Talk:Irreversible Damage/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12

Undue Weight

Was this article written by Shrier's publicist? More work needs to be done to make it clear that "Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria" is not a thing and that Irreversible Damage represents a work of fringe science. The article on Bob Lazar isn't about whether there are aliens at Area 51 and the Moon Landing Hoax page is carefully worded to avoid presenting conspiracy theories as fact. Just because Shrier has politicized her work to get some big money marketing muscle behind her doesn't make a fringe theory based on junk science any more credible. wp:undue and wp:fringe apply. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 14:17, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Can you please be more specific about how you think the article should be changed? There has been considerable previous discussion about various aspects of the article, and it might be that certain changes have already been discussed. Either way, with a controversial article such as this one, it is usually preferable to make or propose small individual changes that can be assessed one at a time. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 04:43, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict) This article has been gradually built up and refined by many, many editors. We judge how to describe a topic by the WP:Reliable sources on it, not by preconceptions that it must be like some other topic. When it comes to how to describe ROGD, WPATH carries far more WP:WEIGHT than does a writer for Buzzfeed News. Crossroads -talk- 04:45, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Looking at your edit, I agree with your description of ROGD as "fringe". In fact I think I made the argument for the exact same wording last year. ROGD is not recognized by any peak body on transgender health or mental illness. It is plain WP:FALSEBALANCE to present it as even having the slightest credence of legitimacy. I don't as much agree with your other edits of the lead, not because I like it (I don't really), but I'm not sure of a better way of summarizing Shrier's position. However, I do think the "Reception" section suffers from placing undue weight on non-scientific sources with no appreciable credentials in the subject matter. I agree those sources should be included to some degree, but they should not be prioritized over the reviews from (for example) Jack Turban and Christopher Ferguson. Bravetheif (talk) 08:48, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
I also agree that we should be calling ROGD "fringe" explicitly, both on this page and its own. If every major psychological association signing a statement that basically reads "this isn't real and you shouldn't use it" doesn't make something fringe, I don't know what would. Loki (talk) 08:58, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
A reliable source saying it is fringe. Aircorn (talk) 10:01, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
user:crossroads Can you clarify what you mean; ROGD is not a part of WPATH diagnostic criteria. It's a fringe theory popularized by anti-trans groups. Shrier's book is part of a broader and ongoing "culture war" campaign to undermine lgbtq+ rights and there are several places in this article where the language seems carefully chosen to either soften criticism for her or her ideas or to imply that her ideas carry more weight than they do. Let's be clear - Regnery Publishing publishes political propaganda and Shrier's "freelance journalism" career consists of writing outrage culture pieces for right wing media. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 13:57, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
I'd like to see if there's consensus to change "contentious concept" in the second sentence to either "fringe" or "debunked" and the word "stated" in the third sentence to "claimed" which emphasizes the fact that these are false claims that Shrier is making. I'd also be open to other ideas for rewording/rewriting the lead to avoid giving the impression that there's any legitimate scientific debate around the ideas Shrier is presenting. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 14:21, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
It's a hypothesis that hasn't been proven, true, but it hasn't been "debunked" either, and there's "culture warring" going on on both sides. *Dan T.* (talk) 14:30, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
user:dtobias There's no ROGD "hypothesis". The "theory" originates from homophobic parents being surprised by their queer kids coming out. The littman paper literally searched out these parents, asked them if they thought ROGD was real then published a paper insisting that proved the matter. No major psychiatric or medical group recognizes ROGD and there is no legitimate research into the supposed "phenomenon". It's a theory that was cynically created to legitimize "gender critical" hate speech. We might as well be talking about whether phrenology proves the superiority of white men. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 14:46, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Based on peer-reviewed scholarship like this, I for one would call ROGD "debunked". Newimpartial (talk) 14:53, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
@Newimpartial: if you think that paper debunks it, you're really going to love this one from last month which states 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'd be happiest saying it is debunked, but I'd also accept fringe. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:02, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
I agree with the change of "contentious concept" to either of those options, and also with changing "stated" to "claimed". Both-sidesing this debate (I don't think the American Psychiatric Association is particularly interested in starting a culture war) doesn't change the fact that no peak bodies endorse the theory, or that the most comprehensive text reviewing the theory positively is the very book we are currently discussing. Bravetheif (talk) 05:46, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
What about the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, and WPATH, among many other professional organizations, saying There are no sound empirical studies of ROGD and it has not been subjected to rigorous peer-review processes that are standard for clinical science. Further, there is no evidence that ROGD aligns with the lived experiences of transgender children and adolescents.? [1] Loki (talk) 20:52, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Thats not the same as saying it is fringe Aircorn (talk) 15:07, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
Yes it is. Per WP:FRINGE: In Wikipedia parlance, the term fringe theory is used in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field. The APAs and WPATH represent the mainstream views in their particular field, they're saying it's departing from those views, boom, fringe. Doesn't mean "crazy" so we don't need them to say "crazy". Loki (talk)
That is defining the topic as it pertains to the guideline ("in Wikipedia parlance"). It is not saying that the word "fringe" in article text is exempt from the WP:V and WP:NOR policies. And that it departs "significantly" is questionable per the SOC 8 quote. Crossroads -talk- 06:41, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
That's an important point; there's a clear distinction between internal Wikipedia jargon and language as understood by the general public, which is what article space should be aiming for. To the general public, "fringe" has pejorative connotations that are usually not appropriate for articles. *Dan T.* (talk) 13:58, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
Well its at the right noticeboard now so lets see what they come up with. 19:11, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Quotes from WPATH and others

  • No amount of agreement or WP:LOCALCONSENSUS among a few editors here permits overriding fundamental policies like WP:No original research and WP:NPOV. Any attempts to do so will not survive wider scrutiny. The article already states about ROGD, which is not recognized as a medical diagnosis by any major professional institution. Regarding "claim", see WP:CLAIM. A sociology paper (i.e. no medical expertise or peer-review) and a single WP:PRIMARY study do not justify editors reaching the original conclusion that it is "debunked" or "fringe".
    Regarding the claim that the methodology of the original study was uniquely bad, see [2]. As another example, a 2020 paper states, With regards to the referrals, in line with international trends [9–12], Italian’s population of trans* youths seem to be growing, particularly with respect to AFABs. Some respondents depicted referrals with traits of the so-called “rapid onset” [15] of gender incongruence, especially when describing AFABs, with pressing requests to start soon hormone therapies and an (apparent) lack of history of gender incongruence. However, this is a very complex phenomenon that needs further exploration.
    Now let's look at WPATH's views. Their 2018 position statement is that it constitutes nothing more than an acronym created to describe a proposed clinical phenomenon that may or may not warrant further peer-reviewed scientific investigation. (Emphasis added.) Since then, just this month, WPATH has released their draft version of the Standards of Care 8, to be released in the spring. To gain insight on their current thinking, we can look at their chapter on adolescents, which states, it is critical to consider the societal changes that have occurred over time in relation to transgender people. Given the increase in visibility of transgender and gender diverse identities, it is important to understand how increased awareness may impact gender development in different ways (Kornienko et al., 2016)....Another phenomenon is adolescents seeking care who have not apparently experienced and/or expressed gender diversity during their childhood years. One researcher attempted to study and describe a specific form of later-presenting gender diversity experience (Littman, 2018 [the ROGD paper]); however, the study contained significant methodological challenges which must be considered as context for the findings: 1) the study surveyed parents and not youth perspectives, and 2) recruitment included parents from community settings in which treatments for gender dysphoria are often characterized as pathological or undesired. The phenomenon of social influence on gender is salient, however, as some who have changed their thoughts about their own gender identity have described how social influence was relevant in their experience of their gender during adolescence (Vandenbussche, 2021). For a select subgroup of young people, in the context of exploration, social influence on gender may be a relevant issue and an important differential. This phenomenon is neither new nor surprising for health professionals working with adolescents; however, caution must be taken to avoid assuming these phenomena prematurely in an individual adolescent, as well as from datasets that may have been ascertained with potential sampling bias (WPATH, 2018). (Emphasis added.)
    Now, to be absolutely clear, my point is not that ROGD existing is the mainstream view. Rather, it is that it is not correct that the idea is already considered "debunked" or "fringe" by the relevant scientific community or that there is "no legitimate scientific debate". Neither are any of the unsupported conspiracy-theory-like accusations accurate. Therefore, I see no need to change how the idea is described in this article. Wikipedia does not advance the WP:POV of editors no matter how convinced they are of it. The idea is accurately described as contentious and unrecognized as a diagnosis by official medical bodies. Crossroads -talk- 06:41, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not promote a WP:POV, but it also doesn't mince words. The WPATH text you've cited pretty clearly rejects Littman's ROGD hypothesis, consistent with previous statements. What they do accept is that gender identity may have a social component, something no one in this thread is rejecting or even debating. "Irreversible Damage" isn't about general social aspects of gender identity, it is specifically about Littman's theory of ROGD, and this thread has yet to produce a single source that shows it is a mainstream scientific position. If it is not mainstream, then it is accurately described as "fringe", and any watering down of the phrase is simply WP:FALSEBALANCE. Likewise whether or not Littman's study was "uniquely bad" is of little actual relevance to this discussion. Her paper has (in my opinion, rightfully) come under heavy criticism for its methodology and data, and her pointing the finger at others to show they're just as bad doesn't improve the quality of the original paper. Finally, while the second source you've cited references ROGD, it doesn't seem to me to make an analysis one way or another. Any attempt to extract a meaningful position would be WP:SYNTH, and I could just as easily argue that the reason there is a significant increase in rates of diverse gender presentation is more a matter of destimagization and education. Bravetheif (talk) 10:02, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
Crossroads, in your "unique" reading of WPATH you have watered down the social contagion theory of ROGD so that it becomes "maybe social factors matter". Well, duh. That isn't ROGD any more, and so I don't see how you can cite either the old or the new WPATH as holding open the door for ROGD. There simply isn't any legitimate scientific debate to be had - I have enough faith in your research skills that, if there were, you would have found it by now. Newimpartial (talk) 12:06, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
It sounds like perhaps we should make a post on the Fringe Theory Noticeboard, as the header for it clearly states Post here to seek advice on whether a particular topic is fringe or mainstream, whether there may be problematic promotion of fringe theories, or whether undue weight is being given to fringe theories. Sideswipe9th (talk) 15:09, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
Littman's paper says, towards its end where hypotheses are developed, "Hypothesis 1: Social influences can contribute to the development of gender dysphoria". That sounds similar to the "Well, duh" statement that "maybe social factors matter". Later, it says "Finally, further exploration is needed", thus indicating that the paper wasn't intended to be the final proof of its hypotheses, but merely an opening toward examining them further in the hopes of finding more solid conclusions. Opponents of Littman seem to be attributing much more extremeness to the paper than it actually has. *Dan T.* (talk) 02:00, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
You are presenting the Littman paper as though it did not contain all of the "social contagion" and "peer contagion" nonsense, or its (dubious and pseudo-scientific) Hypothesis 3. It does. Recognizing that social factors matter doesn't imply support for the social contagion framework, which is both the paper's most visible "contribution" and also the point that Shrier leans into in particular. Newimpartial (talk) 02:16, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
This is not a debate about the merits or failings of Littman's paper, just whether it is mainstream or fringe. I have yet to see a single peak body accepting *specifically* Littman's theory. The very fact that the original paper is (according to you) somewhat inconclusive, and the very book we're currently discussing is the most comprehensive review of the thesis indicates to me that it is fringe. As a side note, you seem to have missed the third hypothesis of Littman's paper, the part people consider extreme, that theorize that Gender Dysphoria is transmissible. Bravetheif (talk) 02:48, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
To describe it as "fringe", specifically, you need WP:MEDRS sources that call it that specifically. Otherwise, you have to stick with the current MEDRS sources, which are that it is contentious and unrecognized as a medical diagnosis. It really is that simple, per WP:NOR. Newimpartial's watered down reading of WPATH as just "social factors" is not accurate; they cited Littman and then shortly therefter state, The phenomenon of social influence on gender is salient, however, as some who have changed their thoughts about their own gender identity have described how social influence was relevant in their experience of their gender during adolescence (Vandenbussche, 2021). For a select subgroup of young people, in the context of exploration, social influence on gender may be a relevant issue and an important differential. The prominent WPATH SOC 8 describing gender dysphoria resulting from "social influence" being "an important differential" in "a select subgroup" right after citing Littman cannot be twisted into 'the idea is fringe'. Crossroads -talk- 06:03, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
WPATH acknowledging that social aspects may have an influence over gender *identity*, while in proximity to a discussion of the Littman paper, is not a tacit endorsement on it's theory on the transmissiblity of gender *dysphoria*. The two terms are not synonymous and, even if you (wrongly) decided to interpret it as such, accepting that there may be a social influence on dysphoria is not the same as endorsing the specific theory. In fact, in the previous sentences they reject the Littman paper on grounds of flaws in its methodology. Considering that, and reading over WP:MEDRS, I see nothing specifying the requirement for a direct quote when calling a theory "fringe". In fact, WP:MEDSCI pretty clearly states that editors should summarize the positions of "major professional medical or scientific societies". ROGD is not recognised as a formal diagnosis by either WPATH or the APA, and that the only subsequent clinical study has failed to support the theory, points strongly to being, currently, a fringe position. Bravetheif (talk) 06:54, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
WPATH is talking about medical care, not just identity. Gender dysphoria is the diagnosis under which such care is given. They did not say they "reject" the paper; they named those issues as context, but still cited it. If it were "fringe", they would not be describing it as they do. But above all, Wikipedia goes by what is WP:Verifiable, so no amount of synthesizing that it is fringe from sources that don't specifically say that is usable. Crossroads -talk- 07:25, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
I would appreciate an explanation (obviously outside our own positions and biases on this issue) of what semantic difference there is between describing ROGD as "fringe", and as "contentious" that makes one WP:SYNTH and the other not. Neither "contentious" nor "fringe" are direct quotes, and appear more to be an attempt at summarizing scientific consensus of the topic (inline with WP:MEDSCI). Frankly, if you're that hung up on it, "disproven" or "discredited" is a far more accurate descriptor, as the previously mentioned clinical trial "did not find support within a clinical population for a new etiologic phenomenon of “ROGD” during adolescence". That aside, I don't think the mere citation of Littman's paper by WPATH means the theory has any credence. They make no positive statements as to the hypothesis or the paper as a whole, and the fact they don't outright reject the idea that there may be a social component to gender identity doesn't mean they accept or legitimize Littman's specific theory. As I previously mentioned, the following sentences also discusses gender identity, not dysphoria. As far as I'm concerned, the fact that no relevant bodies recognize the diagnosis is all that is necessary to describe it as fringe. Bravetheif (talk) 08:58, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
User:Crossroads Can you try to find a way to make your point that's a little less wordy? It feels a little like you're just trying to bury dissenting opinions Voiceofreason01 (talk) 15:58, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
Are you sure you addressed that to the right person? Korny O'Near (talk) 17:44, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
Unsure if User:Voiceofreason01 was trying to refer to me or Crossroads, but I'll assume me and I apologize if my comment is a little wordy or unclear, my intention is not to bury dissent. If people want a more summarized discussion of my position, it's thusly: No peak bodies recognize ROGD as a clinical diagnosis. Inline with WP:MEDSCI, and in order to not present a WP:FALSEBALANCE, our description of the theory should reflect that. A hypothesis not accepted by mainstream organisations is, by definition, fringe. If other editors consider that summation to be WP:SYNTH (but "contentious" not to be for some reason), then the theory could be described as "debunked", "unsupported", "discredited", or "unsupported in a clinical context" with direct citation to this study. Bravetheif (talk) 02:07, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
our description of the theory should reflect that - and it does. Quoting the article text: not recognized as a medical diagnosis by any major professional institution. A single WP:PRIMARY study is not sufficient to describe something as debunked or discredited, especially in view of the other sources I quoted. "Unsupported" is not far off from the status quo, but considering the way SOC 8 cites Littman and another study, that seems rather cherry-picked. 'Not recognized by professional institutions' is fully verifiable and completely accurate, and I see no way in which these other terms improve understanding of the topic.
Regarding "contentious", this is a synonym of various words which are probably used in the sources given for that. It was not my intention to challenge that claim, which I don't think is as unlikely. However, I don't think that word adds much meaning and may even distract compared to the phrase after it about 'not recognized', so I don't care if it were dropped.
Voiceofreason01, per WP:ONUS and WP:BRD, no one should be WP:Edit warring in preferred text. Crossroads -talk- 06:56, 10 December 2021 (UTC) expanded Crossroads -talk- 07:04, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
I do not think your sources sufficiently establishes that ROGD is a mainstream view, in fact, to quote you: my point is not that ROGD existing is the mainstream view. That makes it the definitionally fringe: not part of the mainstream.... If you still find the phrasing unacceptable, this secondary source can be cited as evidence for the wording "disproven" and, at the very least, I feel "unsupported" can be supported and, while more contentious, is more concrete than "contentious". As an aside, with all due respect, I don't agree with your reading of SOC 8. They speak of Littman's paper in purely negative terms and, in my opinion, are attempting to make clear that, while they are against her specific paper and thus, her theory (which is the status quo until they accept a study in it's favour, and Wikipedia does not base it's articles on anticipated evidence), they are not outright rejecting the concept that gender may have a social component. Recognition of the broad concept in which a theory could be categorised is not an endorsement of the specific hypothesis. Bravetheif (talk) 11:10, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
I note that the article on Atheism doesn't contain the word "fringe", despite all sorts of big powerful mainstream institutions opposing it. *Dan T.* (talk) 14:03, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
User:Dtobias ROGD is a theory that only exists as a political argument. There is no scientific evidence supporting it and Irreversible Damage is cynically designed to victimize transgender people. It's hate speech. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 14:30, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
That's your opinion. It has no place in article space. *Dan T.* (talk) 14:38, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
It is my opinion based on Shrier's use of slurs both in her book and in subsequent press and because her rhetoric is just repeating TERF talking points. I'm not suggesting that the wikipedia article actually says that but there's no reason to ignore that Irreversible Damage and the media campaign surrounding it are designed and intended to be hurtful and to victimize a vulnerable minority. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 14:51, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
*Dan T.* This is not article space, it is a talk page. WP:NOR does not apply. Bravetheif (talk) 23:18, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
*Dan T.* I would appreciate it if you stayed on topic or make a concrete argument with your examples, rather than making vague, irrelevant statements. Bravetheif (talk) 23:18, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
user Crossroads Please review wp:civil and refrain from making threats in your edit summaries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Voiceofreason01 (talk • contribs) 19:01, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
"refrain from making threats in your edit summaries" – Where are the diffs supporting your accusation?
  • WP:ASPERSIONS > "It is unacceptable for an editor to continually accuse another of egregious misbehavior"
    "making objectively unsupported or exaggerated claims of misconduct can necessitate sanctions or restrictions even if the editor subjectively believes that they are true"
    "It is unacceptable for an editor to routinely accuse others of misbehavior without reasonable cause in an attempt to besmirch their reputations. Concerns, if they cannot be resolved directly with the other users involved, should be brought up in the appropriate forums with evidence, if at all."
    "An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence,"
    "If accusations must be made, they should be raised, with evidence, at appropriate forums such as the user talk page, WP:COIN, or other appropriate places per WP:COI."
  • WP:NOPA > "There is no rule that is objective and not open to interpretation on what constitutes a personal attack as opposed to constructive discussion, but some types of comments are never acceptable: "
    "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence, usually in the form of diffs and links."
Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 08:38, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
I agree with what Bravetheif is saying about how WPATH SoC 8 characterises Littman's paper. It is entirely negative, pointing out the methodological flaws in Littman's original survey, and their resulting survey bias. The paragraph where it is mentioned ends with a cautionary note on research that involves datasets with sampling biases.
The other study WPATH cite is this one from April 2021 by Vandenbussche, which was a study into the needs of detransitioners. While that paper does contain a mention about being pressured to transition by social surroundings it only does so briefly, in a comment about how 14% of the respondents listed a number of other reasons. The exact number of how many felt they were socially pressured within that subgroup is unknown. This paper by Vandenbussche also has some sampling issues, based on where it recruited participants, see the paragraph beginning "Retconning of findings to match and leverage selective support from new publications". Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:44, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
I don't think "healthliberationnow.com" is an academic journal; rather, it's a blog. Crossroads -talk- 05:34, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

I feel like the discussion here has wandered away from the point somewhat. There's obviously a delicate balancing act when we're dealing with an article that references a living person when including criticism of that person. As it should be. That being said: Shrier is a controversial figure because she insists on using slurs against transgender people and is a proponent of fringe science(ROGD) and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TERF rhetoric. Many people, very understandably, view her as being harmful to transgender people. The article as it stands contains weasel words and sources that seem chosen to deflect and reduce criticism of Shrier and Irreversible Damage. And deliberately softening criticism to push a political agenda is the very definition of a not neutral point of view. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 18:01, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

  • Note: I have sought input from editors at the fringe theories noticeboard. Here's a link to the noticeboard section. Firefangledfeathers 14:01, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
    Many thanks for this @Firefangledfeathers:. I've been busy the last couple of days, and hadn't had time to post it myself. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:21, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
    Bopping in from over there, I don't think that fringe is a misleading term as far as summaries go, though it might be better to be more specific. XOR'easter (talk) 00:03, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
    XOR'easter Appreciate the input! Do you have any suggestions as to how it could be made more concrete? This secondary source directly makes the claim that this clinical trial "dispels" the theory of ROGD (calling it a "myth"). That could support the phrasing of "disproven" or "discredited" (I prefer the latter, as I think it more accurately reflects the state of the theory). Bravetheif (talk) 02:54, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
    That "secondary source" is a press release from that paper's authors' university. It is in no way an independent source or what WP:MEDRS or even WP:RS means by a secondary source. Again, it is inappropriate to take a primary study and use that as the final word on something when secondary sources from WPATH, as I cited under #Quotes from WPATH and others, do not describe it that way. If they thought the whole idea was fringe or discredited, they would not have described it the way they did.
    And just because something isn't the mainstream view doesn't mean we can call it "fringe" in article text. In fact, the fringe theories guideline distinguishes between alternative theoretical formulations and pseudoscience (which are equated with fringe theories). We wouldn't describe interpretations of quantum mechanics differing from the Copenhagen interpretation as "fringe", for example. All the same, there is still scientific uncertainty on how gender identity develops in children and adolescents.
    I find it odd that Voiceofreason01 speaks of concern about how we describe a "living person", then proceeds to make unsupported and polemic accusations about said person. WP:BLP does apply to talk pages. Also, we are here concerned about describing ROGD as hypothesized in academic literature; Shrier's views may go beyond that. We neither soften nor sharpen criticism beyond what the sources say per WP:NOTADVOCACY. Crossroads -talk- 05:34, 11 December 2021 (UTC) tweaked Crossroads -talk- 07:43, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
    More than one person in this thread has disagreed with your interpretation of the WPATH text, arguing as though your reading were a given will do little to convince anyone of your point. I appreciate there is a difference between a fringe theory and an alternative one, but I do not believe ROGD to be the latter. Following Wikipedia's own guidelines for distinguishing the two, Alternative theoretical formulations generally tweak things on the frontiers of science, or deal with strong, puzzling evidence—which is difficult to explain away—in an effort to create a model that better explains reality, I do not think ROGD meets that criteria. It is an attempt at explaining a phenomenon perhaps not sufficiently explained by our current model of gender and gender identity, yes, but it also departs radically from that model. Considering that it is not recognized by any reputable institutions, and that the only subsequent clinical trial on the subject found there to be no evidence in favor of the theory, I think it is firmly pushed into "fringe".
    No worries about the Western University article, I've found a better source anyway. Dr Jack Turban can be directly quoted as describing Littman's theory as a a fringe view not supported by evidence here.[1]: Document 55-2  Given that we now have a direct citation to a medical source for the claim (making it not WP:SYNTH), I sincerely hope you have no issues with it's inclusion on those grounds. Bravetheif (talk) 07:07, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
    Again, 'I think X and Y mean its fringe' is WP:Synthesis. Jack Turban's opinion in a court filing is not a "medical source" of the sort sufficient to have WP:WEIGHT equal to WPATH. It is not an WP:RS at all; we know it represents his viewpoint and nothing more, and it received no peer-review or fact checking. He is not necessarily representative of the field as a whole, any more than Littman or Vandenbussche, and in some other matters his claims are debated. Editors who want to describe this as fringe should ask themselves why no published, peer-reviewed medical sources call it that (oh, and I checked Florence Ashley's sociology article, and it doesn't either). Crossroads -talk- 07:43, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
    Crossroads This is a talk page and, as you should be aware, WP:SYNTH does not apply when making arguments as to my position. Again, the quoted WPATH passage, and your contentious interpretation of it, is not enough evidence to support ROGD as a mainstream scientific theory. A mainstream theory is accepted, or at least positively acknowledged by leading organisations in the field. A mainstream theory has at least some balance of evidence in its favor. ROGD has neither. It is fringe. Your arbitrary requirement that "fringe" must be a direct quote (or a quote of a synonymous word) from a published, peer-reviewed source runs directly contrary to WP:MEDSCI, and is not a bar I've seen passed by the status quo. In my opinion, several of the sources already cited in this thread contain statements that could be accurately summarized as describing ROGD as "fringe" or outside the mainstream. If you insist on a secondary source, then this medically reviewed article on PsychCentral makes the direct analysis that ROGD is "unsupported by evidence", is "bad science", and that "there is no evidence that ROGD exists". I can honestly think of no better way to summarize those statements other than describing ROGD as "fringe" or even "pseudoscience". Bravetheif (talk) 10:58, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
    If someone is arguing on a talk page to insert article text that is SYNTH, that text cannot be used (because it's SYNTH) and their reasoning for that text has to be called out as SYNTH. 'But I can make any argument on talk pages' doesn't evade that fact. Your "whatever isn't mainstream is fringe" false binary/dichotomy has already been addressed. PsychCentral.com is not a peer-reviewed journal, and this is yet another article by Florence Ashley, who is a "jurist and bioethicist", not a psychologist, psychiatrist, or the like. WP:MEDSCI in no way permits the sources you have been presenting, while it does emphasize statements and practice guidelines from professional societies, which I have been quoting. Crossroads -talk- 23:22, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Crossroads, we literally have sources saying ROGD is a fringe perspective. That means it can't possibly be WP:SYNTH, according to policy. Newimpartial (talk) 00:30, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Not this debunked claim again. Which peer-reviewed medical sources are they? WPATH and the medical literature I quoted at the beginning of this subsection do not support this strong pejorative; see WP:NPOV. Crossroads -talk- 00:33, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
As I recall it was Turban who said so. Just so we are clear, WP:SYNTH applies to original research by Wikipedia editors. If someone off-wiki has made a statement whether or not it meets MEDRS, whether or not it meets RS at all, it cannot possibly be SYNTH. As you have on occasion with other policies and guidelines (like LABEL), you are invoking SYNTH in a situation where it clearly does not apply. Newimpartial (talk) 00:38, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
In which peer-reviewed medical source did Turban say so? Didn't happen. And any instance of SYNTH is relative to the sources being incorrectly claimed to support an idea. In this case, the claim that a few are pushing to include is found only in non-MEDRS or is being synthesized from sources that don't say it. Your claim that If someone off-wiki has made a statement...whether or not it meets RS at all, it cannot possibly be SYNTH means nothing is SYNTH, because there is always going to be someone somewhere claiming whatever. Crossroads -talk- 01:00, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
Crossroads, WP:SYNTH (or WP:OR) applies to claims that are original with WP editors; a claim that is sourced - no matter how badly, and no matter how much you disagree with it - can never be SYNTH. At least one source using the term "fringe" for ROGD has already been provided, so your claim that this statement is SYNTH cannot possibly be valid in terms of WP policy. Your subsequent rationalization, that there is always going to be someone somewhere claiming whatever is a complete red herring, because this instance is not a handwave to "someone said sometime", it is a source that has been provided right on this Talk page.
WP is not some Nietzschean realm where words mean whatever you want them to mean; as much as you object to a claim that is found only in non-MEDRS, if it is found in an external source it cannot possibly be SYNTH. It is very difficult to have a CIVIL discussion with editors who willfully misquote (or misunderstand) policies for the convenience of their rhetoric on Talk pages. Newimpartial (talk) 01:34, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
I am sure am in agreement with that last sentence right now. WP:SYNTH: If one reliable source says A and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be improper editorial synthesis. Doesn't matter if blogpost Y says it, or source Z says it but that editor wasn't using it; that editor was committing SYNTH. That non-RS use a term does not mean it's okay for an editor to claim to point to RS as support for a term when they are synthesizing the RS. Obviously. Non-RS + SYNTH does not acceptable material make. Crossroads -talk- 01:52, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
Jack Turban is not a "blogpost", he's a medical professional with domain knowledge in the topic we are currently discussing. It is not novel analysis to describe ROGD as "fringe" when we have a direct quote from a reliable source. Bravetheif (talk) 02:23, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
Crossroads, that is a perfect example of you selectively quoting policy and then twisting extemporizing it to make an assertion that policy doesn't support. No WP policy says that "claims not based in RS are synth", which is what your position amounts to. What SYNTH says is, claims that deduce a conclusion from postulates found in separate RS is SYNTH. Claims based on direct statements made in non-RS can be invalid for any number of policy-relevant reasons, but SYNTH simply isn't of them, and it simply is not possible to have a CIVIL discussion with you while you make ridiculous statements like Your claim ... means nothing is SYNTH, because there is always going to be someone somewhere claiming whatever. No, it means that when a claim is made in a source, we don't call it "synth": instead we assess the quality of the source in context, which means (inter alia) comparing statements within that source with statements in other sources. If only one source uses "fringe", and other sources offer criticism or dismissal of various kinds in different terms, then there is no way "fringe" can be SYNTH. The policy-relevant question becomes, is "fringe" the best way to communicate what the recent, reliable sources do say, or are other terms more appropriate. WP:SYNTH is not one of the policies that helps us answer that question, and your using it in this discussion like some kind of balloon-art shibboleth is both comical and deeply frustrating.
However, you have given me a perfect potted example of how you twist policy in service of your POV in a particular debate, for the next time your editing is up for behavioural discussion, so you have my sincere thanks on that score. Newimpartial (talk) 02:51, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
Your argument here does not even come close to addressing what I am saying, conflates completely separate matters, and is just flat out in denial of what the policy says. Crossroads -talk- 04:35, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
No; WP:SYNTH simply does not apply to sourcing standards in the way you have asserted here. That policy is about what editors do with sourced material and is not concerned with how we assess off-wiki sources for reliability and WEIGHT, which is the argument you have been trying to base on SYNTH (without the slightest support from the text of WP:SYNTH/WP:OR). En-wiki does have policies about source reliability, but you have not been citing those, perhaps because they do not support your argument either. Newimpartial (talk) 04:43, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
I have been pointing to MEDRS and RS. Stop misrepresenting me. Crossroads -talk- 04:47, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

The last time you referred to MEDRS and RS policies was 05:34 11 December 2021 (UTC). Since then you have made reference to SYNTH 10 times by my count, and those more relevant policies not at all.

If your actual argument is that the various ways the MEDRS sources have debunked Littman's work don't justify the terms "debunked" or "fringe", you can make that argument perfectly well without trying to invoke WP:SYNTH where it does not apply. The fact is that there are many ways to communicate that a piece of research is an outlier within its field; we have a source supporting "fringe" and other sources supporting other terms. Pretending that the only thing that matters is the source count for "fringe" might be the way you like to decide editorial questions (when it backs up your preferences - diffs available on request). However, it certainly isn't the only (or the best) way to arrive at balanced and DUE treatment, and pretending that it is "SYNTH" to review the language by various RS to decide on a balanced text amounts to, if I can say so politely, a load of fecal matter from male bovines. Newimpartial (talk) 05:13, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

I do not think it is possible for us to have a productive conversation about how to describe ROGD without first establishing where on the spectrum of "pseudoscience" to "fact" the theory falls. I was hoping you would be able to recognise that my argument to you in response to you were attempts to convince you of my position. I was not advocating for such evidence to be entered in article space. I have extended the assumption of good faith to you, and I would appreciate if you would do the same for me. You have already received a civility warning from Voiceofreason01 in this thread. Florence Ashley has specific knowledge and medical experience in the subject area, her use as a source is entirely appropriate. She specifically references leading experts and the position statement of WPATH to make her analysis. It is a well substantiated description of the current scientific consensus. Her paper in The Sociology Review, which has been formally peer reviewed, makes much the same analysis when reviewing the currently available evidence given what we know, there is no compelling reason to view suggested cases of ROGD as anything but commonplace late-onset gender dysphoria, and initiates the section with I critically assess the empirical and theoretical claims associated with ROGD theory and argue that they are either unsubstantiated or banal.. She later states that many leading experts have rejected ROGD as lacking empirical support, with reference to both WPATH and AusPATH. Bravetheif (talk) 00:47, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

  • I think this is going in circles. Going by a quick nose count, I am seeing a pretty overwhelming consensus to label it as fringe (and a notification has been placed on WP:FRINGEN, so I don't see how it can be considered purely local at this point - though that's usually a pretty bad argument anyway, since any longstanding editor in a dispute is going to think policy backs them up.) The citation reads as straightforwardly dismissive, "fringe" seems like a reasonable summary; paraphrasing a source is not, and I'm not seeing any reason to doubt it or think it's unusual. Paraphrasing a source is obviously not WP:SYNTH. If people strenuously disagree with 'fringe' as a paraphrase they can start a RFC, but I'd someone object to the insistence on waiting a full week or month to implement what is plainly a lopsided decision on talk - it's fine to disagree with the majority, but it's WP:STONEWALLing to drag out an article change in the face of an obvious existing consensus, while simply insisting that the policy backs you and therefore no local consensus can ever rule against you is unreasonable. A local consensus cannot directly override policy, in the sense of saying "we acknowledge this goes against policy but are doing it anyway", but it can determine the applicability of policy by determining whether or not something violates it; you cannot then generally ignore a local consensus by saying "well, I think they're wrong". If you think that that conclusion is wrong then it's on you to elevate the discussion to a larger forum and get more input backing you up (which should be quick and overwhelming, if it's so obvious.) Beyond that, it's not necessary (or even always possible) to convince every dissenting editor when it comes to an edit they disagree with. --Aquillion (talk) 04:49, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
    • While of course I agree with you in general, I think what you say about close paraphrase is too bad, as I rather like unsubstantiated and banal. Newimpartial (talk) 05:18, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
    • PaleCloudedWhite, Aircorn, Dtobias, Korny O'Near, and myself have all participated in this discussion and variously have not supported this text, argued against it, and/or reverted it. WP:FILIBUSTERING by others does not consensus make, and it certainly does not justify tilting the scales on the new RfC below by leaving this contentious text in as though it was the status quo that is advantaged in the case of a no consensus closure. Crossroads -talk- 07:10, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ DYLAN BRANDT, et al., v LESLIE RUTLEDGE, et al.,, 4:21-cv-00450-JM (UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS CENTRAL DIVISION 2021-11-08).

Separating scientific and editorial reception of book

Given that this is a non-fiction book centered around a medical and scientific hypothesis, I feel that scientific perceptions of the book have been somewhat buried by this article, with journalistic responses given comparatively WP:UNDUE weight. In order to address this without removing otherwise credible perspectives, I tentatively propose separating reviews into "Scientific" and "Editorial" subheadings (I am open to suggestion on titles) under "Reception", with "Scientific" being listed first. In specific, this would mean separating out the review of Jack Turban, Christopher Ferguson, and the various articles published in Science-Based Medicine. Bravetheif (talk) 05:56, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Would probably be misleading, since none of the "scientific" reviews were in scientific journals. Also worth noting here on Talk is that Science-Based Medicine made at least one poor choice in who supposedly represented the mainstream to review the book, namely A.J. Eckert. As noted in this Washington Post article by prominent WPATH psychologists, Many openly discuss how they use the adult informed-consent model of care with their teen patients, which almost always means no mental health involvement and sometimes no parent input, either. “If you are trans, I believe you,” says A.J. Eckert, the medical director of Anchor Health Initiative in Connecticut. Eckert is wary of psychologists who follow the guidelines by completing a comprehensive assessment before recommending medical intervention for youths. “Gender-affirming medicine,” Eckert holds, means that “you are best equipped to make decisions about your own body,” full stop. These providers do not always realize they’ve confessed to ignoring the standards of care. (Contacted by The Post for comment on this essay, Eckert said that “no medical or surgical interventions are provided to anyone who has not started puberty” but added that, as Anchor Health sees it, “Therapy is not a requirement in this approach because being trans is not a pathology.”) (Emphasis added.) Crossroads -talk- 07:56, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
I'm not dead set on the suggested titles, and agree that should not be the implication. The more wordy titles of "Responses within the scientific community" and "Media reviews" might more accurately convey these categorizations. Bravetheif (talk) 11:44, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
There are no reliable scientific sources supporting ROGD. Even Littman who's pushing the theory doesn't use the term ROGD in the same way that Shrier and other "gender critical" activists do. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0202330 Voiceofreason01 (talk) 14:19, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
I agree with you Voiceofreason01, but I don't understand what you're trying to say about this proposed change. Bravetheif (talk) 09:27, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
I would agree, these two types of reception should be separated. It does not matter whether the reviews were published in scientific journals, as WP:SOURCE respects the author as a source in addition to the venue. These aren't trying to be MEDRSes, we should not heap MEDRS standards on them. But we should treat scientists as a separate body of reviewers from journalists and book critics. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 15:52, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Marketing and distribution - ACLU

I removed the portion of this quote criticizing the ACLU. It seems to be here purely to weaken criticism of the book and Shrier. This article is not about the ACLU. Unrelated criticism amounts to wp:soap. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 21:28, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Yep, I agree with this. The sentence you removed seems outside the scope of the article. Srey Srostalk 21:36, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
Removal amounts to WP:WHITEWASH. It in no way weakens criticism of the book, and it is irrelevant if it did. Both articles have as their main point that this was unusual coming from the ACLU. Without that, it is made to seem like this is a typical ACLU position. Crossroads -talk- 06:26, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
A criticism of a review of the topic is only loosely relevant to the article, and is therefore WP:OFFTOPIC. It has no place in the article. Considering this is an opinion piece attempting to make factual statements on the positions or nature of the ACLU, it is not WP:N or WP:V either. Bravetheif (talk) 09:25, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
It is also important to note it is not a tweet from the ACLU its a tweet from one of its lawyers in his personal twitter. I agree with Bravetheif's rationale for removal. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 10:57, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
Whitewashing... what? This article isn't about the ACLU or about the person who wrote the tweet; we're not supposed to be informing people about the ACLU here, so it makes no sense to accuse others of whitewashing it. If anything, going off on a tangent about how sad a tweet about this topic made some (unnamed, unattributed people) feel seems like a WP:COATRACK at best, especially if we're basing it on a single sentence that doesn't even mention the book's name. What important things does this sentence tell us about Irreversible Damage? I'd be fine with omitting the paragraph entirely if you're concerned that it could come across as a "typical ACLU position" (note, it is not a position officially taken by the ACLU at all, just a tweet by one of their lawyers, so the standard to establish that it is WP:DUE here is obviously going to be very high to begin with), but veering into how a tweet by an ACLU lawyer made some people buttmad at the ACLU seems like a random coatrack-y sideswipe rather than something that makes sense for this article. --Aquillion (talk) 22:16, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
Why is the paragraph about the ACLU lawyer's tweet in this article at all? It is noteworthy as a fact about the ACLU, which is how and why it got press coverage, and as a fact about the lawyer and his politics (covered in his WP bio page). As a fact about Shrier's book it only says that one more person out there disliked the book, which does not tell the reader anything that was not already apparent. Sesquivalent (talk) 12:14, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
I completely agree. This tweet is not at all WP:DUE and should be excluded from the article. Bravetheif (talk) 12:58, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

That paragraph is remiss to not describe the ACLU lawyer as a transgender activist, as in the lede and infobox of his bio article. As with the sources being debated above about ROGD, it is misleading to present the lawyer's remark as an opinion from the world of civil rights law in general (or the ACLU as a whole if that is not their official position) rather than the "trans affiliated" subset. The point here is not that the affiliated subset should be stigmatized or isolated, but that it is unrepresentative of opinion in the broader group and the two should not be confused. Sesquivalent (talk) 11:41, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm in two minds over the reaction to the quotation from Strangio. On the one hand, it is somewhat relevant based on the reaction to it. Ie, that the comments from ACLU were to some at odds with what was their history. On the other hand it's a very clear example of WP:COATRACK, this article is about a book and not the ACLU. The statement from Strangio is unquestionably relevant, as it was specifically about this book. The reaction to that statement though? I dunno. I can see both sides and can't reconcile yet whether or not it should be kept. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:59, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
If we're going to mention it at all, I would want to find a better source to establish WP:WEIGHT - I read the Tablet piece as an opinion piece, while the NYT just mentions it for a single sentence without even naming the book. If a tweet is noteworthy it ought to have more coverage than this. --Aquillion (talk) 20:02, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
  • It is obviously an inappropriate use of the source. The NYT source does not even mention Irreversible Damage by name, referencing it only briefly in a single sentence, says only that people were "startled"; combining it with the Tablet piece gives the WP:SYNTHy implication of a broader backlash than it supports on its own. But more broadly, this isn't an article about the ACLU, so the standard for going into depths on commentary about the ACLU is fairly high; a passing mention in a single sentence isn't really enough to tie it to the topic. --Aquillion (talk) 20:00, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Regardless of the sentence more about the ACLU, it is the case that two separate RS have covered Strangio's comments on the book. People keep removing the NYT source, but it does cover that too. The Tablet article is no more an opinion piece than numerous Vox articles which editors treat as regular RS. Crossroads -talk- 23:47, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
Sources cover it as being about the ACLU, or Stangio, or the rise of an intolerant party line on transgender politics, mentioning the book only as the prompt for the tweet and its fallout. The sources are not "about" the book or "covering the book" or controversies about the material in the book, they document controversy about Stangio and the ACLU occasioned by his comments on the book. Sesquivalent (talk) 01:56, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
That is irrelevant to the fact that neither of the articles are about, nor directly relevant, to the topic of this article. Bravetheif (talk) 01:59, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
I think this information belongs here, because it is relevant to the response the book engendered. Strangio isn't just any ACLU lawyer, he's their most well-known lawyer, and was in the list of Time's most influential people in 2020. So the fact that the called for the book to be censored is noteworthy, even without the ACLU connection - which of course adds some noteworthiness on its own. Korny O'Near (talk) 15:54, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
He was named Times 100 for his Supreme Court prosecutions not his tweets or social critiques of books. If the RS didn't cover the book while mentioning it I don't think we should be creating more drama than there is, if I'm making sense. TL;DR we should follow how the sources cover the book. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 16:07, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Remove the entire paragraph?

Adding new section to clarify whether consensus exists to remove the paragraph completely, now that that option has come up in the discussion.

(I support removal for the reasons given above. The tweet drama is part of a different culture war than the sex/gender ones. And if it is kept it would be necessary IMO to label Stangio an activist which will open its own round of talk page disputes.) Sesquivalent (talk) 04:08, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Given how prominent this reaction to the book is with many independent sources covering it (google "strangio irreversible damage" and you get a lot of reliable sources discussing it), not including it because it is related to other political issues seems like a bad reason for omitting it.- Pengortm (talk) 04:45, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
I recommend not referring to things as "culture wars". That is neither how the evolution of culture works nor does the term improve the quality of any discussion you might use it in, Sesquivalent. I think the content should be moved to a more relevant article, probably Strangio's or if there is some article on trans literature maybe, rather than complete removal. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 08:06, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
I think you are right, in that the stakes in some of these matters are higher or more fundamental than the particular manifestation in culture. Sesquivalent (talk) 08:50, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Is the degree-listing warranted?

The section Background and publication history begins by listing where the author has received degrees. I am concerned this might be an attempt at Appeal to authority, as the degrees are not medical or psychological in nature (an A. B., a bachelor in Philosophy, and a J. D.). The issue that might be raised by including these degrees is that the science behind the book is at best immensely weak and at worst wrong, but a reader of the article might have a thought along the lines of "these are immensely prestigious universities, so she is obviously very intelligent, so she must be right". Thus, as I think where the author receives one's degrees is rarely relevant to the book itself, I believe their mention should be removed. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 22:11, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Don't book articles, especially without an article on the author, commonly give the background of the author? But it certainly could be revised to say what her degrees were in. Someone could even argue that doing so shows her lack of medical expertise rather than being a supposed appeal to authority. Of course reader interpretation of facts is up to them. Crossroads -talk- 23:51, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
I think specifying her degrees is a reasonable solution. If editors are still of the opinion that it does not sufficiently convey that she has no formal medical training, or that it is an appeal to authority, maybe a sentence addressing that fact should also be included. Bravetheif (talk) 02:03, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
I agree this is one possible solution. I'd still be in favor of removal but that is an opinion I hold very weakly. On a similar note, I went digging to see if the degree-listing was a remnant from when this was an article about the author and was surprised to see it actually was closer to what we are proposing here than its current state. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 12:54, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
I found that part useful to determine who the author was, that they are not qualified for these claims to be seriously considered. Of course, if an RS specifies that explicitly, it should be included, —PaleoNeonate – 16:38, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

The lead is embarrassing to read

The panicked clamoring to discredit the book within the first sentence is almost comical. What happened to this website? Of course there won't be an official medical diagnosis of the term, the medical industry profits heavily from transitioners. Wikipedia is just a mindless propaganda tool now. --FollowTheSigns (talk) 19:48, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

@FollowTheSigns: Hi! I was the one who added those details to the lead. I actually restrained myself while doing so; I could have gone further, since not only is ROGD not recognized by any major professional institution nor backed by credible scientific evidence, it has also been specifically denounced by a wide array of medical institutions because it has a wide potential for harm and has been primarily used as a misinformation tool to stigmatize transgender youth, such as in that book. As for the claim that the medical industry supports transgender people because it profits from transitioners, conspiracy theories without evidence are not going to be promoted by Wikipedia. PBZE (talk) 22:23, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Irreversible_Damage/Archive_9&oldid=1085383989"