Crossroads (talk | contribs) |
Newimpartial (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 183: | Line 183: | ||
** BLPGROUP says, {{tq|The extent to which the BLP policy applies to edits about groups is complex and must be judged on a case-by-case basis.... When in doubt, make sure you are using high-quality sources.}} I think that is exactly what we are doing here. There is also no established precedent (say on [[WT:WTW]]) that LABEL applies to "anti-trans" - that is the position held by one group of editors, in a dispute with another group of editors. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 21:41, 14 January 2022 (UTC) |
** BLPGROUP says, {{tq|The extent to which the BLP policy applies to edits about groups is complex and must be judged on a case-by-case basis.... When in doubt, make sure you are using high-quality sources.}} I think that is exactly what we are doing here. There is also no established precedent (say on [[WT:WTW]]) that LABEL applies to "anti-trans" - that is the position held by one group of editors, in a dispute with another group of editors. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 21:41, 14 January 2022 (UTC) |
||
***Given an absence of consensus that LABEL does not apply to "anti-trans", then surely the principle of [[WP:BLP]] and [[WP:NPOV]] would be to err on the side of caution and leave it off. <span style="font-family:Palatino">[[User:Crossroads|'''Crossroads''']]</span> <sup>[[User talk:Crossroads|-talk-]]</sup> 06:55, 15 January 2022 (UTC) |
***Given an absence of consensus that LABEL does not apply to "anti-trans", then surely the principle of [[WP:BLP]] and [[WP:NPOV]] would be to err on the side of caution and leave it off. <span style="font-family:Palatino">[[User:Crossroads|'''Crossroads''']]</span> <sup>[[User talk:Crossroads|-talk-]]</sup> 06:55, 15 January 2022 (UTC) |
||
**** So now, not only does "consensus" mean whatever is convenient for you in a particular dispute (typically you plus one editor agreeing with you, but a much larger proportion and number of editors if they disagree with you), but now also ''non-consensus'' means a consensus to do what you want because of some reverse onus is other. There is a case study of some kind to be done here, I'm sure. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 14:44, 15 January 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*:{{u|Lwarrenwiki}}, in the case of anti-trans being a controversial label, you are assuming a precedent or consensus that does not exist from what I know, and based on the number of editors supporting using that label here, is unlikely to exist. [[User:A._C._Santacruz|A. C. Santacruz]] ⁂ [[User talk:A._C._Santacruz|Please ping me!]] 22:03, 14 January 2022 (UTC) |
*:{{u|Lwarrenwiki}}, in the case of anti-trans being a controversial label, you are assuming a precedent or consensus that does not exist from what I know, and based on the number of editors supporting using that label here, is unlikely to exist. [[User:A._C._Santacruz|A. C. Santacruz]] ⁂ [[User talk:A._C._Santacruz|Please ping me!]] 22:03, 14 January 2022 (UTC) |
||
Revision as of 14:44, 15 January 2022
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Research published 15 November 2021
A paper was published in The Journal of Pediatrics yesterday, testing the hypothesis of ROGD. Quotation from the discussion section We did not find support within a clinical population for a new etiologic phenomenon of “ROGD” during adolescence. Among adolescents under age 16 seen in specialized gender clinics, associations between more recent gender knowledge and factors hypothesized to be involved in ROGD were either not statistically significant, or were in the opposite direction to what would be hypothesized.
I'm still getting to grips with all of the nuances of WP:MEDRS however I think this is citable in the article, at the very least within the academic reactions section, though I'm not entirely sure how to phrase/word that. Thoughts? Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:34, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- The first actual piece of clinical science on the subject looking at patients and not based on polls given to parents. This study should really be given prominence somewhere in the article and then other clinical research that comes out in the future can be added to the section made for that. SilverserenC 03:34, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
- Regarding MEDRS, while neither this nor Littman's article would be used at an article like gender dysphoria, where there are plenty of reviews to use instead, we can summarize and cite this here. WP:MEDDATE notes that the rules may need to be relaxed in areas where few reviews are published, and the ROGD controversy certainly falls under that category. Crossroads -talk- 07:02, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
- Ah cool! I wasn't sure if MEDDATE could be used in that way. I'm glad that this paper gives some needed clinical oversight of the theory and can be added. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:17, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
- I've added it. Further amends and discussion welcome. (And I wouldn't worry too much about MEDRS, if we always followed it to the letter then this article wouldn't exist at all.) The Land (talk) 18:09, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
- Awesome! I'm still getting to grips with the somewhat stricter sourcing requirements for medical articles, and the caveats like MEDDATE that allow for flexibility in circumstances like this. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:17, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
- I think that basically, we are not treating ROGD as a medical phenomenon. According to the MDRS rules, we'd have to follow the lead of some national or international medical body to do so, and to quote mainly review articles that themselves synthesise high-quality clinical evidence. With ROGD there is one national medical body that says ROGD is *not* a thing, no review articles at all, and only one clinical study which also says that ROGD is *not* a thing. MEDRS is not really well suited to situations where the only available evidence on an article's subject says that the alleged condition does not exist at all. The Land (talk) 09:20, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
- Awesome! I'm still getting to grips with the somewhat stricter sourcing requirements for medical articles, and the caveats like MEDDATE that allow for flexibility in circumstances like this. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:17, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
What the websites were that she surveyed
I have added a discussion of what three websites were surveyed, because it's clearly relevant to the study's alleged findings to clearly and unambiguously disclose what the websites were - three nonprofessional sites which, according to other sources, were primarily populated by people hostile toward transgender rights, who actively rejected their child's trans identity, and who actively believed ROGD was a thing. This strikes to the heart of the study's credibility, because it then amounts to asking a bunch of people who have already made up their mind about something, what they've made up their mind about. As a social scientist, I'm appalled that any researcher would purport that such a methodology would produce anything remotely resembling valid results which can be extrapolated across broader populations. This is stuff you learn in basic grad-level research methods courses. The study has a purposive sample, which can only tell you about the experiences and beliefs found among that specific subpopulation of parents who chose to participate in trans-hostile websites - it's completely useless to tell us how the children themselves felt or what they experienced. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:47, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
- I hear you, but I'll just note for the record and for what it's worth that her response to this point is to say that her methods were consistent with those used without controversy in other studies. [1] Not saying that justifies the method or is necessarily an apt comparison, but it is what it is. Crossroads -talk- 08:58, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
- Yeah, I've read it, and it's bullshit - the "comparable" studies she cited generally included sampling from at least one large, generalized platform such as Reddit, Yahoo, Twitter, and Facebook, which are apt to have much more diverse user bases than three VERY obscure ideologically-targeted "gender-critical" blogs. That she chose only those three blogs and nowhere else is... revealing. The fact that 88% of her respondents were women and two-thirds were in a single 15-year age range - 46-60 - is similarly suggestive of a bizarrely-flawed (to put it charitably) sample. If that had been my sample for my master's thesis, I'm fairly certain my adviser would have told me to redesign my entire study. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:29, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
"Parents' accounts of what they perceived as their teenage children"
Wait, these may not have been their children!?
But seriously, it does read oddly, and "parents' accounts of" already attributes the narrative to the parents. It's already saying it's an account. Why not add a "seemingly" in there too for good measure? That would be excessive, of course. So is this. Crossroads -talk- 09:08, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
- It is not great writing, but it seems obvious to me that the intended meaning is that "perceived as" refers to "suddenly manifesting", which is a perfectly accurate and relevant point to emphasize the parents' subjectivity about. Does anyone have a better way to say this? Newimpartial (talk) 09:47, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
- Yeah, it is awkward, but what Newimpartial said - we need to make clear that what she was measuring in the survey is the parents' subjective perception of their child's gender identity "suddenly manifesting"; because she did not talk to any actual children going through this purported "ROGD," the study has no way of determining whether this parental perception was accurate, or whether the child had actually been exploring their gender identity for a period of time without their parents noticing, and thus the only thing "sudden" about it is how the parents experienced that revelation. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:07, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
- How about
"what they perceived as a sudden manifestation in their teenage children of symptoms of gender dysphoria and self-identification as transgender simultaneously with other children in their peer group."
Firefangledfeathers 19:24, 12 December 2021 (UTC)- That's better. :) Newimpartial (talk) 19:25, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
- Perfect! NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:37, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's much better. The fact that the "sudden manifestation" is an opinion of the parents and not some fact of reality is a primary point of the ROGD study in question and academic criticism of it. SilverserenC 05:58, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
- @Crossroads:, the change was already discussed and approved of here. Your alteration is not equivalent. "A seemingly sudden manifestation" still implies that this happened in reality, rather than being entirely within the heads of the parents in question. SilverserenC 06:28, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
- A decision here doesn't mean it can't be further improved. Nobody doubts that these youths manifested symptoms of gender dysphoria and identified as transgender. So it isn't "entirely" within the heads of the parents. The doubt has to do with the timing, the "suddenness" of this, with critics saying they may have had these symptoms and/or identity well before revealing them. Crossroads -talk- 06:38, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
- It's still not quite there yet. The problem currently (as of 06:24, 18 Dec) is that Littman's term doesn't describe the parents' accounts (the accounts might be described as shocked, or bathetic, or resigned, or angry, but not as ROGD); rather, the term describes the purported syndrome described by the parents' accounts. I understand what the 3rd sentence of the LEAD is going for, and so does everybody here, and I'm not minimizing the effort it took to get this far. But, if you consider someone reading this who never heard of ROGD, maybe never heard of dysphoria, possibly with only vague notions of trans-anything, this sentence is not clear enough. It's possible the third sentence is trying to do too much work, and maybe it needs to be broken up into two or three; perhaps 3a): "Littman surveyed parents hanging out at some forums about transkids issues, and collected reports from the parents about their children reporting/coming out/stating/manifesting their transness/dysphoria;" and 3b): "The parents reported that these changes in their children occurred suddenly, and Littman named this apparent sudden change in their children as observed and reported by the parents as ROGD." Purposely left unrefined, just to get the main idea out there. Mathglot (talk) 09:16, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
- The key word, though, is
sudden
. As long as that word is used, we have to attribute the apparent change to the parent's perceptions and opinions, since Littman and all reputable sources afterwards do so. Implying that there is any evidence beyond that that the changes were sudden is a misuse of the sources. Either way I think the reworded version captures it better. --Aquillion (talk) 19:42, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
- A decision here doesn't mean it can't be further improved. Nobody doubts that these youths manifested symptoms of gender dysphoria and identified as transgender. So it isn't "entirely" within the heads of the parents. The doubt has to do with the timing, the "suddenness" of this, with critics saying they may have had these symptoms and/or identity well before revealing them. Crossroads -talk- 06:38, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
- @Crossroads:, the change was already discussed and approved of here. Your alteration is not equivalent. "A seemingly sudden manifestation" still implies that this happened in reality, rather than being entirely within the heads of the parents in question. SilverserenC 06:28, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's much better. The fact that the "sudden manifestation" is an opinion of the parents and not some fact of reality is a primary point of the ROGD study in question and academic criticism of it. SilverserenC 05:58, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
- How about
- There appears to be at least a rough 5-1 consensus here for the new wording, or 5-2 if we count tweaks to it as objections? There is always room to workshop or refine it but unless I'm missing something I'm not seeing the lack of consensus described in this edit. Obviously quick nose-counts are fallible and not the be-all-and-end-all, but I found that edit summary a bit baffling. --Aquillion (talk) 23:51, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
- In that edit I was reverting wording that was not discussed here at all. My "status quo" described includes the "what they perceived as" that people wanted above. I don't know what else you're counting in that "5", but if counts anything besides the "what they perceived as", it must mash together many different things. Crossroads -talk- 23:57, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
- I agree with Aquillion regards consensus and prefer SreySros improved wording over my attempt. Reading this thread the seemed a preference to break up the passage and regards the wording it is based on wording in the body ....
"dedicated to opposing gender-affirmative care for trans youth"
, and"dedicated to opposing what they call "trans ideology"
and known online venues for parents who reject their children's transgender identities and for specifically voicing out and promoting the concept of ROGD .... i dont think it can be described as WP:OR. ~ BOD ~ TALK 00:17, 20 December 2021 (UTC) - I don't know what anyone is counting as anything (though I am aware from experience that one editor plus Crossroads = consensus, at least according to that editor's rule of thumb). But I support adding a characterization of the websites from recruitment took place in the lede, as I regard the recruitment bias as in some ways a more fundamental issue with the Littman paper than the reliance on parents' self report (and many people more qualified than I have made this point in RS). Newimpartial (talk) 00:18, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
- So, your argument is explicitly to include this because it helps disprove the paper. Doesn't sound very NPOV.
- As for
"dedicated to opposing gender-affirmative care for trans youth"
, sources as a whole don't support this. We can't cherrypick the WP:BIASEDSOURCE Florence Ashley when Science described them as "gathering places for parents concerned by their children's exploration of a transgender identity". Also, "trans youth" presupposes that all the kids in question are in fact trans rather than some exploring it but not actually being trans. Crossroads -talk- 00:40, 20 December 2021 (UTC)- I'm not sure how experienced you are with NPOV, but the point of that concept is to describe things according to the BALANCE of the sourced descriptions and without taking sides. The fact, reported in multiple sources, that Littman recruited her participants from sites that actively encouraged skepticism towards their children's gender identity declarations is an important fact to know about her work even before discussing the criticism of her work by others. This isn't a matter of
it helps disprove the paper
, it is just a salient, sourced, fact about its origins. Newimpartial (talk) 12:39, 21 December 2021 (UTC)- Here is another source that may be relevant, which notes that
The sites where Littman advertised the study are critical of gender affirmative care for trans youth and promote skepticism regarding young people’s trans identities.
We are already citing it once in the article, but only briefly and lumped in with other sources; it's also a decent source on the sites Littman used, since as far as I can tell it's (at a glance) one of the higher-quality ones discussing it. At the very least I don't think it would make sense to omit this omission in the original paper, since the issues that have been raised with the sites selected and the risk that it could invalidate the paper's results were specifically acknowledged in the correction, ie. it is a central part of the dispute even in Littman's account. Obviously she argues that it does not invalidate her results, but the fact that she acknowledged that it was a potential issue, and that her failure to name the sites in the original paper and to discuss this potential issue was an error requiring a correction, indicates that it is a central part of the dispute even before we look at secondary coverage. --Aquillion (talk) 20:28, 23 December 2021 (UTC)- Oh nice, that's a useful source. I think we should cite that, along with the Wadman and Ashley sources to have a unified description of the sites both in the lead section and in the body (not necessarily the exact same description, we should probably go into more detail in the body) – something a bit cleaner than the clumsy
A described the first two as "X", and the third as "Y". B described the first as "Z", and the latter two as "W"
construction that we have now. - I don't know why anyone would read the quotes we have describing Littman's websites as contradicting each other. As far as I can tell, all the RSs we have (let me know if I've missed any) say that the websites are:
- Populated by parents who already believed in ROGD as an explanation for their trans children's identities (Restar)
- Gathering places for parents concerned by their children's trans identity (Wadman)
- Dedicated to opposing gender-affirmative care for trans youth and "trans ideology" (Ashley)
- Well-known for telling parents not to believe their child is transgender (Restar) and to be skeptical of their trans children's identities (Pitts-Taylor)
- None of these sources contradict each other. Restar and Pitts-Taylor agree with each other almost exactly. Ashley remarks on the broad purpose of the sites rather than their specific behavior or populations, and her description is consistent with the others. Wadman is less specific than her counterparts, but that's to be expected given that it's a news article, not a peer-reviewed scientific paper like the others are. Further, her description is entirely consistent with the other sources. Even if we were to read her quote as
these sites are gathering places for parents concerned by their children's trans identity [and are in other aspects completely unremarkable]
(which, by the way, we absolutely shouldn't), this would be a minority viewpoint among the sourcing we have. Srey Srostalk 06:22, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
- Oh nice, that's a useful source. I think we should cite that, along with the Wadman and Ashley sources to have a unified description of the sites both in the lead section and in the body (not necessarily the exact same description, we should probably go into more detail in the body) – something a bit cleaner than the clumsy
- The study itself states that
Website moderators and potential participants were encouraged to share the recruitment information and link to the survey with any individuals or communities that they thought might include eligible participants to expand the reach of the project through snowball sampling techniques
. "Eligible participants" being defined earlier as someone with aparental response that their child had a sudden or rapid onset of gender dysphoria
. This means that the study explicitly targeted people who a priori believed ROGD is a real thing, and that even if it was linked somewhere other than the three listed sites, there wouldn't be a meaningful difference in the sample because the author only wanted responses from people who think their child is experiencing ROGD. Any first-year social sciences grad student can recognize where this is going: this is a purposive sample, and the data you're going to get from a purposive sample is only valid to understand the population you sampled. So what we have is a study of what parents who believe in ROGD think about ROGD. Utterly and completely invalid for any other purpose, including to claim that ROGD even exists. And that's why all the major mental health and sexuality organizations rejected it offhand. - Think about it this way: if you go exclusively to three websites: dailyKos, Democratic Underground, and Talking Points Memo to get your convenience sample and then ask people on those sites to "share the recruitment information" for your study, do you think you will get very many, if any, responses from Donald Trump supporters? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:09, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
- Here is another source that may be relevant, which notes that
- I'm not sure how experienced you are with NPOV, but the point of that concept is to describe things according to the BALANCE of the sourced descriptions and without taking sides. The fact, reported in multiple sources, that Littman recruited her participants from sites that actively encouraged skepticism towards their children's gender identity declarations is an important fact to know about her work even before discussing the criticism of her work by others. This isn't a matter of
- I agree with Aquillion regards consensus and prefer SreySros improved wording over my attempt. Reading this thread the seemed a preference to break up the passage and regards the wording it is based on wording in the body ....
- In that edit I was reverting wording that was not discussed here at all. My "status quo" described includes the "what they perceived as" that people wanted above. I don't know what else you're counting in that "5", but if counts anything besides the "what they perceived as", it must mash together many different things. Crossroads -talk- 23:57, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
Removed section - my objection to it
I removed a quote from the Science article, because knowing what we now know about the study, I believe it is misleading and lacking in context. The quote makes a statement about the study's findings about the peer groups of trans children being "explosive," without explaining that the finding is based solely on parental reports from parents who believe their child is experiencing ROGD - the vast majority of whom openly reject their child's gender identity - not from the children themselves.
Relying on parents who a priori reject their child's gender identity to tell us anything meaningful or substantially true about their child's peer group of friends strikes me, as a trained qualitative social scientist, as extraordinarily dubious. The study subjects openly and explicitly deny their child's identity - why are we supposing that they have any significant knowledge of what their child's peer group actually is? Would a young adult who knows their parents reject their identity be likely to openly and truthfully share with their parents about their peers? Why is a purported study of young adult behavior attempting to divine all of its data from a small, targeted group of parents who openly and explicitly deny their child's feelings? Why was there no attempt to gather data from the young people themselves? This is extraordinarily dubious social science, and it's not surprising that other studies have failed to find any support for its existence.
Thus, I don't think that quote belongs, not at least without the context of what the study was actually measuring. The study reports what a purposive sample of anti-trans parents believe about their trans child's peer group - which may or may not have any resemblance whatsoever to what the peer group actually is. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:32, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
- My objection to the paragraph, which I also removed, applies in addition to the version of the previous paragraph that Pengortm reinstated. In both paragraphs, the article text had followed journalistic sources and left the impression that Littman engaged in some form of triangulation in identifying characteristics of the children and their peer groups. As the reliable, secondary sources have emphasized Littman's reliance on parental-report measures, there is no justification for borrowing less accurate language from the journalists - just because Science published misleading language does not oblige us to repeat it here. Newimpartial (talk) 16:57, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
- Noting here that both Mathglot and Pengortm had restored it, but despite it being 2 on each side, it was reverted out again anyway. Crossroads -talk- 01:28, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
Discussion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Rapid-onset gender dysphoria controversy
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding this article and talk page. The thread is Rapid-onset_gender_dysphoria_controversy. Thank you.
Sticking a notification here as multiple editors may wish to contribute there. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:08, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
RFC: Should the websites she surveyed be described as "anti-trans" in the lead?
Previous RFC close on 29 Dec (reopened on 10 Jan due to concerns the original RFC didn't run long enough, see below)
|
---|
There is strong consensus that the websites 4thWaveNow, Transgender Trend, and Youth TransCritical Professionals should be labeled as "anti-trans" (or other similar wordings), within the lead section of this article or otherwise. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 20:09, 29 December 2021 (UTC)}}
|
Should the websites used by Littman to recruit parents (4thWaveNow, Transgender Trend, and Youth TransCritical Professionals) be labeled "anti-trans" in the lead section? Firefangledfeathers restarted 18:09, 10 January 2022 (UTC), originally opened 08:01, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
EDIT: In case it wasn't clear, I support adding "anti-trans", but frankly I oppose the creation of this RFC. This was never intended to be an RFC, and as you can see in my original statement below, my whole intention of creating this section was to argue that consensus was already plenty clear. Loki (talk) 23:59, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
We've already established consensus for this above I think, but moving it down here so we have it more explicitly.
In addition to the several sources mentioned above for this fact, I honestly think that for 2/3 of the websites in question it is WP:BLUESKY. It's literally called "Youth Trans Critical Professionals"; who could possibly argue that such a site is anything but "anti-trans" with a straight face? They're saying they're anti-trans! It's right there in their name! (And similar for "Transgender Trend"; while it takes maybe a tiny bit more context to understand that one, they're saying that being transgender is the trend, thus they are anti-transgender.) Loki (talk) 00:11, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
- I see no such consensus established. The label wasn't even discussed. WP:NOTBLUE, and the meaning of "Transgender Trend" is open to interpretation - they don't necessarily think that being trans in itself is a trend if they are speaking of what they consider to be people falsely believing they are trans if they are not. I am not really familiar with the group though, so I don't know what their beliefs are for sure. However, we are supposed to describe things the way WP:Secondary sources do, not pick a label we like and then justify it with 'it's literally in the name!'. Crossroads -talk- 00:18, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
- The consensus in question is Aquillion, Newimpartial, Bodney, SreySros, NorthBySouthBaranof, and now me, vs just you. (Also just for the sake of it, I do want to ask the people who weighed in the discussion above but did not register an opinion on this particular question: Silver_seren and Mathglot.) Loki (talk) 00:28, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
- I'm in agreement with you that the websites in question are specifically direct in their names and their about pages. They're not wanting to hide that stance, since it is the point of the websites/forums in general. Hence why the sub-title for 4thwavenow is "A community of people who question the medicalization of gender-atypical youth". SilverserenC 00:32, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
- Not a single one of them says anything above about labeling the sites as "anti-trans" in the article text. That was never discussed or attempted before today. Feel free to quote where I missed it. It is of course possible that some of them will now agree with the idea, but that is not the same as an existing consensus. Crossroads -talk- 00:41, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
- Bodney I'm inferring from their support of a previous edit which describes the websites similarly, but for the others:
- Newimpartial:
I support adding a characterization of the websites from recruitment took place in the lede, as I regard the recruitment bias as in some ways a more fundamental issue with the Littman paper than the reliance on parents' self report
- Aquillion:
Here is another source that may be relevant, which notes that "The sites where Littman advertised the study are critical of gender affirmative care for trans youth and promote skepticism regarding young people’s trans identities." We are already citing it once in the article, but only briefly and lumped in with other sources; it's also a decent source on the sites Littman used, since as far as I can tell it's (at a glance) one of the higher-quality ones discussing it. At the very least I don't think it would make sense to omit this omission in the original paper...
Loki (talk) 00:48, 25 December 2021 (UTC) - SreySros:
Oh nice, that's a useful source. I think we should cite that, along with the Wadman and Ashley sources to have a unified description of the sites both in the lead section and in the body (not necessarily the exact same description, we should probably go into more detail in the body) – something a bit cleaner than the clumsy "A described the first two as "X", and the third as "Y". B described the first as "Z", and the latter two as "W"" construction that we have now.
- NBSB:
This means that the study explicitly targeted people who a priori believed ROGD is a real thing, and that even if it was linked somewhere other than the three listed sites, there wouldn't be a meaningful difference in the sample because the author only wanted responses from people who think their child is experiencing ROGD. ... Utterly and completely invalid for any other purpose, including to claim that ROGD even exists. And that's why all the major mental health and sexuality organizations rejected it offhand.
(Admittedly, this one also requires some inference, but I don't think it requires much inference to say that if you argue at length that a detail is relevant in a discussion about whether it should be in the lead, you support it being in the lead.) Loki (talk) 00:48, 25 December 2021 (UTC)- These are all arguments for describing the websites in some way, but none specify "anti-trans". And other terms like 'opposing gender affirmative care' are not equal in meaning. Do not claim people said something they didn't say. Crossroads -talk- 01:00, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
- Given that one of the sources, Ashley outright states Littman's paper was based on surveys from anti-trans websites, and there are other reliable sources independent of the discussion on ROGD stating they are anti-trans it is a fair term to use. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:25, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
- These are all arguments for describing the websites in some way, but none specify "anti-trans". And other terms like 'opposing gender affirmative care' are not equal in meaning. Do not claim people said something they didn't say. Crossroads -talk- 01:00, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
- Not a single one of them says anything above about labeling the sites as "anti-trans" in the article text. That was never discussed or attempted before today. Feel free to quote where I missed it. It is of course possible that some of them will now agree with the idea, but that is not the same as an existing consensus. Crossroads -talk- 00:41, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
- I'm in agreement with you that the websites in question are specifically direct in their names and their about pages. They're not wanting to hide that stance, since it is the point of the websites/forums in general. Hence why the sub-title for 4thwavenow is "A community of people who question the medicalization of gender-atypical youth". SilverserenC 00:32, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
- The consensus in question is Aquillion, Newimpartial, Bodney, SreySros, NorthBySouthBaranof, and now me, vs just you. (Also just for the sake of it, I do want to ask the people who weighed in the discussion above but did not register an opinion on this particular question: Silver_seren and Mathglot.) Loki (talk) 00:28, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
- I am not seeing reliable sources argue that these are anti-trans webpages. They are certainly not webpages that fit within certain dominant ways of talking about being trans, but this is not the same thing as being anti-trans. If we can build up reliable sources as saying these are anti-trans in the body than perhaps this should be summarized in the lead--but this has not been done yet. Also, number of editors does not, and should not, decide what stays in a an article, but the strength of arguments based on reliable sources.- Pengortm (talk) 00:36, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
- While it's true that consensus is not a vote, the number of editors on each side does matter. There is no objective way to determine the strength of arguments, and so Wikipedia's decision making processes have always involved some amount of deferring to the majority, especially if that majority is very large relative to the opposition, as it is here. It has never been the case that a single editor or two editors can block seven other editors from a preferred change by screaming "no consensus". Loki (talk) 00:42, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
- The academic papers in response to Littman's specifically note that the three websites are anti-trans. That has been actively discussed in sections above. And if you want more news-based sources on that, you have:
- "Anti-trans pressure group Transgender Trend has complained that somebody bought its domain name and directed it to a pro-transgender charity"
- "Responding to the BBC coverage, ‘4thWaveNow’, another well-known anti-trans group, said"
- "Dr Littman’s participants in the study were recruited from three blogs; 4thWave Now, Transgender Trend, and Youth Trans Critical Professionals, all known to have an anti-transgender bias"
- But, like I said, the academic study responses already noted all this. SilverserenC 00:46, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
- Sources on Transgender Trend being an anti-trans webpage/group. Two are primary of which one is a social media post, two are secondary of which one is media and the other a journal paper.
- Stonewall - response from Stonewall on Transgender Trend's school information pack.
- Gendered Intelligence -
It's extremely disturbing that anti-trans campaign Transgender Trend has published new guidance for schools under the guise of being trans inclusive. Please make people aware that this is not trans inclusive guidance and could harm young people
- PinkNews -
Anti-trans pressure group Transgender Trend has complained that somebody bought its domain name and directed it to a pro-transgender charity
- The Growth of the Anti-Transgender Movement in the United Kingdom. The Silent Radicalization of the British Electorate - journal article that names Transgender Trend twice in the Anti-trans tropes section.
- This is from a quick 5 minute Google search. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:53, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you for this. I am not certain that these are reliable sources. In any case, it seems this should be built up based on reliable sources in the body of the article and then summarized in the lead after this. Readers should not have to dive into long talk pages to see the sourcing. -Pengortm (talk) 21:59, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
- The academic papers in response to Littman's specifically note that the three websites are anti-trans. That has been actively discussed in sections above. And if you want more news-based sources on that, you have:
- I explicitly support describing the websites in question as "anti-trans." This is not even a debatable question. Is anyone honestly going to argue that a group called "Youth Trans Critical Professionals" is not anti-trans? 4thWaveNow explicitly states
The purpose of this site is to give voice to an alternative to the dominant trans-activist and medical paradigm currently being touted by the media.
Transgender Trend statesWe are an organisation of parents, professionals and academics based in the UK who are concerned about the current trend to diagnose children as transgender, including the unprecedented number of teenage girls suddenly self-identifying as ‘trans’ (Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria or ROGD).
No one is "concerned" about something if they don't think that thing is bad or wrong in some way. The rhetoric on these sites is clearly intended to create doubt or fear about transgender people - for example, Transgender Trend feeds the anti-transgender bathroom hysteria:We also want to provide information on legislation regarding the use of public toilets, bathrooms and changing rooms for parents who are concerned about the child protection and safeguarding issues this raises.
You can't honestly raise the bathroom bill moral panic and not be described as "anti-trans." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:19, 25 December 2021 (UTC) - Yes, they are anti-trans - just to be clear: these are all in fact correctly termed "anti-trans" websites. I remember looking for the most directly sourced language on this, and
anti-transgender bias
from inews is probably the most succinct statement made directly in a publisher's editorial voice. Regardless of the phrase used, the sites are all clearly anti-trans and are described as such (in various specific language) in all quality sources on this topic (setting aside Littman's paper, of course, which did not name them in the initial version and which used MANDY language about them in the revised version). Newimpartial (talk) 01:20, 25 December 2021 (UTC) - Strong support describing the websites in question as "anti-trans". No doubt reliable sources do, and NPOV does not mean censor bad things. This appears to be a WP:ONEAGAINSTMANY dispute. ––FormalDude talk 01:25, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
- Not just "one" was against it, and it can't have been against "many" before people had commented in support of it. Crossroads -talk- 01:31, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
- Who else, then, Crossroads? Who else? ––FormalDude talk 06:28, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
- Pengortm had reverted it. Crossroads -talk- 07:10, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
- What an argument. ––FormalDude talk 07:20, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
- Pengortm had reverted it. Crossroads -talk- 07:10, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
- Who else, then, Crossroads? Who else? ––FormalDude talk 06:28, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
- Not just "one" was against it, and it can't have been against "many" before people had commented in support of it. Crossroads -talk- 01:31, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
- Support describing the websites as "anti-trans". Despite not being involved in the prior discussion, this is an accurate label to use based on reliable sources, both media and scholarly. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:27, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
- I also explicitly SUPPORT describing the web source used as "anti-trans". Littman explicitly and purposefully targetted trans sceptical & critical parents & web meeting places. (LOL 5th or 6th Attempt to squeeze my contribution in) ~ BOD ~ TALK 01:30, 25 December 2021 (UTC) Add: The "targeted"websites used in the flawed ROGD 'study' are by their own self descriptions and by reliable sources can be described as anti-trans (whether individually and/or grouped collectively). ~ BOD ~ TALK 12:23, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose because I don't think this is a good summary of the secondary sources, which even when highly critical often use other terms that are not equivalent. Also, the correction states,
It has come to light that a link to the recruitment information and research survey was posted on a private Facebook group perceived to have a pro-gender-affirming perspective during the first week of the recruitment period (via snowball sampling). This private Facebook group is called “Parents of Transgender Children” and has more than 8,000 members.
Likely some secondary sources cover this too, and the Science secondary source does note she asked for the study to be passed on. Crossroads -talk- 02:16, 25 December 2021 (UTC)- Firstly we go by what she actually used and secondly she was still targeting sites where parents already believed their children had experienced ROGD and thus were trans denying, trans dismissing and anti trans venues. It is a good clear, concise and accurate summary for the Lead. ~ BOD ~ TALK 12:58, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
- Comment - Have an RFC on the matter. GoodDay (talk) 02:46, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
- Support, obviously; it's a concise summary of what the sources say and is a common enough descriptor for the group that it seems hard to argue that it is controversial. --Aquillion (talk) 04:08, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
- Support For a one-word summary, it's accurate and supportable. Of course, there might be differences in doctrine among them, but that's a matter of detail which seems beside the point in the present context. XOR'easter (talk) 04:53, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
- Support. Yes,
anti-trans
seems a concise summary of the reliable sourcing we have describing the sites, both from scientific publications and news sources. The one-word description is (obviously) not specific enough for the body, in which we should elaborate on the user populations, behaviors and missions of the sites according to the sourcing we have. But for the lead, it's crucial that we communicate this characteristic of the sample population, as it's essential to understanding the controversy (which is, after all, the subject of this article). Srey Srostalk 05:22, 25 December 2021 (UTC)- I've done a quick search and tried to collate the RS support for the wording in one place, given that the RfC is now open again and it's a bit much for people to have to read through the entire multi-section discussion (3500+ words) on this page:
- The three websites as a group
- The Sociological Review (Ashley) ([3]):
...based on parental reports sampled from transantagonistic websites
- iNews ([4]):
Dr Littman’s participants in the study were recruited from three blogs... all known to have an anti-transgender bias
- Buzzfeed News ([5]):
...those three websites are known for their trans-critical views.
- The Sociological Review (Ashley) ([3]):
- Transgender Trend
- PinkNews ([6]):
Anti-trans pressure group Transgender Trend has complained...
- International Journal of Sociology ([7]): Mentions the site as an example of the
anti-transgender movement in the United Kingdom
.Lobby groups who campaign against trans rights are usually at pains to stress their support for trans people. One such group claims... whereas others such as Transgender Trend allege...
- PinkNews ([6]):
- 4thWaveNow (sources found by Aquillion below)
- PinkNews ([8]):
‘4thWaveNow’, another well-known anti-trans group, said...
- European Journal of English Studies ([9]):
...one of the most worrying conservative narratives that feminism currently has to face is the accusation of its having developed and spread a so-called ‘gender ideology’... Accusations of gender ideology, which have spread rapidly through Latin-America and Europe are anti-feminist and anti-trans in their intentions.... Some, e.g., “a community of people who question the medicalization of gender-atypical youth” also conflate queer theory with so-called “gender ideology” and refer to a “postmodern influenced gender ideology, a subset of ‘queer theory’,” which they also call “genderism” or “gender theory” (See 4thWaveNow 2019, retrieved on June 12th)
- The Sociological Review (Pearce et. al.) ([10]) When discussing
the political landscape of anti-trans politics
, the paper uses 4thWaveNow as an example to point toa significant upsurge in public anti-trans sentiment
in the UK.Increasingly, they argue that such developments result from what they call ‘gender ideology’ (see e.g. 4thWaveNow, 2019)... The language of ‘gender ideology’ originates in anti-feminist and anti-trans discourses among right-wing Christians, with the Catholic Church acting as a major nucleating agent. In the last decade the concept has been increasingly adopted by far-right organisations and politicians in numerous American, European and African states.
- PinkNews ([8]):
- The three websites as a group
- I've likely missed a few (or more), so let me know if I've missed any other examples and I'll add them here. Srey Srostalk 21:32, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
- I've done a quick search and tried to collate the RS support for the wording in one place, given that the RfC is now open again and it's a bit much for people to have to read through the entire multi-section discussion (3500+ words) on this page:
- Comment "The websites in question" is likely completely clear to those of you who have been following this page. But one purpose of an RfC is to get input from uninvolved editors. To this end, it would help to prominently state which websites you are asking about. Adoring nanny (talk) 10:23, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
- Support - it seems pretty clear that, between other sources and their own self descriptions, that these sites are describable as anti-trans. Remagoxer (talk) 12:06, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
- Strong support. (I'm not sure whether this is the RFC, or if that is going to be done separately, but as responses are gathering here I'll add mine here too.) Obviously, those websites are all anti-trans. One of them says so in its own freely chosen name and the others have made unambiguous statements to this effect. (See comment by NorthBySouthBaranof above.) Given how direct they are about this, I suspect that they might even be insulted if we didn't say that they are anti-trans. Anyway, we have more than sufficient valid sources to say this. It is not controversial. I am more than a little bemused that this question even needs asking, never-mind in an elaborate RFC. So that just leaves the issue of whether it needs saying in the introduction. I think it does. It is one of the key facts about what the ROGD Controversy is and the introduction has to summarise the whole article. If people read only the introduction then they should get a basic view of what the topic is and isn't. While the introduction is a little long, I don't think we are bloating it out by retaining this one very short phrase which is important for a correct understanding of the nature of the topic of this article. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:38, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
- I have no objection to the RFC being reopened for the benefit of anybody who missed out due to the holidays but I stand by my assessment above. I really don't see a live issue here. We have the sources. These organisations are openly and proudly anti-trans. I suspect that they would be mortified if we suggested otherwise. It is right to give everybody a chance to have their say but I can't see this ending any other way than it did previously. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:29, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
- Support - based on looking through the RSes provided by @NorthBySouthBaranof and @Silver seren. It is fair and accurate to describe the sites in question (4thWaveNow, Transgender Trend, and Youth TransCritical Professionals) as "anti-trans". — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 19:33, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
- Comment: I tweaked and signed the top RfC statement to make it more clear, brief, and neutral. @LokiTheLiar:, if you'd prefer an alternate formulation, or if you want to replace my signature with yours to clarify that this is your RfC, please feel free. Firefangledfeathers 23:44, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
- It's not my RFC. FormalDude added the RFC tag. I didn't even want it to be an RFC, I thought the consensus was pretty clear without having to go thru a formal process. Loki (talk) 23:59, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
- I agree, but since someone was going to protest on the fact that there was never a formal rfc, I'd rather just get it over with. ––FormalDude talk 00:04, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
- My apologies, Loki. If either you or FormalDude want to tweak the opener or signature, be my guest. Firefangledfeathers 00:22, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
- It's not my RFC. FormalDude added the RFC tag. I didn't even want it to be an RFC, I thought the consensus was pretty clear without having to go thru a formal process. Loki (talk) 23:59, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
- Support and SNOW close These websites are obviously anti-trans, as far as I can tell this RfC only exists due to a single editor's (Corssroads) intransigence on the issue. BSMRD (talk) 04:21, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- Uncalled for. I only ever reverted the descriptor once, and that was after another editor did so. That same editor made a critical comment early on. And Wikipedia is not some totalitarian state where thoughtful dissent is "intransigent". I didn't even start this RfC. Crossroads -talk- 06:14, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
No. None of the sources given in this thread use the phrase "anti-trans" or anything that could be fairly glossed as such.They do say "gender critical", and they do say things that could be paraphrased as "opposed to medical transition for minors". Sennalen (talk) 15:53, 29 December 2021 (UTC)- This counterfactual and ill-informed comment was made by an editor engaged in WP:WIKIHOUNDing. Newimpartial (talk) 16:09, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
"gender critical"
as in Feminist views on transgender topics#Gender critical feminism/trans-exclusionary radical feminism in this context we know are are feminists whohold ideas that some other feminists consider transphobic,[1][2][3][4][5][6] such as the belief that trans women are not women,[7] opposition to certain transgender rights and exclusion of trans women from women's spaces and organizations.[8][9]
Similarly trans men are regarded by them as women and not as men . That is clearly and undoubtedly anti-trans. ~ BOD ~ TALK 19:14, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- Since the RfC is open again, I suppose I should take this opportunity to point out that Sennalen's claim above in their vote is just blatantly incorrect, as anyone reading even just the beginning of the RfC could see. For example:
Dr Littman’s participants in the study were recruited from three blogs; 4thWave Now, Transgender Trend, and Youth Trans Critical Professionals, all known to have an anti-transgender bias
(Source). so their vote/reasoning should be disregarded by the closer. SilverserenC 18:37, 10 January 2022 (UTC)- I agree. After reading more sources, I changed my mind, but the RfC had closed by that point. Sennalen (talk) 18:40, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
- The clamor to label strikes me as participating in the dispute more than describing it. Other phrasing would be better, but "anti-trans" is sufficiently sourced. Sennalen (talk) 18:47, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
- Since the RfC is open again, I suppose I should take this opportunity to point out that Sennalen's claim above in their vote is just blatantly incorrect, as anyone reading even just the beginning of the RfC could see. For example:
- Support. If "anti-trans" was somehow a precise, well-defined, and very specific term, like "anti-matter", then calls for sources that are equally very specific would be justified, but "anti-trans" is a general term, just meaning not aligned with the concept of transgender, more like "anti-communist" and such. The sources provided are more than sufficient for summarizing the websites as "anti-trans". --A D Monroe III(talk) 23:13, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
- Support. Accurate, well sourced, and a consensus already existed. Agree with LokiTheLiar, though, that there was no need for an RfC. Despite the clamours of certain parties who love their drama, a RfC is not the answer to every disagreement, and one should rarely be the first option chosen. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 10:16, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose. The term "anti-transgender," as applied to a person or a group (rather than labeling a policy), is a value-laden and controversial WP:LABEL, used pejoratively to discredit the targets. I believe it would also be inadvisable per WP:BLPGROUP, in this case. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 21:18, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
- BLPGROUP says,
The extent to which the BLP policy applies to edits about groups is complex and must be judged on a case-by-case basis.... When in doubt, make sure you are using high-quality sources.
I think that is exactly what we are doing here. There is also no established precedent (say on WT:WTW) that LABEL applies to "anti-trans" - that is the position held by one group of editors, in a dispute with another group of editors. Newimpartial (talk) 21:41, 14 January 2022 (UTC)- Given an absence of consensus that LABEL does not apply to "anti-trans", then surely the principle of WP:BLP and WP:NPOV would be to err on the side of caution and leave it off. Crossroads -talk- 06:55, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- So now, not only does "consensus" mean whatever is convenient for you in a particular dispute (typically you plus one editor agreeing with you, but a much larger proportion and number of editors if they disagree with you), but now also non-consensus means a consensus to do what you want because of some reverse onus is other. There is a case study of some kind to be done here, I'm sure. Newimpartial (talk) 14:44, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- Given an absence of consensus that LABEL does not apply to "anti-trans", then surely the principle of WP:BLP and WP:NPOV would be to err on the side of caution and leave it off. Crossroads -talk- 06:55, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- Lwarrenwiki, in the case of anti-trans being a controversial label, you are assuming a precedent or consensus that does not exist from what I know, and based on the number of editors supporting using that label here, is unlikely to exist. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 22:03, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
- BLPGROUP says,
How sources about ROGD describe the three websites as a group
If anyone knows of other sources please let me know. Same for if I missed pertinent parts of the quoted sources. I aim to collect here sources that are about ROGD and describe the sites Littman primarily surveyed. We should be relying on how these secondary sources describe them rather than picking a term and looking for support post facto, or taking a term used to describe one or two and extending it to all 3.
She recruited the parents from three websites where she had seen parents describe sudden transgender transitions in their adolescents—4thWaveNow, Transgender Trend, and Youth TransCritical Professionals. The first two are gathering places for parents concerned by their children’s exploration of a transgender identity. (The third website is closed to nonmembers.)...She encouraged wide distribution of the survey beyond the websites where she launched it, she told ScienceInsider in an email, and that she plans to interview youth in follow-up work.
Science, News sectionThe first recorded use of ‘rapid-onset gender dysphoria’ was 2 July 2016 in a post on the blog 4thWaveNow, which is dedicated to opposing gender-affirmative care for trans youth. The post invited parents of children who evidenced ‘a sudden or rapid development of gender dysphoria beginning between the ages of 10 and 21’ to participate in a study by Lisa Littman, then an adjunct assistant professor of preventive medicine at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York (4thWaveNow, 2016). The study also recruited participants via Transgender Trend and Youth Trans Critical Professionals, organisations dedicated to opposing ‘trans ideology’, giving rise to serious concerns about sampling bias (Restar, 2020)
The Sociological ReviewThe sites where Littman advertised the study are critical of gender affirmative care for trans youth and promote skepticism regarding young people’s trans identities. Youth TransCritical Professionals is a private site depicted as “concerned about the current trend to quickly diagnose and affirm young people as transgender, often setting them down a path toward medical transition.” Transgender Trend describes itself as a group of “parents questioning the trans narrative.” The site claims to be “for anyone,” including feminists, gays and lesbians, who contest “new policies and legislation based on subjective ideas of “gender” rather than the biological reality of sex.” 4thWaveNow, whose home page quotes Adrienne Rich, self-describes as a “community of parents & others concerned about the medicalization of gender-atypical youth and rapid-onset gender dysphoria (ROGD).”
SexualitiesLisa Littman, M.D., and MPA and a researcher at Brown University, conducted a study surveying the experiences of parents involved in one of four online communities for parents of transgender children or "gender skeptical" parents and children.
Psychology Today
Crossroads -talk- 02:08, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
- I object to the premise. If different sources individually identify each of the three sites as "anti-trans" or similar phrasing, it is perfectly acceptable for us to collectively identify the sites as "anti-trans." We do not need to rely solely on sources discussing all three. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:22, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
- When writing articles we normally rely on sources about the topic of the article. Why aren't those sources good enough? Crossroads -talk- 02:33, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
- There is no requirement that we use only "sources about the topic of the article," particularly to support statements about something other than the topic of the article - and the topic of this article is not the three websites in question. But it is, of course, relevant to this article that the three websites are repeatedly described by sources as being anti-trans. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:12, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
- That carries a high risk of WP:SYNTH. How else would one decide what statements about something mentioned in the article are relevant to the main topic? It opens the door to possibly cherry-picking sources that say what has already been decided on that may not be representative. Crossroads -talk- 05:38, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
- SYNTH is only prohibited if it is original synthesis. Otherwise, synthesis is literally what encyclopedia writing is about. Taking three different sources that individually say three different sites are anti-trans and combining them to say the sites are collectively anti-trans... is not original synthesis - it's just encyclopedia writing. There is no novel conclusion nor contained in any of the sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 11:06, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
- NorthBySouthBaranof, are there any RS contextualizing these websites with how ROGD is involved? If not, then I share the SYNTH concern. CutePeach (talk) 18:27, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
- SYNTH is only prohibited if it is original synthesis. Otherwise, synthesis is literally what encyclopedia writing is about. Taking three different sources that individually say three different sites are anti-trans and combining them to say the sites are collectively anti-trans... is not original synthesis - it's just encyclopedia writing. There is no novel conclusion nor contained in any of the sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 11:06, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
- That carries a high risk of WP:SYNTH. How else would one decide what statements about something mentioned in the article are relevant to the main topic? It opens the door to possibly cherry-picking sources that say what has already been decided on that may not be representative. Crossroads -talk- 05:38, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
- There is no requirement that we use only "sources about the topic of the article," particularly to support statements about something other than the topic of the article - and the topic of this article is not the three websites in question. But it is, of course, relevant to this article that the three websites are repeatedly described by sources as being anti-trans. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:12, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
- When writing articles we normally rely on sources about the topic of the article. Why aren't those sources good enough? Crossroads -talk- 02:33, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
- Crossroads please Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. There is a very clear consensus directly above to classify the websites as "anti-trans". This is hair-splitting and multiple categories of tendentious. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:26, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
- Listing sources for an explicitly open-ended purpose and inviting others to contribute is the opposite of tendentious. And the discussion on "anti-trans" started less than 3 hours ago, so it's a little soon to declare it settled. Crossroads -talk- 02:40, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
- This conversation started out with an editor, Loki, pointing out the very clear consensus against you. So don't lie, please. ––FormalDude talk 06:29, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
- And as I have said, no consensus existed at that time since adding "anti-trans" had never been done or mentioned before then. Not me who was lying. Crossroads -talk- 07:07, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
- And as everyone else had said;: yes, a consensus did exist. That's why you were reverted after all. ––FormalDude talk 09:08, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
- And as I have said, no consensus existed at that time since adding "anti-trans" had never been done or mentioned before then. Not me who was lying. Crossroads -talk- 07:07, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
- This conversation started out with an editor, Loki, pointing out the very clear consensus against you. So don't lie, please. ––FormalDude talk 06:29, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
- Listing sources for an explicitly open-ended purpose and inviting others to contribute is the opposite of tendentious. And the discussion on "anti-trans" started less than 3 hours ago, so it's a little soon to declare it settled. Crossroads -talk- 02:40, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
Have an RFC on the topic. GoodDay (talk) 02:47, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
The proper place to start is not "Can the sites used in the study be described as anti-trans?" (subject to verifiability, balance of reliable sources, etc.). The questions to start with are "Can site {NAME}, which was used in the study, be described as anti-trans?" (subject to etc.) for each of the sites. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 03:15, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
- GoodDay, someone else should start the RfC. You can see how I've been attacked here just for starting this section. Crossroads -talk- 05:38, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
- Crossroads, you're not being attacked here. You're being disagreed with. That disagreement appears to be on both content-specific and meta levels simultaneously. But conflict is not abuse, which is a principle I believe you know well. Personally, I've learned a great deal from your example in the past, so please take this as a good faith reflection from someone who respects you. Generalrelative (talk) 18:59, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
- I respect you too, and I certainly agree that conflict is not an attack, but to be clear, I didn't mean everyone who disagreed with me. I had especially in mind a particular comment where I was accused of tendentiousness for quoting sources. Crossroads -talk- 04:15, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
- Crossroads, you're not being attacked here. You're being disagreed with. That disagreement appears to be on both content-specific and meta levels simultaneously. But conflict is not abuse, which is a principle I believe you know well. Personally, I've learned a great deal from your example in the past, so please take this as a good faith reflection from someone who respects you. Generalrelative (talk) 18:59, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
How about an RFC
Greater input from outsiders, would not be a bad idea. What say you all? GoodDay (talk) 06:16, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
- We already have people weighing in on support and oppose in the section above. If you really want an RfC, you can just slap the template on that discussion. It would be a lot simpler. SilverserenC 06:24, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
- Rare to slap a RFC tag on a discussion that's already in progress. But, if there's no major objections, I'll do it. For the moment, I'll wait 'here' for more input, just in case there 'are' major objections to it. GoodDay (talk) 06:28, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
- If it goes to a probably unnecessary RFC I agree with NorthBySouthBaranof and ArglebargleIV The question should not be a fixed together question like "Are the three websites used in the study about ROGD described as anti-trans as a group?" We do not need to rely on secondary sources that discuss all three websites together. Three or more separate questions should be asked e.g.
"Can site {NAME}, which was used in the study, be described as anti-trans?" (subject to etc.) for each of the sites.
~ BOD ~ TALK 11:19, 25 December 2021 (UTC)- It's already been begun, by another editor. GoodDay (talk) 14:40, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
- Even tho it's already been started, I'd like to object to it. RfCs are good for discovering whether there is a consensus when it's ambiguous. They are not useful when there is already a clear consensus and just one or two editors are WP:STONEWALLing. In those situations, they just slow the consensus-supported change down significantly, effectively supporting the tendentious editors at the expense of everyone else. Loki (talk) 19:50, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
- It's already been begun, by another editor. GoodDay (talk) 14:40, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
- If it goes to a probably unnecessary RFC I agree with NorthBySouthBaranof and ArglebargleIV The question should not be a fixed together question like "Are the three websites used in the study about ROGD described as anti-trans as a group?" We do not need to rely on secondary sources that discuss all three websites together. Three or more separate questions should be asked e.g.
- Rare to slap a RFC tag on a discussion that's already in progress. But, if there's no major objections, I'll do it. For the moment, I'll wait 'here' for more input, just in case there 'are' major objections to it. GoodDay (talk) 06:28, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
What does "being anti trans" actually mean? Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:04, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
- Well, for example, it means promoting a moral panic which demonizes transgender people as sexual predators for the dangerous act of... using public toilets. Which Transgender Trend explicitly does, by stating that there are "child protection and safeguarding issues" with trans people using bathrooms. Clearly false and clearly anti-trans. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:18, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
- Why were sex segregated toilets introduced in the first place? Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:29, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
- Not here to debate your feels. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:45, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
- I thought it meant people who didn't believe in the existence of trans gender. GoodDay (talk) 14:40, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
- NorthBySouthBaranofjust gave an clear example of that, of a website used as a basis of this flawed study(?) that used an anti trans trope (Trans people are somehow a danger to children, heck they might brainwash or molest them) Anti trans can describe many negative attitudes towards transgenderism and trans people including sources that are gathering places for parents that reject the possibility that their children might be trans but are convinced that their children have been wrongly persuaded by their peers or social media or evil trans elves or aliens or whatever baseless theory we can think of. ~ BOD ~ TALK 15:06, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
- Why were sex segregated toilets introduced in the first place? Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:29, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
Comment - Skeptical as I generally am about the fact-value distinction, I do think it illuminates something here - RfCs have potential for gaining triangulation on questions of policy/community values, but as far as gathering and assessing RS evidence ("fact") is concerned, I don't find that they work particularly well. Newimpartial (talk) 14:48, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
- Going by the current trend, it appears it's going to be a rubber stamp. GoodDay (talk) 15:31, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
- is social contagion a thing for eating disorders or teenage pregnancy? If so, then I think it'd be germane to do a study on whether it exists in other aspects of mental health or life decisions as well. Such as dysphoria, smoking, acquisition of motorcars and so on. Whether the study is of particularly high quality is of course another thing entirely... Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:24, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
As I haven't participated in this discussion, I'd be glad to close it in a few days. Firefangledfeathers I assume you added the RfC tag, but as far as I can see the relevant WPs have not been notified of this discussion. Please go ahead and do so, and I'll proceed to close in 48 hours unless someone objects. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 22:53, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
- @A. C. Santacruz: DoneNotified: Wikipedia:WikiProject Gender studies, Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies, Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine. Firefangledfeathers 23:23, 27 December 2021 (UTC)Firefangledfeathers 23:23, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
- This just opened 2 days ago; it is far too early to close. It should run at least a week, and I would prefer the whole month as is typical. The descriptor is in the article already, so it isn't like the currently majority "include" side loses anything by waiting. Which reminds me:
- Note to closer: the pre-RfC status quo of the article did not contain the descriptor, in case it ends up being a "no consensus". Crossroads -talk- 04:36, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
- Crossroads there is no obligation to go through the whole 30 days if consensus is clear enough (WP:SNOWBALL). That's why I said I'll wait 48 hours after the projects are notified, in order to see if there's very clear consensus or if I should wait a bit more. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 10:05, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
I can't help noticing that, while there has been some lively metadiscussion about the rights and wrongs of the RfC itself in various sections, with a few people clarifying their existing positions, there has been very little in the way of actual new !votes or !vote changes since it was reopened. Only one new !vote has been added to the support/oppose list, and that is another "support". One user has struck out their opposing !vote.
I have no objection to keeping it open a little longer if anybody needs a bit more time to craft the perfect !vote statement that will cause the scales to fall from our eyes and make us all rush to change our !votes but it is looking more and more as if the consensus remains where it was before and, if anything, is further solidifying for the support position. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:27, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
- I agree. While I disagree with the reasons for re-opening the RFC as I feel like a SNOW close was appropriate even given the holiday period, re-opening it hasn't resulted in any meaningful change. I'd suggest letting it run until Friday/Saturday/Sunday, before closing again. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:03, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
- Why are Support voters so eager for this thing to be closed? Absolutely nothing is lost by keeping it open for a normal time length. The text is in the article already, and if they are so confident they will prevail, then why not let the list of supporters grow stronger? Why the rush to cut off opportunities for comment? Crossroads -talk- 19:57, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
- I certainly wasn't arguing for another potentially premature close. I was just noting how utterly unavailing reopening it has been, so far, and lamenting that much of the opposing discussion has been focused on attacking the basis of the RfC instead of actually participating in it. I am genuinely surprised that there hasn't been a single new "oppose" !vote. For avoidance of any doubt, I fully support keeping it open for the usual period so that everybody has a chance to say their piece and so that nobody can cry foul when it is closed. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:17, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
References
- ^ Miller, Edie (5 November 2018-11-05). "Why Is British Media So Transphobic?". The Outline. Archived from the original on 19 October 2019. Retrieved 3 May 2019.
The truth is, while the British conservative right would almost certainly be more than happy to whip up a frenzy of transphobia, they simply haven't needed to, because some sections of the left over here are doing their hate-peddling for them. The most vocal source of this hatred has emerged, sadly, from within circles of radical feminists. British feminism has an increasingly notorious TERF problem.
{{cite web}}
: Check date values in:|date=
(help) - ^ Dalbey, Alex (12 August 2018). "TERF wars: Why trans-exclusionary radical feminists have no place in feminism". Daily Dot. Archived from the original on 28 January 2019. Retrieved 27 January 2019.
- ^ Dastagir, Alia (16 March 2017). "A feminist glossary because we didn't all major in gender studies". USA Today. Archived from the original on 20 July 2019. Retrieved 24 April 2019.
TERF: The acronym for 'trans exclusionary radical feminists,' referring to feminists who are transphobic.
- ^ Cite error: The named reference
Lewis 2019
was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ "SNP MP criticised for calling trans campaigners at Edinburgh Pride 'misogynistic'". indy100. 24 June 2019. Archived from the original on 14 November 2019. Retrieved 26 June 2019.
- ^ Bollinger, Alex (19 December 2018). "Famous lesbian site taken over by anti-trans 'feminists'. Now lesbian media is standing up". www.lgbtqnation.com. Archived from the original on 5 June 2019. Retrieved 5 June 2019.
- ^ Cite error: The named reference
Flaherty 2018
was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ O'Connell, Jennifer (26 January 2019). "Transgender for beginners: Trans, terf, cis and safe spaces". The Irish Times. Archived from the original on 26 January 2019. Retrieved 24 April 20194.
{{cite news}}
: Check date values in:|access-date=
(help) - ^ Wordsworth, Dot (2018-05-05). "Terf wars and the ludicrous lexicon of feminist theory". The Spectator. Archived from the original on 9 September 2018. Retrieved 22 September 2018.
A "consensus" that goes against Wikipedia principles and policies is not a legitimate consensus
WRONGVENUE |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Re: 14:35, 8 January 2022 revision of {{POV-statement|date=January 2022}} template. The single cited source states: "To maximize the chances of finding cases meeting eligibility criteria, the three websites (4thwavenow, transgender trend, and youthtranscriticalprofessionals) were selected for targeted recruitment." But nowhere in the source are the three websites described as "anti-transgender". The statement in the lead that these websites are "anti-transgender" is a POV, which defies WP:NPOV and WP:VERIFY because there are no reliable sources to back it up. Wikipedia principles and policies are explicit: WP:5P2 – "We strive for articles in an impartial tone that document and explain major points of view, giving due weight for their prominence. We avoid advocacy, and we characterize information and issues rather than debate them. In some areas there may be just one well-recognized point of view; in others, we describe multiple points of view, presenting each accurately and in context rather than as "the truth" or "the best view". All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, authoritative sources, especially when the topic is controversial ... Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong on Wikipedia." WP:NPOV – "NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. It is also one of Wikipedia's three core content policies; ... This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus." WP:V – "verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of editors. Even if you are sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. This principle was previously expressed on this policy page as "the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth". ...All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists, and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed." The support for keeping a declaration in the lead may outnumber those who oppose it -- but if it does not comply with Wikipedia policies, it cannot remain in the article. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 07:06, 9 January 2022 (UTC) |
- @Pyxis Solitary: This is not the appropriate venue to voice these concerns. Per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE, you should take it up with the closer and if needed Administrators' Noticeboard. ––FormalDude talk 07:19, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- @FormalDude, Pyxis Solitary, and A. C. Santacruz: while I recognise this is the wrong venue for a closure review, I wonder perhaps if we could address what appears by my reading to be a content sourcing problem here without needing to escalate it?
- If I'm reading the collapsed section above, would I be correct in saying that the thrust of your argument Pyxis is is that calling the three websites in question anti-trans is currently unsubstantiated by the sources in the article? If so, then would adding such sourcing via inline citations resolve the complaint?
- We have in the RFC responses above a number of sources that individually call each of those websites anti-trans (see comments by Silver Seren, NorthBySouthBaranof, and myself). NewImpartial also linked this [https://inews.co.uk/news/uk/rapid-onset-gender-dysphoria-jk-rowling-trans-row-twitter-explained-444931 iNews] piece which explicitly states
Dr Littman’s participants in the study were recruited from three blogs; 4thWave Now, Transgender Trend, and Youth Trans Critical Professionals, all known to have an anti-transgender bias, which sheds doubt on the findings.
- Of course if that's not satisfactory, if I've misinterpreted your complaint, or if you want to proceed with a closure review then by all means do so. I'm just trying to resolve this issue without needing to escalate it. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:43, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- "
would I be correct in saying that the thrust of your argument Pyxis is is that calling the three websites in question anti-trans is currently unsubstantiated by the sources in the article?
"
As I wrote above, to comply with the requirements of- WP:5P2 ("We strive for articles in an impartial tone...All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, authoritative sources, especially when the topic is controversial ... Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong on Wikipedia."),
- WP:NPOV ("This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus."), and
- WP:V ("any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed.")
- there must be reliable sources included which support the declaration that the websites are considered "anti-transgender". Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 10:07, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
- Pyxis Solitary you mean in the article? But that would just be an issue of transferring the sources presented within the RfC into the article via in-line citations. That's not a reason to challenge a close, as you can just add the citations yourself. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 10:12, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
- "
- I made this edit: 09:41, 8 January 2022. It was reverted: 14:35, 8 January 2022. I was not involved in the RfC ... nor did I know about it beforehand.
However, you posted a comment in the RfC on 22:53, 27 December 2021 and 10:05, 28 December 2021. The editors who should be adding reliable sources to the article now are the same editors who ignored WP:5P2, WP:NPOV, and WP:V while they were leaving their mark in the RfC. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 11:37, 10 January 2022 (UTC)- Pyxis Solitary please give some more explanation about why you are linking my comments, as you aren't really making a point with them. I will respond on two issues. Firstly, I did in fact close the thread (approx.) 48 hours after Firefangledfeathers notified the relevant WikiProjects, as I asked them to. I did not give much credence to Crossroad's request to keep it open as they very often have (in my subjective opinion) WP:ONEAGAINSTMANY behaviour in the gender and sex topic. This is certainly my mistake, and I strongly apologize for not assuming good faith in that instance, as the procedural concerns are certainly well-founded (see my new comment below).On the second account, do not assume editors are willingly ignoring wiki guidelines. It is certainly the case that you disagree in how both of you interpret the guidelines, but assuming that they are completely incorrect and you have better understanding of them is an unfounded accusation and only serves to provoke others. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 12:04, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
- "
you disagree in how both of you interpret the guidelines, but assuming that they are completely incorrect and you have better understanding of them is an unfounded accusation and only serves to provoke others.
" – The guidelines are "completely incorrect"? Are you saying that the clear-cut, straightforward, texts of WP:5P2, WP:NPOV, and WP:V are incorrect?
"an unfounded accusation and only serves to provoke others.
" – You can give a temporary pass to editors who are new to Wikipedia and, as such, aren't fully informed about its core principles and policies, but there are people who participated in this RfC who have been Wikipedia editors for a long time and there is no excuse for their engaging in this RfC (or any other) while also ignoring the above-referenced principle and policies. WP:NPOV, alone, is a bedrock of Wikipedia, and whether some editors like it or not, "This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus ". If people do not understand that this is an unequivocal policy, then they do not comprehend the purpose of Wikipedia and they need to abstain from an RfC like this one. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 03:31, 11 January 2022 (UTC)- You misunderstand. Correct me if I'm wrong, A. C. Santacruz, but I am almost completely certain that the pronoun
they
in the sentence you quoted refers to the editors you accuse of ignoring policy, i.e....assuming that [the editors who disagree with you] are completely incorrect and you have better understanding of [the guidelines than they do] is an unfounded accusation and only serves to provoke others
. And I can assure you that the arguments being made in the RFC (above on this page) are not "let's disregard the five pillars because we think they're optional" – on the contrary, many reliable sources have been presented (several are currently cited inline in the article) to support the proposed wording. Srey Srostalk 04:16, 11 January 2022 (UTC)- The only thing I might "misunderstand" is why you stuck your nose in this. A. C. Santacruz can speak for herself. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 04:24, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
- I agree with SreySros' reading. It was abundantly clear to me that when Santacruz used
they
, they were referring to other editors who disagreed with your (Pyxis) interpretation of guidelines. You might want to step away from the keyboard for a short period Pyxis, as you're clearing biting multiple editors (Santacruz and SreySros) and this is a discretionary sanctions topic area. WP:Civility applies here more than elsewhere. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:31, 11 January 2022 (UTC) - Pyxis Solitary, SreySros's summary was correct. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 08:00, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
- (1) The use of "they" could be taken as referring to the principles and policies — or — a group of persons. I would have been precise about what it was intended to mean, but that's just me and how I compose words. But I accept the clarification of what "they" meant.
(2) After I provided the reasons why the "anti transgender" declaration in the lead needed reliable sources, additional RS was added in the lead ... but ... [a] the Florence Ashley source does not address any of the websites; [b] the Sanja Bojanic source mentions 4thWaveNow but doesn't define it as "anti-transgender" (no utterance about the other two websites); and [c] the Jasmine Andersson (inews) source describes 4thWaveNow as a "gender-critical blog", and says it, Transgender Trend and Youth Trans Critical Professionals are "known to have an anti-transgender bias" but doesn't specifically explain what she (the writer) means by this. The RS needs to be better than these three sources that were used as citations if a Wikipedia article is going to characterize the three websites as "anti-transgender". Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 09:28, 11 January 2022 (UTC)- Regarding your claims about the sources:
- You write:
"the Florence Ashley source does not address any of the websites"
. The paper states:Littman’s study was based on parental reports sampled from transantagonistic websites, a significant limitation which was severely downplayed prior to post-publication review.
- You write:
"the Sanja Bojanic source mentions 4thWaveNow but doesn't define it as 'anti-transgender' (no utterance about the other two websites)"
. You're correct that this source does only explicitly mention 4thWaveNow. I included this source to try to avoid contention given the discussion below. The source reads:...one of the most worrying conservative narratives that feminism currently has to face is the accusation of its having developed and spread a so-called ‘gender ideology’... Accusations of gender ideology, which have spread rapidly through Latin-America and Europe are anti-feminist and anti-trans in their intentions. ... Some, e.g., “a community of people who question the medicalization of gender-atypical youth” also conflate queer theory with so-called “gender ideology” and refer to a “postmodern influenced gender ideology, a subset of ‘queer theory’,” which they also call “genderism” or “gender theory” (See 4thWaveNow 2019, retrieved on June 12th)
, mentioning 4thWaveNow as an example of organizations pushing an anti-trans "gender ideology" narrative and an overall example ofglobal backlash against feminist praxis and theory
. Granted, the third ellipsis in that quote does span a paragraph, so I guess there could be room for interpretation there but my reading of this source seems to be shared by Aquillion and Santacruz. Regardless, the Pearce et. al. piece in The Sociological Review is even more explicit in categorizing 4thWaveNow asanti-trans
. - I'm not entirely sure what you are arguing for when you say
"[iNews] describes 4thWaveNow as a 'gender-critical blog', and says [the three websites] are 'known to have an anti-transgender bias' but doesn't specifically explain what she (the writer) means by this."
Are you saying that "sites known to have an anti-transgender bias" cannot be accurately paraphrased as "anti-transgender sites"? I'm not sure I see why that would be.
- You write:
- When inserting sources from the RFC, I tried to resist the urge to overcite, and I think that the sources currently inline-cited are more than enough to support the text. However, there are several more sources that have been presented above in the RFC to support the wording: [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]. Specific quotes from and analyses of these sources are available above in the RFC (if you haven't read the discussion already, I would recommend it), and I've tried to collate them here. Would including any or all of these sources be enough to satisfy you that the wording is supported by reliable sources? If so, we can just insert those and resolve this dispute.
- I believe this is the same question that A. C. Santacruz and Sideswipe9th were asking above, but you haven't really responded to it, so hopefully I've formulated it in a way that's clearer. Srey Srostalk 19:02, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
- The problem, as I see it, is personal interpretation. What one person might deduce from these sources is not necessarily the same as what someone else might. The Ashley and Andersson sources do not provide readers with reasons for why they have concluded that the websites are "transantagonistic" (Ashley) and having "an anti-transgender bias" (Andersson). Question: from what did Ashley form her opinion about them? And the first question that came to my mind when I read Andersson's statement was "on what does she base saying that they have an anti-transgender bias?" (Are readers supposed to take her word for it ... and that's it?) As sources go, Andersson's is not high-quality.
Regarding the five links you provided: medical and health-related subjects merit high quality sources, and for this reason I wouldn't rely on BuzzFeed opinions and PinkNews incendiary articles. I read the McLean (tandfonline.com) article: it mentions Transgender Trend and what it published regarding it is (1) a TT quote: "transgender people deserve the same civil and human rights as all of us and should not face discrimination… we are not afraid of, or prejudiced against, transgender people in any way’ (TT 2020)"; and (2) about TT being: "concerned about the ‘teaching of unscientific “innate gender identity” ideology to children’ (TT 2020)." Based on what it published, I am not persuaded to assume that Transgender Trend is "anti-transgender". Also, McLean does not mention 4thWaveNow and Youth Trans Critical Professionals. The Pearce (sagepub.com) article ties 4thWaveNow (in generality) to "gender critical", and describes it as a "trans-exclusionary feminist website" and a "campaign group". Pearce does not mention Transgender Trend or Youth Trans Critical Professionals.
Research about ROGD is in its infancy stage right now and there will surely be more studies as time passes. But for the moment, to define the three websites as being "anti-transgender" there needs to be more than relying on assumptions made from what is missing in all these sources (i.e. specific details that demonstrate how one or all three websites are against transgender, a.k.a. "anti-transgender"). Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 11:25, 12 January 2022 (UTC)- That's not how this works: if reliable sources describe the sites as
anti-trans
– and you seem to concede that they do – you can't discount the sources because you personally don't find them convincing. You write:The Ashley and Andersson sources do not provide readers with reasons for why they have concluded that the websites are [anti-trans]... Are readers supposed to take her word for it ... and that's it?
Yes. It would be completely inappropriate for us as Wikipedia editors to decide that, for instance, a paper published in a major, reputable peer-reviewed academic journal is not trustworthy because we don't think the paper provided enoughspecific details that demonstrate
its point. - Regardless, it seems your concerns amount to a simple content dispute rather than a grand policy-interpretation one so they would be better placed in the RFC above now that it's open again. Srey Srostalk 18:35, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
- The only source that uses the term "anti-transgender" for all three websites is the Jasmine Andersson (inews) source. I'm a stickler for matching text with what is published in a cited source and, as such, the Andersson citation should be located after the terminology. The sentence can also be rewritten to more accurately comply with the variations found in the sources that have been discussed here: "three websites that have been described as being anti-transgender." This composition makes use of the terminology their voice, not Wikipedia's. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 07:30, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
- That's not how this works: if reliable sources describe the sites as
- The problem, as I see it, is personal interpretation. What one person might deduce from these sources is not necessarily the same as what someone else might. The Ashley and Andersson sources do not provide readers with reasons for why they have concluded that the websites are "transantagonistic" (Ashley) and having "an anti-transgender bias" (Andersson). Question: from what did Ashley form her opinion about them? And the first question that came to my mind when I read Andersson's statement was "on what does she base saying that they have an anti-transgender bias?" (Are readers supposed to take her word for it ... and that's it?) As sources go, Andersson's is not high-quality.
- Regarding your claims about the sources:
- (1) The use of "they" could be taken as referring to the principles and policies — or — a group of persons. I would have been precise about what it was intended to mean, but that's just me and how I compose words. But I accept the clarification of what "they" meant.
- I agree with SreySros' reading. It was abundantly clear to me that when Santacruz used
- The only thing I might "misunderstand" is why you stuck your nose in this. A. C. Santacruz can speak for herself. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 04:24, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
- You misunderstand. Correct me if I'm wrong, A. C. Santacruz, but I am almost completely certain that the pronoun
- "
- Pyxis Solitary please give some more explanation about why you are linking my comments, as you aren't really making a point with them. I will respond on two issues. Firstly, I did in fact close the thread (approx.) 48 hours after Firefangledfeathers notified the relevant WikiProjects, as I asked them to. I did not give much credence to Crossroad's request to keep it open as they very often have (in my subjective opinion) WP:ONEAGAINSTMANY behaviour in the gender and sex topic. This is certainly my mistake, and I strongly apologize for not assuming good faith in that instance, as the procedural concerns are certainly well-founded (see my new comment below).On the second account, do not assume editors are willingly ignoring wiki guidelines. It is certainly the case that you disagree in how both of you interpret the guidelines, but assuming that they are completely incorrect and you have better understanding of them is an unfounded accusation and only serves to provoke others. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 12:04, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
- I made this edit: 09:41, 8 January 2022. It was reverted: 14:35, 8 January 2022. I was not involved in the RfC ... nor did I know about it beforehand.
- @Pyxis Solitary:
why you stuck your nose in this
It's an RfC, which is an open invitation for any and every Wikipedian to stick their nose in. The only people not permitted to do so are those who are either blocked or under a relevant topic ban. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:57, 11 January 2022 (UTC)- This RfC is about the lead of this article and the categorizing of three websites as "anti-transgender". This RfC is about a topic. This RfC is not about an editor's response and a dialog between two editors. The distinction, I can only hope, should be understood. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 11:25, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Pyxis Solitary:
Reopening the RfC?
- Pyxis Solitary has raised procedural concerns with the early closure of the RfC. I strongly welcome discussion on this topic, and certainly have no issue re-opening the RfC due to 2 concerns:
- The RfC lasted less than a week.
- The RfC happened during the holiday season for a large proportion of the en wiki community.
- Thus, it is likely that the consensus above (either in result or in strength) does not accurately reflect the community's consensus on the issue. Feel free to discuss below if you support or oppose the reopening of the RfC, and how best to do so (such as starting a new one below).A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 12:08, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
- As I tried to tell you above, but which you waved away, this RfC ran for far too short a time. It's even worse that it was during the holidays when many editors are away. It was cut off before many editors not already at this article would have had a chance to comment and possibly sway it away from the result at that time. And now I expect that some editors who already commented will oppose reopening since they got the result they wanted. You should revert your closure now rather than spend more time asking the already involved editors here because it is highly likely to be overturned if taken to WP:AN, which is what Pyxis Solitary should do. And that is especially the case because you are highly WP:INVOLVED in this very specific topic, having commented at another RfC about how to describe ROGD. Swooping in to close this RfC extremely early, while we now have editors like Pyxis Solitary, Mathglot, and Lwarrenwiki showing up and criticizing the result because they missed it, is not a good look. Crossroads -talk- 15:41, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
- I disagree on being involved on the RfC, as whether a theory is fringe is quite a different question to whether a political label applies to certain websites.In any case, as I have indicated above, I have no issue with undoing the closure and so see taking the issue to WP:AN an unnecessary drama. How may I do so, Crossroads? I assume there are certain ways to do so that would mess with the RfC ids. Additionally, I imagine re-notifying the relevant WikiProjects is also necessary. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 16:09, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
- What would be done is remove the closure template, re-add a RFC template in the same categories as the one removed, and either delete your closure statement or move it down and add an addendum that this was an old closure which you decided to undo. I think it creates a new RfC ID with a new date, but I don't think that is avoidable or a serious issue. The incoming links go to the heading, so they should all still work. Crossroads -talk- 17:17, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks, Crossroads. I'll get to that in a bit :) A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 17:49, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
- I saw A. C. Santacruz's comment on their user talk page requesting assistance with this reopening, and I enacted it before reading these comments. My understanding of the process matches Crossroads, and I implemented those steps (except I collapsed the closing comment at the top instead of moving/deleting it). If there are any other procedures to be followed, or if anyone feels I was too bold, I am likely to be unbothered to see my actions tweaked or even reversed. Firefangledfeathers 18:12, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for reopening it, and thanks for being willing to let it be reopened. Crossroads -talk- 18:18, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
- Much appreciated Firefangledfeathers. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 18:41, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
- I saw A. C. Santacruz's comment on their user talk page requesting assistance with this reopening, and I enacted it before reading these comments. My understanding of the process matches Crossroads, and I implemented those steps (except I collapsed the closing comment at the top instead of moving/deleting it). If there are any other procedures to be followed, or if anyone feels I was too bold, I am likely to be unbothered to see my actions tweaked or even reversed. Firefangledfeathers 18:12, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks, Crossroads. I'll get to that in a bit :) A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 17:49, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
- What would be done is remove the closure template, re-add a RFC template in the same categories as the one removed, and either delete your closure statement or move it down and add an addendum that this was an old closure which you decided to undo. I think it creates a new RfC ID with a new date, but I don't think that is avoidable or a serious issue. The incoming links go to the heading, so they should all still work. Crossroads -talk- 17:17, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
- I disagree on being involved on the RfC, as whether a theory is fringe is quite a different question to whether a political label applies to certain websites.In any case, as I have indicated above, I have no issue with undoing the closure and so see taking the issue to WP:AN an unnecessary drama. How may I do so, Crossroads? I assume there are certain ways to do so that would mess with the RfC ids. Additionally, I imagine re-notifying the relevant WikiProjects is also necessary. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 16:09, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
- As I tried to tell you above, but which you waved away, this RfC ran for far too short a time. It's even worse that it was during the holidays when many editors are away. It was cut off before many editors not already at this article would have had a chance to comment and possibly sway it away from the result at that time. And now I expect that some editors who already commented will oppose reopening since they got the result they wanted. You should revert your closure now rather than spend more time asking the already involved editors here because it is highly likely to be overturned if taken to WP:AN, which is what Pyxis Solitary should do. And that is especially the case because you are highly WP:INVOLVED in this very specific topic, having commented at another RfC about how to describe ROGD. Swooping in to close this RfC extremely early, while we now have editors like Pyxis Solitary, Mathglot, and Lwarrenwiki showing up and criticizing the result because they missed it, is not a good look. Crossroads -talk- 15:41, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Jeff Flier Commentary
What's wrong with the summary of his comments? The prior quote was 3 extended sentences long, which is a pretty large quote to include. SilverserenC 04:12, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
- Even the rewritten version seems WP:UNDUE; Quillette is a low-quality source which publishes opinions fairly indiscriminately as long as they agree with their perspective, so publication there doesn't carry much weight. It doesn't make sense to devote an entire paragraph to Flier's opinion in a low-quality source like that (especially given that Flier's expertise is unrelated to gender or sexuality) when we're devoting much less space to peer-reviewed studies. I think it's fair to say that [1][2][3] should each individually be given more text than we devote to Flier, or at least clearly not less - currently we lump them all together into a single sentence shorter than any of the multiple sentences given to Flier individually! Either they need to be expanded, or Flier should be lumped into the second sentence that presents the other view and not given individual focus; the same applies to Lee Jussim, who also has no expertise relevant to sexuality and yet also inexplicably gets a paragraph to himself. Personally I prefer the latter - lumping together multiple similar opinions into a broad summary that covers all of them avoids the risk of "zinger" quotes getting dropped into the article in a way that makes it NPOV. But it is especially a POV issue to have multiple such zingers from one side and the opposing side of a controversy condensed into a brief "some people disagree", so we either need to expand those three until they each individually get at least as much text as Flier and Jussim, or we need to condense Flier and Jussim together into the existing single sentence with others who hold views similar to them in the same way. Look at the current structure of the section - the middle paragraph carefully balances viewpoints and condenses multiple views from experts in high-quality relevant journals into a few sentences to do so; then the entire first paragraph and third paragraphs are devoted to individual views from people with weaker expertise publishing in less-relevant sources (with most of the first paragraph being cited to an unreliable axe-grindy culture-war source!) --Aquillion (talk) 09:42, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
- What Aquillion says here sounds reasonable to me. I'm not a big fan of "zinger" quotes. XOR'easter (talk) 17:36, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
- I think that condensing to preserve a neutral POV is encyclopedically preferable to expansion. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 19:17, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
- I also agree with Aquillion it is definitely wrong, WP:UNDUE and against WP:NPOV to give comparatively more space to commentators who have very little or no expertise in the subject (and who are writing in lower quality sources) than to peer-reviewed studies by qualified specialists whose work is published in sources that relate to the subject. To even give them equal space & weight would be a false balance. ~ BOD ~ TALK 20:31, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
- Yeah, you're absolutely right. Upon reflection, even the version I wrote gives far too much weight to Flier and Jussim relative to the higher-quality sources we have. I agree that condensing the first and third paragraph into a sentence or two would even out the due issues with the current version, although the section as a whole isn't that long as-is so we could expand our coverage of the Ashley, Kennedy, and Pitts-Taylor sources and flesh out the section a bit (and perhaps condense Flier/Jussim a bit less in that case). If nobody else does I'll likely have time to take a crack at rebalancing the section this evening. Srey Srostalk 21:55, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
- I prefer less (or no) cutting of the Flier and Jussim articles and expansion of the other three. Better to be comprehensive. Crossroads -talk- 04:29, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
- I made an edit[16] attempting to implement the consensus here and reduce the weight placed on Flier and Jussim, but my edits were reverted[17] [18] by Pengortm. Is my understanding of the consensus here incorrect? It seems we have six editors here on Talk in support of reduced weight on these sources, and the current state of the article does not seem to reflect that. Srey Srostalk 00:08, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
- The degree of reduction was not specified, and ideally there should be compromise with the editors who thought that reduction was excessive. It is fine to reduce it, but not at the expense of removing major points. Expand the text sourced to other articles with opposing POVs by a similar amount instead if you wish. Crossroads -talk- 20:23, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
- You are once again edit-warring against the consensus of multiple other editors. No one stated that the text should be expanded. SilverserenC 20:25, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
- Retract your false accusation. All those editors were commenting on the much longer version as seen here. I did not "expand" the text from that. SreySros' harsh reduction isn't privileged just by being the first attempt. Rather, compromise is expected when reaching WP:Consensus. It seems Pengortm agrees with me that version was too short. Removing major points is POV. My version was a reduction from what all those people were commenting on as it existed at the time. Crossroads -talk- 20:49, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
- You are once again edit-warring against the consensus of multiple other editors. No one stated that the text should be expanded. SilverserenC 20:25, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
- The degree of reduction was not specified, and ideally there should be compromise with the editors who thought that reduction was excessive. It is fine to reduce it, but not at the expense of removing major points. Expand the text sourced to other articles with opposing POVs by a similar amount instead if you wish. Crossroads -talk- 20:23, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Silver seren: it didn’t look like edit warring to me.CycoMa1 (talk) 20:55, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
- Making the same reversion after Pengortm reverted and was changed again with a edit summary noting the consensus on the talk page. That is tag-team edit warring yes. Especially when one party isn't engaging on the talk page, but just keep coming in to revert any time a consensus change is enacted. SilverserenC 21:03, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
- If anyone is tag team edit warring it is you, reverting any version other than the most reduced version. I did not revert the reduction as a whole as you imply. Again, SreySros' initial harsh reduction is not the only way of reducing it, and making an edit to try to compromise is fine. And my version differed from Pengortm's as it was shorter. Crossroads -talk- 21:45, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
- Making the same reversion after Pengortm reverted and was changed again with a edit summary noting the consensus on the talk page. That is tag-team edit warring yes. Especially when one party isn't engaging on the talk page, but just keep coming in to revert any time a consensus change is enacted. SilverserenC 21:03, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Silver seren: it didn’t look like edit warring to me.CycoMa1 (talk) 20:55, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
References
- ^ Ashley, Florence (July 1, 2020). "A critical commentary on 'rapid-onset gender dysphoria'". The Sociological Review. 68 (4): 779–799. doi:10.1177/0038026120934693. S2CID 221097476.
- ^ Kennedy, Natacha (September 10, 2020). "Deferral: the sociology of young trans people's epiphanies and coming out". Journal of LGBT Youth: 1–23. doi:10.1080/19361653.2020.1816244.
- ^ Pitts-Taylor, Victoria (November 17, 2020). "The untimeliness of trans youth: The temporal construction of a gender 'disorder'". Sexualities. doi:10.1177/1363460720973895.
I’m not sure about further research section
I have a slight issue with the source in the Further research section.
Although the source is indeed reliable the source is actually a classified as a case reports on pubmed. Making it fall into that category of primary source. And primary sources aren’t really ideal for Wikipedia especially regarding topics like this.
So I think we should keep the study in the further research section but remove its mention from the lead.CycoMa1 (talk) 20:41, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
- This isn't a scientific topic in the first place, but one that falls under WP:FRINGE. If it was a science article, literally the article subject study would fail MEDRS. And the case report is the only actual academic material published on this subject. It is the only actual science to report on, hence why it should be and is in the lede. SilverserenC 21:07, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
- All Wikipedia articles are to be based on the highest-quality sources available, per policy, and that includes determining what is due for the lead section as well as the body. Since the study in question is one of the highest-quality sources available, it is DUE for mention in both body and lead. Newimpartial (talk) 23:08, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Silver seren: I wanna respond to this statement And the case report is the only actual academic material published on this subject. that’s kinda the problem, having it in the lead makes it seem like there is a consensus. The source doesn’t indicate there is a consensus on this.
- @Newimpartial: not arguing against its quality of it and I agree the source is reliable. But as Silverseren stated that the report is the only actual academic material published on this subject.(I’ll example more in depth it’s just I don’t want this comment to be too long)CycoMa1 (talk) 03:22, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
- So you think the only science actually investigating a fringe topic shouldn't be discussed in the lede? Based on how WP:FRINGE works, we should honestly be giving the actual science even more prominence than we are now and have wording even more clear in the article that ROGD is pseudoscience. SilverserenC 03:40, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Newimpartial: not arguing against its quality of it and I agree the source is reliable. But as Silverseren stated that the report is the only actual academic material published on this subject.(I’ll example more in depth it’s just I don’t want this comment to be too long)CycoMa1 (talk) 03:22, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Silver seren: I never said that and to be honest with you I personally agree with you that ROGD is pseudoscience. But, I am aware my personal beliefs have no place on Wikipedia. I mean half of the stuff I write about on Wikipedia is stuff I personally don’t agree with.
- We shouldn’t be acting consensus is there when a source never states it’s there. Isn’t Wikipedia about representing the majority view and give due weight to smaller views. Not what views we think are right or wrong?
- I mean would you write on Wikipedia that there is a consensus that a certain pill cures cancer because of one study.CycoMa1 (talk) 03:47, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
- Except FRINGE is specifically about not prioritizing pseudoscience views just because those are the majority view in sources that cover such topics. You prioritize the actual science. In that regard, pseudoscience topics are indeed ones where Wikipedia takes a stance of giving actual weight to the scientific sources over the non-science ones. SilverserenC 03:54, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
- I mean would you write on Wikipedia that there is a consensus that a certain pill cures cancer because of one study.CycoMa1 (talk) 03:47, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
- Have we had a formal RFC to classify ROGD as WP:FRINGE? I feel like that might be useful to clearing up a lot of disputes here (in particular, glancing over the article, some of the sourcing - if it is fringe - reminds me of the similar problems we once had on articles about climate change, evolution, etc., where tiny groups of people with tangential academic expertise are given undue weight simply because their views are so controversial despite overwhelming academic rejection.) There is an open RFC at Talk:Irreversible_Damage#RfC:_Should_rapid-onset_gender_dysphoria_be_described_as_"fringe"?, but that is specific to that article and specifically about whether it should be described as fringe in the article voice - many of the commenters opposing that seemed to indicate that they agree that it is a fringe theory as we define the term, but that we shouldn't use that language in the article voice. A broader RFC clearly establishing ROGD as fringe would probably resolve a lot of underlying disputes on this page and elsewhere, especially when it comes to WP:DUE / WP:GEVAL disagreements. --Aquillion (talk) 09:00, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- Like can you people please stop assuming me that I’m here to promote fringe. Seriously I have close friends who are LGBTQ+ in real life, so when you people call me a bigot or say I’m here to promote fringe I take that as a personal attack.CycoMa1 (talk) 15:51, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- I don't mean to accuse you of anything - the issue isn't editors, it's the sources. If there is a general agreement that this topic is fringe then that significantly changes how we treat sources that promote it per WP:GEVAL and WP:PARITY. I am particularly looking at the entire paragraph we are currently devoting to The Pediatric and Adolescent Gender Dysphoria (GD) Working Group - again, it seems eerily reminiscent of similar "professional groups" set up to promote fringe theories in other contexts, so I would want to avoid citing it directly and only cite it via secondary sources, if at all. Similar issues are raised for some sources elsewhere in the reactions section - again, when covering the promotion of a fringe theory, we have to cite it to the best available sources, and avoid eg. citing an opinion from Quillette purely to give equal validity. And this also affects the source you're mentioning in the other direction - per WP:PARITY we are allowed to cite weaker sources that debunk a fringe theory provided they are of at least equal weight and reliability to the sources we're citing that promote it. Since Littman's own paper is clearly likewise WP:PRIMARY, and is the main academic source we cite in favor of her theories, that means that we can cite other academic primary sources responding to or debunking it. If we removed it without replacing it we'd have to remove most of the direct cites to Littman as well, because we have an obligation to present equal or better sources responding to a fringe theory when we present sources that promote it. --Aquillion (talk) 19:22, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- You make a very good point. I don't recall an RFC taking place on this issue, but it certainly seems that we have at least an informal consensus that it is WP:FRINGE (especially given the RFC at the book article). I agree that it would be very helpful to have a formal consensus on the record for this issue, and I support starting an RFC. While this isn't solely a matter of editorial consensus the way, say, a stylistic decision would be, RFCs determining whether a topic falls under WP:FRINGE are at the very least not unheard of. Srey Srostalk 20:11, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- I don't mean to accuse you of anything - the issue isn't editors, it's the sources. If there is a general agreement that this topic is fringe then that significantly changes how we treat sources that promote it per WP:GEVAL and WP:PARITY. I am particularly looking at the entire paragraph we are currently devoting to The Pediatric and Adolescent Gender Dysphoria (GD) Working Group - again, it seems eerily reminiscent of similar "professional groups" set up to promote fringe theories in other contexts, so I would want to avoid citing it directly and only cite it via secondary sources, if at all. Similar issues are raised for some sources elsewhere in the reactions section - again, when covering the promotion of a fringe theory, we have to cite it to the best available sources, and avoid eg. citing an opinion from Quillette purely to give equal validity. And this also affects the source you're mentioning in the other direction - per WP:PARITY we are allowed to cite weaker sources that debunk a fringe theory provided they are of at least equal weight and reliability to the sources we're citing that promote it. Since Littman's own paper is clearly likewise WP:PRIMARY, and is the main academic source we cite in favor of her theories, that means that we can cite other academic primary sources responding to or debunking it. If we removed it without replacing it we'd have to remove most of the direct cites to Littman as well, because we have an obligation to present equal or better sources responding to a fringe theory when we present sources that promote it. --Aquillion (talk) 19:22, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- It is not Wikipedia's place to develop a 'party line' (as it were) on the academic standing of particular ideas decontextualized from specific proposals about how to represent sources in article(s). Such a proposal then leads to classifying any sources that turn up in the future based on whether they agree with the preconceived 'official Wikipedia view' rather than according to RS/MEDRS. Classifying something as "WP:FRINGE" doesn't make sense anyway because (1) FRINGE applies to every article, and (2) FRINGE itself has several subcategories describing different levels of academic acceptance - so it's unclear which category would even be meant.
- Nobody is trying to insert ROGD at articles outside of the topic itself - i.e., this one and Irreversible Damage, a book all about it. Even I would revert attempts to add it at, say, Gender dysphoria. It doesn't meet MEDRS standards for inclusion at articles about the development of gender dysphoria or transgender identity in general, simple as that.
- Regarding CycoMa1's concern, while normally an article should not cite single studies - and such are reverted at gender dysphoria, etc. - this is an article specifically about a single study and the controversy it generated, so single studies rebutting it are WP:DUE. I imagine he asked since I'm pretty sure he's seen reversions of such studies at those articles, so it is understandable he might wonder why it is different here. Crossroads -talk- 07:07, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
- Like can you people please stop assuming me that I’m here to promote fringe. Seriously I have close friends who are LGBTQ+ in real life, so when you people call me a bigot or say I’m here to promote fringe I take that as a personal attack.CycoMa1 (talk) 15:51, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
4th Wave Now – anti-trans?
The group underlying the website 4th Wave Now cannot be described as anti-trans, in my opinion. If I had to briefly describe their views, I'd say they they advise a go-slow approach with minor children, and are opposed to what they see as an overeager medical/psychological rush to diagnose minor children as trans and then treat them medically and psychologically. Unlike true anti-trans groups whose views are strictly based on advocacy and not on any actual medical or psychological basis, 4th Wave's opinions and explanations are science-based, and within the bounds of normal debate on a young and still evolving field.
Here are some of their positions, from their FAQ:
- "We oppose any form of therapy that seeks to change a child’s sexual orientation. And we oppose any form of therapy that pushes a child to conform to sex role stereotypes."
In the next breath, they go on to explain why they are nevertheless opposed to some legislation seeking to ban conversion therapy, because it "often conflates sexual orientation and gender identity as a single issue". The extended explanation that follows shows a nuanced understanding of the issues involved, and they come down much more on a "wait-and-see" attitude regarding transition, than some groups who are more willing to treat minor children medically and surgically. Here are some additional points, in Q&A format (brief excerpts):
- "Do you oppose providing medical transition even to individuals over the age of 18?"
- A "In our society, individuals who are 18 years or older have the legal right to medically transition if they so choose. We do not seek to change this. We believe that adults should have autonomy over their lives."
- "Does 4thWaveNow partner with conservative organizations?"
- A: "No."
- "Are parents who... allow their children to medically transition... bad parents?"
- A: "No."
- "Is it your belief that all transgender people should return to living as their natal sex?"
- A: "No."
Their main objective appears to be promoting the go-slow approach with respect to transitioning of minor children. From their self-described "mission":
- "The mission of 4thWaveNow is to provide a forum for an alternative understanding of how to support children and young people who desire to transition. We believe the medical and psychological establishments are making a grave mistake by rushing to diagnose young people as transgender and then to promote their medical transition."
This is a defensible position medically that not everyone would agree with, but clearly plenty of medical professionals do. (Plenty disagree, too, and I'm not quantifying the disagreement, but it's not entirely lopsided in either direction.) You could say that 4th Wave are "conservative" with respect to minor children transitioning, especially when this is compared with some who are prepared to go forward with surgical youth transition, but I believe the latter are a minority among health professionals.
In my opinion, this group cannot be described as a "anti-trans". But in the end, my opinion about whether they can, or cannot be described as "anti-trans" is worthless; we need to see what the reliable sources say about it. Boston Review describes them as "self-described left-leaning liberals" in their article Science Won’t Settle Trans Rights. As far as labeling, they could perhaps be described as "conservative" with respect to the parents and health care teams of Jazz Jennings or Kim Petras, but would no doubt be described as far-left (if not worse) by any actual anti-trans groups (such as ACPeds).
Clearly the Littman issue is what brought 4th Wave Now to whatever prominence they now have outside their own circle, and the gross methodological failures of the Littman study probably shone [what we might judge as] a negative light upon them from the outset. (I have to admit, I pigeon-holed them as hateful, trans-hating neanderthals at first.) However, with additional scrutiny, I changed my opinion after delving a bit further. At the moment, there is not a great deal of independent material about them that I can find, and until there is, we should not apply a label to this group which is not justified by the same criteria of WP:Verifiability that we would apply to any other group. In an ironic mirror of 4th Wave Now's view of medical transition of minor children as a rush to judgment, there has been, in my opinion, a rush to judgment among editors of this article regarding 4th Wave Now (I don't exclude myself from that).
For the moment, until there is reliable evidence to the contrary, we should rely on WP:SELFSOURCE, and what little is out there now. Labeling someone or something as "anti-trans" requires evidence (some might say "extraordinary evidence"); and when there are as many clear and unambiguous statements about 4th Wave Now being "anti-trans" as there are, say, for ACPeds, then I will be in favor of labeling them as such. But there are not now, and in my opinion, until there are, we are violating WP:V by making that claim in WP:WikiVoice with nothing to back it up other than the opinions of Wikipedia editors. To the extent that their spokespersons and authors of their mission statement are alive, this may also be a violation of WP:BLP. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 23:17, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
- We literally just concluded an RfC up above on this. Are you trying to relitigate it again? SilverserenC 23:21, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
- And, as noted in the RfC, we do have sources that describe 4th Wave Now (and the other sites) as anti-trans. Examples:
- "
Responding to the BBC coverage, ‘4thWaveNow’, another well-known anti-trans group, said
" - Source - "
But the term rapid onset gender dysphoria (ROGD) first came into mention by academic Lisa Littman on gender-critical blog 4thWaveNow in 2016...Dr Littman’s participants in the study were recruited from three blogs; 4thWave Now, Transgender Trend, and Youth Trans Critical Professionals, all known to have an anti-transgender bias
" - Source
- "
- So, again, what's wrong with how the RfC concluded? SilverserenC 23:26, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
- I'm divided between you and Silverseren's sources. I appreciate you bringing this up again, Mathglot. RfCs aren't final and you've provided strong evidence that the anti-trans label is too harsh on 4th wave. However, I'll wait and see what other sources come up in the discussion. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 23:31, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
- What is the strong evidence? A group can self-describe however they want, but that doesn't make that self-description accurate. SilverserenC 23:36, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
- (edit conflict × 2) I guess I missed the Rfc. I'm not "trying" to do anything. I'm pointing out an assertion currently in the article that does not meet Wikipedia's requirements for WP:Verifiability. If that means another Rfc is needed, then so be it; but I'm pretty busy in other areas right now, and I won't be the one to start it. If someone wants to start one, I'll participate if pinged, but otherwise I probably won't. I haven't read the Rfc, but if it was about 4th Wave Now and labeled it anti-trans, then that is unjustifiable, in my opinion, based on my understanding of the requirements of verifiability policy, and the lack of support for that in reliable, independent secondary, published sources.
- I got an ec: re Pinknews, see RSN. Re iNews: never heard of them, but not yet covered in RSN, so I guess nobody else has, either. Is this *really* supported by independent sources? How about, Reuters, BBC, The Guardian, NY Times, The Times, The Economist, Financial Times, WSJ, Christian Science Monitor, Bloomberg?
- And another ec; sorry can't respond to that right now. Mathglot (talk) 23:44, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
- So, you didn't read the RfC that is still on this talk page above. But are single-handedly claiming everyone involved in the RfC is wrong? SilverserenC 23:54, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
- Mathglot's is not the most adroit announcement of a one-against-many "muh readin of polici" crusade I've seen recently - but we must all have our bad days, I suppose. Newimpartial (talk) 00:09, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Correct, I didn't. In my OP, I point out what I feel is a discrepancy between a contentious label in the article, and the requirements of WP:Verifiability policy to support it. A term like anti-trans is loaded language. The Manual of style has this to say about contentious labels:
Value-laden labels may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution.
- I just don't see that the term is "widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject", and is thus best avoided, until it is. I didn't say anything at all about the Rfc, nor did I make any claim about everyone or about anyone, and I'm not now. I'm addressing the content of the article, period. Given what appears to be attempts to switch the discussion to one about personalities or motivations, I think I will bow out now, as anything further I might add would probably be a repetition of what's already been said, or a response to something that isn't about improving the article. Best, Mathglot (talk) 00:20, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
- While I'm not sure that "anti-trans" is necessarily the best term to communicate that the site in question is the opposite of trans-positive, I am also unconvinced that "anti-trans" is covered by MOS:LABEL - not all antis are. Newimpartial (talk) 02:58, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
- So, you didn't read the RfC that is still on this talk page above. But are single-handedly claiming everyone involved in the RfC is wrong? SilverserenC 23:54, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
- Addressing one of the source concerns, as I feel others are doing a better job of discussing the content. iNews is the website for i (newspaper). It started off as a sibling to The Independent though has changed ownership a couple of times since. Though owned by DMGT it has somewhat more of a solid editorial reputation for accuracy than the Daily Mail. Otherwise you are correct that it hasn't been discussed at RSN. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:15, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
- "Anti-trans" summarizes generally described in high-quality sources; I definitely don't think the questionnaire you published is reflected there, and it would have much more serious WP:ABOUTSELF problems if we relied on it (since it is obviously self-serving.) For some examples:
- This[1] source mentions it as an example of a larger backlash against feminism
Within the context of backlashes against feminist theory and praxis, one of the most worrying conservative narratives that feminism currently has to face is the accusation of its having developed and spread a so-called ‘gender ideology’
...Accusations of gender ideology, which have spread rapidly through Latin-America (Careaga-Pérez 2016) and Europe (Kuhar and Paternotte 2017) are anti-feminist and anti-trans in their intentions.
...Some, e.g., “a community of people who question the medicalization of gender-atypical youth” also conflate queer theory with so-called “gender ideology” and refer to a “postmodern influenced gender ideology, a subset of ‘queer theory’,” which they also call “genderism” or “gender theory” (See 4thWaveNow 2019, retrieved on June 12th).
- This source[2] discusses them in this context of
the political landscape of anti-trans politics
anda significant upsurge in public anti-trans sentiment
in the UK:Accusations of gender ideology, which have spread rapidly through Latin--America (Careaga-Pérez 2016) and Europe (Kuhar and Paternotte 2017) are antifeminist and anti-trans in their intentions.
...In addition to attacking trans people’s right to access public toilets in line with their sex/gender presentation, ‘gender critical’ feminists have criticised social developments such as LGBTIQ-inclusive school education and positive media representations of trans people. Increasingly, they argue that such developments result from what they call ‘gender ideology’ (see e.g. 4thWaveNow, 2019).
- Here[3], they are used as an example of anti-trans sentiment among opposition to GRA reform:
Now that the gendered social context (into which the GRA reform consultation was introduced) has been established, the specific group and ideological position from which the majority of opposition to reform appeared to come can be considered. The most vocal opponents of GRA reform are anti-trans feminist groups, often called ‘Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists’, or TERFs.
...Thus we can see that the TERF anti-trans position is based not just on theory or ideology, but also in an emotional response to anxiety about exploitation by men and the continuation or even expansion of the threat women face from misogyny (Kalayji, 2018).
...This understanding, that TERFs view the idea of being trans as non-sensical, and as simply a ploy used to take advantage of women’s liberation movements, may help to explain the apparent lack of sensitivity or compassion with which these groups often deny the negative effects of transphobia and difficulties trans people face, for example questioning the accuracy of trans suicide attempt statistics, including those for children and youth (4thwavenow, 2015; Transgender Trend, 2017)
- This[1] source mentions it as an example of a larger backlash against feminism
- I also strenuously disagree with your assertion that describing a group as anti-trans is WP:EXCEPTIONAL; these sources all indicate that it is a common term used in academia to refer to broad societal trends and movements, especially the ones 4thWaveNow is prominent in (and where it tends to receive coverage.) It is no different than categorizing a group as being on the right or on the left, or by its position on capitalism or similar topics; the term obviously does not mean that all groups described in that way deny trans people exist or wish to annihilate them or somesuch, it simply describes their position on laws and societal changes related to trans issues in a neutral fashion. That's why academic sources use it straightforwardly as fact in the text, whereas the the more euphemistic terms used by groups to describe themselves or their opponents are used more cautiously - similar to "anti/pro-abortion" vs. "pro-choice" / "pro-life." Many anti-abortion groups would object that they are not anti-abortion in all cases, and most pro-abortion groups would say that they, obviously, not universally in favor of abortions for all pregnant people in all cases, but it's still the more neutral term in that it straightforwardly identifies the crux of dispute and where they stand on it. --Aquillion (talk) 00:34, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
- I think Aquillion's sources and argument are strong enough that we can consider this discussion more or less closed. I strongly warn editors looking at this that disagree with my RfC closure above not to take this as an opportunity to rekindle a dead fire unnecessarily. On the other hand, I remind editors to assume good faith on the side of Mathglot. On a related note, I additionally strongly encourage Silverseren to bring iNews to RSN. Knowledge on the reliability of UK publications is something I expect to be highly relevant in the following years within the gender topic in Wikipedia, and having a discussion there now before an unknown drama hits the talk pages will be useful to prevent disruption. I am sadly completely unfamiliar with the source myself and thus don't feel prepared to start the RSN thread. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 00:28, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
- I support User:Mathglot's position. Note that MOS:LABEL expressly cites "transphobic" as one example of a contentious or value-laden label. For exactly the same reasons, MOS:LABEL clearly applies to the term "anti-trans". Lwarrenwiki (talk) 03:25, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
- That position seems to assume that "transphobic" and "anti-gay" are equivalent in the sense to which MOS:LABEL applies, which is rather the thing to be demonstrated. LABEL does not apply to all "anti-" terms. Newimpartial (talk) 19:43, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
- FWIW I chose "anti-trans" and not "transphobic" specifically because of MOS:LABEL. I disagree that they are equivalent. I think that the websites in question would object to being characterized as "transphobic" (although they are) but at least two of them clearly self-identify as "anti-trans". That it appears to be pejorative to you indicates you support trans rights; they don't so they don't see it as a problem. Loki (talk) 00:17, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
- I'm also opposed to re-litigating the above RfC. I don't think anything Mathglot has said is even near sufficient to bother relitigating not just a strong consensus but a whole closed RfC. Also I don't find Mathglot's sources at all convincing, even apart from the many contradictory sources, for three reasons.
- Number 1 is that in the context of the other two choices, Littman clearly chose them because she felt they would be anti-trans on this particular issue. If your three sources are X, "Transgender Trend", and an organization that calls itself "trans critical" in its own name, that's strong evidence that at least the person who chose the sources considers X to be anti-trans.
- Number 2 is that their denials of anti-trans sentiment read very WP:MANDY to me, the equivalent of Focus on the Family claiming they're not anti-gay. Like that essay says, organizations are not automatically reliable sources about themselves; certainly not more than other, actually reliable, sources. In my view, if an organization says "we're not anti-trans but we oppose legislation against conversion therapy because it prevents us from trying to convince kids they're not trans", that is sufficient to declare them "anti-trans" by itself.
- And number 3 is that 4thWaveNow in this context is an internet forum, and so their official denials of anti-trans sentiment are even more WP:MANDY than usual. (As an analogy, if Jimmy Wales were to say that Wikipedia supports Bitcoin, it wouldn't make one ounce of difference to what we actually do here.) Loki (talk) 00:17, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
- Also I note that Mathglot is not quoting lines from the FAQ like:
Transitioning is very different from coming out as gay or lesbian. A person who discovers she is lesbian does not have to take off-label synthetic hormones for the rest of her life. She doesn’t have to have surgery to remove her breasts or to construct something that resembles a penis
(i.e. they're describing FtM surgery as "something that resembles a penis")[...] trans activist groups like WPATH [...]
(i.e. they're calling the largest group of experts on trans medicine "activists")(Do you oppose providing medical transition even to individuals over the age of 18?) [after the part Mathglot quoted:] However, several decades of neuroscientific research have established that the higher functions of the human brain do not reach maturity until around the age of 25; referred to as “executive function,” this includes impulse control, awareness of future consequences, planning, organized decision making, and the capacity to self-reflect . We do believe that healthcare providers owe it to individuals who are less than 25 years of age to carefully assess and counsel them before providing cross-sex hormones and surgery, both of which entail irreversible changes and significant long-term health risks.
(i.e. they actually do oppose transition in adults)(What do you say to all the parents who are allowing their children to medically transition? Are they bad parents?) Of course not! They’re trying to do the right thing for their children just as we are. In fact, many of them are desperately sad and anxious about allowing their children’s medical transition, but too many therapists and other authority figures have drilled into them the terrifying idea that allowing their children to transition is the only way to prevent probable suicide
(i.e. anyone who allows their child to transition has been tricked into this position)
- Again, this comes off very much like Focus on the Family trying to claim they're not anti-gay to me. This is not a source I would use to claim this group is *not* anti-trans at all. I could easily see using it as evidence that they *are* anti-trans. Loki (talk) 00:27, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
References
- ^ Bojanic, Sanja; Abadía, Mónica Cano; Moro, Valentina (4 May 2021). "Feminist responses to populist politics". European Journal of English Studies. 25 (2): 113–132. doi:10.1080/13825577.2021.1946741. ISSN 1382-5577.
- ^ Pearce, Ruth; Erikainen, Sonja; Vincent, Ben (1 July 2020). "TERF wars: An introduction". The Sociological Review. 68 (4): 677–698. doi:10.1177/0038026120934713. ISSN 0038-0261.
- ^ Armitage, Luke (20 September 2020). "Explaining backlash to trans and non-binary genders in the context of UK Gender Recognition Act reform". Journal of the International Network for Sexual Ethics & Politics. 8 (SI): 5–6. doi:10.3224/insep.si2020.02.
"Anti-trans" discussion
Note that community input is currently being sought on the term "anti-trans" in this discussion at the Words to Watch/MOS:LABEL Talk page. Newimpartial (talk) 16:31, 10 January 2022 (UTC)