Talk:Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Request for comment

I intend to promote this article to the "Good article status", as it is an important topic and we should cover it thoroughly. I started researching it a few weeks ago and discovered some additional coverage which we can use to expand the article. To get an impartial opinion, I'm starting this RfC:

The lead paragraph of this article is mainly supported by citations from publications such as: The Advocate, Medscape, Clinical Practice in Pediatric Psychology, Yale report, and Trans Safety Network. However, upon closer examination, the accuracy and reliability of these sources come into question.

1. The Medscape citation fails WP:V standards as I couldn't verify the statement.

2. The Clinical Practice in Pediatric Psychology has since retracted its quoted statement, rendering it invalid (retracted link). I'm, therefore, removing this statement.

3. The Advocate's is merely a brief mention of SEGM and its inclusion in the lead is undue. The characterization of SEGM as a "biased group" or "not a recognized scientific association" is also contestable due to the newspaper's natural bias and should be attributed.

4. An article from Science-Based Medicine (its Wikipedia page describes it as a "blog"), is authored by AJ Eckert, a trans doctor. As a result, their viewpoint may be subject to potential bias. This statement is undue in the lead and should be attributed within the "Reception section".

5. A referenced report from Yale should be considered with caution, as it is explicitly noted that "This report reflects the academic work of individual Yale faculty and does not represent the views of Yale University, Yale Law School, or Yale School of Medicine." I believe attribution should resolve the issue, but placing it in the lead is undue.

6. Another reference used is by Trans Safety Network which isn't a publication but an activist organization registered as a CIC in the UK. It is an opinion and therefore should be attributed and placing it in the lead is unwarranted.

SEGM has been discussed positively in major publications, like The Economist described it as "an international group of concerned clinicians" on 5 April 2023, a non-profit group on 28 July 2022, an international group of doctors and researchers on 12 December 2020, so the current description is not justified. Some other publications like AP News describe it as a "nonprofit group of health professionals who are concerned about medical transition risks for minors" on 4 May 2022, The Australian described it as "A new international watchdog, the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine, which includes clinicians with expertise in gender dysphoria" on 1 May 2020 and as "new global body" [1].

So, coming to my question. Should we describe SEGM as "It is not recognized as a scientific organization by the international medical community" in the lead based on brief mentions in The Advocate, opinion of spokesperson in Medscape, or description in local publications like WyoFile that cites some other source for that description. In my opinion, it is ill-defined when reliable sources like The Economist, The Australian, AP News describe it differently. I tried to find such mention in scientific organizations/watchdogs that may have officially described SEGM in this manner. However, upon further research, no such statements from specific organizations could be identified.

Thus, we should work on revising the lead paragraph to present a more objective and neutral perspective, avoiding the selective use of quotes. This will ensure that the information provided is both accurate and reliable, in accordance with Wikipedia's guidelines. Colaheed777 (talk) 20:28, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

While I can see that you've added an RfC tag, and I commend that you wish to bring this article to GA status, this doesn't seem to be structured in any way like an RfC, and it fails WP:RFCBRIEF. As such I've removed the RfC tag.

As for the points raised.

On the Medscape source, is your issue one of source access? I have access to it and it does meet WP:V for all the content it is supporting.
If the paper has been updated and no longer supports the statement, no issues removing it
The Advocate is one of three citations for the sentence. The Medscape and WyoFile sources also support the assertion that SEGM is operating far outside the scientific mainstream in this field.
Per WP:SBM Science-Based Medicine is considered a generally reliable source, with a credible editorial board and robust editorial guidelines. No concerns about bias of the source or contributors to it have been raised in previous discussions.
Though mentioned in the lead, we only directly cite the Yale report in the affiliations section. For its mention in the lead, we actually cite it through secondary reporting. Not sure why we need to attribute this beyond what we've already done.
The use of the Trans Safety Network piece in this article was discussed at RSN in June 2022. The content that citation is supporting in the article body is already attributed to them. Mallory Moore is considered a subject-matter expert in this area, and the content in the lead that is attributed to her is in my opinion due, as it is cited by others (in this case Science-Based Medicine).

While I recognise that there are a small number of organisations that have described SEGM positively, those that do so are general media sources. Subject specific reliable sources, like Medscape, Science-Based Medicine, as well as relevant experts, clinicians, and researchers in the field overwhelmingly describe them in negative terms. The current descriptors, that they operate outside of the medical mainstream with regards to transgender medicine, and that they are not recognised as a credible scientific organisation, seem to be more accurate when considering how the organisation is described in the highest quality sources available. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:48, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Actually, on the Yale School of Medicine report, until your edit, Colaheed777, on 7 May we were citing it through secondary reporting in the affiliations section. I've now partially undone your change on 7 May to restore the secondary citations, as per policy we prefer secondary citations over primary, and those secondary citations support the content. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:06, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

More directly on the point of bringing this article to GA status, focusing on fixing the lead first is backwards for how we write good articles. Rewriting an article lead as part of a drive to bring an article to GA or FA status is the final step. Initial efforts should be spent on bringing the article body up to standard first, and only once the article body is in its roughly finalised state should rewrites of the lead be considered.

For bringing this article up to GA status, any proposed changes need to be read alongside the Good Article criteria. At the moment, the presence of the recently added {{pov}} tag would cause a quick fail on the review. Really though we just need to focus on the six GA criteria. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:20, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

I am here following an RfC request. As stated by User:Sideswipe9th this is not structured as an RfC.

Their point that the lead reflect the article is also true - so we have to develop the article first.

Also thanks for beginning work on this.

I think you have made some good points but these needs further discussion before an RfC to distill the questions at issue (if any remain after the discussion).

I think this statement will possibly turn out to sum up the area of debate.

"While I recognise that there are a small number of organisations that have described SEGM positively, those that do so are general media sources. Subject specific reliable sources, like Medscape, Science-Based Medicine, as well as relevant experts, clinicians, and researchers in the field overwhelmingly describe them in negative terms."

I will look out for the 'next' RfC here. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 07:28, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Comment: I agree with the point made above by responding contributors about this not being properly structured and submitted as a request for comments. But, more importantly from where I stand, to respond to what Colaheed777 wrote in the initiating section, I'd be very conservative about promoting this article to a GA status before the text is cleared of everything that gives cause to the protest about it violating WP:NPOV. So, first things first. We have quite a ways to go before we can even entertain the ambition for a GA status. -The Gnome (talk) 08:35, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Removal of description from lead

Earlier KoenigHall removed a reliably sourced description of SEGM from the article lead, cited to a Vice article, and that originated from the Yale School of Medicine report, with a justification seemingly based on it being unverifiable. I restored it, citing WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY, as the lead was merely repeating content that already appeared in the article body, in this case the third paragraph of the medical community section. KoenigHall then removed it a second time.

I warned Koenig for edit warring, asking that they start a discussion here. I then expanded this as WP:V had been met as the Vice report clearly states that the Yale report describes SEGM as a small group of anti-trans activists, and that the report itself was cited in the article body, and directed KoenigHall to the relevant paragraph that was being summarised in the lead. So far they have not responded, and have not opened a discussion here so I'm now starting one.

KoenigHall, will you please self-revert your second removal of this content from the lead? It is reliably sourced, and is verifiable to both the source that was along side it, as well as to the report itself that is cited in the article body. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:36, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Sideswipe9th My edit was reverted by User:LilianaUwU .Please check reference, [6] (in the lead), which doesn't, and.neither does the vice news article, link to the report. The link in vice news fails, gives an error. No reason to presume edit warring. (Also note "standards of care" are not scare ""- in Europe this is standard string designation of a name or a citation, also in many programming languages). KoenigHall (talk) 21:06, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

The report says, in page 28 (emphasis mine): A contextual examination reveals that SEGM is an ideological organization without apparent ties to mainstream scientific or professional organizations. Its 14 core members are a small group of repeat players in anti-trans activities – a fact that the SEGM website does not disclose. And considering their ties to Genspect et al, it should be obvious that they're an anti-trans group. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 21:12, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

The Vice article does pretty clearly state the Yale School of Medicine published an article in April that calls out the Society of Evidence-Based Gender Medicine as a small group of anti-trans activists. While it is regrettable that the link in the Vice article to the Yale report is broken, there is no requirement in WP:V or WP:RS that a a given reliable source must provide supporting citations in their own content. In fact, it is very rare for a WP:NEWSORG like Vice to do so. For example, this BBC article contains no such external links for its claims, but would be perfectly valid to cite in a relevant article about the Russian-Ukraine war.

Thankfully though, our article does cite the report. As I said on your talk page, citation 24 is to the Yale report, and is used alongside the content in the medical community section that the lead was summarising. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:40, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Sideswipe9th Clearly, you are intentionally citing a reference (vice news) that you are aware of presents an incorrect citation of the text in the report. The lead text needs to be corrected.

The flawed chain of citations, and a fact that is not verifiable by a reader of the lead since the link, in vice news, as you state yourself, ls broken, may constitute an act of vandalism, in particular since this is in the lead section. Please correct the lead statement. Please also, refrain from public unwarranted accusations when you in fact are clearly aware of the flaws of the text that is being edited. KoenigHall (talk) 08:46, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Clearly, you are intentionally citing a reference (vice news) that you are aware of presents an incorrect citation of the text in the report Are you saying that the Vice report is stating something that the Yale report does not?

The flawed chain of citations, and a fact that is not verifiable by a reader of the lead since the link, in vice news, as you state yourself, ls broken, may constitute an act of vandalism Firstly vandalism has a very specific meaning on Wikipedia. A broken link within a citation is never considered vandalism, as that content is entirely outside our control. Nor, by the way, is it considered vandalism if a link to a citation is suffering from link rot. Secondly, it is verifiable through the Vice report that the Yale report described SEGM as a small group of anti-trans activists, through the content I've already quoted. That alone is sufficient to meet WP:V. As I said before, there is no requirement that a reliable source must within its content provide supporting citations for the content they are asserting. We rely on the reputation of the source, whether it's a newsorg, journal article, report by a NGO, or anything else, for fact checking and not publishing falsehoods when assessing the reliability of a source.

Please correct the lead statement. What do you mean by this? Do you mean that we should add our known working link to the Yale report, alongside the Vice report? Or are you asserting something else entirely? Sideswipe9th (talk) 14:45, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Can I ask that we all assume good faith here and work collaboratively even when it doesn’t feel everyone else is.

Thanks Lukewarmbeer (talk) 15:49, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Sideswipe9th The lead text that the yale report [7] "described SEGM as a small group of anti-trans activists" (vice news citation [6]) contradicts the actual text in the Yale report [7] (citing your own citation taken from [7] above) "Its 14 core members are a small group of repeat players in anti-trans activities". The text in the lead, said to be from the source [7], is contradicted by the source [7] (and your own words) [7] . Please correct. KoenigHall (talk) 19:47, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

@KoenigHall: Correct it how? Those two sentences are synonymous. An anti-trans activist by definition is a person who engages in anti-trans activities. However, this discussion would proceed much easier if you propose replacement text, so how would you like this sentence to be phrased? Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:54, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

@Sideswipe9th Thank you. E.g.:

Researchers at the Yale School of Medicine issued a report which said of SEGM that "it's 14 core members as a small group of repeat players in anti-trans activities" [7] KoenigHall (talk) 20:07, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Ok, how is that any different from what we already say, beyond swapping a summary of the text for a quote? Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:09, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

(Sorry - iI meant "members are a small group" not "as a small group")

The Yale report did not describe SEGM as a small group. KoenigHall (talk) 20:12, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't know. This seems to be changing the meaning of the report, by leaving out context. The report seems to assert that SEGM is smaller than it claims to be, as in this quotation from the report: Although the SEGM site claims “over 100 clinicians and researchers” as members, it lists as “clinical and academic advisors” a group of only 14 people, many of whom have limited (or no) scientific qualifications related to the study of medical treatment for transgender people. The Vice report seems to be a fair summary of the scepticism expressed in the report about the group's actual size. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:23, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

I don’t think this can be dismissed just as “a small group of repeat players in anti-trans activities".

The people involved are above and beyond that (and I’m not even sure what an “anti-trans activity” is in this context).

However you do need to offer your (cited) idea of what the finished ‘product’ should look like…. Which is what is being suggested by User:Sideswipe9th

If you do that we can discuss and if we can’t reach a consensus that’s the point at which you can go to an RfC - which is where I came in Lukewarmbeer (talk) 20:21, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Recent edits crossed. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 20:23, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Lukewarmbeer Not sure I understand. There seem to be a new issue here? Are you opposing that the text, as it now stands, should cite the Yale report for saying that the SEGM members are anti-trans activists? Perhaps one should defer that to a different thread. My point is that the citation of what the source [7] says, that "SEGM is a small group", is not correct, and my amendment would this, and only this faulty element of the citaton. It may well be that other editors would request further changes of the text, but at the minimum the text should not misrepresent what is actually stated in the source [7], My suggestion was to simply cite the actual text, eliminating the misrepresentation. A more concise summary with a similar meaning, albeit not literal citation, could be "Researchers at the Yale School of Medicine described SEGM as a group with an active core of only 14 anti-trans activists" [7] KoenigHall (talk) 20:43, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

@Sideswipe9th Including the issue raised by @Lukewarmbeer I therefore suggest that the text be edited to read

"Researchers at the Yale School of Medicine described SEGM as a group with only a small core of repeat players. [7]" . KoenigHall (talk) 21:10, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

I could happily go with that if the “only” were removed.

Thanks for the suggested text Lukewarmbeer (talk) 07:51, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

@Lukewarmbeer@Sideswipe9th The lead has to mirror, preferably summarize, essential content in the body text, and so the body text referring to the Yale report that is then repeated in the lead needs to be changed too.

I will presume we have a consensus on the core message of the WP:LEAD text discussed above (albeit perhaps not on detail), and, in good faith and a NEUPOV, tomorrow suggest an edit of the body text which retains the diversity of judgements revealed here.

The Yale Research report [6] does not state that SEGM is small group and the vice news article [7] only mentions SEGM briefly, in passing, with a WP:V erroneous citation of the Yale report statement. It was claimed (Sideswipe9th) that the vice news citation is a "fair summary" of the Yale report on SEGM, but these conclusions suffer from WP:SYNTH issues.

On the notion of "fair" judgements, it is unlikely that there could ever be a WP:RS for a claim that SEGM is a small group. It may be noted that a recent campaign letter, circulated by the "FAIR" organisation signed (WP:V) by almost 2000 individuals, has, as highlighted signatures listed at the top, a number of noted SEGM associated leaders, and also amongst the body of letter signatures from individuals called out by Trans-activist sources as affiliated with SEGM. To compare, the campaign letter it opposed was circulated amongst WPATH members had about 300 signatures and WPATH is an organisation with a membership base of tens of thousands. It is therefore "fair" to say that It contradicts WP central values to present a most likely false statement on the subject of the article, in the lead text. KoenigHall (talk) 21:50, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree we need a modification of the body but we seem to be at cross purposes.

Let’s get this straight for me. The Yale article I’m reading says “ Its 14 core members are a small group of repeat players in anti-trans activities”.

Are we all on the same page with that or have I got something wrong here Lukewarmbeer (talk) 07:10, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

I confirm seeing that. KoenigHall (talk) 19:34, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

If I'm reading this right, KH seems to be objecting mainly to the "small group", which is covered by Vice but not actually supported by the Yale report. Would everyone be ok with "Researchers at the Yale School of Medicine issued a report which described the core of SEGM as a small group of anti-trans activists"? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:42, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

@FirefangledfeathersI can accept that, since it correctly refers to the Yale statement,

(eventhough I agree with @Lukewarmbeer that the "anti-trans activists" is not well defined, with a defaming connotation and therefore WP:UNDUE to appear in the lead. I therefore suggested the "repeat players" as the Yale statement mentions, which also then includes the Yale researchers' key takeaway. I am actually also not happy with the "report" description of the researchers' letter. It carries too much of a characterization that there was a study with a WP:V methodology and source, which it clearly does not).

@Firefangledfeathers would you clarify, do you not agree to using "repeat players" instead of "anti-trans activists" or are you suggesting it in order to attain consensus? KoenigHall (talk) 23:05, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, to be clear, I would oppose just "repeat players". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:47, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

You are saying:

"small group", which is covered by Vice but not actually supported by the Yale report.

The Yale report I’m reading does say in Appendix A(a)

“ Its 14 core members are a small group of repeat players in anti-trans activities”.

Can you confirm or tell me where I’m going wrong please. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 16:48, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

@Lukewarmbeer I think you saw some other suggestion and not @Firefangledfeathers suggestion (maybe I wrote something wrong). To save some time I quote @Firefangledfeathers suggestion here

<< (Would everyone be ok with) "Researchers at the Yale School of Medicine issued a report which described the core of SEGM as a small group of anti-trans activists"? >> KoenigHall (talk) 13:24, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi LWB. I think there's a reasonable distinction between "the group is small" and "the core of the group is small", and I think the Yale report is making the later point. I could reasonably say of a hypothetical group that it has eight million members, but its core is a small group of dedicated activists. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:27, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

But I am quoting them and they say ‘core’. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 14:22, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Just to clarify it’s Yale I’m quoting. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 14:23, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

They say "core", but we do not. We are just saying that the report "described SEGM as a small group of anti-trans activists". Do you find that to be accurate? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:09, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

We are effectivly saying 'Yale said' so I would much prefer to use their actual words rather than an unnecessary interpretation of what we think they meant.

I don’t want to be pedantic and obstruct a consensus so I’ll leave it here. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 16:14, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

I worry I'm being pedantic too! To ground my point one more time: I'm hoping to accommodate part of KH's proposal as a compromise. KH's proposal also includes a shift away from describing the activists as anti-trans and to just calling them "repeat players", which I think makes it much less informative. I'm not strenuously opposed to the status quo, but I'd prefer the small tweak I suggested above. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:11, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

I'd prefer the small tweak I suggested above.

I can support that Lukewarmbeer (talk) 17:32, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

OK, I see no objections, so I will edit the body text to fit @Firefangledfeathers tweak, then I hope we can reach a consensus on the lead. KoenigHall (talk) 17:56, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

"Researchers at the Yale School of Medicine issued a report which described the core of SEGM as a small group of anti-trans activists" That works for me as an adequate summary in the lead.

The paragraph in the medical community section looks like it would need only a small tweak to something like In April, Debra Kroszner of the Yale School of Medicine issued a report in response to the attacks on transgender healthcare in Arizona and Texas which described the 14 core members of SEGM as a small group of anti-trans activists... Changes in italics, rest of the content in the paragraph is left unchanged. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:02, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Perfect Lukewarmbeer (talk) 20:24, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Unsourced and invalid information about SEGM in the lead

This discussion has been running for a week and is now going in circles. Further discussion without additional sources or voices is unlikely to be productive. There is clearly no consensus that any of the information in the lead is invalid or unsourced. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:52, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

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.

@Sideswipe9th The statement in the lead that Stella O'Malley is the sole founder of Genspect is not supported by the reference given in the lead. It is also not referring to any consensus content in the body text, and not relevant to the lead which is about SEGM. Please do not revert edits that intend to secure accurately sourced content in the lead without checking. Please therefore check and revert your "undo" yourself until consensus is reached on the relevance and that the source given is WP:RS.

There are further inaccurate and unsourced statements in this lead that need immediate correction; in particular undue unsourced value statements. They need immediate correction to be in line with WP intent for reliable content. KoenigHall (talk) 11:19, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

As I've said on your talk page, I did preform a check prior to reverting into whether there was more founders for Genspect than O'Malley. In doing so I checked Genspect's website, social media presence, and third party reliable sources about that organisation. I also checked both Genspect's and O'Malley's respective articles. In doing so I could not find a single source that said there was any founders other than O'Malley, and O'Malley being the sole founder seems to be adequately sourced in both of those other articles. In third party sources in particular, whenever O'Malley is introduced it is almost always as some variation of Genspect's founder Stella O'Malley and not Genspect co-founder Stella O'Malley or Stella O'Malley, one of Genspect's founders. As such, it appeared as though you had introduced unverifiable content, which per policy we are to remove. And as being a founder of an organisation is typically uncontentious, that it is verifiable is fine for our purposes here. Because self-reverting would reintroduce unverifiable content, I will not be self-reverting in this instance.

If you know of sources that exist that assert there were other founders than O'Malley, please provide them at the Genspect talk page first, so that we can correct that article, before looking at updating related articles like SEGM. Sideswipe9th (talk) 11:26, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

@Sideswipe9th The reference given in the lead does not give the information claimed. Please give a WP:RS reference if available. Your opinion in the edit history is not WP:RS, not relevant, neither is what you "can find", as you must be aware this is WP:SYNTH. Please revert KoenigHall (talk) 14:05, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Multiple citations for this already exist in both Genspect's and O'Malley's articles. But if you want a specific example, please see citation 24 from O'Malley's article, which clearly states Stella O’Malley, a psychotherapist and the founder of Genspect.

If there are other founders for Genspect, then as the editor who is seeking a change to the content the burden is on you to provide a reliable source for the change you wish to make. Stating that I could not find reliable sources to support your assertion in an edit sumamry is never WP:SYNTH. Not only does SYNTH only apply to the article space and not talk page discussions or edit summaries, SYNTH requires there to be two or more sources being joined in an improper manner to reach a conclusion that neither supports alone (ie A + B = C).

Instead it is a simple statement of fact that, prior to restoring the content that is supported, I preformed a Google search to see if there were any sources that supported the fact that Genspect had at least one more founder than O'Malley. Having found no sources, I reverted the content to a version that is supported by sources. KoenigHall if you are aware of a reliable source that states O'Malley was not the sole founder of Genspect, can you please provided it on the Genspect talk page so that we can correct that article first, before correcting related articles like this one? Sideswipe9th (talk) 14:15, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

“If there are other founders for Genspect, then as the editor who is seeking a change to the content the burden is on you to provide a reliable source for the change you wish to make”

This applies to the ‘whole thing’ User:KoenigHall You will have to do some research if you want to make these edits stick. Otherwise you will just get reverted - wasting your time and that of other editors

I think we have beaten that point to death now so I will leave this here Lukewarmbeer (talk) 15:25, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

@Lukewarmbeer @Sideswipe9th Again, the burden is on the content provider to provide a WP:RS reference. I see none. KoenigHall (talk) 17:11, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

@KoenigHall: In my reply at 14:15, 29 May 2023, I posted a link to an article by The Daily Telegraph, alongside a quotation from that article, both of which were taken from O'Malley's biography. Can you confirm that you can see the link, and that the quoted text appears in that article? Can you also confirm that the quotation states that O'Malley was the founder of Genspect, and not a founder or co-founder? Does this source meet the criteria for being reliable?

Secondly, I have repeatedly attempted to search to find a source that states that there were any other founders for Genspect and have not been able to find any. Reliable sources that describe the founding of Genspect, like the Telegraph article I posted yesterday, only mention O'Malley. At present you are the only editor stating that there were other founders for Genspect than O'Malley, and you are seeking a change that departs from what both the Genspect and Stella O'Malley articles state in relation to Genspect's founding. If you are aware of a reliable source that names or describes any other founder(s) for Genspect, could you please provide it? This would save us a lot of time, as otherwise we seem to be searching for a needle in a haystack. Sideswipe9th (talk) 13:57, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

@Sideswipe9th I have no intention to be unreasonable and search for "needles"". Bit these issues are not trivial for a number of reasons I will not dwell on here. The question is whether you have an adequate WP:RS in the reference, not in the TALK discussion. 1) Is O'Malley's or Genspects words about themselves to be allowed as WP:RS in the lead about SEGM? Is this your definite stand?

2) Are you saying that your citation in a TALK response relieves you from the burden of correct referencing in the lead? What is the reason for this obscurity? (My confirmation and discussion of your citation is irrelevant as long as you don't use that citation as your WP:RS reference in the lead. Respectfully, KoenigHall (talk) 15:31, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

I added the citation Sideswipe9th mentioned to the lead. Does this resolve your concern? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:54, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm still confused as to why we need a citation for this. Being the founder of an organisation is usually, but not always, an uncontroversial fact. That it is adequately cited in both O'Malley's and Genspect's respective articles that O'Malley is the founder (and not a founder or co-founder) of Genspect is, in my mind, sufficient for our purposes here. As such I'm trying to be mindful of WP:OVERCITE and MOS:LEADCITE, at least for something that should be uncontroversial. By all means we can include a citation to the Telegraph article I linked earlier, or one of the others we have available on the other articles, but I'm still not entirely sure why we need it.

Are you saying that your citation in a TALK response relieves you from the burden of correct referencing in the lead? No. MOS:LEADCITE tells us that non-controversial information which is mentioned in an article's lead does not always need citations. O'Malley being the founder of Genspect is to me pretty non-controversial. It is also information that is more than adequately cited in the Genspect article. That it is both an uncontroversial fact, and something that is verifiable through the dedicated article on the organisation, is sufficient in my mind that we don't strictly need a citation here for this. Otherwise we would need citations for every job title/role, in every article, that mentions a contextually prominent individual. For example an article on UK politics would require a citation every time you said something like ...former Prime Minister Liz Truss[x]....

Bit these issues are not trivial for a number of reasons I will not dwell on here. It feels as though we maybe have to, if not dwell on, at least touch upon what those reasons are either here or on Talk:Genspect. Is there some sort of off-wiki dispute over who the founder(s) of Genspect are that is relevant here? What is the circumstances here that is making this a controversial enough fact that we need to go against MOS:LEADCITE? Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:35, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

I also don't think a lead citation is needed, but I'd rather add one than keep talking about this. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:43, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers 1) The Stella O'Malley article says "Channel 4, and is the founder Genspect, a self-described gender critical organisation opposed to transgender rights." which therefore serves to undue reinforce the demonisation of SEGM as opposing trans rights. 2) The citation [10] is simply wrong since it doesn't say what is claimed. - @Sideswipe9th please remove. KoenigHall (talk) 18:51, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

KH, if you have a problem with the Stella O'Malley article, you should bring it up at the associated talk page. What exactly is the issue with citation 10? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:54, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers (I missed that you restructured the reference - thanks). In reference [11], however, it is not clear where the information is coming from - the journalist is citing words of the anonymous mother being interviewed, so [11] is not a WP:RS for the claim. Reference [10] doesn't mention the claim. Removing the claim should be pretty straight forward to align the lead with strict WP requirements. KoenigHall (talk) 10:17, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

When the article in The Telegraph describes O'Malley as "a psychotherapist and the founder of Genspect", it is not citing the words of an anonymous mother. It is using the paper's own voice as it's about to quote O'Malley herself. I think the source is reliable for the claim, and we don't require our sources to cite their own sources. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:10, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers Yes, that is an iterpretation but note that a) this is a "special correspondent", not the Telegraph, and as such should reasonably be judged as an opinion piece and b) We can't take the a quote of O'Malley's about herself as a WP:RS. KoenigHall (talk) 21:10, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

A special correspondent is a pretty standard term in British journalism. Though it has origins in war reporting, in modern usage it typically refers to a journalist who focuses on a specific area of interest. The Telegraph has several other special correspondents, like Harry de Quetteville who specialises in technology, and Matt Oliver who specialises in business news. There is no sign at all that the article I linked previously is an opinion piece, as The Telegraph clearly marks all of their opinion articles with a "Comment header. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:29, 5 June 2023 (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.

Quote removal

Hi, I just removed about 5k bytes of quotes from this article. Some can be re-incorporated, but not all, and ones that are paraphrased should be done without too closely paraphrasing. I'm not familiar with the article subject, but if I threw off the neutrality, that was not my intent. Sennecaster (Chat) 05:22, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

I've restored some of this content now, paraphrasing what I can and trimming where appropriate. There's maybe a little more that can be restored here if we're careful. I ran a quick copyvio check on the current reversion (at time of writing) of the article. It's still a bit high across multiple sources, but a lot of the hits seem to be coming from proper names now rather than full copyvios. There's a few more close paraphrases that might need addressing, but some of these terms and ideas have very limited ways of conveying the same information without changing meaning.

If anyone else wants to help, the two revisions that Sennecaster removed are: [2], [3]. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:27, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Trans Safety Network credibility in question

Discussion started by blocked sock Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:28, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

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

I'm sharing two links to the discussions on Trans Safety Network's use on Wikipedia. Trans Safety Network is another activist organization defined as CIC in the UK - shor for "Community Interest Company". Therefore, I suggest removing some of the statements in the reference #9:

Moore, Mallory. "SEGM uncovered: large anonymous payments funding dodgy science". transsafety.network. "Archived" from the original on 2022-06-07. Retrieved 2022-06-26.

I suggest removing these statements:

1. and Mallory Moore stated they have "ties to evangelical activists".[9]

Comment: no link as well - just a statement

2. In it, they advanced the controversial idea of rapid-onset gender dysphoria (ROGD), which suggests a subtype of gender dysphoria caused by peer influence and social contagion. ROGD has been condemned as unevidenced and nonscientific by the majority of the worlds' major psychological bodies.[9][13]

Comment: the definition of the ROGD here is not a good example for neutral writing as this "term" is disputed and there is no sense to push anyone's agenda here

3. SEGM is closely affiliated with the non-profit organization Genspect: Julia Mason, Marcus Evans, Roberto D’Angelo, Sasha Ayad, Stella O'Malley, Lisa Marchiano, and Avi Ring are advisors for SEGM and are on Genspect's team or advisors; O'Malley is the founder of Genspect.[10][25][9]

Comment. While I don't dispute this, I assert that it's very usual for scientists and academics to be part of multiple organizations simultaneously. The question is, "Does it count as affiliation between two organizations" if some individuals are members of both organizations at the same time? This is something I'm curious about.

4. Trans Safety Network (TSN) reported that NHS pediatrician Julie Maxwell has been an advisor for SEGM since its inception; that Maxwell also works for the Christian anti-LGBT and anti-abortion sex education charity LoveWise UK and has offered to help push abstinence-based and anti-LGBT sex education in schools; and that since 2012, Maxwell has been a member of the Family Education Trust, a campaigning charity that promotes anti-LGBT views. TSN also reported that in 2019, SEGM Secretary William Malone co-authored a letter challenging the Endocrine Society's clinical practice guidelines on transgender healthcare with Michael K Laidlaw, Quentin Van Meter, Paul W Hruz, and Andre Van Mol, who are all members of the SPLC-designated anti-LGBT hate group the American College of Pediatricians. In addition, Van Meter is a board member of the International Federation for Therapeutic and Counseling Choice (IFTCC), an organization that openly supports conversion therapy for LGBT people. TSN reported that these authors frequently cite and collaborate with each other.[9]

Comment: This claim is the most contentious as it's highly disputed and solely based on one source - the same LGBT activist organization. Does the WP:BIAS policy not apply here?

5. In August, Trans Safety Network described SEGM as "an anti-trans psychiatric and sociological think tank" and fringe group and reported that most of SEGM's funding came in donations greater than $10,000.[25][9]

Comment: The situation is the same here. If I were to use SEGM (another activist organization or "research institution" as they claim) as a source for the Trans Safety Network, would it be accepted as an unbiased source? I believe the same principle should apply here. Most importantly, here is the blatant case of one organization criticizing another one for funding. At the same time we do not know the funding of Trans Safety Network, which is an activist organization too. Doesn't it raise a BIG RED FLAG for anyone here?

Here are the links 2 discussion about TNS (the first is the most recent one):

1) WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Trans Safety Network

2) WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 378#Trans Safety Network

ParisDakarPeräjärvi (talk) 10:41, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

I've undone one of your removals, specifically point 3. All of the sources for that section assert a link between the two groups, as does the Yale School of Medicine report, in no small part because of the shared membership and advisors. The Yale report in particular draws attention to how the core members of SEGM frequently appear together of other fringe anti-trans organisations like Genspect. Though speculation on my part, what is unusual here is that by having so many organisations that share the same active participants, there seems to be an inflation in how many anti-trans organisations are active. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:53, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

On point 2, the description of ROGD is both factual and neutral. As the sources in our article about the controversy make clear, the proposed theory has no factual basis. No researchers that are independent of Littman have ever been able to replicate her findings, and have instead largely found evidence that runs counter to its proposed subtype. The final sentence is necessary per WP:FRINGE, given that it seems to be a pseudoscientific at worst, and disproven at best. I'm not seeing a particularly compelling reason for removing that paragraph. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:02, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

On point 4, could you be a bit more specific as to which claim is the most contentious and highly disputed please?

Chunking it by sentences, the links between Maxwell and LoveWise UK seem to be confirmed by the editorial note on a Christian Today article written by her. That the seminars she has delivered on behalf of the organisation push abstinence-based and anti-LGBT sex education in schools seems to be verifiable, both through the TSN source directly as well as the sources that TSN cite. That Malone co-authored a letter challenging the Endocrine Society's clinical guidelines doesn't appear to be controversial, nor is the descriptor of ACPeds given that it's properly attributed to the SPLC. Van Meter's links to the IFTCC seem to be freely available on the IFTCC website, and that organisation's support for conversion therapy is well evidenced and documented.

As with the content I restored on point 3, on the surface this seems to be documenting the well evidenced connections between SEGM and other anti-trans and anti-LGBT organisations. So yeah, what exactly is the problem here please? Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:18, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello, @Sideswipe9th.

1) I get your point about the retraction of citation 3. Just for your information, the document you refer to as the "Yale School of Medicine Report" isn't actually an official report from Yale School itself: [4]

Here is the official disclaimer on the first page of the report:

This report reflects the academic work of individual Yale faculty and does not

represent the views of Yale University, Yale Law School, or Yale School of Medicine.

We are talking about an opinion of some members, which is not an official position of the school and they clearly indicate that in their disclaimer - please, take your time to verify it.

Now, let me start with something interesting: Trans Safety Network is in fact an active LGBT organization operated by a Community Interest Company (CIC), which is managed by four officers. Please. take your time to verify it here: [5], [6], [7]

In the RSN discussion, many editors raised concern about the use of Trans Safety Network for contentious or unattributed statements - please, check it here: WP:RSN#Trans Safety Network

In particular, here is one editor wrote (with whom I mostly agree):

This looks like a group blog more than anything else; I don't see any evidence of editorial policies, fact-checking policies, editorial policies, et cetera. We still need to evaluate editorial control, and looking through the website I can't find any evidence of there being any semblance of editorial oversight. Their values page doesn't mention anything related fact-checking or editorial independence, nor does their about page. Absent some sort of editorial review process, we're left with something that's essentially a self-published group blog. And it's not one that is run by University professors or other sorts of people with the sterling credentials of subject-matter experts; the director seems to have written very little outside of TSN, and Mallory Moore (another frequent contributor) seems to tout only previous publications on TruthOut in her TSN bio, but there doesn't appear to be all that much on her TruthOut author page. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:56, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Most of the citations and the use of TSN were discussed in detail. Now specifically to your questions

2) On point 2, from what you wrote I cannot see how the topic of the opinion on ROGD belongs in the SEGM and not on ROGD page:

"In it, they advanced the controversial idea of rapid-onset gender dysphoria (ROGD), which suggests a subtype of gender dysphoria caused by peer influence and social contagion. ROGD has been condemned as unevidenced and nonscientific by the majority of the worlds' major psychological bodies."

The sentence predominantly clarifies the contentious concept of ROGD, seemingly steering readers towards a particular viewpoint. A more balanced approach might be to state:

" According to various sources, the controversial notion of ROGD" - a statement that ensures neutrality. Also, I am firmly against the practice of incorporating subjective views on other topics on the organization's website. Readers possess sufficient intellect to navigate a separate page and comprehend the term independently, without external guidance.

3) On point 4, yes, I'll be more specific. The main issue here that all these members are automatically defined as "anti-LGBT" , which is stated as a fact proven in courts but it is an opinion piece published by an active LGBT organization, not by the New York Times or a scientific publication.

So, it is one LGBT active organization criticizes the other opposing organization but defining its members as "anti-LGBT". Doesn't it raise any red flags on neutrality and non-biased sources per Wikipedia's requirements? The problem is not the text but the source. Please, check the RSN discussion.

Just to mention, I've meticulously gone through the Talk Page and discovered substantial reasoning from various editors who believe this page isn't aligned with Wikipedia policy. I'm currently crafting an analysis for the Lead section, which I plan to present here and on the NPOV NoticeBoard next week. This is intended to prompt a broad discussion involving all editors who are interested in enhancing this page. I cordially invite you to join in as well.

I also invite a few editors to this discussion to get a broader consensus on the proper use of this source: ActivelyDisinterested, Red-tailed hawk, Adoring nanny. ParisDakarPeräjärvi (talk) 07:52, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

New sources to consider for changes on SEGM

Hi all. I have found several sources that may be helpful in rebalancing the SEGM article. Many sources point to information that does not currently appear on the SEGM page or redefine the organization from a different perspective in light of the backlog of information about transgender issues. All publications are from reputable sources, written by independent journalists. Anyone interested in participating, please take a look:

~~ParisDakarPeräjärvi (talk) 19:57, 15 February 2023 (UTC)~~ Blocked sock Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:04, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Quick rundown of the sources:

The Economist is 1 paragraph detailing a statement from Will Malone. It is already referenced, but could be used to include Malone claiming big pharma and gender ideology are behind trans healthcare and it's similar to the opioid epidemic.
AP News and Malone's statement there is already referenced.
Newsweek and the WSJ are opinion pieces and can't be used.
Medscape is already heavily referenced.
The Guardian article does not mention SEGM at all and is irrelevant.
The WBUR clip and KHN source talk about how even SEGM said Biden wasn't pushing surgeries. Not sure if this is especially due but might be. The second source is better for this.
The journal articles are published by SEGM and their reception has been noted in the article. That being said, I have been thinking a publications section may be prudent.

TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 20:16, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

An additional source that may be useful but is a whole 'nother can of worms is here: https://healthliberationnow.com/2023/02/07/segm-exposed-reloaded-the-shadow-money-behind-a-leading-anti-trans-think-tank/. An in-depth analysis of SEGM's funding and activities. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 20:20, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi, ParisDakarPeräjärvi! Thanks for sharing! I will double-check those articles above and share my second opinion. From first glance, the page for SEGM looks on a very negative side and doesn't remind me of a well-balanced and neutral Wikipedia article. It seems like you've shared a list of articles that are worth considering. Cidertail (talk) 16:52, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Cidertail@ParisDakarPeräjärvi, why can't a WSJ opinion piece and Newsweek piece be used? It seems an essay on an organization's web page is being used ("Mallory Moore")? I would think Newsweek and WSJ, both well known mainstream publications with editorial processes, would both be more reliable than some organization's publications? Otherwise, it sounds like Genspect's essays and publications are also acceptable? This would be very useful to know.

I'm unclear why anyone is claiming that SEGM misrepresents the evidence base for transgender care. There's a recent investigative report out by the British Medical Journal (peer reviewed and commissioned) and it seems to agree that the evidence base for medical treatment is unreliable (https://www.bmj.com/content/380/bmj.p382) . The lack of evidence is also being noted by Reuters: https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-transyouth-care/ ("Across the United States, thousands of youths are lining up for gender-affirming care. But when families decide to take the medical route, they must make decisions about life-altering treatments that have little scientific evidence of their long-term safety and efficacy.")

These investigative journalists seem to be agreeing with SEGM's pages which say "We are an international group of over 100 clinicians and researchers concerned about the lack of quality evidence for the use of hormonal and surgical interventions as first-line treatment for young people with gender dysphoria." https://segm.org/about_us

Thanks. Jdbrook talk 02:15, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Newsweek and the WSJ are WP:RSOPINION pieces, not news articles. What content do you even want to add from them? Genspect and SEGM have a reputation in RS for blatant misinformation, Trans Safety Network does not. Not to mention, Genspect and SEGM are not WP:INDEPENDENT organizations, they're the same people switching outfits.

Since you're unclear why anyone is claiming that SEGM misrepresents the evidence base for transgender care.

multiple WP:RS have said so (see here)
They act like rapid-onset gender dysphoria is a real thing
They claim that conversion therapy doesn't count when practiced on trans people (a position that literally every medical organization and human rights group in the world disagrees with)
They say trans people under 25 should not be able to transition

In short, a bunch of blatantly anti-trans misinformation and WP:FRINGE nonsense

The BMJ and Reuters article you linked are WP:OR, and even if they weren't, they don't endorse any of the ridiculous things SEGM supports (such as claiming it's not conversion therapy when you do it to trans people, legislating for even trans adults to not be able to transition, etc). Quoting SEGM's about us page is useless, as we base the article on what reliable sources have to say, not a selective interpretation of their own mission statement. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 04:35, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Rapid onset gender dysphoria is considered enough of a serious hypothesis that the French National Academy of Medicine and the Dutch have both referred to it (in recommendations and in a published paper, respectively). From the latter: "More studies using both self and parent report measures would be needed to gain better insight in the existence of the ‘ROGD’ subtype." So, it seems SEGM isn't alone in taking it seriously as a hypothesis.

I don't see that SEGM supports conversion therapy. Exploratory therapy isn't conversion therapy. There are a bunch of case studies where people who identify as trans realize that it was due to something else (gender dysphoria is not one thing), and they find out through therapy. Not conversion therapy, which isn't therapy at all in fact.

Jdbrook talk 04:01, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Sock puppetry cleanup

One of the recent contributors to this article was recently blocked as a sock. Earlier this month they removed three bits of content from the article; [8], [9], [10]. I've restored the first two, here and here per WP:BANREVERT, and left out the third. The two that I've restored are backed up by other sources that are presented alongside it and seem fine with attribution. However the one that I've left out does seem like it strays a bit too far into BLP territory. Just wanted to leave this open for discussion to see what others think. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:22, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Who is this supposed to be a sock of? I'm not seeing a link to an SPI case. It would help identify future socks, for one thing. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:15, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

The SPI is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MartinPict. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:33, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Restoring disputed neutrality tag

I've been looking into the Wikipedia page for the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine (SEGM) and I have some concerns that it may not currently reflect a neutral point of view.

Specifically, it seems like some of the sources are being selectively cited, and certain information is presented in a way that appears one-sided or misleading. Let me give an example of what I mean using reference #7 ([11])

The intro to the page says "Researchers at the Yale School of Medicine issued a report describing SEGM as a small group of anti-trans activists". But when you actually look at the Yale article, it includes a disclaimer saying the report "does not represent the views of Yale University, Yale Law School, or Yale School of Medicine."

The way it's cited makes it sound like this report reflects the official position of Yale Medicine, when in reality it's just a few individual faculty members. That distinction needs to be made clearer.

I also noticed SEGM has been portrayed pretty neutrally and even positively in other major publications - The Economist called them "an international group of concerned clinicians", AP News called them a "nonprofit group of health professionals concerned about medical transition risks for minors". But none of that balancing info seems to be included on the Wikipedia page.

Overall, as someone who's done editing work on other articles recently, I think the SEGM page could use some adjustment to come across more neutral and thoroughly reference different perspectives. I know gender identity topics can be incredibly sensitive, so I want to tread carefully and make sure any changes are well-sourced. But right now, the page does seem skewed in one direction to me.

I'm going to be looking at this more closely over the next few weeks. I'm always open to constructive feedback from other editors interested in making sure this article represents all sides fairly. Wikipedia at its best reflects multiple viewpoints, not just one dominant narrative - so let's work together to get this page to live up to those standards. Colaheed777 (talk) 16:27, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

I can't agree with your example. By saying "researchers at the Yale School of Medicine" we are attributing the report to the researchers who compiled it, while at that institution. We are not saying that this report represents the views of the institution.

As for the overall neutrality, I'm afraid I'm not seeing an issue. The balance of sources about this organisation are negative, which is to be expected given the fringe views they are espousing about gender-affirming healthcare. You'd need a lot more than two newsorg sources to overcome the weight of the weight afforded by the academic sources, which from the last time I took a deep dive were excortiating on the organisation. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:32, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Hey @Sideswipe9th,

I see what you're saying, but I still think we should tweak that section to make it clear those Yale researchers don't officially represent the university. Their own disclaimer flat out says the report doesn't reflect Yale Medicine's or Yale's views.

Maybe rephrasing it as "a private group of Yale researchers" or "Yale-affiliated researchers" would get the point across that this was their own independent work? I just want to make sure readers don't misunderstand and assume this criticizing report came directly from Yale as an institution. Some extra clarity there could help.

When you said you don't see any issues, did you mean you think the page now comes across as totally neutral in its current form? I'm open to your take - I just want to double check sources and facts are airtight before considering this resolved. But let me know if you think I'm off-base raising any neutrality concerns. I'm not attached to being "right" here - my main goal is improving the quality of this page together.

Curious to hear your thoughts! I think with a little more tweaking we can get this page sounding more authoritative while also keeping it nuanced. Colaheed777 (talk) 16:17, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with "researchers at the Yale School of Medicine". I'm fine with equivalent phrases. "Yale-affiliated" loses some specificity, but we could do "researchers affiliated with the Yale School of medicine". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:31, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Primary analysis of the Lead Section for non-balanced information.

For starters, I found that verification of this page requires a lot of time and effort, so I will focus on some of the statements here that need additional clarification or rebalancing.

I believe it would be more constructive to move forward in little steps and reach consensus on small sentences and apply them on the page. In case of a dispute, I’m inclined to see a few experienced and hopefully non-biased editors who might help to balance and improve this page.

1.

First, I’d like to reach consensus on these statements in the Lead section:

Current version:

The Society For Evidence-Based Gender Medicine (SEGM) is a non-profit organization that is known for opposing standards of care for transgender youth and engaging in political lobbying.

Potentially controversial or non-neutral information:

...known for opposing standards of care for transgender youth and engaging in political lobbying.

Comment:

According to its activity, SEGM is clearly an international organization. Therefore, "opposing standards of care for transgender youth" requires additional details such as:

Standards of care of which country the organization opposes? International standards? (Unlikely as they are different in many countries). US standards or any specific country? If SEGM’s headquarters are in the US, then the US current standards would be the best venue for now.

"engaging in political lobbying" needs clarification as it is a very broad term that might mean anything. Why not just detail or list a few cases of what the organization actually did? "Political lobbying" should refer to "acting" and acting is an official deed of the SEGM as an organization. I found a few records for submission amicus briefs for different US and Canada’s courts and legislations, so I suggest to writing just that for now unless other editors can share more sources showing that the organization did more than that.

New suggestion to update/balance the sentence/paragraph:

"The Society For Evidence-Based Gender Medicine (SEGM) is an international non-profit organization based in the US that is known for opposing current US standards of care for transgender youth. SEGM has submitted several amicus briefs in the US and Canada in support of its views."

(The organization’s views are described in the first sentence - "opposing current US standards..." Short and clear)

2.

Current version:

The group routinely cites the theory of rapid-onset gender dysphoria and has claimed that conversion therapy can only be practiced on the basis of sexual orientation rather than gender identity.

Potentially controversial or non-neutral information:

What is potentially controversial here is not the statement itself but the fact that the editor who wrote it added only one source that is clearly defined as an opinion of one person. Again, if the organization "routinely cites or claims" something and the statement is controversial, how many sources should we apply here? Of one author or a few authoritative sources? I believe we need at least 2 more good reliable sources supporting any potentially controversial information.

Also, if there are other sources opposing the information in the sentence, what standards do we apply here in using them? I believe there is a need for more consensus here in terms of sources supporting and opposing the same claim. If there are no opposing sources, then our work as Wikipedia editors aspiring for neutrality is to bring more than just one opinion here that is used for a tag on the organization’s activity.

New suggestion to update/balance the sentence/paragraph:

Currently, I have no suggestions for rewriting this sentence as it requires deeper research for more sources. I’ll try to find a few in the coming days and additional help from other editors will be highly appreciated.

3.

Current version:

Researchers at the Yale School of Medicine issued a report which described SEGM as a small group of anti-trans activists.

Potentially controversial or non-neutral information:

I already detailed that in the previous comments. I’m inclined to agree with Firefangledfeathers that we should mention "an affililiton somehow but I’d suggest a further slight improvement - please, check below:

New suggestion to update/balance the sentence/paragraph:

"A group of researchers affiliated from the Yale School of Medicine issued a private report not affiliated with the Yale University’s official position describing SEGM as "a small group of anti-trans activists."

Comment on the new suggestion:

That makes the statement very clear, and we don’t have to write here the entire disclaimer. Here we have the same information but also the fact that one paperwork doesn’t represent the official position of the university of the faculty of medicine.

I believe it is honest and transparent to include the disclaimer in any Wiki-style of writing form and this version is very close to it. Colaheed777 (talk) 04:04, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

User:Colaheed777, if you could refactor your message above (perhaps by number, or short name?) it might help others respond to you. As things stand now, it's not even clear at a glance how many separate examples there are. For now, I'll respond to what I'll call #1 (or let's say, "Opposing standards region", for short). I don't agree with your assessment that there needs to be a change in wording, and here's why. You've presented a two ideas, namely: 1) that SEGM is an international organization, and 2) the current wording of "opposing standards of care for transgender youth" in the lead doesn't acknowledge this, and drawn the conclusion that therefore 3) the wording in the lead should be changed in some way, presumably to restrict it to the country or location involved. But 1 and 2 are a kind of synthesis of two ideas leading to your own conclusion, which isn't something specifically supported by sources. A more important reason, perhaps, is that this is wording in the lead, which by definition summarizes the most important points of the article. I believe that most readers, and most editors, would agree that the fact that SEGM "oppos[es] standards of care for transgender youth" is an important point about SEGM, regardless whether it's limited to northeastern Bhutan, Dade County Florida, or Liechtenstein. It's not necessary at this 40,000 view that is the lead, to get into the details of where and when; that will come out in the body, and has come out in the body.

If I can get back and respond to other points, I will, but no promises as I have RL stuff on the table. In the meantime, I've removed the tag, as I don't see that any serious issue of balance or lack of NPOV has been identified. If you can identify such a issue of neutrality, then it should be restored to the page, but it doesn't sound like there is consensus for it at this point. Perhaps you already have, as I've only read and responded to the first point, and if other editors here agree with you, then feel free to restore it. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 05:08, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Mathglot.

I appreciate your experience, but believe there are still unresolved sourcing and framing issues needing broad discussion.

In reviewing the talk page and edit history of this article, it is clear that many editors disagree on how sources are applied and interpreted regarding SEGM. There seem to be outstanding questions around balancing coverage and properly conveying the content of references.

Many of my previous points regarding neutrality and accuracy do not appear to have been addressed yet and simply dismissing these matters out of hand without broader consensus cannot resolve such issues.

I believe the prudent way forward is to work methodically in order to build consensus around edits that comply fully with Wikipedia's guidelines. There is actionable feedback to be discussed, not ignored.

I am still reviewing this article extensively, and have compiled a list of overlooked sources portraying SEGM in a positive/neutral light that require balanced integration to satisfy WP:NPOV standards. I welcome collaborating with any interested editors to dig into this process in good faith. There is work to be done.

Here is the list of the sources with positive or neutral coverage of the organization:

[12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18]. Colaheed777 (talk) 02:39, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

The specific example initially given here was not remotely credible and subsequent objections seem nitpicky. I don't see any justification for the POV tag. I hope there is more to this than just WP:IDONTLIKEIT? DanielRigal (talk) 22:41, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Colaheed, your most recent reinsertion of the NPOV tag is not an improvement to the article, and should not have been made while this discussion is ongoing. This is now a behavioral issue, not a content dispute, at least in part, and for that part of it, I have responded at your Talk page in this discussion. Cordially, Mathglot (talk) 03:41, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Yale Univ. attribution

This whole NPOV section is a convoluted mess, and I'm going to start a subsection to deal with just one point: the issue of whether and how to attribute the 2022 report to "Yale" in the lead. Please don't add anything to this subsection unrelated to this (but please do start other subsections to talk about anything else you wish).

So, let's get down to it: there's been some warring going on about whether mentioning "Yale" imparts unwarranted cred to the study, with opposition based on introducing caveats deemed excessive by others. The actual "Yale report" in question is here. My proposed compromise is, let's finesse the whole "Yale" thing by not mentioning Yale at all, instead mentioning the professional background of the authors, thus:

The actual background and affiliations of the "medical researchers" in question are these:

"We are a group of six scientists and one law professor. Among the scientists, three of us are M.D.s., three are PhD's, and all treat transgender children and adolescents in daily clinical practice. We all hold academic appointments at major medical schools, including the University of Texas Southwestern and Yale University."

I should add that I find the current state of the article (left side) perfectly okay as it's part of the lead and thus merely a summary; this subsection is presented in the spirit of trying to accommodate opposing views. Mathglot (talk) 07:19, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Positive or neutral coverage

Please provide the search terms or other procedure you used to compile the seven sources quoted in [9] – [15] above. Have you listed every result from the search procedure you used, or just some of them? If I wanted to reproduce exactly the steps you followed that resulted in those seven items, how would I do that? I mean, like, "Step 1. do this", "Step 2., do that", and so on. I want to reproduce the exact sequence that led you to those results. The reason for this question is a WP:DUEWEIGHT concern. Mathglot (talk) 08:12, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

WP:DUEWEIGHT is exactly the subject of my concern about this article. As I see it, the article relies on a biased selection of negative sources, which is not good. I'm not suggesting replacing negative reviews with positive ones, of course. I'm suggesting that we start by recognizing the existence of this issue and that the article is not neutral now.

As for the specific Google and Google scholar search actions I took to find specifically neutral descriptions, I'm afraid I won't be able to reconstruct the exact sequence. Essential, in my opinion, is that I have filtered out the many that SEGM itself speaks about itself - or there were statements by its spokespersons quoted. These I have rejected, of course. And how about discussing the new sources rather than me? Don't they justify POV tag? By the way, I wouldn't mind using UNDUE WEIGHT tag instead of POV. Colaheed777 (talk) 23:19, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

WP:ONUS applies. You could always try the other tag and see if that flies, as no one has voiced opposition to a brand new suggestion yet, but given the tenor of previous discussions about the NPOV tag, I suspect you'd have four or five editors opposing it; perhaps I'm mistaken. Also, nobody is discussing you, I reject that assertion. It's perfectly appropriate to request a reproduction method to demonstrate how a set of sources were compiled, precisely to see if they are DUE and thus appropriate for the article. As of this point, I see no issue with the article, in particular no issue with neutrality, but I am perfectly willing to be persuaded otherwise. Showing a reproducible set of sources neutrally acquired would be a good step in that direction, imho. There is a bit of a hill to climb, given the unanimous opposition so far. You could try attracting additional eyeballs by placing a neutral note at one or more relevant WP:WikiProjects; perhaps new voices would be more amenable to your propositions. Mathglot (talk) 01:45, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Article lead revert

Hi, why did you revert this edit ?

As it stands the article reads "[SEGM] is a non-profit organization known for opposing standards of care for transgender youth and engaging in political lobbying"

This is obviously not written from a neutral point of view.

The only part of this that is uncontested is "non-profit organization".

"Known" to whom? "Standards of care" - which standards?

and does it mean SEGM is known for opposing all standards that have ever been set or proposed, in favour of some possible better set, or for opposing some or all of a particularly well-known, nationally approved, or medically approved set of standards, or for opposing any idea that there should be standards at all? This wooliness in the introduction makes it appear agenda-led to me, and hence, un-encyclopedia-worthy.Nick Barnett (talk) 13:44, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Why did you remove the fact that SEGM is an association of healthcare professionals?

You state that this description is supported by the sources, but in an academic context you would generally be expected to source each claim, especially if it is disputed. Is wikipedia different? Are readers supposed to sift through every source to find the ones supporting the claim in question? Abardill (talk) 23:22, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

@Abardill: I hope you don't mind, I've moved this comment into its own section, as it seems separate from the discussion that happened in February/March.

I gave a brief justification in my revert edit summary. My revert was largely to restore NPOV compliant text, as when independent, reliable sources discuss SEGM, particularly for sources that specialist in this subject area, they largely do so in this manner. Their primary notability stems from their opposition to the standards of care from WPATH, American Academy of Pediatrics, Endocrine Society, and other mainstream medical organisations. Your proposed replacement seems to give undue weight to their claims, which run counter to the mainstream medical view in this topic. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:02, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

You haven't directly addressed the points I've raised.

"My revert was largely to restore NPOV compliant text, as when independent, reliable sources discuss SEGM, particularly for sources that specialist in this subject area, they largely do so in this manner."

I deny that this is true. So where do we go from here?

As others have pointed out, there is no consensus on medical interventions to treat GD in minors. Sweden, Finland and the UK have adopted a model of care that is on some points directly opposed to the recommendations of WPATH 8.

One of the sources on this article is a *blog post* critiquing a 130 page systematic review of puberty blockers by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) of the UK. So the article actually elevates the non-peer-reviewed opinions of bloggers above the conclusions of a mainstream medical organisation.

Do you dispute that SEGM is an association of healthcare professionals, or do you dispute the relevance of that fact? Please be specific. Abardill (talk) 14:47, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

The issue is that the first sentence has to summarize what makes the subject notable. They're not notable for being healthcare professionals, they're notable for the positions they've taken. You can see this from the focus of the body of the article, which, per WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY, the lead has to reflect. Likewise, per WP:MISSIONSTATEMENT, we can't substitute their mission statement for what WP:RSes say about them; what they say about themselves is less important than the focus of secondary coverage. --Aquillion (talk) 15:11, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

One of the sources on this article is a *blog post* critiquing a 130 page systematic review of puberty blockers by [NICE] I believe this is a reference to an article in Science Based Medicine. That publication has been discussed quite a few times at RSN, and the current consensus per its entry on RSP is that it's considered generally reliable, as it has a credible editorial board, publishes a robust set of editorial guidelines, and has been cited by other reliable sources. If I'm mistaken and you're discussing a different source in the article, could you please identify which one?

Do you dispute that SEGM is an association of healthcare professionals, or do you dispute the relevance of that fact? I dispute neither. While there may be healthcare professionals involved with the organisation, as Aquillion has said, SEGM are not notable for being an association of healthcare professionals. They are notable for the positions they've taken against mainstream medical organisations, their support for conversion therapy, political activities, and their close affiliations with other organisations that oppose gender-affirming healthcare.

Sweden, Finland and the UK have adopted a model of care that is on some points directly opposed to the recommendations of WPATH 8 While I won't speak for Sweden or Finland, as I'm not as familiar with reliable sources for those countries due to the language barrier, I am familiar with the UK and I will say that for the UK that's not entirely true. The UK health system is made up of four separate entities, National Health Service (England), NHS Scotland, NHS Wales, and Health and Social Care (Northern Ireland). Each of those entities has their own separate gender identity services for both adults and youth, though there is some overlap for some specialist services, and each of those entities sets their own service specifications for providing healthcare to trans and non-binary individuals. Currently the only entity that significantly diverges from WPATH 7 (not 8, as the others have yet to update their specifications following the publication of WPATH 8) is NHS England through their recently published interim service specification. This interim specification is temporary until the Cass Review concludes some time later this year. The other NHS entities still provide gender-affirming care roughly in line with the WPATH 7 and 2017 Endocrine Society guidelines, with NHS England's divergence being that only trans adolescents who are enrolled in a clinical research program can receive treatment. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:14, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

"known for opposing standards of care"

I had a disconcerting, near-garden path sentence experience when re-reading the lead sentence, due to an ambiguity, and I'd like to resolve it. Here's the sentence as it stands now:

The Society For Evidence-Based Gender Medicine (SEGM) is a non-profit organization that is known for opposing standards of care for transgender youth and engaging in political lobbying.

I realized after a moment or two of confusion, that the known for opposing SoC clause can be read in two ways:

SEGM is known for its opposition to standards of care for trans youth
SEGM is known for a different standard of care—an opposing one—[that they wrote?]

i.e., it is ambiguous, depending on whether you read opposing as a participial adjective modifying SEGM (1), or modifying SoC (2). So, in order to resolve the ambiguity, I'd like to change this phrase to this:

...that is known for its opposition to standards of care for transgender youth and [for] engaging...

I'm agnostic as to whether it should be its opposition or their opposition, and that may depend on whether one is more partial to AE or BE; also, I'd prefer to distribute the for to make it crystal clear. Is there any objection to making this change? Mathglot (talk) 22:36, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

I support the change for clarity, though I think that phrase is a little euphemistic at this point considering the body. I'd support the more explicit that is known for its opposition to gender-affirming care for transgender youth.

I also recommend we add mention the main finding of the SPLC report in the lead (right after the second paragraph) the SPLC has described it as the hub of an anti-LGBT pseudoscience network and replace the third with SEGM is closely affiliated with Genspect and the Gender Exploratory Therapy Association. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 19:38, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree with all these changes. I'd add quotes around the SPLC statement though. Loki (talk) 19:59, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm sure there are other improvements that can be made along the lines of the suggestions above, and are worth discussing (or boldly doing) but in order to avoid complications and get a clear indication of what people prefer to do about the ambiguity, I'd like to limit the scope of this to just a choice between relieving the ambiguity or leave it as is. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 10:19, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Looks like it's been implemented; thanks. Mathglot (talk) 07:57, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Debra Kroszner

The article currently says A report by Debra Kroszner of the Yale School of Medicine stated that the 14 core members of SEGM regularly worked together on the boards of other organizations that oppose gender-affirming healthcare and "feature biased and unscientific content." The attribution to Kroszner was added by @Colaheed777 here (and here though it was reverted).

Kroszner did not author the report, they're just listed as Yale's media contact on the source. The report was written by 7 other people in various departments.

Considering the secondary sources covering the report all say researchers at the Yale School of Medicine, consensus at RSN where Colaheed777 raised issue with that phrase seems to be it's straightforward and accurate, and Kroszner had nothing to do with the report, I ask that somebody correct the mistake and revert it to the original text attributing it to researchers. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:30, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Request for comment

Removal of description from lead

Unsourced and invalid information about SEGM in the lead

Quote removal

Trans Safety Network credibility in question

New sources to consider for changes on SEGM

Sock puppetry cleanup

Restoring disputed neutrality tag

Yale Univ. attribution

Positive or neutral coverage

More article neutrality concerns

Article lead revert

"known for opposing standards of care"

Debra Kroszner