourced only to themselves, which is a huge problem for WP:WEIGHT, especially since the PAGD are not particularly well-known. I'd prefer the GDA paragraph be trimmed because of WEIGHT issues as well, but I don't want it to be removed since it does have at least some outside sourcing. Loki (talk) 19:36, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

PAGD is currently out and User:Crossroads shortened the GDA paragraph. Loki, is there anymore to do here ? --StellarNerd (talk) 05:08, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Nope! Loki (talk) 16:51, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Pseudoscientific - yes

Bodney recently added back the adjective "pseudoscientific" to the article's first sentence (diff). I agree that so-called "rapid-onset gender dysphoria" is pseudoscientific because the concept was developed without systematic practices usually followed to develop hypotheses, such as:

• an attitude of detachment and skepticism;
• considering alternative explanations;
• systematically collecting data in an unbiased manner;
• establishing diagnostic criteria which are then subject to studies of inter-rater reliability, internal consistency, and construct validity;
• surveying mental health professionals to ascertain their opinions regarding the concept's reliability, validity, and utility; and
• seeking evaluation by other experts.

If you disagree with this assessment, please explain your rationale. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 17:18, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

As an aside, I believe that the plethora of media (including social media) presentations on the topic, which vary in quality from the scientific to the absurd, have led some adolescents—who are influenced by their peer groups who have been influenced by the same media—to jump to conclusions about their gender identity and to subsequently seek treatment for gender dysphoria before it is probably warranted. It is a social phenomenon that deserves attention, analysis, and civil discussion. Unfortunately, by reflexively calling it a mental disorder, legitimate debate has been stymied. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 17:31, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

As the editor who originally added "pseudoscientific", it is clear that the concept is pseudoscientific.

Any "concept" which is not accepted in the DSM, has been refuted by the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association, and has no current peer-reviewed supporting evidence beyond one researcher and a retracted paper with clear design flaws, is pseudoscientific.

The fact that the edit was disputed at all is unfortunate evidence of bias, as I understand that certain groups of people very much want this "concept" to be validated. However, until legitimate scientific evidence is produced, the "concept" shall remain pseudoscientific. Strokesfan42 (talk) 00:23, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

This looks like completely unnecessary OR. Are there reliable sources calling the concept pseudoscience? If not, it should be removed, if so, it should stay. Equivamp - talk 01:56, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the above is WP:Original research. It matters not how personally convinced editors are; what matters is if WP:MEDRS actually agree that the term applies. However, even statements like the 2021 joint statement by various professional orgs. don't use the term, so it seems unlikely to be warranted. I agree with the three editors who reverted the term.

As my own aside, I found Markworthen's aside interesting, though I don't see that Littman 'reflexively called it a mental disorder'. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:37, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Do we need to wait until a reliable source uses the word "pseudoscience" even if a reliable source critiques the concept in language very similar to how we characterize pseudoscience in our article on the topic? I am not being snarky, I am genuinely interested in better understanding the policy. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 14:06, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Re: "... I don't see that Littman 'reflexively called it a mental disorder'", that is my interpretation of what happened. Others might characterize the events differently. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 14:08, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

I believe it falls short of WP:FRINGE/PS, which would allow editors to unambiguously name it pseudoscience even if sources don't use that term. --Equivamp - talk 14:38, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Equivamp is correct that in order to call it "pseudoscience" in Wikipedia's voice, it would have to meet the conditions laid out in WP:FRINGE/PS, and the conditions are not met here. Those conditions cover "obviously bogus ... nonsense claiming to be scientific", which applies to examples such as astrology and perpetual motion. The broader category of questionable science, even if it has been described by critical sources as pseudoscience, does not qualify to be labeled as pseudoscience in Wikivoice. Also, contrary to a recent edit comment arguing that "the paper is retracted", the post-publication review did not result in a retraction of the paper, but instead resulted in the journal's publication of an updated and corrected version. See Rapid-onset gender dysphoria controversy#Correction for citations. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 18:48, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

I fail to see how politically motivated nonsense that is manifestly rejected by the scientific community isn't "obviously bogus". 46.97.170.139 (talk) 09:46, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Equivamp and Lwarrenwiki - I appreciate you explaining the policy in a clear, understandable way. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 04:59, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Whether or not we call it pseudoscience, I do think we should have something there, because we do have strong sourcing that ROGD is very questionable, even if we don't have the literal word "pseudoscience". Loki (talk) 17:20, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

My I edit and reference has been deleted. But it makes an important point.The researcher herself made no claims to ROGD being a clinical term. She has described it as descriptive and neutral term to explain a new cohort of people - post pubescent and mostly girls seeking to transition including those whose decision occurred in friendship groups and or after extensive use of specific social media applications (and who differed from the previous child cohort who were mostly pre-pubescent and highly non gender conforming and mostly male). See https://quillette.com/2019/03/19/an-interview-with-lisa-littman-who-coined-the-term-rapid-onset-gender-dysphoria/ Since there is well reported data that this change has happened see https://www.nzma.org.nz/journal-articles/increasing-rates-of-people-identifying-as-transgender-presenting-to-endocrine-services-in-the-wellington-region and https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/what-went-wrong-at-the-tavistock-clinic-for-trans-teenagers-v5cfcw77n it's not unusual in research for new trends to be seen before a clinical diagnosis. Think for example of the emerging aids crisiswhen numerous theoretical explanations were advanced before the discovery of a new virus. Swannieriv (talk) 23:43, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

I disagree with this statement. Scientists have defended Littman's methodology and study, such as in this letter to the editors of "The Journal of Pediatrics":

https://www.jpeds.com/article/S0022-3476(22)00185-8/fulltext Skryba2000 (talk) 17:20, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Letters to the editor are typically not peer-reviewed, and are among the least useful of sources according to WP:MEDRS. Newimpartial (talk) 17:31, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Nevertheless, this letter is evidence of an on-going scientific debate on this subject. 83.31.115.201 (talk) 19:19, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

It is not. Our assessment of scientific consensus is based on secondary sources, especially review papers; citing one or two figures who argue in favor of an otherwise widely-discredited theory is the exact same sort of argument we see on similar WP:FRINGE topics like climate change denial, race and intelligence, and so on. The existence of a handful of people willing to argue a particular point, or even journals willing to publish their opinion, does not mean there is meaningful debate in the field as a whole. --Aquillion (talk) 16:55, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Where are climate science journals publishing letters to the editor from climate change deniers? Crossroads ^-talk- 03:09, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Littman's "clarifications"

Concerning this edit: I was correct in stating that I had identified the MEDRS issues with this before, but incorrectly believed I had done so on this Talk page - rather, it was this one. The problem with the statement and the proposed source remains the same. Newimpartial (talk) 11:50, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:RSP, Quillette is unreliable in general, let alone for WP:MEDRS stuff. --Aquillion (talk) 20:35, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Newly published paper by Jack Turban

A freshly released paper from Jack Turban, Brett Dolotina, Dana King, and Alex Keuroghlian published in Pediatrics (journal) seems as though it has significant relevance to this article. This paper mentions ROGD throughout, addressing both the social contagion claims as well as the purportedly disproportionate rise of of AFAB youth being referred for gender affirming health care. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:09, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Jack Turban's Conflict of Interest should be included. This has been pointed out by leading Psychiatrists in the field.

"JLT received a pilot research award for general psychiatry residents from The American

Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, supported by Industry Sponsors (Arbor and Pfizer),"

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/357792124_Access_to_gender-affirming_hormones_during_adolescence_and_mental_health_outcomes_among_transgender_adults

Dr Turban reports receiving textbook royalties from Springer Nature and expert witness payments from the American Civil Liberties Union and Lambda Legal. He has received a pilot research award for general psychiatry residents from the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry and its industry donors (Arbor and Pfizer) and a research fellowship from the Sorensen Foundation. Dr Keuroghlian reports receiving textbook royalties from McGraw Hill.

https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/doi/10.1542/peds.2022-056567/188709/Sex-Assigned-at-Birth-Ratio-Among-Transgender-and RaySmall88 (talk) 03:35, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

What's the conflict of interest from any of that? Funding from child groups and medical sponsors for a medical study seems like it would only be a COI if it was about trying to get some medication positive press or something. But this is a study about a purported medical condition, so funding from scientific and medical organizations, industry or otherwise, doesn't have any relevance. Silverseren^C 03:41, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Like, I know it's listed in the study as such, but that's just required for publication. But if anything the COI bias in this would be for conclusions of the condition being real, because it's that conclusion that would potentially make money for the industry sponsors and the like. Silverseren^C 03:43, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

The conflict of interest is an allegation made by Steven Levine, for which the only marginally reliable source covering it is the National Review. No other reliable source seems to be covering it, so it seems pretty non-notable in the grand scheme. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:45, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Which is the exact situation we have here. Pfizer and Arbor have the ability to push immediate "gender affirming" care. A highly disputed and new practice as opposed to the traditional "wait and see" approach. Pfizer and Arbor stand to profit termendously from the implementation of this new medical standard. RaySmall88 (talk) 03:51, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Gender affirming care has been the standard of practice for over a decade, and the current anti-trans culture war aside is supported by pretty much every major medical organisation and public health body. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:00, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Not true. Watchful waiting is the dominant standard. "Although almost all clinics and professional associations in the world use what's called the watchful waiting approach to helping gender diverse (GD) children:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31838960/#:~:text=Although%20almost%20all%20clinics%20and,as%20the%20only%20acceptable%20approach. RaySmall88 (talk) 04:07, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Gender affirming care includes watchful waiting, while encouraging the child to explore their gender identity, with deferral to medications and surgery only after an extended period, typically only to delay puberty until any irreversible interventions are conducted later on in post-adolescence. Watchful waiting is not doing nothing. It involves counseling, therapy, and guidance for the parents on how to embrace the child's autonomy. [2] — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 13:36, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Nope. As I stated in my edit summary and on my talk page, this article is not Turban's biography and WP:COATRACK applies. We do not, as standard practice, note any alleged conflicts of interests the authors of a paper may or may not have. There are also issues with the sourcing for the sources used in the original edit, most editors consider the National Review to require attribution when used in an article, and the Wall Street Journal source was explicitly a opinion piece and so unsuitable for use in this manner. Additionally the allegation from Levine that Turban has a conflict of interest is already included at Jack Turban, where it is given as much prominence as is required (ie, not much). Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:42, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Please cite your source as to the "standard practice" and why a conflict of interest can't be cited?

So you will be okay with the post if Levine is directly quoted? That would satisfy your attribution requirement. RaySmall88 (talk) 03:45, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Please cite your source as to the "standard practice" and why a conflict of interest can't be cited? that's asking me to prove a negative.

So you will be okay with the post if Levine is directly quoted? Nope, this is still not a biography on Turban. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:51, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

It's not a biography and the quote does not go to anything about his biography. If it was a biography, it would talk about his education, birth, etc... This is related to the reliability of the study (which is used to discredit ROGD). I'm forced to conclude that the real issue is that this casts doubt on the study and that is problematic for political reasons. RaySmall88 (talk) 03:59, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

You may conclude that if you wish. Someone else might conclude the opposite. But here's the thing: your conclusions, my conclusions, and all Wikipedia editors' conclusions are off-limits for this article. As editors, we summarize the content of the majority of reliable sources, along with mentions of the significant minority viewpoints. We do not include our own conclusions, which are irrelevant no matter which side of the issue they happen to fall on. On the other hand, if you believe a source is not reliable, that is a very different story; in that case, you should take it to the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard, try to gain consensus there, and report back what you found. In the meantime, feel free to draw all the conclusions you like. Mathglot (talk) (the editor who welcomed you on your Talk page) 05:13, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Mathglot, I'm not wishing to include my own conclusions. A study was cited questioning Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria. There are now several sources questioning that study and the conflict of interest of the interest of the individuals performing the study. I cited those sources (one of which was from the study itself which was already cited). Those citations have been removed on the grounds that "this is not a biography." So my issue is that editors' are picking and choosing from the source based on their own confirmation bias. RaySmall88 (talk) 13:06, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

I think you have a point

1 Since your visible text amounts to less than two lines the "this is not Turban's biography" argument seems weak.

2 The text is about criticism of the paper not Turban himself.

3 The Caroline Downey article makes some good points. This seems pretty valid:

"However, the study relied upon 2017 and 2019 sex ratio data sets from 16 states in the abstract based on respondent answers to the following precariously phrased question: “What is your sex?” Researchers widely believe that such a question is distorting, as transgender respondents are likely to answer the opposite of their actual sex and give their preferred gender instead."

4 Why is Turbin not using the number of males and females referred to gender clinics? This data is available within WIKI for the NHS GIDS. It shows the majority are now are female. 2019/2020 F 1981 M 720 Paddykumar (talk) 20:01, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Paddykumar, are you sure about 2? I just re-read the reverted edit, and I can't reconcile the text and your reading of it. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:26, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Fair point. I was concentrating on "Stephen Levine (psychiatrist) criticized the study", and criticism of the study is given in the article.

1 Respondents can self record their sex

2 No data on applications to gender clinics

3 Only two years' data.

Interestingly, the NHS GIDS data in WIKI has eleven years' data

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NHS_Gender_Identity_Development_Service

The criticism of Turban's motivation is given in the article and this is fair comment. Paddykumar (talk) 21:15, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

@Paddykumar please refrain from continuing to insert this text against consensus here on the talk page. To do so will run afoul of WP:EW and the discretionary sanctions on gender-related controversies. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 13:38, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

None of the above represents a true or novel conflict of interest to his work presented in that paper. This feels quite a bit like grasping at straws... I would say overall this is equivalent to saying that Pediatricians have a COI when it comes to vaccines because they receive reimbursement from administering them. Which is, en face, absurd. As is this. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:15, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

No, that is not the Conflict of Interest. The Conflict of Interest would be akin to the drug companies were funding researchers to study whether or not a vaccine is needed. It's obviously a COI, because Dr. Turban included it in his disclosures (the other two individuals did not). 204.16.94.221 (talk) 17:57, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with including the criticism in the "Social and political commentary" section as long as it is attributed to National Review. The text I added is probably the most appropriate. X-Editor (talk) 21:54, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Your text looks fine to me. I am new to this, so I don't know all the WP rules. But I would have thought it would be easier for the reader to see Turban's criticisms and then the criticisms of those criticisms in the same place in the article, in the way RaySmall88 had written it. Paddykumar (talk) 23:15, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

None of that seems relevant to the topic of this article, nor is a source in a general news article good to use for a medical article like this. Such criticism of Turban's study might be relevant for the article on Turban himself, but not here. Silverseren^C 23:17, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

The section I originally added the text to is full of general news articles because it is called the "Social and political commentary" section. I'm not suggesting that it should be added next to the info about the study itself. X-Editor (talk) 23:36, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

It is "Social and political commentary" on the subject of Rapid-onset gender dysphoria and the original study, not cross-commentary on everyone else who has commented or published something on it. If it was about Littman, then at least that would be relevant as they are the specific author of the study that made ROGD. But including news commentary not of, but about, every single other person who publishes anything on the topic is just a mess. Only if there was a significant amount of coverage on such a person or other study in regards to their coverage of ROGD might give enough weight to be included here as a response. But a news opinion piece does not reach that level. Silverseren^C 00:45, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Besides Silver seren's comment (with which I concur), there's also the DUE WEIGHT issue about the NR source. If we are going to include that as the only commentary on the Turban article, then it must represent the majority of all secondary commentary on the Turban article. Does it? The opposite of WP:DUE is WP:CHERRYPICKING, and that should be avoided in order to follow WP:NPOV, which is Pillar Number 2 of Wikipedia (and which cannot be overridden, even by consensus). Mathglot (talk) 02:58, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

"the majority of all secondary commentary on the Turban article." - How do you measure this? There is the WSJ oped piece as well as other commentary. I don't understand how Florence Ashley's article and Slate are cited but Stephen Levine is not. It all pertains to the subjec to of Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria. RaySmall88 (talk) 20:46, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

https://www.city-journal.org/major-flaws-in-new-study-on-pediatric-gender-transition

Here is Leor Sapir's article. He also criticizes Durban's paper. Paddykumar (talk) 14:02, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

City Journal is not a reliable source on wikipedia. For 1, it's run by the Manhattan Institute, a conservative think tank with acknowledged biases. It has very little, if any, editorial oversight. This article is essentially an Op-Ed, so this is best represented as an WP:SPS. Leor Sapir has a PhD in Political Science, what expertise does he draw on to be worth mentioning in any way? Is he a recognized expert in this field? Do others consider his opinion notable? I would say the answers to all of these questions is no. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:22, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Does Turban's data cover a number of years?

Does Turban's data consist of referrals to gender clinics?

Does Turban's data deal with self selection of the wrong biological sex?

Does Turban's data tie up with the NHS GIDS referral data?

The answers to all of these questions is "no".

It is only fair that some criticism of Turban's paper be present in the article. Paddykumar (talk) 09:23, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

No, see WP:DUE. We don't just slap in biased criticism so as to have "some criticism". — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:46, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

What biased criticism? Steve Levine has made the first three points above in the National Review article. I added the NHS GIDS point, but that is very closely related to the point Levine makes himself. Steve Levine is a psychiatrist who works in this area. Paddykumar (talk) 18:36, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

You mean FRINGE psychiatrist. Newimpartial (talk) 18:58, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Steven Levine's Wiki page is quite substantial

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_B._Levine

Whether Levine is fringe or mainstream can be debated. But his CRITICISM is directed to the data used. Two years only. Not clinic referral data. Self selection of biological sex. Paddykumar (talk) 21:35, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

You are now bludgeoning the discussion. Time to drop it. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:59, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

According to WP:RSP: National Review is considered a partisan source whose statements should be attributed. The publication's opinion pieces should be handled with the appropriate guideline. Take care to ensure that content from the National Review constitutes due weight in the article...

This is exactly what we have done. We have considered DUE, and determined that Levine is not DUE for this content, given that it is so far removed from the topic of ROGD and that few neutral unbiased RSes have covered it. I would direct you towards WP:1AM, as it appears you may be bludgeoning this discussion. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:48, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Whole debate here is irrelevant WP:COATRACK. Whichever way a wiki-eligible sourced consensus about Turban and his work would go, it's not about the article's topic anymore. CyreJ (talk) 20:22, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

MIT Tech Review article

A recent article in MIT Technology Review about the intersection between technology and politics wrt this article and Irreversible can be found here. Mathglot (talk) 08:21, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Should we include the recent findings by NHS England?

The following discussion 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.

---

NHS England has announced plans for tightening controls on the treatment of under 18s questioning their gender, including a ban on prescribing puberty blockers outside of strict clinical trials. The services, which will replace the controversial Tavistock clinic, will be led by medical doctors rather than therapists and will consider the impact of social contagion, autism and mental health issues. Is this something that would be relevant to the article topic? 2600:1700:1250:6D80:9984:22ED:E4B9:3F66 (talk) 18:20, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Eventually, but not yet. Per the NHS website on the proposed plans, these are currently undergoing a consultation between now and the start of December. As such the plans may change before they go live. Even once the consultation ends, these are marked as an "interim service specification" prior to the establishment of the regional services that are replacing Tavistock. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:25, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Isn't this WP:COATRACK? Theheezy (talk) 02:44, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Without access to the finalised plans, it's impossible to tell. But it's possible that depending on what gets added or dropped after the consultation, that this may or may not be a coatrack issue. Right now, it's simply too soon to tell. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:49, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it seems that there is pretty widespread coverage, no doubt due to typical propaganda from our English "friends" across the pond. Not suggesting we add anything, just wanted everyone to be aware what is going on. From Reuters: "Most children who believe that they are transgender are just going through a 'phase', the NHS has said, as it warns that doctors should not encourage them to change their names and pronouns." and from The Telegraph: "The proposals say that the new clinical approach will for younger children 'reflect evidence that in most cases gender incongruence does not persist into adolescence' and doctors should be mindful this might be a 'transient phase'." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:1250:6D80:9984:22ED:E4B9:3F66 (talk) 17:10, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Just to note that the text you attribute to Reuters is from the Telegraph and any other reporting on this matter I have found cites the Telegraph. It would be useful to have an actual NHS England source for this claim. I'm specifically concerned at the common practice of conflating "children" of different ages. For example, research on pre-pubescent children being used to comment on adolescent children. I suspect, and hope, that the official NHS England comments were more carefully worded. -- Colin°^Talk 18:54, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

@Colin: would you happen to have a link to the Telegraph piece? I skimmed over the consultation document last night, which you can access here, and couldn't find any reference in it to the "impact of social contagion" mentioned by the IP editor above.

On the pre-pubescent children research point, the relevant content is on page 13 of the consultation which says The clinical approach in regard to pre-pubertal children will reflect evidence that suggests that, while young people who are gender querying or who express gender incongruence may have started their journey as younger children, in most pre-pubertal children, gender incongruence does not persist into adolescence. That sentence is cited to the 2017 Endocrine Society guidelines.

There's a lot I could say about the proposal, and almost all of it bad. For now, I will summarise that it is significantly out of step with current literature like the recently released WPATH 8 SoC, and cites very little evidence for its proposals; there are only 4 citations in the entire document; the 2017 Endocrine Society guidelines, the 2017 NICE guidance on child abuse and neglect (makes sense in context as it's specifically for safeguarding requirements for a clinical provider), the DSM-5, and ICD-11. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:32, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

The Telegraph article is here. I have seen this problem in many of the statements by anti-trans organisations and newspapers, where they comment on the phenomenon of increased cases among adolescents and cite research on primary school children. It makes me think the Telegraph article is somewhere between total fiction and wilful misrepresentation. -- Colin°^Talk 06:55, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what any of us think. This is not the place for us to make ethical decisions about whether we personally agree with the NHS, the telegraph, or anyone else. It's our job to report what secondary sources-generally-regarded-as-reliable have said on the matter, not to right great wrongs, whatever our viewpoint. Obviously this is a very contentious issue. Almost everything we write cannot be presented as fact because almost everything is the subject of dispute, but must be presented as the opinion of whichever source we quote, and we need to include all viewpoints with due weight. Maybe NHS reports could potentially be regarded as primary sources best ignored in favour of secondary sources writing about them. But the Telegraph is still listed as reliable in our WP:RSPSOURCES and since the Telegraph is a major national newspaper, when it reports on the actions of the NHS, the national health service serving 60 million people, then it'd be very weird not to include what it says in an article relevant to the topic. Elemimele (talk) 10:05, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Well the Telegraph is not specifically addressing the topic of this article. It publishes anti-trans stories almost daily, and has a clear editorial stance on the matter. Per WP:MEDRS we simply don't trust newspapers to report accurately on biomedical matters. If NHS England have offed guidance on this matter, we can cite NHS England wrt that guidance. Other newspapers or media sources are unable to provide a source for this claim that goes beyond "According to the Telegraph" so that should be a huge red flag. -- Colin°^Talk 11:47, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

When it comes to transgender issues, The Telegraph is best understood as a campaign group and not as a major national newspaper. This has been noted by academics and other reliable sources. Coverage outside of The Telegraph is pretty much requisite to consider inclusion here - and then the question arises whether anything the NHS says actually relates to the topic of this article. Newimpartial (talk) 13:55, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Well if there's nothing particularly relevant to this article in either the Telegraph article, or in the NHS statement, then we shouldn't need to refer to either and the whole question is moot. If you're concerned about the Telegraph, it'd be a good idea to raise that at the reliable sources noticeboard. I was quite surprised how lenient it is on the Telegraph. So far as using newspapers for biomedical subjects, I'll write my viewpoint, but no one need agree with it: My feeling is that medical issues often include both medical science and social repercussions. Medical science should be based on scientifically reliable sources (preferably secondary, not primary). Social repercussions get dealt with more widely. The subject of gender is clearly in the throes of massive debate (and there are other medical-related fields with similar issues, for example autism; ME's been there too). Social attitudes to medical issues are of encyclopaedic value. I don't think they fit easily into articles like this one, but you can't, for example, deal with autism properly without being prepared to tackle the question of whether it's a medical condition, treatable, merely a personality trait, or whatever (all of which viewpoints are out there). The view-point of the common (but right-wing conservative) person in the street is part of our current debate on gender dysphoria, and in the right article, the Telegraph is a reasonable barometer of what those people think. Elemimele (talk) 17:06, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

I vaguely want to bring up the unreliability of British newspapers on trans issues at RSN sometime. It's not just the Telegraph: even the BBC has published some real whoppers on trans issues. The problem is to actually have an impact we'd need some very strong evidence. I'm reasonably sure such evidence exists since I'm reasonably sure academic studies have been done on this topic, but collecting it would be a huge pain. Loki (talk) 17:09, 25 October 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.

WPATH-SOC 8

Version 8 is now officially published ( https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/26895269.2022.2100644 ) and can be added to the article. In the "Adolescents" chapter, in the course of commenting on major currents and publications, they have this to say about Littman 2018 (pg S45):

One researcher attempted to study and describe a spe-cific form of later-presenting gender diversity experience (Littman, 2018). However, the findings of the study must be considered within the context of significant methodological challenges, including 1) the study surveyed parents and not youth perspectives; and 2) recruitment included parents from community settings in which treatments for genderdysphoria are viewed with scepticism and are criticized. However, these findings have not been replicated. For a select subgroup of young people,susceptibility to social influence impacting gender may be an important differential to consider (Kornienko et al., 2016). However, caution must be taken to avoid assuming these phenomena occur prematurely in an individual adolescent while relying on information from datasets that may have been ascertained with potential sampling bias(Bauer et al., 2022; WPATH, 2018). It is important to consider the benefits that social connectedness may have for youth who are linked with supportive people (Tuzun et al., 2022)(see Statement 4)

as in the pre-publication draft version. CyreJ (talk) 10:52, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

All points worth including. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:38, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I think the wording here is significantly different from the draft. I don't feel comfortable inserting anything about, "For a select subgroup of young people,susceptibility to social influence impacting gender may be an important differential to consider." because right in the next sentence this is immediately counterpointed with, "However, caution must be taken to avoid assuming these phenomena occur prematurely in an individual adolescent while relying on information from datasets that may have been ascertained with potential sampling bias." It's combining a very weak assertion, with a very strong negation of the assertion.... thus I don't think we can attribute anything here.

All in all, I can read this is as quite critical to the study which is the wording I have chosen in the addition. Please wordsmith if needed. Theheezy (talk) 07:08, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Theheezy's current approach. I don't think we should be cherrypicking the most credulous statements about Littman and including them in the article, which would be required to insert something like what had been proposed in the previous discussion. Newimpartial (talk) 12:44, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

The bit about "For a select subgroup of young people,susceptibility to social influence impacting gender may be an important differential to consider." is in the context of substantial critiques of the study. Not including this seems like a tendentious omission. As well, the current wording infers that other studies have tried to replicate this and not been able to, while the more correct interpretation seems to be that no other studies have been conducted trying to replicate this.Pengortm (talk) 19:48, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

As noted by other editors, researchers have tried and failed to replicate these findings. As far as the inclusion of the sentence about the "subgroup", as Theheezy noted in their 07:08 comment, it seems UNDUE to single that out from its context in the WPATH passage as a whole. Newimpartial (talk) 19:57, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

In relation to the context, it's important to point out that when WPATH wrote the sentence on the "select subgroup", they attributed a 2016 paper instead of Littman's work. When read with the prior sentences on methodological challenges, and the lack of replication in other studies, to me this suggests that WPATH believe that while there may be a subgroup of youth who are more susceptible than their peers to social influence effects on their gender, it is not the proposed subgroup that Littman has ascribed existence to. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:03, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

"Littman stood by the core claims she made in her study, arguing that / while arguing that / adding that"

In the lead, the following was recently appended by User:X-Editor to paragraph three:

Conservative media outlets heavily publicized the article and criticized Brown recalling its initial press release concerning the paper. In March 2019, the journal concluded its review and republished Littman's revised and corrected version. In 2022, Littman stood by the core claims she made in her study, arguing that ROGD "does not apply to all cases of gender dysphoria" and "doesn't imply that nobody benefits from transition."

I'm mostly concerned with the last sentence, which was modified by Newimpartial to alter the "...arguing that..." bit, so that it stated:

"...made in her study, while arguing that..." – otherwise it seems that these clarifications were the core claims in the study, when pretty much the opposite is true

and then modified further by Lwarrenwiki so it now states:

"...made in her study, adding that..." – even more neutral (e.g., "while" in MOS:WTW)

I appreciate both recent attempts to make a perhaps subtle but important point in the lead about Littman's attitude about her revised version, without quite agreeing on either of them as hitting the perfect note, here (possibly an impossible task anyway, but let's see). On the one hand, it seems like Littman is trying to stand by her original claim or what was perceived to be her original claim, and on the other, to soften it a bit without abandoning it. (It feels like a huffy sort of defensive reaction to what must have been for her a very unexpected flurry or even storm of criticism; a very human reaction, no doubt, probably mixed with concern about her scientific rep and academic standing among peers. Naturally, we can't say anything about any of this in the article, but I'm trying to consider what may be going on here, so we can think about how best to word this, or even whether we should keep that last sentence at all.)

I'm kind of partial to Newimpartial's while, although I take Lwarrenwiki's point as well. But the latter seems to perform too much as a weak connective, without quite conveying that sense of her "backing off" of something. If you know some German, a word sprang to mind that would be perfect here, namely: allerdings. It's an incredibly useful word, which unfortunately, English lacks. I feel like I'm faced with almost the exact same situation here, trying to find just the right wording to state that last sentence properly, in what to me is screaming for allerdings.

This is perhaps a lot of verbiage for what amounts to a choice of a single word or two in the article, however given that others are also concerned with getting it right, plus the general level of controversy of the article, I think it's worth it. I'm not so invested that I think it *has* to change, and if the majority are fine with the current (or previous) version, then I'll let it go. Thoughts? Mathglot (talk) 00:11, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

@Mathglot: Thank you for your attention to these edits, and your thoughts and appreciation of their intended nuances. Notwithstanding all that, I'd honestly prefer to remove the whole sentence from the lead. That's because (in my view) the lead section is already much too long, and what Littman said in the quoted 2022 source just isn't an important or substantial enough development to get spotlighted at the top. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 00:34, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

I would be fine with that. Let's see what others think. Mathglot (talk) 01:44, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm good with the Lwarrenwiki version. A lot of people think Littman is against all transition, which is not the case. Crossroads ^-talk- 16:12, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

I have nothing against the Lwarrenwiki version, myself. Newimpartial (talk) 16:15, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

All right, I'm okay with that. Mathglot (talk) 11:02, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

• I think the whole new sentence isn't leadworthy; someone standing by their previous views is not something that would be intrinsically significant, and the coverage right now is too slight to change that. --Aquillion (talk) 16:11, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

"Has been criticized"

Crossroads, you keep saying that even our summary statements in the lead should be based on citations, and that we shold rely on high-quality on-topic secondary sources when possible. So I have restored the statement that I added to the lead paragraph, which summarizes the content of a number of the sources aleady used in this article - and unlike many of your additions you have made on this topic, I did not place these statements in Wikipedia's editorial voice. If you honestly believe that we need to expand on the section in the article to reflect the mass of high-quality sources that make this statement WP:DUE, we can certainly do that. However, this is exactly the kind of summary statement from a high-quality RS that belongs in the lead. Newimpartial (talk) 00:08, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

"Unexplained increase" in lead

@Crossroads, Newimpartial, Theheezy, and Cyrej: Could we stop edit-warring about this and rather discuss it here? Madeline (part of me) 14:51, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that this article actually has a lead section - it just fights its way over the topic twice. Newimpartial (talk) 14:57, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't know if that's a bad thing per se. To me it seems the article sumarizes the topic in the lead, then covers it with more detail in the body. Madeline (part of me) 15:57, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

I believe I triggered this but am not aware of subsequent edit warring. It was the "since" and exact placement in the timeline that really bothered me about the sttement, implying that Littman inspired the research, when really the statement has been in the literature forever. No opinion on whether it belongs in the lede per se, but I didn't find a natural place for it, so it was easiest to omit. CyreJ (talk) 15:19, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

How about wording to the effect of, 'some other researchers have also noted... and called for additional research in this area.' Perhaps this is more on the line of what the body and lead was intending to say with the given references? Theheezy (talk) 16:01, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Happy to work a bit on improving the lead section. I'm open to wording, but not sure if blanking out a minority viewpoint which is discussed in the body is a legitimately good decision for the article. Let me know if I'm in the wrong here. Theheezy (talk) 15:55, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

This doesn't belong in the lead. The de Vries source is not about ROGD and the Hutchinson source is just a letter to the editor. Giovanardi is the only quality source that discusses both ROGD and the increase in young people seeking care for gender dysphoria, and the source gives minimal and heavily qualified attention to the possible connection. This viewpoint, at least based on the currently cited sources, is too scant in the literature for such a prominent mention. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:07, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

There is also Skordis, N. et al. Gender dysphoria in children and adolescents: an overview (2020). we have the following quote: Littman’s study received both supportive and non-supportive comments, leaving space for further future studies on this new clinical phenomenon. Is there a reason why a letter to the editor is not a reliable source for the author's own opinion? Theheezy (talk) 16:18, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

That quote doesn't address the issue at hand. The letter is fine as a source on the author's own opinion, and I don't oppose it's inclusion (in the aggregate) in the body, but we should afford it less weight in determining what belongs in the lead. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:22, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Although, on principle, I'm not opposed to excluding the letters here. The problem here is that between Skordis, N. et al. Gender dysphoria in children and adolescents: an overview (17 citations), In Support of Research Into Rapid-Onset Gender Dysphoria (21 citations, yes the letter is cited quite heavily), Rapid onset gender dysphoria as a distinct clinical phenomenon (1 cit, published march this year), we are missing some important academic discourse on this topic. E.g., the Bauer et. al. study has only 14 citations, but is in the lead.

Are you okay with this discrepancy? If we're to have a 'further research,' section which is also mentioned in the lead, it wouldn't hurt to mention these works given their citation count. Theheezy (talk) 19:00, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, there is no consensus on Wikipedia to use citation counts as a proxy for WP:DUE, particularly when sources are cited to contest what they say or to offer an alternative interpretation thereof. This is particularly relevant when comparing the citation count of a peer-reviewed source to that of a non-peer-reviewed source, or that of an older source to a newer source. Newimpartial (talk) 19:12, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Skordis et. al. is peer reviewed, and is also a secondary source, i.e., a survey paper. It's also more recent than the Bauer paper. There's also Zucker, K. J. (2019). Adolescents with Gender Dysphoria: Reflections on Some Contemporary Clinical and Research Issues. Archives of Sexual Behavior. which is also a secondary source, peer reviewed, and takes a more favorable stance towards Littmann. Should we consider these alongside the Bauer primary source? From what I can tell in the body, there is at least some discussion of neutral to positive desire to have further work along this direction. Would it be okay to e.g., have one sentence in the lead summarizing this? Theheezy (talk) 21:25, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

No. The Zucker source in particular is unmistakably WP:FRINGE - Zucker broke with the scientific consensus in this field more than a decade ago. Newimpartial (talk) 00:30, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

For this section, which is about the "unexplained increase" content, many of the above comments have gone off topic. Mathglot's recent rework of the lead paragraph (which looks good to me) moots the issue. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:33, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

I think @Mathglot:'s updates generally improve things but the lead is unbalanced if we don't mention how the theory has been used by anti-trans activists to oppose gender affirming care. I think criticism from the SPLC warrants mention in the lead, but if not we also have multiple sources describing how it's been used to push anti-trans bills, the CAAPS statement alone covers that off the top of my head. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 04:22, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

As does Newimpartial's improvement to my initial effort you kindly mentioned. With respect to how it's been weaponized by transphobes, I'm aware of that through my own reading and it's hinted at in Irreversible Damage, but hardly mentioned here. This needs to be developed in the article body first, and then after that settles down (because no doubt there will be some back-and-forth; there always is on this topic) then we can think about how best to summarize it in the lead. Mathglot (talk) 05:10, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for this. I agree with your changes, and did not consider that strictly speaking, the 'unexplained increases' are not really talking about ROGD thus should not belong in the lead unless it develops more. Theheezy (talk) 11:35, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Hey, @Mathglot, could you weigh in a bit on the latest issue regarding the lead that have cropped up since this edit. I think some editors are feeling that the lead is no longer wholly balanced in terms of the minority viewpoint of lukewarm reception to the ROGD paper. Previously this POV was a bit shoehorned into the "unexplained increases" part of the lead, which I agree isn't ideal and I agree with its removal. However, is "lukewarm reception" a legitimate minority viewpoint with enough weight to worth mentioning in the body and possibly the lead?

Thought you might be the right person to help negotiate with both sides here. Theheezy (talk) 01:41, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Theheezy Appreciate the ping and the confidence; I'm a bit oversubscribed, and will have limited access for a week or more; if it's still an issue, remind me at the end of the month. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 09:00, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Just for the record: not: "Mathglot's recent rework of the lead paragraph"^{[emphasis added]} but Mathglot's recent rework of the last paragraph of the lead". Mathglot (talk) 01:46, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Jerk! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:48, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

You're petty and I love it. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:48, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

I'd trout myself, only, I love trout, so it would be no punishment, we'll have to think of something else... Mathglot (talk) 01:55, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

The "unexplained increase" paragraph always came off to me as the thing conspiracy theorists like 5G truthers and Holocaust deniers do, where they point at some vague made-up apparent inconsistency that turns out to be nonsense when given any kind of context, and use it to make ignorant people without any expert knowledge think "hmm, that is strange!" and start to believe the conspiracy theory has some merit behind it.

It's a subtle, insidious form of POV pushing that conspiracy theorists and fascists use to convert people without admitting upfront what they really believe. It's not just what is said that's important, it's also what is implied. We really don't need to falsely imply to our readers that a pseudoscientific theory that is described as such (sometimes with alternative phrasing) in reliable sources has any merit behind it. PBZE (talk) 10:38, 10 October 2022 (UTC)